§ (1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, there shall be charged, levied, and paid for every financial year in respect of the site value of undeveloped land a 10 duty, called Undeveloped Land Duty, at the rate of one halfpenny for every twenty shillings of that site value.
§ (2) For the purposes of this Part of this Act land shall be deemed to be undeveloped land if it has not been developed by being built upon, or by being used bonâfide for any business, trade, or industry other than agriculture:
§ Provided that where any land having been so developed becomes vacant or unoccupied, or ceases to be used for the purposes for which it has been developed, it shall after the expiration of one year be treated as undeveloped land for the purpose of Undeveloped Land Duty until it is again developed.
§ (3) For the purpose of Undeveloped Land Duty, the site value of undeveloped land shall be taken to be the value adopted as the original site value or, where the site value has been ascertained under any subsequent periodical valuation of undeveloped land for the time being in force, the site value as so ascertained:
§ Provided that where Increment Value Duty has been paid in respect of the increment value of any undeveloped land, the site value of that land shall, for the purposes of the assessment and collection of Undeveloped Land Duty, be reduced by a sum equal to five times the amount paid as Increment Value Duty.
§ (4) For the purposes of Undeveloped Land Duty undeveloped land does not include the minerals underneath the surface of the land.
§ The CHAIRMANThe Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin) should come under Clause 11. The Amendment of the right hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. J. F. Mason) is in the wrong place, and also that of the hon. Member for Mid Armagh. The Amendments to leave out the sub-section are not in order.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (for Mr. Mitchell-Thomson) moved to omit the words "Part of this" ["Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act"]. The hon. Member (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson) proposes to leave out the words "Part of this" so that it shall read "Subject to the provisions of this Act."
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George)I do not think it would be in position here as otherwise it might conceivably lead to something else.
§ Mr. G. YOUNGERI rather think the putting in of the words "this Part of this Act" would effectively carry out what is, I think, the right hon. Gentleman's own intention to give credit where land becomes charged with other taxation of the same kind.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEAnd also reduction.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ The CHAIRMANThe next Amendment, that of the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. J F. Mason), seems to me to be outside the Resolution. The real point is that the Resolution says that it is to be an annual charge of one halfpenny in the pound. It is obvious if the hon. Member succeeds in this Amendment that those occasions may arise more than once in the year. That being the case it seems to be outside the Resolution unless the wording is altered.
§ Mr. J. F. REMNANTThe object of the Amendment was that this Undeveloped Land Duty should not commence until there had been a sale, lease, transfer, or death, and then it will continue under the Act. My object is to respect existing contracts so that the buyer and the seller would know exactly where they were, and not have a grievance against the Government, which. I maintain they at present have where existing contracts are not respected.
§ The CHAIRMANI pointed out why it is outside the Resolution in its present form.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINMy hon. Friend is now speaking of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. J. F. Mason).
§ The CHAIRMANThe Amendment of the hon. Member for Windsor to leave out "for every financial year" and to insert "upon the occasion of any sale, lease, transfer, or death?"
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI venture to submit that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Windsor (to insert at beginning, "In respect of land passing by sale, lease, transfer, or otherwise, after the commencement of this Act") raises a different point from his subsequent Amendment to leave out "for every financial year," and insert "upon the occasion of any sale, lease, transfer or death.") I think the latter Amendment comes under the 12 condemnation you have pronounced on it, namely, that it goes outside the scope of the Resolution. The first Amendment will not result in any land being charged more than once in the year. The whole effect of that first Amendment would be to prevent any land being charged at all until it had passed after the commencement of this Act. It would save land until a change of ownership occurring after the passage of the Act. That cannot be said to go outside the scope of the Resolution.
§ The CHAIRMANI quite understand that, but if the hon. Member wishes to move it then he would have to insert after the words "Upon the occasion of any sale, lease, transfer, or death" the words "occurring at intervals of not less than twelve months." Otherwise it is outside the Resolution.
§ Mr. A. J. BALFOURThe question put by my hon. Friend referred to the earlier Amendment of the hon. Member for Windsor, his point being that he did not wish the tax to come into operation at all until some transaction had taken place in respect of the land to be taxed. My hon. Friend's object is in that way to protect existing contracts. If that object is carried out by the Amendment, it hardly comes within the scope of the ruling which you have rightly given in respect of the later Amendment on the Paper.
§ The CHAIRMANI have explained the matter to the best of my ability, and I think I am right. I have only to deal with the Amendment before me. An Amendment to insert words which would have the effect of making an alternative clause, as would be done by inserting these words at the beginning of the clause the consideration of which has not been begun, would be out of order. As regards the later Amendment, my objection was that a sale, lease or transfer might easily occur more than once a year, and for that reason the Amendment, as suggested, would be out of order.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINWould my hon. Friend be in order in moving the Amendment to come in after the words "levied and paid," so that the clause would read "Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, there shall be charged, levied, and paid, in respect of land passing by sale, lease, transfer, or otherwise after the commencement of this Act…."
§ The CHAIRMANThat would be in order.
§ Mr. REMNANT moved, in Section (1), after "charged, levied, and paid," to insert the words "in respect of land passing by sale, lease, transfer, or otherwise, after the commencement of this Act." The object of the Amendment is to secure that existing contracts should be respected, and that in any subsequent dealing with property the vendor and the purchaser should enter into the bargain with their eyes open. At present, an owner complains, rightly, I think, that the Government are proposing to lay upon his shoulders new burdens which he never contemplated when he made his bargain. All recent Select Committees and Royal Commissions that have dealt with this subject have specifically stated that they could not recommend, on any ground of justice, any alteration in the law which would have the effect of violating existing contracts. In the Committee on the Taxation of Ground Values (Scotland) Bill, an Amendment proposed by the minority, stating that no violation of existing contracts would in any case be permissible, was voted against by the present Solicitor-General for Scotland, and was defeated in a Committee upon which hon. Gentlemen from the other side of the House largely preponderated, only by the casting vote of the Lord Advocate—although it is very rarely indeed that the Chairman, where parties are divided, gives his vote in favour of a scheme which he is advocating in the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has more than once expressed his anxiety to meet any case where injustice is likely to be done, and he has himself proposed one or two Amendments with that object. The Prime Minister has stated that contracts should be respected, and similar statements have been made by many Members on the other side. In this Amendment the Chancellor of the Exchequer has an opportunity of obviating injustice by preventing the imposition of burdens which no business man could possibly have anticipated. I trust, therefore, he will accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI cannot think that the hon. Member seriously means to press this Amendment, because, if there is to be a tax on undeveloped land at all, it clearly would be a futile proceeding to confine it to land which is the subject of sale, lease, or transfer in the future. The amount raised in the next ten years would be infinitesimal. The hon. Member must bear in mind that the tax is a very small one. If the tax were a heavy one, such 14 as that which he contested with approximate success in the Scotch Committee, it would be a different matter.
§ Mr. YOUNGERThere was no tax involved there.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIt was a question of rates, which, I agree, is a different matter.
§ Mr. YOUNGERIt was only valuation.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe action of the hon. Member and his friends was with a view to contesting the liability of land to rates. That, I think, is a very different matter, because it might mean 50 per cent., or, at any rate, a considerable proportion of the annual value. The present proposal is purely a question of a halfpenny tax on the capital value. If you confine that to transactions which occur in the future, you will get no revenue not merely next year, but for 10 or 15 years to come. I could understand the hon. Member contesting the whole tax, but to limit it to this extent would be absurd, as I think he will see himself.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe right hon. Gentleman, I think, has not quite appreciated the effect of the Amendment. My hon. Friend proposes that where land passes in any way it should become from that moment subject to this tax; but the right hon. Gentleman spoke as if the tax would never become due until land was leased or sold. The proposal may have the effect of postponing or preventing a considerable number of leases, but it cannot prevent or postpone anybody's death. Hence, on the very day when this provision became law, the revenue would begin to accrue. My hon. Friend's object is to save existing contracts, and to confine the tax to purchasers or heirs who shall have acquired property with the full knowledge that they will be liable to this tax from the moment they acquired the property.
That is, at any rate, in keeping with the expressed intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the Increment Tax. I thought he wished to observe the contract wherever he found it, but it now appears the contract is sacred only against the increment—that the contract is not entitled to any such exemption in regard to any other taxes. The Chancellor did say that if these were heavy taxes there would be great force in the argument. My hon. Friend and those who acted with him in the matter 15 of Scottish valuation had there a strong case, because there they were dealing with rates which may amount to many shillings in the pound of the annual value, whereas, says the Chancellor of the Exchequer, this is only a halfpenny in the pound on the capital value. "What," he says, "is a halfpenny in the pound?" In many cases it is going to be a great deal more. It is going to be in many cases more than the rates themselves. If the amount of the rates would be a proper reason for such an exemption as my hon. Friend proposes, were this a proposal to rate instead of tax, then I say it is a proper proposal in respect of taxes which will be in many cases more onerous as a charge on annual value than the rates themselves. You would have this Undeveloped Land Tax running up to a total amount, probably, in some cases, exceeding the total of the annual value of the land. In a great number of cases it will mean a charge of 10s. or more in the pound. If that be so, and if the high rates would be fair ground for such exemption as my hon. Friend claims in the case of the Rating Bill, then a charge of this magnitude is equally fair ground for exemption in this case.
Mr. G. D. FABER (York)The Chancellor of the Exchequer began with an argument—a so-called argument—with which we are beginning to be somewhat familiar. "Only a halfpenny in the pound!" In Limehouse phraseology it is "only a copper!" [Cries of "Order."] Only a halfpenny in the pound. That can run out on a 20 years' purchase to a shilling in the pound. It may go up very much higher until it becomes a crushing tax, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not know it it is time he began to learn. I am sorry if I have seemed to introduce any heat into the discussion, but surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer deserves it! The Amendment as I first looked at it did not seen to have the same substantiality as it does now. What is the argument of it? To put off the evil day as long as possible. It is that the Undeveloped Land Tax—a copper—only a copper in the pound per annum—should not arise while the land remains in its present hands, but shall arise "in respect of land passing by sale, lease, transfer, or otherwise, after the commencement of this Act." I think it is a perfectly rationally conceived Amendment. It does not relieve the hardship or the injustice of the proposal, 16 but it does postpone the moment at which the hardship and the injustice will arise. The words of the Prime Minister, and perhaps of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, are only words, never intended to be put into performance. Their promises, like pie-crusts, were made to be broken.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDIf this Amendment were accepted by the Government it would not cure any complaint of those who object to the incidence of these taxes. It would simply postpone the evil day with regard to any person who' is going to live a considerable time, or any owner of land who does not intend to let, sell, or transfer for a considerable period. The extent which it would discriminate between one owner of land and another would be obviously unjust. If the principle which we all understand—it is not argued at present—if the principle is admitted, there is nothing for it, if the Government do not choose to give this small extension, but to withdraw the Amendment. It is not an Amendment to do justice all round. If accepted it would not take away one iota of the injustice of the proposal.
§ Mr. HAROLD COXI support the views just given utterance to. This Amendment does not go to the root of the matter. It will only be a very small mitigation in the case of a few people. I am strongly opposed to the whole tax, but I hope the Amendment will not be proceeded with.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEThe hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Cox) seems to think that there is nothing in this Amendment. I think it really does save existing owners to a great extent. I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Preston earlier in these Debates laid great stress upon the fact that this was a tax on the existing owner, and that only he would suffer. Surely it is something to save even the existing owner from injustice to which he may be subjected? The attitude of the Government, I would submit, on the present occasion, is somewhat different to that which they showed on the Reversion Duty. It is quite true that they did not save the existing contract absolutely, but they saved those concerned suffering some addition. The period of the Reversion Duty was extended from 30 to 40 years. I do not see why this principle could not be extended to the Undeveloped Land Duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the whole object of his taxation was not to tax persons, but things. If that be so, 17 let the duty be laid on the land after the existing owner has ceased his possession. As the duty stands at present it falls directly and absolutely on the existing owner. He may have bought the land within quite recent years. He may not have unduly held it, or may not have calculated unduly that the growth of a town near would appreciate it. Meanwhile there may be a small agricultural increment. Although the Amendment goes a very little way towards removing the tax, yet it is a considerable alleviation to existing owners, and I trust that my hon. Friend will not withdraw it.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILI think the Chancellor has not appreciated the force of the grievance which it is proposed to meet by this Amendment. Take the case of a man who has a small plot of land on the outskirts of a town, and which is at present agricultural land. It is a very common case, and one which I understand the Government have particularly in view. It may be the land at present is not bringing more than £2 an acre. It is taxed because it has a latent undeveloped building value which makes it worth £300 or £400 an acre instead of £50 or £60 an acre, its present value. The halfpenny in the £, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this House to some extent, and more decisively outside the House made great play of, would amount to 1s. in the £ annual value of what the annual value would be if the building value were realised. It therefore comes to something like 5s. or 6s. per acre on land worth £300 per acre. That land is at this minute returning £2 per acre, and therefore it comes to a tax of 2s. or 3s. in the £ on land which is now returning £2 per acre. It may be said the man can sell it, but he may not be able to realise. [An HON. MEMBER: "At what price?"] I do not care at what price. The hon. Member who interrupts has only a theoretical acquaintance with this matter. It constantly happens that land which valuers may say is worth £300 per acre, and that might at some day be worth £1,000 an acre would be perfectly unsaleable at the moment. You may not get any offer at all for it except as to its value as agricultural land. You are proposing to charge a man 2s. or 3s. in the £ upon the value of this land which is very hard on him, as he may not be in a position to realise the building value at all. It is much less hard if after the passing of this Act the land is sold, and another man buys know- 18 ing what he is in for. At present the owner does not know what he is in for. It is to meet such a hard case as this, which the Chancellor has not altogether set his mind against, because he conceives if it were a high tax some such provision ought to be made, that the Amendment aims. In the case I am putting it is a high tax, and may exceed the amount of the rates now exacted. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITHMay I point out there that, so far as the Amendment is concerned, it only excepts the present owner, and, if passed, when the present owner came to sell he would get the less for his land, because he would only be able to claim by showing less capital value. The Noble Lord drew a very harrowing picture of a man who could not sell his land. Surely that must not be so, because you cannot arrive at a high value of the land unless it is saleable at the present moment, assuming the valuation is a fair valuation. Surely the land cannot be taxed at the high figure the Noble Lord suggested if at the present moment it is unsaleable. When the valuer meets land such as the Noble Lord has described he will see the owner is trying to sell it. It is quite true it is adaptable, but surely the valuer will put a low figure on it, and the taxes will follow. At any rate, I do not think this Amendment would cure the difficulty.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe hon. Member assumes that nothing can have a high value unless that value is immediately recognised.
§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITHdissented.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe hen. Member shakes his head, but that is the basis of his argument. He says we are wrong in assuming that any man will be taxed upon a high value, because the tax will be levied upon the capital value, and the capital value could not be high if it is anything that could be immediately sold. No one shares the hon. Member's view. Things of great intrinsic value cannot always be turned into its value's worth at a given moment irrespective of the state of the market. It is, of course, the case with regard to building land that part of its present value is the value it will one day have when other land is built upon and when there is great demand—
§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITHThe right hon. Gentleman says no one shares my view. May I refer him to Section 14 (1) of the Bill? The Bill seems to take that view.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe hon. Member refers me to (1) 14, which says: "For the purposes of this part of this Act the total value of land means the amount which the fee simple of the land if sold at the time in the open, market by a willing seller in its then condition might be expected to realise." Yes, but you presume also a willing buyer. You value on the assumption of a willing seller and a willing buyer, and a certain competition among buyers having regard to the general circumstances. If you are constantly putting land into the market and forcing people to sell, you will not get the prices which a willing seller would get from a willing buyer; you will not get anything like the market value, and you will not get any valuer of any repute in the country to value on the basis suggested by the hon. Member. The value which a fair valuer would give would be upon the assumption that the land would be marketed in a businesslike manner, and treated to the best advantage, like any other commodity, and not thrown upon the market in unfavourable circumstances or in quantities which the market cannot consume. I say, therefore, when the hon. Member assumes that a fair valuation would prevent this tax from being high, except in cases where a high capital value could be immediately realised, his assumption is wholly unfounded, and would not be supported by anyone having practical experience of such transactions. The hon. Member also appeared to think that you must not only take this tax, but the other three Land Taxes also as slices out of the property of the existing owners, and that whenever a sale takes place under the provisions of this Bill the owner of the land will be mulcted of so much of his price as represents the capitalist value of the taxes. I do not know whether the hon. Member considers it a fair system of taxation which instead of apportioning the burden year by year to the capacity of individuals to bear it selects a particular class of individual and at a particular time cuts a slice out of the capital value of their fortune, provided only that those fortunes are invested in one particular form of property, and that form only. I do not know whether the hon. Member thinks that is fair, but I do not, and that is one of my 20 strong objections to the proposals of the Government. The fact that we cannot save the present possessor from an injustice is no reason why we should not do what little we can to make the injustice less, and to say that, at any rate, until the land changes hands in one way or another the new tax shall not be collectable. I know the hon. Member for Preston objects to the whole tax, and that is why he objects to the Amendment. I shall, however, be happy to vote with him against the whole clause when we have the opportunity, but in the meantime I am obliged to discuss it in detail, and we can only move Amendments of detail.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Robson)The right hon. Gentleman has been debating a suggestion which has fallen from my hon. Friend, namely, that a tax on land falls only on existing owners, and he says that it is a very unfair system of taxation, and that is one of his main objections to this Bill. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman realises how far that argument takes him, because if it means anything at all it means that no tax on landed property or any specific-class of property is a just tax at all, because the same observation will apply to other classes of property. If this argument be true, the policy of the Opposition is to have no taxes on land, but only taxes on trade and food.
§ The CHAIRMANI think the hon. and learned Gentleman will be well advised not to widen the scope of the Debate.
§ Sir WILLIAM ROBSONI was only following the lead of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINAnd I am sorry you are not able to develop your argument.
§ Sir W. ROBSONThe right hon. Gentleman failed to give an adequate definition of the meaning of "market value." Market value means a value where there are both buyers and sellers, and you cannot have a market without them. These words which refer to a willing buyer and a willing seller indeed do very little more than state the actual meaning attached to the word "market."
§ Mr. J. F. REMNANTWhere does "willing buyer" come in?
§ Sir W. ROBSONI say it applies to both, and, therefore, when you have market value made the test, if there are no willing buyers and willing sellers you have 21 no market, and no market value, and therefore no tax. To imagine a number of cases in which you have no market value, and then say you are going to collect the tax is not to appreciate the proposals made in this clause.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI am sorry it is not possible for me to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman in the first argument which he used, because I should very much like to reply to the argument he has put before the Committee. Where the effect of a tax is to cut off a slice from the capital value of the present owner of the property we are told to object to that is objecting to all taxation. Is there any hon. Member who agrees with the hon. and learned Gentleman in that argument?
§ Sir W. ROBSONIs it in order for the hon. and learned Member to follow up a line of argument which I was not allowed to develop?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI will not pursue that point. I will give as an illustration a case where you raise the amount of the Income Tax. In that case you do not in any way strike at the source from which the income comes. But if you do what is proposed by this Bill you take away from the individual owner part of his property, and you are taking away from him at the same time all possibility of keeping up the income at the old level. The hon. and learned Gentleman claims, and all his party claim—in fact, it is the only justification for this Bill—that the effect of this proposal is to take a slice from the property of present owners. Surely that discriminates from other taxation. Does not all other taxation fall not only upon the owner, but upon the consumer? I say that this will fall upon the consumer, but the argument of the hon. Gentleman opposite is that it will fall only upon the present owner, and that creates a complete injustice in this Bill. I wish to refer to the remark made by the hon. Gentleman opposite about the willing buyer and the willing seller. The hon. Gentleman says that unless the thing can be sold at the price at which it is taxed there will be no tax. Does anyone in this Committee agree with that argument? How in the world are you to know whether or not at any given time all the possible building land surrounding any country can or cannot be sold at a given price? Will the valuers have to do that? They will have to put a price on it under this Bill, and everybody knows that that price must be 22 purely guess work, because it is impossible to find any occasion in which you can say with certainty that land can be sold at a particular price, and is therefore worth that sum. The Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke as if this was an extremely small tax. I should like to put the incidence of this tax before the Committee, in a way which everyone must appreciate. I am going to take the effect of it on land which is now used for agriculture, but is supposed to be building land in the neighbourhood of a big city. I have had the figures actually worked out in the case of land around Glasgow. There is a great amount of building land, any part of which might be built upon, but in regard to which everyone knows that for a large number of years only a small portion can possibly be built upon. How does that land stand at present? It is let at the outset for something like £2 an acre, and the owner pays in the way of rates and taxes at least 12s. or 15s. You put on this new rate which, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is fond of saying, amounts only to one halfpenny in the £, and, if the land is valued at £240, which is a very moderate valuation, that amounts to an annual charge of 10s. in the £. That is simply an additional Income Tax which the owner of the land has to pay. There is, however, this great difference. In the case of the Income Tax you only pay on your income, but here you pay whether you have any income at all or not. In many cases under this Bill the tax will be paid without any income. I shall assume that this wonderful Government has found a wonderful valuer who-can tell to a nicety what is the value of a particular piece of land. Supposing an acre of land is worth £l,000, and the annual return is something like £40, your halfpenny in the £ on that is £2 1s. 8d., or rather more than 1s. in the £ of annual taxation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he talks about this tax being only a halfpenny in the £, forgets-that he is talking about capital, and that it is an annual charge. If the tax were made 9½d. in the £ you would sweep away the whole value of the land. When we realise that this tax, instead of being only a halfpenny is really a great deal more than a high Income Tax, it does show that we have some reason to ask that the right hon. Gentleman shall give some consideration to the Amendments we move. I do not often disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Harold Cox), but on this occasion he has 23 not quite realised the importance and meaning of this Amendment. I quite agree that on the face of it it does seem to be a mere discrimination in favour of particular owners, but I think it is more than that. The hon. Member for Angle-sea (Mr. Ellis Griffith) says the moment the land is sold the tax will have to be paid, and you will get less for the land. That is true, but what is bound to happen under this Bill is that a great many people, who cannot afford to pay the tax, will be forced to sell their land. This Amendment would have this result: Men who are far less rich than other people who have other forms of property, and are quite willing to see land taxed, would not be forced at once to sell. They would be able to hold it over until a willing buyer, as well as a willing seller, could be found.
§ Mr. J. D. REESAlthough my hon. Friend the Member for Preston said that if this Amendment were accepted it would only deal with a comparatively few cases, I think it would cover the case I want to bring before the Committee. If the Governors of Harrow School did not want, as they would not want, to sell land which they have purchased, they would by this Amendment be sufficiently protected, and I therefore submit I am in order. Here you have the governing body of a great school which buys say 200 or 300 acres of land. It is not all used as playing fields. It cannot be. They do not want that area of playing fields. It therefore does not come within the exception, but is really, literally, a case of buying land and holding it up, though, as often happens, it is holding it up for an exceedingly proper and even an exemplary purpose. At least one of these acres marches with my own garden, so I am in a position to inform the Committee that it has just changed hands at £550. I do not propose to take that price for all the acres, but I think I should not be far out if I put it at £400 or £500 an acre, when you consider the exceptional amenities of this land—a vineyard on a fruitful hill. It is close to London, set within a charmed area with beautiful trees and has all the amenities of a park. Supposing I put the purchase price at £500, there are 500 halfpennies to pay, and the tax comes to about £l per acre. The actual agricultural rental of the land which ex hypothesi cannot be used for any other purpose is 30s. You therefore have an annual tax of 20s. upon land for which 24 you get 30s. If that case really stood, or if there was anything like it, then it would justify the description of the French Socialist Deputy, M. Jaurès, who described this Bill as a great Revolutionary measure of expropriation, which we know from the Prime Minister it is not, and is not intended to be. I have, therefore, put this case with some confidence before the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is not as if it was a solitary case. It is a good and a strong case, and I would like to tell the right hon. Gentleman, having been at some pains to verify the figures, and having had access to the best source of information, I believe under this clause, even with the mitigations and Amendments which now find their place on the Paper, the governors of Harrow School would have to pay £150 more in taxes than they would receive in rent. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will allow that that must somehow be provided against. After all, it is typical of many other cases. You have a man, getting an acre or two on which to build a house—
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member appears to be discussing the clause as a whole. That is not in order. We are dealing with an Amendment to put in certain words which would make the tax apply in a more limited way. The hon. Member must make his remarks relevant to that.
§ 4.0 p.m.
§ Mr. REESIt does appear to me that the case I have put comes distinctly within the four corners of the Amendment. The owners of this land do not desire to dispose of it. They would desire to keep it and hold it up. Though the Commissioners would have the right to decide whether or not this land was available for the public, and so exempt on that score, it is evident they might say the Harrow boys are little aristocrats, or plutocrats, or members of some politically negligible class, and are not members of the public. I am extremely sorry if I have strayed from the point, but, having brought my case substantially before the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I will not encroach any longer on the time of the Committee.
§ Mr. G. YOUNGERI think the Committee will realise that we have reached an extremely difficult part of this Finance Bill, and, if any speech were wanted to show the confusion in the minds of certain Members of the Committee, that of the Attorney-General would suffice. It is 25 clear from what fell from him he does not realise that in this particular case we are introducing a wholly new system in this respect, that by this you are going to tax values which are purely hypothetical. That is an extremely important question. As to the Amendment, it goes a certain length in exempting existing owners from the actual tax, but it in no way exempts them from the immediate loss of their property. The value of their property will be reduced, especially by reason of the possibility of increment. No one is going to rely upon an Increment Tax which a needy Chancellor of the Exchequer may hereafter double, treble or quadruple. I fear that my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bonar Law) addressed arguments to hon. Members opposite to which many of them will not be anxious to give effect. He said the Amendment will postpone for a time the sacrifice of land at the present moment in the hands of people who are not able, or who cannot afford to sell it, but that is not the main point. The real difficulty is that a heavy loss will be entailed by forced sales which will contribute to destroy market value. I am afraid, however, that hon. Members opposite are not prepared to give heed to that argument, although it weighs strongly with hon. Members on this side. We know how very hardly the Undeveloped Tax will in some cases press upon this class of people. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will come to the conclusion that he must make certain exemptions to meet cases of this kind, and, if he cannot see his way to accept this Amendment, he might in some way or other try to meet the hardships which undoubtedly will arise.
§ Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSI should like to support what has been said with regard to Harrow School, and for this reason, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may say that, under Clause 25, cases of the kind, which certainly ought to be exempt, will be included. But I doubt if that clause will prove sufficient to enable land purchased by a public school in order that it may be retained as an open space, and let for agricultural purposes, to be relieved of this burden. In this case undoubtedly the land has been purchased by the governors of the school with the sole object of protecting the school from buildings being erected immediately around it.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEWhat are the rents of the land?
§ Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSThey are very low—I think from £1 to £3 per acre. If this Amendment is accepted, the object being to protect present owners, it would certainly cover that case. These lands have not been purchased with the object of being sold again at a profit. They have been purchased to be held for the protection of the school for all time, and, therefore, unless the governors of the school wish to sell, their case will be covered. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer should see that in Clause 25 words are introduced which will cover cases of this kind, and, if he will undertake to do that, my objection will no longer hold good.
§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYI have not taken much part in discussions on this Bill, but I should like to say it seems to me that the discussion of this and other Amendments of a like nature must be largely futile until we understand what is meant by Clause 14. Of course, I should be entirely out of order if I were now to attempt to discuss that clause, but I wish to point out that the valuer, whoever he may be, whether he be a private or a Government valuer, will have to value the land as if that land were being dealt with in a businesslike way, as if buyers and sellers were approaching each other as buyers and sellers. Land stands in the same position as other forms of property, such as clothes and jewellery. If you wanted to get at the value of the contents of a jeweller's shop, it would not be possible to do so if the contents of the whole of the jewellers' shops in London were suddenly thrown upon the market, and in the same case with land. If the whole of the land which is building land around London were thrown on the market to-day its value would be practically nil. What would happen if, on the Stock Exchange, the whole of a certain stock were thrown on the market to-morrow? If there were none but sellers and no buyers it would not, of course, have a value. Therefore it is necessary that under Clause 14 some provision should be made—
§ The CHAIRMANThis discussion would be much more suitable to the question that the clause stand part of the Bill. I must ask the hon. Member and other hon. Members who desire to speak to confine themselves to the Amendment before the Committee, which narrows down certain words affecting the operation of certain taxation.
§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYI apologise for straying somewhat from the Amendment, but I repeat I think it is quite impossible to appreciate the meaning of this Amendment without reference to what is meant by the valuation of the land which is to be taxed. First we must consider how the valuation is to be conducted. Is the owner of undeveloped land going to be taxed as if he were dealing with the land in an ordinary businesslike manner? As a matter of fact, we are not doing anything of the sort. As I have suggested, if all the furniture, jewellery, and clothing in London were suddenly forced on the market—
§ The CHAIRMANWhat has this to do with the Amendment?
§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYI am only suggesting that these remarks must be taken into consideration in connection with this and every other Amendment to this clause.
§ Mr. G. CAVESooner or later we must be told what the valuation is going to be. Is the tax to be paid as we have hitherto thought, on the value which the land might realise in the market, or is it to be paid on the amount which, in fact, can be obtained by the landlord. If when there is no buyer there can be no valuation, the yield of this tax must be very much smaller, and, of course, the injustice would be very much less. I want to say a word on the actual Amendment itself. I know of more than one case where this tax would impose a very severe hardship on the present owners of land, and, I dare say, many hon. Members are acquainted with other cases. Let me take an actual case. A man has an estate near London of 1,100 acres. He is trying his best to sell it, but he cannot find a buyer. Meantime, he lets it at an agricultural value. There are certain charges on the land, and his net income is only £500 a year. If this tax is to be imposed it will represent 10s. in the £ on the net income of the land. That is the kind of case which is intended to be met by this Amendment. Here is a man who wants to sell his land, but because of his very inability to do so you are going to take away from him half his net income. I do not call that just, and, therefore, I suggest that some modification should be made in the clause to meet cases of that kind. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite that this Amendment does not do away with the whole injustice. It must follow that if the tax is to be put upon the land less money will be obtained from the sale. I quite agree that the in- 28 justice which the hon. and learned Gentleman quite rightly pointed out is one of the injustices imposed by this tax, and will not be met by the Amendment, but is it right, simply because you cannot cover all objections by one Amendment, to refuse to consider Amendments on their merits? The Attorney-General seemed to quarrel even with that argument, which comes from his own supporter, but I do not see how he could. He says, if that argument is right, no tax is just, but that is not the true inference at all. The true inference may be that if that argument is right, no tax on capital is just, but that is a very different thing. In taking from the owner of the land that which he has not got, that is, in taking part of his capital value, I think you are imposing an unjust tax. But I am digressing from the real argument in regard to the Amendment. I only rose for the purpose of putting this point, and I hope hon. Members who think like I do, that this Amendment only touches a small part of the ground, will consider it on its merits. It will not affect a small but a large number of people, because a considerable number of owners of land will be relieved by this exception from a very heavy burden. A landowner will not be relieved as time goes on and his land is sold; he will not be relieved of the tax for all future time; but by this Amendment you would meet the case of owners who desire to sell but who cannot in consequence of the burden of this tax. I think the hon. Gentleman is bound also to give a very favourable consideration to an Amendment which comes later on on the Paper, the effect, or purpose, of which is to confine the tax to land which is unfairly withheld from the market. It is on that footing that you ought to tax land, and, if that is done, the relief will be very great. I will content myself, however, with expressing the view which I have put forward, that you ought to consider the position of the present owner of the land.
§ Mr. W. JOYNSON-HICKSI only want to add one concrete case within my knowledge, which shows that this Amendment may be of value. Some 18 months ago I sold to a man four or five acres of land at £850 an acre. That land was perfectly ready at that moment for development, and it was sold to a professional developer, and he bought it from his own knowledge of land in the neighbourhood, with a view of cutting it up and developing it. The position now 29 is that in consequence of this legislation on the part of the Government he is unable to develop that land or sell or lease it for building purposes at anything like the figure—and it was a fair figure—at which I sold it to him. There is no income whatever coming from that land. It is a vacant piece of land, and it is not even let for agricultural purposes. There it is, lying perfectly ripe for building purposes and quite ready for building. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is it rated at?"] It is rated at a very small sum. But the right hon. Gentleman raised quite a different point in regard to the question of rating. That is one argument for rating land for agricultural purposes, and is not the argument we are meeting to-day. The argument is that the tax is to be put upon this land in order to force it into the market. Here is a case, however, where a man is holding his bit of land, which he bought for the purpose of development—for the purpose of selling again at a profit, if you like—a man has just as much right to buy a piece of land with a view to selling it at a profit as he has to buy a bale of cotton for the purpose of doing so—that man until he can sell that land must be at a considerable loss. If he has got to sell it to-day undoubtedly he must do so at a considerable loss on the price he paid for it. If he keeps it he has to pay this halfpenny tax, amounting to £2 per annum per acre on this land which brings in nothing. I do suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that that is a case of injustice which would he met if he accepted this Amendment. It is no answer to say that the Amendment does not meet all the cases of injustice done in the Bill. We are here to remove as many cases of injustice as we can, and I think that in the previous discussions on other portions of the Bill we were able to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remedy certain injustices. My hon. Friend who moves this Amendment wants to remove this particular injustice to a man who has not inherited but who has bought in the open market this bit of land before this Bill was brought forward, and he cannot sell it now, wholly in consequence of the burden placed upon him by the Bill.
I think it would be fair to allow that man some few years, at all events, in order to realise the amount he has paid for the land. He is put in a more difficult position even to-day by the speech of the learned Attorney-General than he was yesterday, because he does not know how he is to 30 value that land and what tax he has to pay. If he can say—as he really can say—"I cannot get a purchaser for this land at all to-day," does the Attorney-General say he is not going to pay? There are many cases at the auction mart where land is put up and not bought, but can it be said that there is no value in that land because no buyer comes forward for it? I am entitled, therefore, to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which view he holds and which is the official view of the value of this piece of land; whether it is to be taxed on £850 an acre, the value which it had 18 months ago to the purchaser—the value which I doubt not it will fetch in a few years again when the disturbance of the land market created by the right hon. Gentleman has blown over, and when it will ultimately rise again to that value; whether he is to he taxed all this time on land, which is not giving any income, 850 halfpennies a year, or whether he is to say, "My land is worth nothing to-day," or "I cannot get more than £100 a year for it, therefore I am only going to pay my taxes upon £100"? That is a case to which some of us invite the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Moreover, we wish to know whether in that case, when my unfortunate friend does come to sell, will he be caught by the Increment Duty? If the value of his land is to be decreased and is to be put down low is he, when a purchaser does come along, to have to pay this 20 per cent. Increment Tax which we have already passed? I do ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at all events, to tell us what the official view is of the value of the land in such a case as this. I think we on this side, and some hon. Gentleman opposite, have made out a case for the relief of existing owners of land, either those who have purchased or inherited when this tax was not within their purview when they made the purchase, and it comes to them as an entirely new and unexpected tax. I contend it, is not fair to make an existing owner pay it, and it would be, I will not say just, but less unjust, if the right hon. Gentleman were to say that this tax shall apply in future to land which is bought with a knowledge of the tax after the Bill has passed.
§ Mr. G. A. GIBBSWe have had cases of hardship brought forward which will occur if this Bill is passed, and I should like to refer to another case. It is in regard to land, which is only within five or six miles 31 of the city of Bristol, which was valued a short time ago at about £170 an acre. It was valued on the assumption that one day the land between it and the city will be built upon, but it will not be probably built upon for at least a hundred years. It will take quite another hundred years to reach that particular spot, which at the present time is let at no more than £2 an acre and will be let at that price for many years to come. I am perfectly certain that if you offered that land now no farmer would give more than £2 an acre for it. But if you pass this clause in its present form many people who own land of that kind will be forced to sell. The small men especially will be forced to sell, and the land is sure to get into the hands of other men who are able to keep it; therefore, no more land will come into the market. If the right hon. Gentleman would only accept this Amendment it would make this Bill somewhat better than it is at the present moment, but otherwise I am quite certain it will impose a heavy burden upon those who are least able to bear it.
§ Mr. W. W. ASHLEYI think there is one aspect of this Amendment which has not been brought to the notice of the Committee, and that is, if this Amendment is
| Division No. 394.] | AYES. | [4.30 p.m. |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Fell, Arthur | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Forster, Henry William | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Ashley, W. W | Freeman-Thomas, Freeman | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Gibbs, G. A. (ristol, West) | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Bertram, Julius | Helmsley, Viscount | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hill, Sir Clement | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Joynson-Hicks, William | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Kerry, Earl of | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Kimber, Sir Henry | Stanier, Seville |
| Cave, George | Lambton, Hon. Frederick William | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Starkey, John R. |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Talbot. Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.) |
| Chance, Frederick William | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury) |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark) |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Magnus, Sir Philip | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Dairymple, Viscount | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Younger, George |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Moore, William | |
| Doughty, Sir George | Morrison-Bell, Captain | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia. |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers | Newdegate, F A. | |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | |
| Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.) | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.) | Atherley-Jones, L. | Barnes, G. N. |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Beale, W. P. |
| Alden, Percy | Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) |
| Ambrose, Robert | Barker, Sir John | Bowerman, C. W. |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Barnard, E. B. | Brace, William |
§ The CHAIRMANThis argument will rightly arise much better on a later Amendment. We have really been discussing a great many Amendments, and that argument really applies to another Amendment.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Aves 79; Noes.
33| Branch, James | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Henry, Charles S. | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mori. S.) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Hobart, Sir Robert | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Hodge, John | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Holt, Richard Durning | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Byles, William Pollard | Hudson, Walter | Rowlands, J. |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Illingworth, Percy H. | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| dough, William | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Sears, J. E. |
| Cooper, G. J. | Jowett, F. W. | Seely, Colonel |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Lament, Norman | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Crooks, William | Lehmann, R. C. | Sloan, Thomas Henry |
| Cross, Alexander | Lewis, John Herbert | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Steadman, W, C. |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Lyell, Charles Henry | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Strachcy, Sir Edward |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Erskine, David C. | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Maddison, Frederick | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Faber, G. H. (Boston) | Massie, J. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Falconer, J. | Masterman, C. F. G. | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Menzies, Sir Walter | Verney, F. W. |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Micklem, Nathaniel | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Mond, A. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | Myer, Horatio | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Gulland, John W. | Norman, Sir Henry | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Hancock, J. G. | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) | Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | O'Grady, J. | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | O'Malley, William | Wilson, W. T. (Wosthoughton) |
| Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Parker, James (Halifax) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Partington, Oswald | |
| Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | |
| Hedges, A. Paget | Rainy, A. Holland |
§ Mr. FELL moved, in section (1), after the words "every financial year," to insert "after the year nineteen hundred and nineteen."
§ I move this Amendment with the object not of trying to show that, because we object to this whole clause, yet, therefore, we think we should postpone it for 10 years, because the clause, which is obnoxious in itself, is less obnoxious if it is postponed. I move that because there is no date in this Bill when it is proposed that this duty shall come into force. Manifestly, it cannot come into force for some considerable period. Valuations have to be made, and, as we know from suggestions from the Government, these valuations will take at least four years to carry out, and will involve an expenditure of an enormous sum of money. It is clear, therefore, that some date must be fixed for the operation of this clause to come into effect, and that it must be ulterior to four years. Otherwise I do not see how the duty can possibly be collected. If it is more than four years hence it is reasonable to suggest that it should be some definite fixed date which will allow a margin between that four years and the time it is likely the valuation will take. 34 I suggest that a round figure of 10 years is ample time in which the Government, if they use diligence, will be able to get the valuation through. That will make the duty payable in 1920 for the first year. The numerous contracts which are in force at present with regard to land which will come within this class are of so complicated a nature, and the funds with which building and land societies have worked in making the contracts are of such a narrow margin, that unless they have some extended time and, what is much more important, some definite time when they know this is coming into force, they cannot possibly finance their undertakings, and we all know that a burden hanging over us of an indefinite nature coming into force at an indefinite time is such that no business man could conduct his affairs in a proper manner when it is hanging over him. If a land society knows at a certain date that this is coming on, and that the land, which it has developed by that time, will be subject to this tax, they can make their arrangements accordingly, but if they do not know that it is not to come on until next year or the year after, I defy any society to conduct its business as it should be conducted.
35§ Sir W. ROBSONThe hon. Member has suggested two reasons for the postponement he seeks by the Amendment, but neither of them justifies such a very unusual step as that which he suggests in connection with the tax. He said it would be very desirable that the date should be certain. If what he wants is certainty as to the time when the tax will fall he will get a much more efficient and useful certainty in the passing of the Act itself. Then the tax will begin, and no one will be in any uncertainty after that as to what its effect would be, and in a very short time he will find it out himself, but you will rather prolong the period of uncertainty, if instead of letting the tax come into operation at once, you give 10 years more in which those who are interested in the land may be misled by the speculations of Members of the Opposition as to what the effect of the tax is going to be. If certainty is what the hon. Member desires the sooner we bring the tax into operation the better, and the sooner they will become acquainted with its effect, and the less uncertainty there will be. I do not think, whatever may be said of valuation under the other taxes, the valuation of undeveloped land ought in any particular case to be a difficult matter. It will no doubt have to be adequate as dealing with existing sales as they are brought forward, but it can be performed by the staff of the Inland Revenue Department.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe hon. and learned Gentleman says that there will be an adequate staff to deal with the valuations. I do not understand the relevancy of that remark to this clause.
§ Sir W. ROBSONWe must have an adequate staff to deal with the taxes on sales, and those who have had practical experience and are the best judges as to whether we will be able to collect such a tax as this do not suggest the postponement of this or of any of the other taxes at all. They are of opinion that they can be imposed and collected as from the date of the passing of the Act. I do not think the Committee will be disposed to differ from them, and certainly not to the extent proposed in the Amendment.
§ Mr. E. G. PRETYMANI did not deem the Amendment so important as I find it to be until the Attorney-General addressed the House, because he has used the strongest possible argument in favour of the Amendment. He says that you must have an ade- 36 quate staff to ascertain the Increment Duty payable on sales. You have got to create the adequate staff. How is that staff to be created, and how is it to be in existence if the duty is to be levied immediately upon the passing of the Act? The two things do not go together. How is it possible that this staff can be created and the valuations obtained? The Attorney-General left out of sight an important consideration. The whole of these duties are not levied upon capital value, which might be ascertainable, but upon site value, and therefore the whole machinery of Clause 14 has got to be brought into operation, and the whole of the deductions to which the owners of land are entitled under that clause have to be ascertained. First of all, you are to ascertain the site value, and then, having got the site value, you have got to make a fresh calculation of the deductions in order to arrive at the value of the undeveloped 'and for the purpose of this particular tax. The process to be gone through is one of great complexity. I agree with my hon. Friend in desiring to confine the discussion to that particular point. I do not desire to go into the question of justice of this tax, or of the difficulties which will attend the levying of it. I desire to confine my remarks to the one point as to the date on which it is to be brought into operation. Perhaps the date proposed by my hon. Friend may not suit the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman may think it is too far ahead. But does he desire to put the owners of land into a position that they are to be liable for the duty from the passing of this Act, when it is obvious that the whole machinery for estimating the tax cannot be brought into successful operation for a very considerable period? What the period should be is more a matter, it seems to me, for the Government to consider. This is their machinery, not ours, and it is for them to say how long it will have to work before it turns out a tangible result on which the tax can be based. It must take a considerable time before the tax can be levied. I think, when we come to further points, that will become more obvious. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to suggest some definite date at which the tax should commence to be leviable in order that people may know where they are, and that they should not find themselves taxed for a considerable period during which they and everybody else will be wholly unable to estimate the weight of the tax. A man owning land 37 will be in the position of being liable to pay the tax from the date of the passing of the Act, and he will be entirely prevented from dealing properly with his land, because he will not know the amount of the tax. The whole of the estate market will be thrown into a state of confusion. This is purely a question of machinery, and in the interest of the taxpayer, and on the supposition that this tax will be imposed, I do ask that some definite date, allowing a reasonable time for the machinery to work, should be settled at this particular stage.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI do think this Amendment is one which ought to be met by the Government in some reasonable way. If the year 1919 is too far off the Government, at all events, might meet the obvious necessities of the case by mentioning some intermediate date. If the object of putting on this tax is, to a considerable extent, to develop the land of the country—and I take it from the speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Limehouse that that is the object—then the Government ought to give landlords the opportunity of spending hundreds of pounds on their property, so that they would be relieved from this tax altogether. The Attorney-General has certainly given us this afternoon, in reply to my hon. Friend, the most extraordinary argument which could possibly have been anticipated. For instance, he said, "Oh, if you want certainty, take the Bill as you find it. As soon as the Act comes into operation you become liable for this tax." Now it is perfectly obvious that cannot be the case, because before you can levy the Undeveloped Land Tax on any property you must get this valuation, and it is obvious that the valuation cannot be begun to be made until you have passed the Bill. Therefore the answer of the Attorney-General is entirely inadequate. The hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say that we were going to have a staff—that is, the staff that will have the fixing of site values—and it is suggested that they will have some leisure after fixing site values to go on and fix all the valuations for the purpose of the Undeveloped Land Duty.
I have taken the trouble, in the district I know something about, to make some inquiries as to the nature and extent of the staff that would be required, from our point of view, in Liverpool, and I shall give the figures. The Chancellor of the Exchequer several times in the course of 38 the Debates, and also in answer to deputations, has said, "What is the use of coming here with arguments? Give me some figures." The figures are these: In Liverpool and the suburbs there are 195,110 separate holdings. An estimate has been made of the number of separate properties there are halfway from Liverpool to Manchester and halfway from Liverpool to Chester—in fact, in the area which would be worked from Liverpool, including the number of separate holdings in Liverpool—and the number altogether is 400,000. Further investigation has been made to see, for the purpose of the staff, what they would have to do, and it is something like this: A number of bundles of deeds have been opened, and the number of times have been ascertained when the owner dies, sells, or leases for 14 years. It was ascertained from opening these bundles haphazard that the period happens on an average once in 10 years. It happens in regard to death once in 27 years. Having regard to transfers or sales of some part of the property or leases for 14 years, the period is brought down to once in 10 years. The result shown by these figures is that you will have 40,000 valuations to make in Liverpool every year for the purpose of your Increment Tax. The staff who do that work are in their leisure moments going also to deal with the work of ascertaining the value for the Undeveloped Land Tax. A simple arithmetical calculation shows, taking 300 working days in the year, that you would have 133 valuations to make in Liverpool every day. I have taken some pains to read all that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Attorney-General, and the President of the Board of Trade, who is an admitted authority on this subject, have said as to the way in which these valuations are to be carried out, and the skill which is to be brought to bear, so that nobody can be unjustly taxed, and I have come to the conclusion that you would want one valuer to, at all events, devote a day to making the investigation of a case. It is probable that he would have to go to Chester, or half way to Chester, to examine the property for himself, to examine the records, and to investigate other matters in order to make up his valuation. I have given 133 as the number of valuers required to do this work. Surely they would each require a salary of £750 a year, and that would mean £99,750 a year for valuers.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is not now dealing with the Question before the Committee.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI shall not proceed any further on that subject, in view of your ruling. I did not intend when I came here to-day to deal with this question of the cost, but I was betrayed into following that line of argument because of what fell from the Attorney-General to the effect that this staff in its leisure moments was going to do all this work in connection with undeveloped land. I will not pursue the subject, except to state that the staff would include one supreme person, about 13 head men, and about 133 valuers.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is really disregarding my ruling.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI had no intention of doing so. All I will say is that it is a perfectly ridiculous suggestion on the part of the Attorney-General that any staff, such as I have endeavoured to indicate and such as he referred to, can possibly be appointed to deal with this Undeveloped Land Tax in anything like the period which the hon. and learned Gentleman believes. I would urge as a matter of practical dealing, if the Government are really in earnest, which I very much doubt, in pressing this Undeveloped Land Duty, that they must as a matter of common-sense, if not as a matter of justice and fairness, fix a reasonable date for it to come into operation, and must allow a, sufficient period before that date to get the valuations properly made, and to get the Undeveloped Land Duty carried out in a reasonable way. It is for that reason, in default of any reasonable counter suggestion on the part of the Government, that we on this side have no option but to support the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend (Mr. Fell).
§ 5.0 P.M.
Sir GILBERT PARKERThe Attorney-General in his speech said that the minute this Bill was passed the duty was to come into force and that the valuation would be made by a staff appointed for the purpose. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer in introducing the Budget, and since then, made the statement, and it is on record, that the valuation would be made by the owner of the property, and when that official valuation is made the owner of the property would then be paid back anything he had over paid. I assume that the Government 40 intends that if too much had been paid by the owner they would pay back to him what was necessary in the circumstances. But what we want to get at is this. Is it the case when the Bill is passed that an official valuation will be made, and not a valuation by the individual owner of the property? If the official valuation is to be made by a staff it must appear that it will extend over a considerable period of time with a vast amount of property in this country. It may be a year or two years or more. Therefore, if the statement of the Attorney-General is correct, the scheme which the Government have in hand is one which will not produce any duty immediately the Bill is passed, and if it is proposed that as these official valuations are made a certain number will be taxed on them, see the injustice you are creating. You tax a certain number of individuals, and the rest you leave untaxed. Is it the case, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that the valuation shall be made by the owner of the property, and that that shall be revised by an official valuation one, two, three, four, or five years hence? Or, is the valuation to be made as the Attorney-General said by a staff which will be a staff that cannot accomplish its work until a certain number of years, so that therefore the duty cannot be collected on all the land of the country at once as is suggested by the Attorney-General? Therefore, the suggestion is made by my hon. Friend (Mr. Fell) that there should be a fixed time within the vision and reason of the Government when that duty shall be paid. It cannot or ought not to be in the first year if there is to be an official valuation. My hon. Friend's Amendment is a reasonable one, and appeals to the common-sense of every member of the community. It is because of these considerations that I ask is it the scheme of the Government that there is to be a private individual valuation on property or an official valuation of the Government?
§ Viscount HELMSLEYThe hon. Member (Sir Gilbert Parker) has raised very much the point which I was about to raise, and I think it is very germane to this Amendment, because the arguments which my hon. Friend used in defending his Amendment were that the valuation would take so long that it would be impossible to carry the clause into operation by the time the Bill was got through. Then the Attorney-General has promised us an 41 adequate staff. Are we to take it that that is the official intimation we are to get in this House that the valuation, as proposed in the Bill, is to be offered? There are rumours going about the country, and to be seen in the Press, that the Government are going to alter the valuation clauses, so as to remove from private owners the necessity of making the valuation? I do think it peculiar, if that is to be so, that it should have been communicated to the Press before having been announced in this House. It really is a matter of very great importance. I hope the Attorney-General will make it perfectly clear to the House whether we are to understand that this onus of valuation is to be removed from owners of the land or not. It seems to me that in either case, whether it is to be done by private individuals or by an official staff, that it is perfectly ridiculous that it can be done in the first year, or even in the second year. It is not as if you had an actual valuation to go on. You have in every case where a valuation is required a hypothetical valuation required, and you have to make all these deductions which will arise later on under that clause of the Bill not yet reached. Even if it were a practical valuation based on analogous exchanges and market price, it would take a very long time; but as you have to bring in considerations of all sorts and circumstances I am quite convinced it will take a great deal longer. I hope that before the Amendment is disposed of we shall have a definite statement from the Attorney-General as to what the Government intend.
Mr. STANLEY WILSONThe Attorney-General said just now that if the Government accepted this Amendment to postpone the operation of this clause for ten years it would be an unusual step, but at the same time I think it would be an extremely sensible one, because it would give the Government an opportunity of getting this valuation scheme carried out. We do not know what this valuation is. Up to the present time we are unable to get much information out of the right hon. Gentleman. I rise to press him very strongly to give us an answer to the question, How long do the Government expect that it will take to make a valuation of the whole of the undeveloped land in the United Kingdom? I venture to say that the Government have an opportunity on this Amendment of telling us what their views are, and I venture to say also that if they would give us a date to which they 42 would remove the operation of this clause I dare say we can come to some sort of an agreement satisfactory to both parties as to the date when the valuation scheme will be carried into effect.
§ Mr. BALFOURIt is discussions of this kind which make me believe that the Government neither intend nor desire that this Bill should ever become law. It is quite impossible that practical questions touching the working of the Bill, touching the immediate finances of the year, touching the incidence of taxation, subjects in the remaining portion of this financial year, should be left wholly unreplied to if the Government really intended to deal with the finances of the year in some practical spirit in the measure now before it. Clearly they do not mean it. Clearly they have not made up their minds in the least how this Act is going to work. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I understand, showed signs of getting up to reply to my hon. Friend near me at an earlier stage of the Debate, but he did not do so, and he has now left the House, of which I do not complain. He has not, therefore, been able to answer the very simple question which must suggest itself to everybody: For what year is this tax intended to provide revenue? Is it for the current year? We are all meeting here at this rather late period of the Session in order to provide for a £16,000,000 deficit in the Budget of the year. That is the ostensible reason which keeps us within these walls in this weather and at this date. How much of this £16,000,000 is going to be provided under this tax in this year?
§ The CHAIRMANI am sorry to stop the right hon. Gentleman, but obviously that question does not arise. He is perfectly entitled to argue that nothing can be collected this year, but the question which he is asking now is very much wider than that. I think he must confine himself to the Amendment.
§ Mr. BALFOURThis rather narrows my question down to the form in which practically I had intended to put it. I dare say the practical shape in which I embodied it may have opened a wider discussion than you think appropriate for this occasion. I am going to narrow it down to the very point, if I can only get an answer. It has been pointed out to the Government that this tax cannot be collected without a valuation. The difficulties inherently connected with that valuation have been dwelt upon by my hon. 43 Friends, and it is not denied that the difficulties which they have pointed out are real difficulties. The number, 10 years, may be too long to give. As far as I know, I think it would be possible to complete all the apparatus to collect this tax in less than 10 years. But that you can do it in the course of the present year is absurd. You must have some period, some date. You cannot do it before 31st March next. I do not believe you can do it before 31st March in the year after. I do not think you can do it even within a still later period; but if you think you can you should say how you think it is going to be done, and by what means you are going to do it. We really have considerable reason to complain of the line which the Government have taken up on this subject. They have thrown before us a subject of valuation so complex that even those who get it up forget it again as soon as they devote their attention to other questions, or as soon as other subjects come before them. That complicated question has got to be dealt with before you can raise a halfpenny on this tax. What are you going to do in the immediate future? When do you think you will be able to raise this halfpenny tax? Is it proposed that before all the complex scheme of valuation is carried to its conclusion a kind of chance estimate will be made by the Exchequer, who shall insist that everybody who possesses undeveloped land shall pay this hypothetical sum pending valuation? Is that the scheme? I cannot believe it. Such a method of dealing with individual members of the community has never been suggested by any Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it is grossly unfair and grossly absurd. I presume, therefore, that you are only going to raise the tax when you know the amount of tax and the value of the property on which it is to be levied. How soon does the Chancellor of the Exchequer think that this enormous mass of valuation can be got through? What is his machinery for getting it through? How does he mean to deal with the valuation until it is got through? These are all questions to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I hope, will give us some answer. This Bill bears all the marks which I have said. It has none of the marks of being intended for practical operation, or being intended by the authors to raise money, or, least of all, being intended by the authors to raise money in the year with which we are im- 44 mediately concerned, the year in which there is a deficit of 16 millions, in order to deal with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has come down here. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in the House when I began my observations, but within the last few moments I have summarised the general contention which I wish to put before him, and I shall be glad to have an answer from him.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe right hon. Gentleman has an absolute right to an answer. All these are vital questions which will have to be discussed, and discussed very fully, every one of them. But I must point out to him that I do not think that this Amendment is the point where we could discuss them, because we would be constantly pulled up, as naturally many of the considerations which might be relevant to the point put by the right hon. Gentleman might not be relevant to the Amendment before the House. This is the dilemma the right hon. Gentleman has put to us: "Do you propose to value the whole of the land of the United Kingdom? It is an operation which will take some number of years, though it will not take 10 years; but it does not matter, it must take some considerable time. What do you propose to do in the meantime until you have made your valuations? How do you propose to make your valuations?" All these are questions, which I agree should be discussed, and I think they will be discussed probably either tomorrow or the day after, because I hope to put Amendments on the Paper which will deal with the question of valuation. If I indicated them generally at the present moment I should be raising a Debate irrelevant to this Amendment.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYWhy are they not on the Paper?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe Noble Lord asks why they are not on the Paper. I shall give him my complete answer later on. What I want to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is that I think there will be an opportunity for adequately answering and adequately discussing every one of the questions he has put to me. One answer I can give him now. He assumes that, before we can levy this halfpenny tax we must have a complete valuation of the whole of the land of the United Kingdom. That is not the case at all. The vastly greater part of the land of the United Kingdom will not be liable to the tax at 45 all. The halfpenny tax will be simply imposed upon strips of land, not necessarily near a town, but in any neighbourhood where it has a building value for some reason or other; it is not altogether urban; it does not amount to a very considerable portion of the land of the United Kingdom. The operation of valuing these building lands, which are fairly well known in the main, is not one which will take very long. Of that I am assured. I am going to move a Resolution which I shall put down on the Paper before I propose the Amendments on valuation. I do not think it possible adequately to answer the questions put by the right hon. Gentleman at this moment, and I am sure that it would not be in order to do so on this Amendment, nor could we discuss them without in the first place having got the Amendments on the Paper. We could not discuss them at the present moment because they would not be germane to this particular Amendment. I agree that the Leader of the Opposition has a perfect right to an answer to the questions he has put, but I have indicated generally why I suggest that it will be much better to discuss them when the Resolution of which I shall give notice to-day or to-morrow will be on the Paper.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINWe have been so often put off by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when we have sought information that we must feel that it is a part of the settled policy, which has, for us, only one result. There is no time like the present for ascertaining what is the intention of the Government and what is the nature of the tax and the machinery which they are trying to get the House to assent to. The Budget has not been under discussion for something like a fortnight. We meet to-day to renew the discussion and here the Chancellor of the Exchequer announces that to-morrow or the next day he expects the Committee to discuss very important Amendments.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGENot Amendments. I am not sanguine enough to believe that the Committee will agree to the Amendments to-morrow. I wall simply give notice of a preliminary Resolution, which is a very different matter. The Amendments can be discussed in detail later on, but I do not think it can be tomorrow or the day after.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINWhy does the right hon. Gentleman want a new Resolution? Because he has got a new 46 plan which he has not adumbrated to the House, which he has not suggested to the House up to the present time, after having adjourned the discussion of the Finance Bill for a fortnight. I must say he has had time to consider his Amendments; but he has not put his Resolution on the Paper, nor given us any indication of what form it is going to take. In the course of the discussion he gave as a reason for not answering the very fair questions put to him by the Leader of the Opposition that he wishes to move another Resolution tomorrow entirely changing the scheme, and that, therefore, it is idle to discuss now with imperfect knowledge what to-morrow we will have fully explained to us. But that is a very good reason for not discussing the clause. Is it not really absurd to ask the Committee to go on solemnly discussing a clause which is to be transformed to-morrow?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon, it does not transform the clause at all. It does not involve the slightest Amendment of the clause.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINIf it does not touch the clause why cannot the right hon. Gentleman answer my right hon. Friend? These questions are pertinent to the clause—they are admitted to be pertinent to the clause. The only reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not answer them is that he is going to introduce a Resolution tomorrow which will give us the latest phase—not I suppose the last, but the latest—of this proposal in regard to land taxation. One of two things: Either the right hon. Gentleman ought now to answer the very pertinent questions put by the Leader of the Opposition, or, if in consequence of the new proposal he is going to submit to the House to-morrow ho thinks it inexpedient to answer them to-day, he ought to adjourn the discussion and not attempt to proceed with the clause, of the ultimate nature of which we have had no indication.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in suggesting that these questions are pertinent to this clause. When the Leader of the Opposition puts questions of this kind I think he is entitled to an answer from the Government, but, even with the indulgence of the Committee, to answer these questions would not be perhaps strictly relevant to the discussion of the 47 Amendment now before the Committee. The Leader of the Opposition asked very wide questions, and I think they have been answered by the general reasons I have given, indicating what is the position of the Government in regard to the matter. Discussion upon the policy of the Government with reference to them would not only be irrelevant to this Amendment, but irrelevant to this clause. We could not discuss them, and if I were to make an explanation I do not think I would have uttered a couple of sentences before being pulled up by the Chairman. If I were to make such a statement, surely the discussion of the possibility of an alternative policy would be quite impossible. It is because such a discussion would be irrelevant that I have suggested to the Leader of the Opposition that he might defer his criticisms. I think I have given to the Leader of the Opposition the only answer which is relevant to this particular Amendment. Whatever our proposals with regard to valuation are, if we adhere to the proposals of the Bill then we will get our valuation certainly before 31st March next. I am perfectly sure we shall get each owner to submit to us the value of his building land, and I really do not know any estate in the country that could not be valued in respect of building land between the end of October and 31st March. I should not have thought that there was any estate in the country where the owner could not tell us the value of his building land between the end of October and the end of March. Suppose there is another proposal made to the Committee, and that instead of the owner himself there is to be a valuation by the State? I say that even then there is an answer to the Leader of the Opposition, because the State could value all the building land of the country within the time of the current financial year. That is my answer, and that is the only answer which I think relevant to the Amendment before the Committee, but, of course, the Amendment before the Committee is to put off for ten years the valuation of the building land of this country. No one suggests that it would take 10 years; therefore, we are discussing the possibility of amending this Bill in some way which is not before the Committee at the present moment. I have given an answer which I think a very fair one to the question put by the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. W. PEELI think the whole difficulty has arisen because the Government 48 have been so determined to put a valuation Bill into the Finance Bill. If they had not done that, we should not be in the present difficulty. I complain also that the information which the Chancellor of the Exchequer vouchsafes at this moment would never have been given to the Committee unless my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition had put those questions. I think Members who occupy these back benches have a right to complain. Are we to be treated like dogs? No less than six or seven speeches have been made from these back benches, yet no intimation has been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or anybody else that the whole matter is going to be changed. Here we have been considering all these clauses on the supposition that the Bill is to go on as it is; but when questions have been put by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes into the House and informs us that we have to reconsider the whole thing over again. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says in reference to the Amendment, "Oh, this is a mere trifle; it is perfectly well known that these strips of building land are all over the country." He exempts agricultural land, but there is a great deal of land on which it could be argued that it has some sort of value in addition to agricultural value, although in the ordinary sense it was not building land at all. But even taking the case of building land itself, the right hon. Gentleman says it is of comparatively small amount. I was talking the other day with a very eminent surveyor, who is surveyor of one of the largest estates round London. He informed me that around London alone there are something like three-quarters of a million of acres of building land which might be considered as coming under this Land Tax. Then in the neighbourhood of great towns, and in those districts of Yorkshire and Lancashire where large towns run one into another, there is a large amount of building land. But at any rate, I have it on expert authority that there is a large amount of building land around London. I do not think that is the only case. Some hon. Members opposite stated that we on these benches had dwelt on the difficulty of valuation. They have been speaking on the assumption that the tax falls on the lands. Of course it does not, but it is paid for by a particular individual.
They have entirely omitted the point that it is exceedingly difficult to find out who are the individuals who own the land. 49 That makes another additional difficulty, which will greatly lengthen the time for valuation. It will be perfectly simple if all this land was owned by a few dukes, as the right hon. Gentleman thinks. It has been pointed out that that is not so. It is much easier to find the owner in the case of land covered with houses. In that case you have got somebody to go to who pays his taxes to somebody else, so that you get at the owner with much greater ease. The difficulty is enormously increased when you come to this uncovered land. Nobody knows who owns a particular portion of the land, or how much of it is owned by a particular person. Not only that, but you cannot value land without particulars, and a great deal of the information you must get can be obtained only from the owners. Therefore, you cannot begin your system of valuation in the majority of cases until you have discovered who the particular owners are. To say not only that you can go into all these matters and, in addition to that, conduct this very elaborate system of valuation and deductions for all this land, which is far larger than the right hon. Gentleman seems to think, that that can be gone through in the space of two years is, I believe, absolutely and utterly impossible.
§ Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTONI wish to enforce upon the Committee that, in my judgment at any rate, we are being befooled at the present moment by the method of the Government. We are brought back here to discuss business, and we are asked to discuss this Amendment, which is directed mainly to one of the most practical issues of the whole Bill, namely, whether you are going to impose a tax and have you the machinery to levy it and to assess it when it is imposed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer again mystified the House. He actually leaves it open for our consideration that the valuation is to be made by the owner. He put that forward as a bone for us, I suppose, to play with at the present moment. We all know perfectly well from the Press, not from him, that that ridiculous proposition, ridiculous in its economic effect, that of valuation by the owner has fallen before the arguments of the Opposition. We know that, as a matter of fact, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes down and treats us as if that proposition were still in being, he asks us on this, the 9th August with the temperature about 80 degrees in the shade, to amuse ourselves in discussing propositions which the Press 50 have told us have gone, and which he, in a moment of greater candour, confesses have gone, by giving us notice, or half notice, of the Resolution he is about to move tomorrow. That is bad enough to begin with. He then proceeds to prophesy how long this valuation in one form or another is going to last, but he does not give us the material upon which we can judge ourselves. Now let me ask the Committee to judge as to his statement that this valuation of undeveloped land can really take place between the end of October, or whenever this Bill is supposed to be passed, and April. We have had a very valuable indication of the amount of undeveloped land that will have to be valued in Liverpool alone.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDIt was the total amount of properties altogether.
§ Mr. LYTTELTONI misunderstood my hon. Friend. Take undeveloped land, or, as the Chancellor said, all the building land of the country. He spoke as if this undeveloped land, this building land, could be valued by ordinary valuers as if it was an ordinary valuing proposition. He has not left us entirely in the dark, as, upon this subject, he has put down on the Paper a number of propositions upon which acute controversy can arise, and as to which he promised the Opposition there shall be an appeal from the valuers. First you have the site value on this undeveloped property. I have pointed out early in the course of these discussions how, in the only instance in which that has been attempted in this country, it was found that the mere initial valuation was so long and so costly that for that, among other reasons, it was subsequently abandoned by many of the municipal authorities who had power to enter upon those valuations. This is a much more serious question than that, because I find in the Amendments proposed, and which I think you: will see are really relevant to this discussion about the length of time it would be necessary to take for the purposes of this valuation, there are a code of exemptions. For instance, Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged on the site value of any garden or open spaces which are, in the opinion of the Commissioners, open to the public as a right or on the site value or on any park or gardens, reasonable access to which is enjoyed by the public. This is a question upon which an infinite number of varieties of opinion might be expressed, and in the making of these 51 valuations those will have to be gone into, and in many it is perfectly certain there will be an appeal to whatever the tribunal of appeal is. Still more complicated is another exemption proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as follows:—" On the site value of any land where it is shown to the Commissioners that the land is being kept free of buildings in pursuance of any definite scheme, whether framed before or after the passing of this Act, for the development of the area of which the land forms part, and that it is reasonably necessary in the interests of the public, or in view of the character of the surroundings or neighbourhood, that the land should be so kept free from buildings." Do not let hon. Gentlemen think I am complaining of these exemptions. I think they are very proper exemptions, and I think they are exemptions which have been wrested from the Government no doubt by argument, but they do tend to make this valuation infinitely more complex than it was before. I venture to say that for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come down here, stroll into the House, answer the question in this way, and incidentally to take upon himself with the weight of his authority that this valuation, complicated as it is in the manner I have pointed out, is only going to take two or three months, is really to befool the Committee. Whenever these objections are pointed out, such as I have mentioned, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gets up here, or goes into the country, and bitterly complains that is the way the Opposition meet his concessions. I utterly deny that for these concessions the Opposition had any reason for gratitude whatever. I think the right hon. Gentleman and the Government ought to be grateful to the Opposition for having pointed out to them in the clearest possible manner things which will make the Bill have some semblance of working. So that on that point the boot is on the other leg. In what condition would this Bill have gone down if it had not been for the criticisms—
§ The CHAIRMANI am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not understand what is the relevancy of this point.
§ Mr. LYTTELTONI was carried away by the observation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in referring to these matters as concessions. I will not pursue it, or say anything more on the present occasion, than that the Chancellor of the Exchequer 52 and the Members who have spoken from the Government have not shown us in any degree that there is a practical scheme of valuation which is possible to come into force for many, many months. Surely it is their duty, if they do not accept the 10 years as proposed in the Amendment, to specify, with distinctness, how long this valuation will take, and what the necessary provisions they are making for it.
§ Mr. J. M. HENDERSONI only rise to clear up one point. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in speaking just now, kept on referring to "building land." There is not a word about building land in this clause. I think it would facilitate matters very greatly if he would allow the word "building" to be put in after the word "undeveloped." Hon. Gentleman opposite are, I think, exercising themselves too much about the difficulty of valuation. I do not think there is any difficulty of valuation. I have had long experience, and I never knew a valuer who would not value anything. I will have more to say on this subject by and by. Lord Farrer laid this down as a dictum:—
Valuers will, no doubt, put a valuation on anything whether they know anything about it or not, but the question is what real basis they have for the valuation.The Chancellor of the Exchequer evidently had it in his mind that it was building land, and if he would add the word "building" it would very much simplify our discussion on the question.
§ Viscount CASTLEREAGHIt is not often that a request for information receives any reply from hon. Gentlemen opposite. As to the response to the question put by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour), we have been placed almost on the same footing as the Press. I think we are entitled to a little more information with regard to this question which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been somewhat inclined to answer. My hon. Friend who has moved this Amendment has placed the term at 10 years, because of what, we are led to believe, is going to be the period it will take to accomplish the valuation. I do not know that I quite agree as regards the length of that period, but, as far as we have been led to believe, it is obvious that this valuation cannot be carried out in the time before this Bill comes into force. On that ground we are entitled to know what he proposes to do to show that the Amendment of my hon. Friend is beyond the mark. As far as I 53 can see, he is not going to actually tell us, and the situation is this, that in a few moments we are going to decide that the valuation is to be carried out by the time this Bill comes into force, which means that the Committee is going to be asked to decide on a question about which it is absolutely in the dark at the present moment. I think on those grounds that the Committee is entitled to receive a further answer from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lloyd-George). He has left his place now, and he was inclined to encourage discussion just before he did so. The situation is a very different one at five o'clock in the morning, and I will venture to say if this discussion occurs then it will not be an adequate discussion, and it will not be decided in the proper manner in which it should be decided in this House. It is for these reasons that I think, before we decide, as I suppose the subservient majority of the Government will decide, that this clause shall come into force as soon as the Bill is passed, we are entitled to know on what grounds the Chancellor of the Exchequer considers the period mentioned in the Amendment to be too long.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILI think the Government have very much under-rated the difficulties of the proposed valuation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer speaks as if only little strips of land around towns were to be valued. Surely the Government must know that the building land of the country—land, that is, in the words of the Bill, "with a value greater than it has for agricultural purposes"—is far in excess of the little strips round the towns. It is no exaggeration to say that the greater part of the land of Sussex, Surrey, Hampshire, and many other of the southern counties, has a value greater than it has for agricultural purposes. Every site which has a value for building a little villa immediately has a value greater than it has for agricultural purposes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is really trifling with the Committee when he says that this is a matter of small importance which can be dealt with in the course of a few months. The valuation of building land is an exceedingly complicated matter. You have to prepare an estimate of when it is likely to come into the market as building land. The Attorney-General suggests that under the Bill as it stands the land will only have to be valued for the purpose of this tax if it can be shown that there is someone actually ready to buy it.
§ Sir W. ROBSONIf it has a market value.
§ Lord R. CECILWhat does the Attorney-General mean by a market value for land? There is no market value for land in the sense that there is a market value for corn. It is not quoted at so much an acre. When you are dealing with land on the outskirts of a town there is no market value in that sense at all. You have to find out what its value will be when it becomes ripe for development as building land; you have to estimate how long hence that will be; and then you have to discount that sum for the present day on one of the tables employed by valuers. It is a matter of the very greatest complication, and one on which two valuers, perfectly honest and competent, may have the most widely differing opinions. The whole matter will have to be settled first by the Commissioners and then by the appellate tribunal before the Undeveloped Land Tax can with safety be levied. The matter, which was complicated enough before, has been still more complicated by the confirmation which the Government have at last thought the House of Commons is entitled to of the Press rumour that they propose to throw the cost of this valuation upon the taxpayer. That, to my mind, creates an entirely new situation.
§ The CHAIRMANI am afraid we cannot discuss that matter now. It really does not apply to this Amendment.
§ Lord R. CECILI shall ask your leave to move to report Progress, because it is impossible for us usefully and properly to discuss this tax unless we know what it is really going to bring in. It is a mere farce to ask the House of Commons solemnly to spend hours of the day and night in discussing a proposed tax when the cost of levying that tax—which under the new scheme is to be paid by the taxpayer—is absolutely unknown to the Committee. We have no reason to suppose that the tax will bring in a single penny this year. In a notorious speech delivered in the East End—one of the most poverty-stricken districts in the country—the Chance1lor of the Exchequer spread before the people a splendid vision of the vast mine of gold which he could open for the satisfaction of their needs and something more. That is the only meaning one can attach to such metaphors as a "golden swamp," and so on. The burden of his speech was that he had discovered a gigantic swamp into which the Government could scoop their 55 hands and take as much as they pleased for the benefit of the poorer classes of the country. Then he tells the House of Commons that not a spoonful of that golden swamp can be made available for the purposes of the Exchequer until there has been, in the words of the Attorney-General, a "costly and elaborate" valuation, carried out at the expense of the taxpayer. Before we sanction such a tax we are entitled to know what is to be put on the debit side of the account. There was one phrase in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech with which I find myself in hearty agreement, namely, that there is no meaner crime than to deceive the poor.
§ The CHAIRMANI understand that the Noble Lord is about to move to report Progress. I think under the circumstances I cannot refuse that Motion, and, of course, I should allow arguments which are relevant to it. But he is now going quite beyond any argument relative to such a Motion.
§ Lord R. CECILI was endeavouring to show, in view of the announcement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the importance of our knowing the cost of the valuation; because it is evident that a tax recommended to the people as a great resource of the Exchequer will cease to be a great resource if it turns out that the cost of collecting the tax is very much in excess of the proceeds from it. We have repeatedly asked, but the Government has declined to tell us, what the cost will be. Now that the cost is to be put on the taxpayer we are entitled to know what it will be, otherwise it is impossible for any Member to form an intelligent judgment on the subject. It is not right to adopt a new principle in taxation, not for the purpose of bringing in revenue, but merely to subserve the political exigencies of a tottering Government.
§ Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ Sir W. ROBSONI am astonished that a Motion to report Progress should be made because some fuller declaration is not made to the Committee than has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the intentions of the Government on the question of valuation, and especially that such a Motion should be 56 made while we are discussing this Amendment. Does anyone really suppose that the period of 10 years has been fixed by the Mover of the Amendment because he thinks 10 years will be required for the valuation? The Mover of the Amendment now admits that the figure does not pretend to represent the length of time required for the valuation. It is simply aimed at the existence of the tax. It is impossible to deny that one might raise the question whether two, three, or five years would be requisite, but on this Amendment, at all events, the Committee ought to be agreed. The Mover himself no longer supports it. Lender these circumstances may we not at least dispose of this Amendment, and then see whether on the further Amendments on the Paper there is any difficulty of this kind, leaving till to-morrow the one question of valuation? There is not the slightest difficulty in properly spending our time discussing other quetions, which arise on the tax, knowing that to-morrow we shall have a full statement of the intentions of the Government in reference to valuation. I am appealing to the Committee as business men. Time is valuable to us all. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] I do not think that Members either of the Opposition or of the Government desire to sit longer into August, September, and, it may be, October, than is absolutely necessary. We all desire to economise time. I hope hon. Members opposite will not repudiate that. Why, then, should we not dispose of an Amendment which is put down not for the purpose of defining the length of time necessary for valuation, but of striking at the yield of the tax? That is the real object of the Amendment. Let us dispose of that, and then discuss the other difficulties and merits of the tax, knowing that tomorrow the Committee will have full information with regard to the Government's proposals.
§ 6.0 P.M.
§ Mr. A. J. BALFOURI do not know whether the light hon. and learned Gentleman considers he is carrying out his own precept with regard to the economy of the time of the Committee in the speech to which we have just listened. In the first place, his speech was directed not to the Motion to report Progress: it was directed to the Amendment which was under discussion before that Motion was made. How does he deal with this Amendment? Not on its merits at all. He simply says, "that 10 years is too long—even by the ad- 57 mission of the Mover of the Amendment" —and instead of drawing the natural and proper conclusion, which is that we ought to diminish the length of time and cut down the figures to five years or to three years—instead of doing that, and moving an Amendment to the Amendment, he simply says: "Ten years is admitted to be too long, therefore let us dispense with the whole question of the period at all." This was irrespective of the precise figure chosen by my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment, and who intimated that he was perfectly willing to adopt a smaller figure. I turn from the speech to the Motion to report Progress moved by my Noble Friend. What was my Noble Friend's argument? It was this: We were in process of discussing whether there should be a certain tax put upon a certain kind of land, when suddenly the Government, for the first time, announced that the cost of raising that tax to the taxpayer will be very much greater than was anticipated when the Bill was introduced by the Government or than is provided for in the Bill as it stands at the present moment. Everybody knows—it is one of the commonplaces of a financial discussion—that when you are dealing with the merits of a particular tax you have not only to consider what it will bring into the Exchequer, but you have also to study the other side of the balance-sheet and consider what it will take out. What my hon. Friend put to the Committee was this: "How can we discuss the merits of this particular kind of tax when we are suddenly told that there will be a cost thrown upon the Exchequer for collecting that tax, or before it is collected, which nobody has had any notice of, and of which the first intimation and hint within thee walls is given on this Amendment by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?" The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks why my Noble Friend on this particular Amendment has chosen to move this particular Motion to report Progress, and what is the special relevance of it at this present moment? The special relevance at this moment is that we have just, and only just, had a statement made by the Government that they mean to throw what is undoubtedly a very large, and, so far as we know, an uncalculated amount of cost upon the taxpayer before they collect one single penny of this tax upon unbuilt land. I agree we have not a right to know—we cannot ask the Government to give us the details of their scheme of valuation—but surely we have a right to know, and most un- 58 questionably a right before we pass a clause which deals with a tax, what, in the view of the Government, that tax will cost to obtain. Perhaps the Government are not ready before to-morrow or the next day to give us the details of their valuation scheme; but they ought to be in a position to tell us what in their view that valuation scheme will cost. The reason I say we ought to know it now is that unless we know it now we cannot judge of the tax. There is a great deal to be said as to the effect of the proposal from many points of view—on the Undeveloped Land Tax; whether it is just; whether it bears properly upon the right shoulders—these circumstances are proper for discussion. What, I ask, will that tax cost to obtain? What is the amount of burden which will be thrown upon the Exchequer in order that the Exchequer may be able to obtain this halfpenny upon unbuilt sites? That seems to me to be ample justification for the motion of my Noble Friend, and I think that the Attorney-General will admit that to that question he did not give one single word of reply. In his reply he absolutely confined himself to what has been expressly denied from these Benches, and what is irrelevant to this discussion, namely, whether the 10 years was a proper limit? I ask the Government to reflect as to whether they are treating the Committee or the country fairly when they are asking us to pass a tax, as to the cost of whose collection they have not given us, so far as I can see, one single particle of information.
§ Mr. G. YOUNGERI have listened with great astonishment to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which he said that this particular Amendment on valuation was not particularly germane to the Amendment. I think the whole thing follows upon our knowledge of the scheme of Government valuation, as well as upon its cost, because, while no doubt it will be possible to get a certain kind of valuation—not perhaps a very correct one—out of certain owners before 31st March next, which will be available for taxation, it does, not seem to me, from my knowledge of valuation, that any staff the Government can appoint will by that time have given the Government a basis upon which they can possibly exact this tax. Therefore I think most distinctly that the Noble Lord's position is perfectly fair, and that he is justified in moving to report Progress until we know the cost of this 59 valuation, and also the system under which it will be made, the staff which is to be appointed, and generally the new machinery which is to be created for the purpose. It is impossible, I am convinced, to do this work before 31st March; quite impossible. Take the valuation of the streets of Glasgow alone—a very simple matter—
§ The CHAIRMANOrder, order. The merits of the proposal do not arise on the Motion before the Committee.
§ Mr. YOUNGERWe should adjourn this discussion until we can form an opinion on the terms of the Government's announcement: as to whether it is possible to do the work in the time or not. I say it is impossible to create a staff now which can produce the valuation on which to levy the tax. Therefore we have been asked to impose a tax this year which is not wanted for the finance of the year, and which cannot possibly be used.
§ Mr. W. C. BRIDGEMANMay I point out to the Committee that it is not only Members on this side of the House who take the view that the cost of the collection of the taxes is a very important factor in the collection of it. The President of the Board of Trade made a speech in the country in which his sole argument against Tariff Reform was that it would be so very costly to collect the revenue under this system.
§ The CHAIRMANThat argument is not relevant to the Motion under discussion.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANI just wish to point out that a distinguished Member of the Government, and a very frequent speaker on platforms on their behalf, holds the view that the question of the cost of the collection of a tax is one of enormous consequence in discussing that tax. For that reason I have used him as a witness on our behalf on the Motion to report Progress.
Mr. STANLEY WILSONI think that the Noble Lord has very good reason to Move to report Progress. This is a Finance Bill, and one thing we want to know is whether this particular portion of the Bill will bring in any money or not. That is the one great question which we put forward in all seriousness to the Government. The Members who sit on these Benches consider that the valuation scheme, instead of finding money for the revenue of this country, will probably add 60 to the expenditure. I should like the Government to say what their views are. What sum do they really think will be brought in by these taxes? They tell us now that we ought to wait till to-morrow or the day after, and that they will be able then to put their details before the House. I say this, that it is impossible for us to discuss the Amendments on the Paper when we do not know what the proposals of the Government are with regard to valuation. I say it is a most excellent reason for them to accept the Motion of the Noble Lord. I suppose for the first time in the history of this Parliament we see a Finance Bill brought in which is going to have an effect—a portion of it, at any rate—of adding to the expenditure, instead of finding money. We have been pressing for some considerable time for information from the Government, but nobody is able to give us any information with regard to the particular point we want information on. I really cannot help thinking that no one on these benches really knows what the effect of these Land Taxes are going to be. I only do wish that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would come down here occasionally and give us the benefit of his views, because we, at any rate on these benches, recognise that he has got a clear head, and that he can explain things to this House in a way that we on these benches can understand. We can understand his explanation far better than we can the explanations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the President of the Board of Trade, or the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General. I do sincerely hope that the Government will reconsider their determination, and give us a little time to study their new proposals, and that they will accept the Motion of the Noble Lord.
§ Mr. HENRY CHAPLINWhen the Government tell us that they are quite assured that the valuation of the undeveloped land of the country can be made between the end of October next and 31st March, I would venture to say that that depends entirely upon how much land of that description they have before them to-day. I want to put this question to the Government: Have they considered that point? Have they made any estimate of it whatever? Do they really know at all what the task is that is before them, and how many acres of this undeveloped land there is which for the purposes of their tax they must have an accurate and—as we have been reminded by the Attorney-General— 61 an elaborate estimate of? That is a question surely we are entitled to ask? If they do know will they kindly tell us? That is a question surely we are entitled to ask. If they really know what they are doing, and what they are about, it is a perfectly simple question to ask. Various estimates have been made. My hon. Friend behind me told us that there was 750,000 acres of undeveloped land, which I think also was building land, around London alone. The Noble Lord who moved to report Progress called attention to a number of different Southern counties. There is no doubt, as everyone who knows the character of many of these counties is aware, that there is an enormous amount of undeveloped land in the counties which are within easy access of London. Lancashire and Yorkshire have also been mentioned. Everybody who knows, or who have travelled amongst these coun-
§ ties, must be aware that the amount of undeveloped building land in these counties is something possibly gigantic. I want to know whether the Government have really considered this, if they know what it is they have to deal with, and what the quantity is with regard to which they so glibly make these promises and give these assurances that it can all be done within a few months? Because if this latter is their only answer, or they have no answer, it is obviously clear that we should adjourn until we acquire a little more information from the Prime Minister.
§ Sir WILLIAM ROBSON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 187; Noes, 91.
| Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury) | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Sears, J. E. | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) | Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Sherwell, Arthur James | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Silcock, Thomas Ball | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Simon, John Allsebrook | Thorne, William (West Ham) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Verney, F. W. | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Stanger, H. Y. | Walton, Joseph | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Steadman, W. C. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | Waterlow, D. S. | |
| Strachey, Sir Edward | Watt, Henry A. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Summerbell, T. | Wedgwood, Josiah C. | |
| Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| NOES. | ||
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Foster, P. S. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Ashley, W. W. | Gardner, Ernest | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Percy, Earl |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hamilton, Marquess of | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Renwick, George |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Helmsley, Viscount | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Burdett-Coutts, w. | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Hill, Sir Clement | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hills, J. W. | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Hope, James Fitzalam (Sheffield) | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Cave, George | Joynson-Hicks, William | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Kerry, Earl of | Smith, Hon. W. F. D, (Strand) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Keswick, William | Stanier, Beville |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Kimber, Sir Henry | Starkey, John R. |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Lambton, Hon. Frederick William | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Magnus, Sir Philip | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Dairymple, Viscount | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Moore, William | Younger, George |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Morpeth, Viscount | |
| Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | Morrison-Bell, Captain | |
| Fell, Arthur | Newdegate, F. A. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia. |
| Fletcher, J. S. | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | |
| Forster, Henry William | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
§ Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
| Division No. 306.] | AVES. | [6.25 p.m. |
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Faber, George Denison (York) | Lonsdale, John Brownlee |
| Ashley, W. W. | Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Fell, Arthur | Magnus, Sir Philip |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Fletcher, J. S. | Marks, H. H. (Kent) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Forster, Henry William | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Foster, P. S. | Moore, William |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Gardner, Ernest | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Morrison-Bell, Captain |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Newdegate, F. A. |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hamilton, Marquess of | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. |
| Cave, George | Helmsley, Viscount | Percy, Earl |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Hill, Sir Clement | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Hills, J. W. | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Clive Percy Arthur | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Joynson-Hicks, William | Renwick, George |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Kerry, Earl of | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Keswick, William | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Kimber, Sir Henry | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lambton, Hon. Frederick William | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Dairymple, Viscount | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 91; Noes, 190.
| Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Stanier, Beville | Valentia, Viscount | Younger, George |
| Starkey, John R. | Walrond, Hon. Lionel | |
| Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord R. Cecil and Mr. Stanley Wilson. |
| Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord | |
| Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.) |
| NOES. | ||
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Glover, Thomas | O'Grady, J. |
| Alden, Percy | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Ambrose, Robert | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Partington, Oswald |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Griffith, Ellis J. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Gulland, John W. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Hancock, J. G. | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) |
| Barker, Sir John | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Barnard, E. B. | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Robinson, S. |
| Beale, W. P. | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Beauchamp, E. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Roch, Waiter F. (Pembroke) |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Haworth, Arthur A. | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Hedges, A. Paget | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Helme, Norval Watson | Rowlands, J. |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Henry, Charles S. | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Brace, William | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Bramsdon, Sir T. A. | Higham, John Sharp | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Branch, James | Hobart, Sir Robert | Sears, J. E. |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Hodge, John | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Brooke, Stopford | Holt, Richard Durning | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.) | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Hudson, Walter | Sloan, Thomas Henry |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Hyde, Clarendon G. | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Illingworth, Percy H. | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Jenkins, J. | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Byles, William Pollard | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Steadman, W. C. |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Jowett, F. W. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Kekewich, Sir George | Summerbell, T. |
| Chance, Frederick William | King, Arthur John (Knutsford) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Clough, William | Lamont, Norman | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury) |
| Clynes, J. R. | Lehmann, R. C. | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Cooper, G. J. | Lewis, John Herbert | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Cox, Harold | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Verney, F. W. |
| Crooks, William | Lyell, Charles Henry | Walton, Joseph |
| Cross, Alexander | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | M'Micking, Major G. | Watt, Henry A. |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Maddison, Frederick | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Markham, Arthur Basil | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Duckworth, sir James | Massie, J. | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Masterman, C. F. G. | Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Menzies, Sir Walter | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Erskine, David C. | Micklem, Nathaniel | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Essex, R. W. | Molteno, Percy Alport | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Mond, A. | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Falconer, James | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Fenwick, Charles | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | |
| Freeman-Thomas, Freeman | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Myer, Horatio | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Furness, Sir Christopher | Napier, T. B. | |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) |
§ Mr. JAMES HOPE move to leave out the would "nineteen" in order to substitute "fourteen," [1914] whereupon
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
66§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 184; Noes, 92.
| Division No. 397 | AYES. | [6.35 p.m. |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | O'Grady, J. |
| Alden, Percy | Griffith, Ellis J. | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Gulland, John W. | Partington, Oswald |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Hancock, J. G. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Barker, Sir John | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Barnard, E. B. | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Beale, W. P. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Robinson, S. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Haworth, Arthur A. | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Hedges, A. Paget | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Helme, Nerval Watson | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Henry, Charles S. | Rowlands, J. |
| Brace, William | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Bramsdon, Sir T. A. | Higham, John Sharp | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Branch, James | Hobart, Sir Robert | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Hodge, John | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Brooke, Stopford | Holt, Richard Durning | Sears, J. E. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.) | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Hudson, Walter | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Hyde, Clarendon G. | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Illingworth, Percy H. | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Jenkins, J. | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Steadman, W. C. |
| Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Jowett, F. W. | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Kekewich, Sir George | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Chance, Frederick William | King, Alfred John (Knutstord) | Summerbell, T. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Clough, William | Lamont, Norman | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Clynes, J. R. | Lehmann, R. C. | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Cooper, G. J. | Lewis, John Herbert | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Crooks, William | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Verney, F. W. |
| Cross, Alexander | Lyell, Charles Henry | Walton, Joseph |
| Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | M'Micking, Major G. | Watt, Henry A. |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Maddison, Frederick | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Markham, Arthur Basil | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Duckworth, Sir James | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Massie, J. | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Erskine, David C. | Masterman, C. F. G. | Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Essex, R. W. | Menzies, Sir Walter | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Micklem, Nathaniel | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Molteno, Percy Alport | Wilton, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Falconer, J. | Mond, A. | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Freeman-Thomas, Freeman | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | |
| Furness, Sir Christopher | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | Myer, Horatio | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Napier, T. B. | |
| Glover, Thomas | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) |
| NOES. | ||
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.) |
| Ashley, W. w. | Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Fell, Arthur |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Fletcher, J. S. |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Forster, Henry William |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Clive, Percy Archer | Foster, P. S. |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Clyde, J Avon | Gardner, Ernest |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Goulding, Edward Alfred |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Craik, Sir Henry | Grant, Corrie |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Dairymple, Viscount | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Hamilton, Marquess of |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. |
| Cave, George | Faber, George Denison (York) | Helmsley, Viscount |
| Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Morrison-Bell, Captain | Sloan, Thomas Henry |
| Hill, Sir Clement | Newdegate, F. A. | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Hills, J. W. | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | Stanier, Beville |
| Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Oddy, John James | Starkey, John R. |
| Joynson-Hicks, William | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) | Staveley-Hill Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Kerry, Earl of | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Keswick, William | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. | Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.) |
| Kimber, Sir Henry | Percy, Earl | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Lambton, Hon. Frederick William | Pretyman, E. G. | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Lane-Fox, G. R. | Randles, Sir John Scurrah | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Remnant, James Farquharson | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Renwick, George | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Younger, George |
| Magnus, Sir Philip | Ronaldshay, Earl of | |
| Marks, H. H. (Kent) | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia. |
| Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) | |
| Moore, William | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) | |
| Morpeth, Viscount | Saiter, Arthur Clavell |
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
| Division No. 398.] | AYES. | [6.45 p.m. |
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Forster, Henry William | Oddy, John James |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Foster, P. S. | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Gardner, Ernest | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Ashley, W. W. | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Percy, Earl |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Hamilton, Marquess of | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Helmsley, Viscount | Renwick, George |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Hill, Sir Clement | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Hills, J. W. | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Joynson-Hicks, William | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Cave, George | Kerry, Earl of | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Keswick, William | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Kimber, Sir Henry | Stanier, Beville |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r) | Lambton, Hon. Frederick William | Starkey, John R. |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Valentia, Viscount |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Magnus, Sir Philip | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Dairymple, Viscount | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Moore, William | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Morpeth, Viscount | Younger, George |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Morrison-Bell, Captain | |
| Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | Newdegate, F. A. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Fell and Mr. Mitchell-Thomson. |
| Fletcher, J. S. | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
| NOES. | ||
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Brooke, Stopford | Dalziel, Sir James Henry |
| Alden, Percy | Bryce, J. Annan | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Duckworth, Sir James |
| Barker, Sir John | Byles, William Pollard | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) |
| Barnard, E. B. | Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Cawley, Sir Frederick | Erskine, David C. |
| Beale, W. P. | Chance, Frederick William | Essex, R. W. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Evans, Sir S. T. |
| Bellairs, Cariyon | Clough, William | Everett, R. Lacey |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Clynes, J. R. | Falconer, J. |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Fenwick, Charles |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Cooper, G. J. | Ferguson, R. C. Munro |
| Brace, William | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace |
| Bramsdon, Sir T. A. | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Freeman-Thomas, Freeman |
| Branch, James | Crooks, William | Fuller, John Michael F. |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Cross, Alexander | Furness, Sir Christopher |
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 93; Noes, 189.
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | Lyell, Charles Henry | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Gladstone, Rt. Han. Herbert John | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Sears, J. E. |
| Glover, Thomas | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | M'Micking, Major G. | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | Maddison, Frederick | Sloan, Thomas Henry |
| Gulland, John W. | Markham, Arthur Basil | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Hancock, J. G. | Massie, J. | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Masterman, C. F. G. | Steadman, W. C. |
| Hat-court, Robert V. (Montrose) | Menzies, Sir Walter | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Micklem, Nathaniel | Strachy, Sir Edward |
| Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Molteno, Percy Alport | Summerbell, T. |
| Harvey, w. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Mond, A. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Hedges, A. Paget | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Helme, Norval Watson | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Myer, Horatio | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Henry, Charles S. | Napier, T. B. | Verney, F. W. |
| Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Walton, Joseph |
| Higham, John Sharp | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Hobart, Sir Robert | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Hodge, John | O'Grady, J. | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Holland, Sir William Henry | Parker, James (Halifax) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Holt, Richard Durning | Partington, Oswald | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Whitbread, S. Howard |
| Hudson, Walter | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Hyde, Clarendon G. | Rainy, A. Rolland | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Illingworth, Percy H. | Raphael, Herbert H. | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Jenkins, J. | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) | Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Ridsdale, E. A. | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Jowett, F. W. | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Kekewich, Sir George | Robinson, S. | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Lamont, Norman | Rogers, F. E. Newman | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Lehmann, R. C. | Rose, Sir Charles Day | |
| Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Rowlands, J. | |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | |
| Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS moved in Section (1) to omit the word "undeveloped" ["in respect of the site value of undeveloped land"].
§ My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) or myself will afterwards move to insert, after the word "land," the words "unreasonably withheld from development." That, I think, raises a very large question, and one which it is absolutely necessary to be debated before this clause gets any further. The whole question upon which we want the decision of the Committee is whether all land exceeding £50 per acre in value is to pay this tax or whether only such land as is held up from building purposes in order to arrive at an undue profit on the part of the landowner. The argument of the Government in their earlier speeches has undoubtedly been that it is necessary to place the tax on undeveloped land in order to prevent the landowner sitting upon his land while it grows in value by the action and development of the community. We want to know, In the first place, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is endeavouring to place the tax on all the non- 72 agricultural land of the country worth more than £50 per acre, which, of course, is an enormous quantity, or whether he only wants to place it upon building land which is being held up from building to the detriment of the community. I take it it is the duty of the Government to prove, in the first place, that there is the holding-up of land by the landlords of the country.
§ The sole argument, so far as I have been able to arrive at it in the speeches of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, in favour of the tax, is that we cannot get land for building purposes except at an exorbitant value, and the object of the Land Tax section, which sits very largely below the Gangway opposite, is to force the so-called rapacious landowner to bring their land into the market at a reduced value. I suggest there has not been a single instance adduced to prove that there is this holding-up. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson), who was on one of the recent Committees, stated two months ago that though that Committee sat on the question of land values for Scotland for eight months, and though they asked 73 witness after witness and Member after Member to produce cases of the holding-up of land, there was not one single case adduced before the Committee. If holding-up is so rife as is suggested over and over again, not one or two, but many hundreds and thousands of cases in all parts of the country ought to be able to be adduced by hon. Members, and unless they are able to do so their first reason for this tax falls to the ground.
§
I have had considerable experience in the development of landed estates both near London and in the country, and the difficulty is entirely the other way. The difficulty is not to get landowners to sell the land for development purposes, but to get builders or others to buy the land in order to build upon. There are hundreds of thousands of acres of land round our large towns which landowners are only too willing should be developed. They are willing to spend money themselves and to lend money in order that they may be developed, but builders, purchasers, and tenants do not come forward. Why? Because there is not more than a certain definite market need, and it is idle to tell me that that need and that demand is not amply and over-satisfied in the existing circumstances of the day. That has been proved over and over again by every Committee which has sat on this question, beginning with the Town Holdings Committee in 1892, which reported:—
We think the community may, on the whole, trust to the intelligence and self-interest of owners to manage their property so as in the long run to produce the maximum of income from it, and, as this income is taxed whenever it arises, the community benefits along with the owner. This Bill is trying to tax something which the land has not yet produced. It is trying to tax a building value not yet in existence. It appears, in the opinion of the Committee, unfair to tax a value which exists in the anticipation of deferred income and also to tax an increased amount such deferred income when it actually arises.
§ 7.0 P.M.
§ The point was considered last year in the House of Lords, and an Amendment was moved to the Land Values (Scotland) Bill which, I venture to suggest, shows that the Conservative party is not averse to dealing with the question of land which is unduly "held up. The Amendment was supported by Lord Lansdowne and carried. It provided that in the case of land proved to be required in the public interest at the time of valuation for building or industrial purposes and unreasonably withheld from use for such purpose the yearly value should be estimated as if the land were in use for that purpose. That would give the Government all they want, if their object is really to deal with these rapacious landlords who are holding up land which the public is 74 crying for for building or industrial purposes. That Amendment was not accepted by the Government. The object of this Bill to-day is not to carry out the terms of that Amendment, and to compel the man who is holding up his land to bring it into the market by taxing it, but, as I think was said the other day with regard to the Increment Duty, to enable the Government to share, to some extent, in the plunder with the landlord. That is their object. It is not to compel the landlord who is holding up his land to sell and to produce land for development purposes, but to place a tax of a ½d. in the £ on the capital value of all undevloped land, and not all building land only. That is my reading of the clause. I do not know whether the Attorney - General is going to qualify his definition of undeveloped land. This section deals with undeveloped land. There is an enormous amount of undeveloped land which is not building land at the present time, and may not be so for another 10 years to come. There is an enormous amount of land worth more than £50 per acre which is not merely not building land, but is not developable. I am the owner of a certain small piece of land for which last year I paid considerably more than £50 per acre. It is not building land, it is not developable land. I paid for it because of the excellent view I get from it. It is five miles from a railway station. It could not possibly be developed for small houses nor would it pay to develop it for large houses, yet it would come under the provisions of this clause. It was worth in the market last year, and possibly may be worth in the market to-day, more than £50 per acre. Is that to come under the provisions of this clause? I think we are entitled to know. We ask questions here, time after time, but we never get satisfactory answers. We have been referred again and again to clauses to be dealt with later, and I suppose on this matter we may be referred to the Definition Clause or some other clause which we may not reach for many years to come. I would like to mention one very important case near to my own Constituency—the Trafford Park estate. I want to show how that would be affected by the provisions of this clause. The estate is a considerable one near Manchester. It consists of 1,183 acres, deliberately purchased 10 years ago by a company for development purposes. It was purchased with the idea of establishing 75 industries upon it, and, as a matter of fact, a number of factories, warehouses, tramways, and railways have been created in connection with it, and have materially contributed to the industrial supremacy of that part of Lancashire. Incidentally, I may say, an enormous amount of employment has been provided for working men there. The company have spent in development a quarter of a million sterling. They have to-day about 800 odd acres of land undeveloped, which cost them originally £760 an acre, and, with the money spent on that land, these acres stand to the company roughly at £1,000 per acre. Thus there is £800,000 locked up in the Trafford Park estate in undeveloped land. I want to know whether the owners of this estate are to be compelled to pay one half-penny in the pound on this capital which is thus locked up. The land to-day produces practically nothing. It is unfit for agriculture, yet there may be a tax of one half-penny in the pound, or about £2,000 per annum imposed upon it as undeveloped land. The company is doing its best to develop it. It is not withholding it. It is doing nothing to prevent the community getting access to it. It desires to develop the land, and I want to know from some representative of the Government whether, under these circumstances, that land is to be taxed at the rate of £2,000 per annum until such time as the owners of it are able to sell it, or to induce manufacturers to plant factories upon it. I know the Chancellor of the Exchequer has an Amendment on the Paper which, it is assumed, may meet such a case as this, where the owner of any land can show that he or his predecessors have spent sums at the rate of £100 per acre on the land. But it is not quite clear that the money which has been spent by the Trafford Park Estate Company has been spent on the acres that are still undeveloped; it has rather been spent on railway lines and sidings and on other methods of development which have contributed to the sale of the land which has already been disposed of. With regard to the 800 acres left on hand, there are no railways on it; the money has, in fact, been spent on the adjoining land. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will pay careful attention to this point. I think the Government should accept some words similar to those which I am suggesting. There are hundreds of cases throughout the country of a like nature. There are many within my own knowledge, which I 76 mentioned during the Debates on the Increment Tax. A case came before me only last week. I was asked to contribute £1,000 to a tramway system which was going to develop certain land. If I put my £1,000 into that tramway system, running near my own land, I at once make that land subject to the Increment Tax, and I suggest that, at all events, I should have credit for the money I spend not merely on the land in making roads and putting in sewers, but on other outlay incurred in order to add to the commercial value of the land. There must be some kind of Amendment to deal with these cases. The final point I want to make is with regard to the unit of land. That has been discussed before. It is a very difficult question. Take the case of a considerable acreage of land worth perhaps on the whole £100 per acre. It may consist of some portions worth £1,000 per acre, and some worth only £30 or £40 per acre. A grave difficulty arises in connection with the value of that land. We want to know what the Government intend to do with regard to the unit of land. I suggest, for the reasons which I have put before the Committee, it would be only fair that the Government should accept this or some other form of Amendment, in order to make perfectly clear to the country what they have been saying on public platforms that their object is to deal with land held up from development, thereby crippling the industries of the neighbourhood, and forcing the community to live in tenements rather than in decent houses. If that is their object my Amendment will give them what they want, and will not inflict the hardship which the clause in its present form will inflict—it will not place a tax on land which produces no income, and which, therefore, according to the speeches and writings of all great economists, down to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, ought not to be subjected to taxation.
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane)The hon. Member proposes to substitute for the principle on which this tax is based a wholly different principle. He proposes to tax land which is unreasonably withheld from development, instead of taxing the actual site value of the land. That would involve a great difference in the inquiries which would have to be made before a conclusion could be come to as to what should be the subject matter of taxation. The inquiry 77 would have to be confined to the "unreasonable withholding of the land." How could the Valuation Commissioners come to a conclusion on that point which would not be received with clamour against its suggested injustice? You would have the owners say to them, "You do not know what our motives are; you are not acquainted with our business schemes." The thing would be open to all the objections which invariably attach to any attempt to dive into the motives of other people. It is impossible in fact for such an inquiry to be made, and I am rather astonished that the hon. Member should lay such a proposition before the House. I think he has excelled in an art in which he has hitherto shown considerable skill—the art of the dialectition. Now I come to his attack on the actual principle of the Bill. What is that principle? It is the value of the site. That is not left undefined in the Bill itself. A little lower down in the same clause there is a definition of undeveloped land. Section (2) says, "Land shall be deemed to be undeveloped land, if it has not been developed by being built on or by being used bonâ fide for any business trade or industry other than agriculture." These words are very wide. They will let in a good deal of land which has not been wholly developed. There is another Amendment further down which deals with this point, and there are certain exemptions which will have to be made. It comes back, however, to this, that what the Bill proposes to do is to take glaring cases of variation between the actual capital value on which the whole tax is based, and what has been got for the land. The hon. Member referred to the Trafford Park estate—a very good case in instance. No doubt it is true there may be parts of the Trafford Park estate which are not yet capable of realising their full value. Then, if they would not realise it in the market, they will not pay the tax.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but this is so very important. Is it really the case that the ½d. tax is not to be placed upon any land which will not realise what the owner suggests is its market value?
§ Mr. HALDANEI said it will be placed upon the actual market value for the time being—the actual market value—the capital value of the site. That is what it will get in the market. The case which the hon. Member has put is one in which by the very hypothesis he put, the Trafford 78 Park estate could not realise its value; then my answer is, it will not be taxed, because you tax the actual capital value, as it can be realised in the market. You say to a man, "You can realise it if you wish, but you do not do so. It may be perfectly reasonable that you do not realise, and it may be very profitable to hold it up in the expectation hereafter of a still greater value attaching to the capital value than exists at the present moment." The Bill does not interfere with that, we do not inquire whether the man acted reasonably or unreasonably. We take the solid actual fact of what the property will fetch in the market as capital value.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSThere are 800 acres of Trafford Park which are admitted ex hypothesi to be worth £1,000 an acre. Does the right, hon. Gentleman say that if the Commission valued it at £1,000 an acre this duty is not to be paid upon that unless it can be sold at £1,000 an acre?
§ Mr. HALDANEThe Commission says, the value of the land is so and so; such and such a sum. The Commission fix it as the actual value of the land, and not with reference to what the land is actually bringing in. It is fixing it at what you would get for it. The very purpose of this tax is to tax people upon what they have got and not upon what they have not got, and what they have got is to be measured in the sovereigns which it will fetch in the market. That may be a totally different thing from the number of sovereigns which it is bringing for the moment, year by year, only it must be in the case of undeveloped land as it is defined. What I have said is only to show that the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, if accepted, would go to the very root of this part of the Bill and destroy the tax. That is what it is meant to do, and it is because it is meant to do that that the Government oppose it.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI must say that I think the right hon. Gentleman rather confused his tenses, because he says he is going to tax what anybody has got, and not what they have not got, and that is to be calculated on what the property will fetch. How are you to tax a man on what he has actually got by placing the tax upon what his property wall fetch?
§ Mr. HALDANEWhat he has got is not like sovereigns in his pocket, but sovereigns in the bank.
§ Mr. PRETYMANWe say the sovereigns are not in his bank. The sovereigns are potentially in the land.
§ Mr. HALDANEActually.
§ Mr. PRETYMANNo, not actually. We do get there to the root of the whole matter. The Government say that land which may at some future time be sold should be taxed. Surely you cannot profess to say that all the land in the market can be realised at once; but you put this tax upon all the land. You assume, if the right hon. Gentleman's principle is to hold good, that every acre of building land in the country on which this tax is to be levied can be there and then sold. Clearly you assume that which must be an impossible proposition—you assume a buyer for every acre of land in the country. [HON. MEMEBERS: "No."] Let us slick to this point. On what other assumption can the right hon. Gentleman maintain his position that this tax is only upon existing money which can be immediately realised?
§ Mr. HALDANEProperty.
§ Mr. PRETYMANWill the right hon. Gentleman take his tax in property?
§ Mr. HALDANEIt is an Increment Tax.
§ Mr. PRETYMANBut the tax is upon realised value, as the right hon. Gentleman has told us, and he has just accepted from me a statement that it is impossible that the whole area to which this tax upon realised value applies can be realised. The right hon. Gentleman does not profess that it can be realised on land all over the country at once.
§ Mr. HALDANEI said you are not entitled to divide up your land into so many inches and so many acres and say that you must deal with each of these inches or acres by itself.
§ Mr. YOUNGERBut it is what the Lord Advocate said.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI do not make any such suggestion. I deal with the whole of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman from the whole point of view. I cannot subdivide it, and my contention is this, that the Government by this proposal are placing upon the whole of the land of the country a tax upon what they call the actual realised value on what a man has got. But a man has not got it; he may get it when a buyer comes along, but until a 80 buyer comes along he does not get it in the form to pay the tax. Let us go back to the concrete case of Trafford Park. Here you have 800 acres of land which the company are desirous of selling. That is land, not money, and you cannot pay the tax on the land until it has been realised. Take the right hon. Gentleman's own word. The owners of that property have got nothing to pay the tax with, unless they find it somewhere else. The right hon. Gentleman admits where a person has land which he cannot realise and where it has a building value, and where he has no other resources out of which to pay the tax, he has no other course than to sell to some richer individual.
§ Mr. HALDANEThat constantly happens with all taxation.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI have never heard of its happening, because there is no taxation placed upon capital value.
§ Mr. HALDANEIncome Tax.
§ Mr. PRETYMANNo; Income Tax is not upon capital.
§ Mr. HALDANEThe hon. Gentleman did not follow the point. The Income Tax is levied upon your average income for three years.
§ Mr. PRETYMANThe Income Tax is paid on realised money, and is paid out of money which the man actually realises. It is, I suppose, conceivable that there might be a particular year in which a company or an individual might be made liable for Income Tax in a year in which he made a trade loss, but it might be that he made a considerable profit on the three years, and when he has got that money he pays it out of the profit. Really the right hon. Gentleman is splitting straws, because Income Tax is paid out of realised income, although there may be certain cases in which a small amount will have to be paid, although the profit which has been made was not all earned within twelve months. But what has that to do with this case? Really, if the right hon. Gentleman is driven to such arguments as this, it is difficult to understand the point. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite have, it appears to me, been spending a fortnight in the realms of fiction, but now they are asked to spend a fortnight in the region of fact. I know the ground is not so favourable to them, and apparently it takes some little time for them to become accustomed to the new atmosphere. I daresay that by this time to-morrow they will have done 81 so, but up to the present they seem to be at a serious disadvantage, and they do not appear to be able to deal with this question from the point of view of fact at all. But it is upon facts that their legislation must be judged. Generalities are all very well upon the platform, but here we have to come down to the hard fact that the Government are proposing to place a tax upon all undeveloped land. Now, may I just point out what arises upon this word "undeveloped," and how this tax is proposed to be levied? What is the method by which the Government propose to get this tax? They first of all propose to take the whole of the land of the United Kingdom, and they say that all that land which is undeveloped shall be liable to this tax. In that word "undeveloped" they include all land which is not yet built upon, or which has not been utilised for some trade and industry other than agriculture.
They are embracing the whole of the land of the country, with that small exception, and then they proceed to provide for innumerable exemptions and safeguards, and to put in clause after clause, of which I cannot follow the effect, try as I may, in order to confine this tax, which they place upon the whole area of land in the country, to some particular area, which they think ought to bear the burden. I venture to say that if a procedure of that kind is to be carried out on a proposal which is totally new and unconsidered—I was going to say ill-considered—it requires a long time for most careful expert consideration and examination as to what is going to be the actual effect of your exemptions. This Amendment goes to the whole root of the matter, and we find ourselves, with an extraordinary Amendment placed upon the Paper by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, exempting all land on which £100 per acre has been spent for purposes of development. One thing we understood was that this was a tax upon land ripe for building, and being held up from building, but I venture to say that there is hardly an acre of land ripe for building upon which £100 has not been spent or upon which it could not be quite easily spent, and under that very far-reaching exemption the whole of the ripe land in the Kingdom is practically excluded. Again, take the case of Trafford Park, which is in the mind of the Committee. Here you have 800 acres of land upon which, according to the figures of my hon. Friend, £240 an acre has been spent, though not upon each individual acre, but in developing that estate 82 of 800 acres there has been a total development expenditure, pure and simple, which, it has been agreed, averaged over that 800 acres at £240 an acre. Under the wording of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment would that clear that land from Undeveloped Land Duty? We must have an answer to that, or else we do not know where we stand.
Take this case: a man has a property which he thinks capable of development for building purposes. It lies five or six miles from the railway. It has attractions which doubtless would give it a considerable building and development value if good access were obtained to it. He spends £100,000 on making a railway to connect that particular piece of property with the nearest main line of railway. Is that £100,000 to be averaged out over the property, and if so, on what part of it? Is that an expenditure for development, and how is it to be applied? The whole question arises on what is undeveloped land now. It has been proposed in this Amendment to leave out the word "undeveloped," and I think there are a good many Members, certainly a good many on that side of the House, who would be very considerably influenced in their view of this Amendment if they could clearly understand what undeveloped land now is. We really do not know, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment which comes later has increased our difficulty. I am not saying it has increased the injustice, because there are two points in this tax which have always been kept separate in all these taxes. One is the question of injustice, and the other is the question of impracticability, and I am now on the question of impracticability. The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is that land on which £100 an acre has been spent is not to be treated as undeveloped. How is that going to be arrived at, and what is to be the unit?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI think we ought to have this cleared up. Are we entitled on this Amendment to discuss an Amendment of which I have given notice later on the Paper, as to its meaning and its purport, and generally to Debate it?
§ The CHAIRMANNo, not generally to Debate it, but it is certainly in order to ask a question on that Amendment if the Amendment has some bearing upon the actual Amendment before the Committee, but that limit ought to be observed, and 83 any question asked on it ought to have a relevance to the question before the Committee. I think so far that has been the case.
Mr. J. W. WILSON (Worcestershire, N.)I submit, on a point of order, that if the hon. Member (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) had his consequential Amendment down in his own name it would have really formed a qualification of Section (2). It is part of the definition in that section, but he tacked on the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member (Mr. Pretyman) to his, and thereby brought in all this qualification.
§ The CHAIRMANThere is nothing out of order in the Amendment, and, furthermore, it is very often difficult as between one section and another to decide where it must come, but this is a point of great importance in the clause, and must come somewhere.
§ Mr. PRETYMANIt is extraordinarily difficult, and I have no desire to go beyond the point of the Amendment, but if we pass this question of "undeveloped" now it will be out of order to discuss it again when we come to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, and if the right hon. Gentleman, when he had risen, could have given me an answer to the question which I have asked, it would have greatly shortened the Debate. We are in such a difficulty in this matter because we do not know what the real effect of the words £100 an acre is going to have on the question of what is and what is not undeveloped land. What the Amendment amounts to is this: The tax, as the Bill is now worded, will be levied upon all land suitable for building, whether the land is immediately likely to come into the market or whether it is not. What our Amendment would enact is that the tax could only be levied upon the land when it was proved to be required for building. The difference lies mainly between land which is suitable and land which is proved to be required. All the platform oratory of the supporters of the Bill has been on the hypothesis that the land which is going to be taxed was land which is required for building, and which, by the selfish action of the owners, is being withheld from the market. But as the Bill is worded the tax is not levied upon that hypothesis at all, it is levied on all land suitable for building with certain exemptions, whether it is being withheld from the market or not, and the Government must decide between 84 those two policies. They are not entitled to insist upon this Committee imposing a tax upon all land suitable for building, and then to defend the tax in the country by claiming that it is not upon land suitable for building, but only upon land which is really required for building, and which is being withheld. What we want now is not so much further criticism from this side of the House as an explanation from the Government Bench as to what is really undeveloped land. There are Members who look very seriously upon this tax, far more than on the taxes upon increment value and Re-version Duty, which are to some extent taxes upon realised value. On this question of "undeveloped" it appears to me that the only land really to be taxed is the middle land. The land which is only just beginning to acquire building value will be quit, because its other value will not exceed its agricultural value. Land which is ripe for development will nearly all of it be quit, because £100 an acre would have been spent upon developing it, but the land which will be subject to the tax will be the middle land which is not ripe, but which has acquired a (building value greater than its agricultural value, and apparently the tax is going to be confined to that. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not intend that the whole burden of his tax shall fall upon that particular class of land, but that is the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment.
There is also the question, in regard to undeveloped land, of the giving up of land which is worth a considerable sum of money for the purpose of developing adjoining land. There are innumerable ways in which a sacrifice may be made by the owner of an acre of land in order to develop part of the land. He may spend money off the land altogether in making a purchase, he may give up part of the land as an open space, for purposes of recreation, for public parks, or for any other purposes, that land having a considerable value. He may give up land to a railway company for a small value where it has a great building value in order to get other parts of his land developed. There are many ways in which expenditure (may be incurred, and if the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment goes so far as that, it would go a long way to meet the objections which have been referred to on this Amendment; but for the present we stand, I think, firmly upon this ground: that on the case made by the Government in the 85 country we have a right to ask either that this Amendment be accepted or the principle which it embodies be carried out in some other way by Amendment moved from the Front Bench opposite.
§ Mr. A. MONDWe have had so many questions from the other side of the House as to what is undeveloped land that I should like to put one case with which the hon. and gallant Member (Mr. Pretyman) is not altogether unacquainted. In the small town of Felixstowe there is an acre and a half of vacant land, worth £5 a year, on which, I believe, £100 has not been spent. The land was sold, to a company which wanted to build a hotel, for £2,000, or £l,400 an acre. Here is a very good instance of what undeveloped land was, and what it became worth when it was developed; and I think the hon. and gallant Member's innocence as to the meaning of undeveloped land was rather exaggerated. I have heard no argument yet in speeches from the other side of the House why undeveloped land should not be taxed. We are discussing a Finance Bill. Hon. Members opposite recognise that fact, but though I have heard a great deal about valuation, about undeveloped land, and about forcing land into the market, I have heard nothing about revenue. It will be a very good revenue producer, and that is why it is for hon. Gentlemen opposite to prove that they have a better method of finding that revenue, which they have not done up to now. A gentleman who read a paper against the tax at Glasgow estimated the yield at £3,500,000, and the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce passed a resolution by a large majority in favour of this clause.
I should like to make a few remarks on the Trafford Park estate. It contains 1,183 acres. It was bought for £900,000, and the total capital value of the estate is £1,081,000. It appears that the shareholders and debenture-holders spent about £180,000 on the property. I know that does not quite agree with the figures given by the hon. Member about a quarter of a million; but the quarter of a million includes money spent by other companies on the development of the estate.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI gave my figures from information supplied to me. I was told the Development Company was an offshoot of the Trafford Park Estate Company formed for the purpose of developing the property, and £250,000 was the full sum spent in development.
§ Mr. MONDIt is a small point. There have been a good many sub-companies formed, I know. What I want to point out is that the shareholders have not done very badly. [An HON. MEMBER: "They have not had a dividend."] As I understand the figures they will have made a very large profit indeed when they sell their land. It is quite absurd for hon. Members to attempt to draw a distinction between profits earned and profits potential, and to say that the latter should not be taxed. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) says that undeveloped land really has no value, and that it realises nothing, though it has a potential value. Of course, the value is only a potential value. Take the case of a limited liability company. A large amount of the profit may be represented by the difference in the value of the stock. It does not mean that there is money in the bank. You may have to borrow money from the bank in order to pay the Income Tax. The contention of hon. Members opposite appears to be that you must have money in the bank before it can be said that a profit has been earned. It is incorrect to say that the tax is only leviable when you make a profit. Take the rating system of the country. It is a system of putting taxes on hypothetical values. Why you should not take the hypothetical value of undeveloped land as a subject for taxation, while you put taxes on subjects with a hypothetical value for local purposes, is something which I have never yet been able to understand. If you are running a factory at a loss you are not relieved from the payment of rates, and you are not relieved under Schedule A of the Income Tax either. The objection to putting a tax on capital value is something entirely new, and is a mere phantasm.
There is nothing novel in the principle of taxing capital value rather than income value. Commission after Commission has inquired into this subject, and recommended local taxation on the basis of capital value. When hon. Members opposite say: "Why do not you adduce instances of land being held up?" I would reply that I defy them to find the Report of any Commission in which it is not stated that land is being held up. The Commission of 1885 recommended a 4 per cent, rate on the capital value of land on the very ground that it would bring land into the market, that land would be cheapened, and that 87 people would be able to get better houses. That was a very impartial Commission, and it is ridiculous to ask us to prove again what was proved at that time and on other occasions. It is a purely artificial distinction between land which is required and land which may be required. Building land which has not an actual purchaser at the moment may have a purchaser six months hence. That is really the point the hon. and gallant Member was trying to make. He was trying to draw a distinction which would make this tax absolutely unworkable. It is difficult enough now, but if his suggestion were acted upon he would make it absolutely impossible. His idea is that you should inquire into the mind of people in order to ascertain whether they are wise or pigheaded, provident, or stupid. You are really asking a great deal too much. A tax of this character has been applied in other countries. It has been applied in the Australian Colonies with very great success, and the community has had the advantage. I have been much tempted to vote for the Amendment, and I might have done so if there was no consequential Amendment, but in view of the fact that there is a consequential Amendment I cannot support it. The case which the hon. Member has presented will, I think, receive little support in the great city which he has the honour to represent.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI rise to make a personal explanation. I think the Committee will agree with me that references in Debate to matters personal to one's self are repugnant to most of us. I think the Committee will agree I avoided that in the remarks I made. I do not know what was the object of the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Mond) in referring to the particular case at Felixstowe. But I think the Committee will agree that I am bound to answer him. My answer is very simple. My expenditure and that of my predecessor from which that value was realised was probably 10 or 20 times the amount realised by the sale. In the first place, the railway was made entirely at the private expense of my predecessor. It cost £250,000, and it paid only a very small percentage on the capital for a few years. Then there was an expenditure of £130,000 for sea defences and other works, so that the total expenditure on the estate with which I am concerned probably amounted to little short of £500,000, from which, practically, 88 no return, or only a small return, has yet been received. In regard to the particular piece of land to which the hon. Member referred, I have to state that it was selected for a hotel opposite the new station. There had to be given up 10 or 12 acres of land to enable a road to be made in front of the hotel leading into the town. It was made partly by me and my predecessor at an exceedingly heavy cost. The site chosen for the hotel was the only suitable one, and it is the only piece of land sold in consequence of the enormous expenditure for development, and yet I am told that that is unearned increment.
§ Mr. LAMBTONIt is not often that we get explanations of the Bill in this House. They come from public platforms and through the Press. I should like to quote the opinion of the Prime Minister in regard to this tax, because it is probable that what the right hon. Gentleman said may interest the hon. Member for Chester, who does not see the difference between a company that pays a dividend and one that does not. I should have thought that he, at all events, would have had some information on that point. Speaking at Southport not long ago the Prime Minister said that this tax proposed in the Bill was for the purpose of forcing the owners of land to sell their land. In the first place, he said that would not be a bad thing for the country and those who wanted to buy land. He may have thought that there were Radical plutocrats who would be able to acquire land at the price they were willing to give to the impoverished Tory landlords. The light hon. Gentleman said that in this tax we got down almost to the elementary principles of social justice. He clearly lays down that a man who does not make the rent he might make must be taxed by the State so as to make him endeavour to get a larger income in order that the State may derive a larger revenue out of it. Now, why should this apply to land only? According to the Prime Minister, land may be perfectly righteously held up by the owner. The right hon. Gentleman said that when the owner is foregoing the increase of rent which he might make he should, therefore, be obliged to put this property into the market in order that it may draw a larger rental. Surely that is a principle that may be applied to other forms of property as well as land. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer maintain that a man who holds Consols is making as large an income as he could make? I have never myself 89 held Consols, but I believe that the return obtained is 2½ or 2¾ per cent. The Prime Minister, on the principle which he has laid down, has a perfect right to say to a man: "You must sell all these Consols and invest the money in Bruuner, Mond and Company. That is what is laid down by the Prime Minister as the principle of this Undeveloped Land Tax, and yet in his speech he said that it was only proposed to put the tax on windfalls. If that forms the eternal and immutable principle of justice, it applies equally to capital in other forms of property. A man holds shares in a manufacturing concern in which he is not making all that his capital would bring in some other concern, but the tax is not to apply to him. To put it on land alone is a farce, and contrary to the principles of equity.
§ Mr. COXI think this is an Amendment which the Government ought certainly to accept. It absolutely coincides with the case which the Government have been putting forward in defence of this tax. They have gone round the country saying that land is being deliberately withheld from use, and they say that the tax is to be imposed to bring it into use. I do not myself believe that it will do so, but at any rate that is the object they put forward. We have had the President of the Board of Trade stating that so many thousand people in Glasgow are living in one-roomed tenements because land is withheld from use. If that is so, they ought to confine the tax to the land which is being withheld from use, and, if not, why not accept the theory put forward by the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Mond), that land ought to be taxed whether it is developed or not. In this case the Government are sacrificing the only portion of the land which is likely to yield anything, for they are going to rule out land on which £100 per acre has been spent. I think that is a most valuable exception. To some extent it will protect the man who is a speculaive builder, and it will protect building companies. I think it is a very great concession, but it is one which destroys the value of the tax. What it does leave is a small number of properties still to be liable to this tax, because they have a certain potential building value. But surely, if the tax is to be just, you ought to ascertain whether a man can really sell his land or not. There is not so much difficulty about that as about many other things which the Bill proposes to leave to the discretion of the Commissioners. I find that under Clause 90 13, which relates to the recovery of duty on undeveloped land, there are the words:—"Provided that in any case where the Commissioners are satisfied that land is in the course of bonâ fide development, and that it would be just in the special circumstances of the case to postpone the payment of Undeveloped Land Duty in any year, the Commissioners may postpone the collection and payment of the duty for that year for such period, not exceeding five years, as they think fit."
8.0 P.M.
If you are going to trust the Commissioners to find out whether land is in course of bonâ fide development, why cannot you trust them to find out whether it is unreasonably held up? Again, in Clause 14, there are certain exemptions to be made where, in the opinion of the Commissioners, these exemptions from the tax to be imposed by the Government are reasonably necessary. If the Commissioners may decide whether exemptions are reasonably necessary, why should they not now decide whether this land is unreasonably subjected to taxation? I wish now to give some cases which bear on the contention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this is a question of practical justice, if you are going to impose this tax on all land which is at this moment not being employed. By the way, you do not know what that is. For instance, if a man puts up a greenhouse, as a market gardener, is that developed or undeveloped? I wish to bring before you this case which was sent to the colleague of the light hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Birrell) by a constituent of his, and also sent to me with permission to use it:—
Dear Mr. Birrell, there is a great deal being said on this subject of the taxation of land values. I am therefore asking a favour from you. If you will be good enough to read the following particulars of a property which I own.…He then goes on to recite that some 16 years ago he wanted to build a factory, and the only site that was available was twice the size he required. He therefore bought the whole, fully expecting to be able to sell what was not wanted in a comparatively short time, and he says that he has not succeeded even to the present date, though he has not neglected any reasonable chance of selling it. He says he has taken the following steps:—I have placed it in the hands of local agents and architects either to sell as freehold, or to let as ground rents either in whole or part. I have from time to time advertised in the papers and always have a large notice board fixed conspicuously describing the property 91 as being for sale. I have had it offered for sale on the above conditions by auction after advertising at a cost of nearly £40. I have taken the above steps with no result, and I want to know whether it is correct that the Government are prepared to support a measure which will include this property in their tax.I do not know whether that man is rich or poor, but it is a rather striking case of a man who has tried to sell his land and cannot.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEWhat was the reserve price?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIt is a rather important point whether he failed to sell it because he could not get any price for it, or failed to sell it because he could not get the price he wanted.
§ Mr. COXI will hand the letter over to the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he likes. I have simply quoted the letter as I got it. I presume the man was trying to get a fair value for his land if he could. I presume he would not have written to the Chief Secretary unless he had a fairly reasonable case. But here is a case which exactly meets the point raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is a man who writes from Scotland to me personally, and he tells me he has got a piece of land in a town in Scotland which is facing the street. This land is at present let for 15s. a year. That is the most that he can get for it at present. The tenant uses it for poultry. The owner says that the fair value of the land would be £200, if he could sell it; only he cannot sell it. He tried to sell it, and never had an offer for it. On that £200 he will pay 200 halfpence, or 8s. 4d. a year on his income of 15s. That is a rather heavy Income Tax.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIt is very important that we should get the facts. What value does he put on this land, and what is he getting at present?
§ Mr. COXHe is getting 15s., and he says that the fair value would be £200, the tax on which would be 8s. 4d.; and 8s. 4d. on an income of 15s. would be a very heavy Income Tax. There is another case from Manchester. This is interesting, because it refers to land which was bought 50 years ago, and has since been declining, although it is near the heart of Manchester. Incidentally this disposes of the theory that land is always rising in value. The ladies who owned this land have been 92 unable to sell it for what was paid for it 50 years ago. It was put up 30 years ago, and even then could not fetch the same price as 50 years ago. The writer of the letter to me says: "This bit of land has been let for some years to a contractor whose lease shortly expires. In case he does not renew it, and if, no matter how we try, we do not succeed within twelve months in reletting it to someone else, we shall not only lose our income, but, as I understand, we shall have to pay a penalty of one halfpenny in the £ per annum." These people are not dukes and duchesses; they are poor women. This is the only inherited property they have got, and the rest of their living is made up as teachers. Surely it is a very serious matter indeed to go to these poor people and say, "Although you cannot sell your land, although you cannot let it, you have got to pay out of your income earned as teachers this heavy tax." Is that fair play? The object of this tax, as I always understood, is, first, to force people to sell their land when they do not want to, and, second, to raise revenue. It will not raise revenue, or it will raise but very little revenue, because the revenue-raising portion is exempted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer by his very wise Amendment, that if £100 per acre is spent the land is to be exempt. I must also point out that it will not raise revenue because of the new clause he has put down in regard to valuation; because, as I read these clauses, mortgages are to be deducted. Mortgages are not to be taken into account. Clearly he must mean that. Am I right in understanding that?
§ Mr. J. C. WEDGWOODIs the hon. Member in order in discussing the question of mortgages under this Amendment?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell)There is a specific Amendment which deals with mortgages in the name of the hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. COXI was merely wishing to ascertain from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in order to develop this particular point, whether we are to understand that mortgages were or were not to be charged, because there is some difficulty about the new Amendment which he has put down. As I read it they are not to be charged.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat is anticipating another Amendment.
§ Mr. COXI will not press that point then. Their second object is to force land into the market. It will not do that. It will not pay a man to sell land of the kind to escape this small tax. If a man has got a piece of land that is worth £1,000 today, and he anticipates that that land will rise to £1,500 in five years, how will the Chancellor of the Exchequer's tax affect it? In five years he will have to pay on his £1,000 a thousand halfpennies each year—that is about £2 a year, or £10 in all, while he is going to make £500. If he waits five years he will lose £10 and make £500. That is his calculation, and we are dealing with a man who is deliberately holding up land. That is the whole case. I contend that the Land Tax will not force the man who is holding up land for profit to sell. If he really anticipates a profit it will not be worth his while to sell for the sake of avoiding this tax. On the other hand, the hardship comes in in the case of people—and this is what this Amendment is dealing with—who really want to sell the land and cannot. That is why I am pressing this Amendment, because I believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer really wants to make this tax as fair as he can. I do not think it can be made fair. Therefore, I contend that he ought to deal with the case of these people, many of them extremely poor people, who have got pieces of land which they would like to sell if they could, and which they cannot sell, and which he is going to tax on a suppositious value, thus forcing them to pay this tax out of other sources of income.
§ Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSThe whole case of the Government with regard to this tax arises on the point raised by the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Mond), namely, that landlords in the neighbourhood of large towns held up their land. The hon. Member for Chester said that the evidence proved that that was the case. I hardly think that the hon. Member could have fairly gone into the evidence. He has certainly not read the evidence of the Select Committee of this House on Town Holdings in the year 1902. They say: "We think the community may on the whole trust the intelligence and self-interest of the owners to manage their property so as in the long run to produce the maximum of income from it." And then this year we had a Select Committee on the Land Values Taxation (Scotland) Hill, 1906. The hon. Member for Lancashire who was on my left just now said this on 7th June: "We heard evidence 94 for eight months, and we could never get one single case from which to infer that land was unreasonably held up." The whole evidence is that the land in this country is not held up. In fact it is the other way. The supply of this land for building exceeds the demand. The landowner is only too anxious to let land, but even supposing that cases are proved where there is holding up, what is the proper remedy? The proper remedy is the local authority. If there is an increment by holding up this land in the neighbourhood of large towns the local authority is entitled to it, and not the Government. I know that the Government are giving up half, because pressure was brought to bear on them, but the local authority, in my opinion, if there is to be a tax, is entitled to the whole tax. The great bulk of the land that is going to be under this taxation is not land which is immediately now fit for building, but it is land which in the future is going to be fit for building. There is a great distinction. There is land in the neighbourhood of our large towns which is now ready for building, but the greater part of the land which is going to be affected by this tax is not immediately ready for buildings. It will be in a few years' time, in five or 10 years; but it is a matter of speculation and guesswork. Meantime the Government proposes to put a halfpenny tax on the capital value of that land. When I say capital value of the land, of course, I exclude the agricultural part of it. They propose to tax the difference between the whole capital value of the land and the agricultural part of it, and they propose to put this halfpenny tax on it on the chance that some day the land will be fit for building. Suppose it does come into the market in 10 years' time. For 10 years he will be paying his tax, and then when he comes to sell the land or let it for building he has to pay the Increment Tax. Supposing the land is forced on to the market—I do not think it wall be—what is going to toe the result? It will be taken up by men of small capital and at a cheap price. That is the view of the Fabian Society. What do they say on this question? A committee was appointed by the society to consider the housing problem, and that committee reported that the direct tendency of taxation on urban land values would be to bring into the market for building land exactly that class of land which, in the interests of the health of the community, should be most carefully kept vacant, while the sort of house-building which 95 land taxation would facilitate would be exactly the worst sort, because it would increase the density of our towns and retard the movement of population to the suburbs. We are all aware of the great movement going on now to remove population from the centre of towns and cities to the outside. It is a movemement promoted very much by systems of tramways, and I think it is a right movement; but this proposal here is to try and force on the market at a cheap rate, not so much land out in the country, but land which is immediately next to the land which is built upon in our towns. I say that principle is wrong. But there is another reason. The Council of the Surveyors' Institution have given their opinon upon what the effect of this tax will be, and it is just the reverse of that anticipated by the Government. Instead of the land being forced more freely into the market, it would be checked, they say, by the hesitation of those who up to now have undertaken the development of building land. Their idea, from the public point of view, is that it certainly would develop cheap property, badly built in respect of health and sanitation, and that it would also have the opposite effect to that anticipated by the Government, namely, that the tax would keep purchasers away. Purchasers would be frightened on account of the risk they would run with regard to this taxation and future development. In both these cases, therefore, the result of this tax would be bad.
I think myself that it would be very unjust to the owner that he should have to make the valuation, because I do not understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes that the owner shall not have to make the valuation, though probably we may learn to-morrow whether he proposes that the owner is or is not to send in his own estimate of the site value. Under the Bill, if the owner makes a mistake by putting the valuation too high he would be taxed too high. If he puts the valuation too low he will be caught under the Increment Duty for having made a mistake in valuation. Therefore, unless his valuation is exactly correct as to the true market value of the land, he is to be punished for making the valuation either too high or too low. The Land Agents' Society points out that where the tax has been based on a factor proved to be incorrect there is no provision in the Bill for the return of the duty; and I have a communication from a large estate agent in the 96 City, who regards this Bill as doing considerable harm, because of the uncertainty which surrounds it. This is the experience of solicitors and land agents all through the country. The market is stationary at the present time. Nobody will touch landed property because they do not know what is going to happen. The Land Agents' Society also give their opinion. They say they know something at first hand of the effect which the introduction of the proposals of the Bill have had upon the landed industry generally. They have personal knowledge of cases in which negotiations for the development of estates on the point of being concluded have been affected by the feeling of uncertainty and insecurity which the proposals produced. All this trouble and confusion is being thrown upon the land and industry of this country for what? To produce very little money indeed for the Revenue. In fact, when we have the valuation proposals before us to-morrow we may know what the cost is going to be; but this is certain—that the cost is going to be more than the revenue. There is no doubt about that—at all events, in the first year—and we are to be thrown into all this confusion, while the Government, certainly on the Land Clauses of the Finance Bill, are not going to be in funds, but out of funds. On those grounds I venture to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. First, there has been no case made out of the holding up of land—I am quite sure of that; and, secondly, these clauses are not going to have the effect which the Government propose and which they hope. They are going to have the reverse effect of either withholding the land because purchasers will be afraid, or in pressing on the market land which is not really ripe for building. Lastly, I consider a very great injustice is going to be done to the owners of this property, who have held it and done no wrong, and who are going to be punished in this way.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI do not propose to travel over the same ground as my hon. Friend has occupied in his interesting speech, but to devote myself to a much narrower issue, and one that, I think, is more strictly relevant, and is, in fact, the issue now raised by the Amendment before the House. I must first make a couple of observations about the speech delivered by the Secretary of State for War earlier in the discussion, and which I am afraid the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not have the advantage of hearing. 97 [Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE dissented.] I am glad that the Chancellor had the advantage. He must have been agreeably surprised by the novelties revealed to him, the author of this Bill, by the Secretary of State and by the defence which he offered at the moment. I do not propose to deal at length with the speech of the Secretary of State, but there are two points to which I wish to call attention. In the first place, he objected to my hon. Friend's Amendment on the ground that it was impracticable. He said that you would force an inquiry into the reasonableness of the proceedings of the landowner who had not actually built upon the land or caused it to be built upon. "We make no inquiries in our Bill," said the Secretary of State, "into reasonableness." The Secretary for State comes in as an occasional coadjutor of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think I may say ad hoc for a particular point. He never takes the trouble, I suppose it is the result of his legal training, to read more of the subject than is necessary for the case which he has to argue at the moment. He deals with his reading in so parsimonious a manner that he is apt to overlook points very essential and important. If he had only read one clause on he would find that Section (3) of Clause 11 is full of the reasonableness of matters into which the Government Bill does enter, and the reasonableness of those things is to be settled—how? "You could not settle the point," said the Secretary of State; but it is to be settled by the Commissioners without appeal under the very Bill which he was defending. Section (3) provides, "Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged on the site value of any parks, gardens, or open spaces which in the opinion of the Commissioners are open to the public as of right, or on the site value of any parks, gardens, or open spaces reasonable access to which is granted to the public, where in the opinion of the Commissioners that access is of benefit to the public as contributing to the amenity of the locality, or on the site value of any land which is used for the purpose of games or other recreation where the Commissioners are satisfied that the use of the land is for the benefit of the public or of the inhabitants of the locality, and that the land is so used under some agreement with the owner which, as originally made, could not be determined for a period of at least five years." The word "reasonable" actually occurs.
98 All those questions of mind or of speculation are to be answered, without appeal, by the Commissioners under the Government Bill, and yet the Secretary of State considers that when this Amendment asks for an inquiry into the reasonableness that that is quite sufficient to condemn it. He made another observation, that what we want to get at are the actual glaring cases. I wish he had developed that point a little further, and I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer would explain how he is protecting those which are not actual glaring cases. That brings me directly to the Amendment we are discussing, which is, what is the land on which this Undeveloped Tax is to be levied? The Government has constantly stated in the country and frequently in this House that they were only trying to obtain taxes from landowners who were unreasonably withholding land from the market. We invite them to put their speeches into their Bill, to translate into the words of a statute the assurances which they need for the purposes of argument in their speeches, and they at once refuse. This is good enough to be palmed off in a public meeting, but they will not have it in the Bill, and it is no use to the public meeting or to anyone who is affected unless it is put in the Bill. What are the intentions of the Government? I think it was the Attorney-General who said that they wished to tax building land. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer accept that definition? It is nowhere in the Bill. The wording of the Bill has nothing to say to building land. It is all land over £50 in value where that value is not solely due to agriculture. It may have a value of over £50 for agriculture and be used for agriculture and yet be taxed as undeveloped land. "All land over £50 in value which has not been developed by being built upon or by being used bonâ fide for any business, trade, or industry other than agriculture." That does not confine it to building land or to all land suitable for building, but all land above that value not specifically excepted in the next clause. That is a very wide thing indeed. It is not the small affair which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney-General spoke of earlier in the afternoon. It is whole counties without exception and vast areas of land.
If the Government really mean only to tax land which is ripe and ready for building and which is withheld from building, then the first step is to take out the words which are the subject of the Amendment 99 and to accept such words as are proposed: "Land which is unreasonably held." I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a little more information. We have had none except interjections. I would ask him for some information as to the class of case made out by the hon. Member for Preston. As far as I can make out, the Government proceed on the assumption that every market value is realisable at any moment. That, of course, is untrue. Are they going to invent a new market value? Their own definition of value is "the amount which the fee simple of the land if sold at the time in the open market by a willing seller, in its then condition, might be expected to realise." A willing seller presupposes a willing buyer. I venture to say, unless they put in express words, any man who is employed, whether for the owner, or the State, or the Treasury, would value upon the assumption that you are going to deal with your commodity, like land in this case, in a businesslike way, and that you were not going to flood the market with more than it could absorb. The Chancellor of the Exchequer assents to that, but at once you are going to tax a great number of people on a value which they cannot now realise, because, suppose you put all this land into the market to-morrow, I will not say that its price goes to nothing, but it will be a price pour rire. You cannot market it all at once, but by the operation which we know, and to which we are accustomed, that is marketing it slowly, gradually, after a term of years, and when the market is ready for it. As I say, if having obtained the market value on that basis you then proceed to tax the man on the assumption that he can realise that amount at once in all cases, you are proceeding upon a manifest absurdity, and inflicting great injustice on the individual. Take such a case as that put by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. H. Cox). He instanced a plot of land between houses facing on a street, let at present as a poultry run to the tenant of one of the neighbouring houses at 15s. a year; the owner considers that the plot has a fair market value of £200, but he cannot sell it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer asks whether he has offered it without reserve. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to suggest that in regard to land, and land only, a man ought to part with his stock without any regard to the condition of the 100 market, or to the presence of purchasers? You do not do that in regard to any other kind of stock in any retail or wholesale trading or manufacturing business. You do not do it with stocks and shares, and there is no reason why you should do it with land. If £200 is the fair value of the land, the man has a right to withhold it for that sum if he can. If you choose to assume that the man is wrong in asking £200 as the fair market value, that is not the kind of case I wish to discuss. I wish to discuss a case where your own valuer would put it at £200. The land is not necessarily realisable at that price, but it may be realised at some price. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer mean to say that he will take the highest bid which has been made for a property, and treat that as its site value under the Bill? If he did that he would very much reduce the pressure of the injustice of this particular tax; but the site value is not used for this tax alone. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has carefully contrived that if a man treats as the site value the only offer which he can get at present, and then later on finds a purchaser who, wanting that particular plot, will give the price for it, he shall take 20 per cent, of the difference under another tax. But there has been no windfall to the owner at all. He is being taxed, first of all, because he would not sell at what was not the real value, and then again because he has got the real value. The justification put forward by the Government is that in the first case he is withholding for his own selfish purposes land which is needed by the community, and, in the second case, that he has got a windfall. Could anything be more absurd, inconsequential, or inconsistent, than the two parts of this defence, which is the only defence we have had from the Government? If the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, as the Amendment suggests, that only where land is being withheld, where there is a real demand, where the land could usefully and properly be put to this use, the tax should be levied, then you might say that it was a social reform, and you might get some money from it, though I think not very much; but by the Bill as it stands the Government entirely destroy the basis of the defence which they have set up, whilst by the Amendments they have put on the Paper they destroy the revenue which they hope to derive from it.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe Debate has roamed over a very wide area. I am not sure it has not drifted far beyond the strict 101 limits of the Amendment. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. A. Chamberlain) that the limits of the Amendment are fairly narrow. There is only one point, namely, whether you are going to charge this halfpenny tax on all land which is undeveloped within the meaning of Sub-section (2), or confine it to land which, in the judgment of the Commissioners, is unreasonably withheld. We propose that the subject-matter of the tax should be land which, within the meaning of the sub-section, has not been fully developed. Under Section 11 we are inquiring whether access and so on is reasonable, with a view to granting exemptions. Here we propose to inquire rather for a penal purpose—that we should inflict this penalty of a halfpenny tax upon those who unreasonably withhold their land—though in my judgment it is rather inadequate for the purpose. We have considered cases like that put forward by the hon. Member for Preston, which are not strictly relevant to the Amendment at all.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINEven though that land has not been withheld—which is the case put by the hon. Member for Preston—it is not exempted, and I want to know on what basis the Government are going to tax it.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI do not wish to Avoid answering the point put by the right hon. Gentleman. The Bristol case is one in which the facts are clearly incomplete if you are going to express an opinion as to their bearing upon this Amendment. The hon. Member for Preston said: "Here is land which the owner has done his very best to sell. He has put up a board, advertised it, and even had an auction; he has done everything a man could reasonably be expected to do to get rid of the land." And he says: "Well, now you are going to tax me." Before I answer that I should like to make one or two remarks. I should think that the man was a most improvident person if he was to sell his land without having some sort of a reserve. At least, I come to the conclusion that he would be very hard-up. I assume that he is simply a man who is trying to get rid of his land at what he considers a reasonable price. That is not conclusive if a man makes a very improvident bargain. He may regard it as a very good speculation. That is no reason why he should hold up the land till he gets back his money. He may be doing harm to not merely the community but to himself. What I wanted to know was: What is the 102 actual nature of the transaction? Did he go into the market and say: "I am prepared to sell this land for £300 an acre?" Or did he say: "I am going to sell it for any price offered?" Or did he adopt another alternative: did he say: "I will sell it if I get an offer of £300 an acre," and did he get no offer? I say if he got no offer of any sort or kind, I do not see where the market value of that land comes in. Supposing we take the question the hon. Gentlemen puts to me, which is: "Are you going to take the highest bid?" I should say the highest bid, certainly, would be about the best evidence that can be submitted to the Commissioners as to the market value. I cannot think of any more direct evidence of what the market value is. Supposing the valuers of the Crown say: "This land is worth £500 an acre." The man replies: "Iactually put the land up for sale by auction, I advertised it, an I did everything mortal man could possibly be expected to do to sell it, and the highest bid I got was £200." I cannot conceive the Commissioners saying: "We insist that it must be £500." They could not possibly do it. If the man says the highest bid was £200, then that would be evidence as to the market value of the land. I am answering the point put by the right hon. Gentleman as to whether the highest bid would be conclusive. I should say it would be the best evidence that could be advanced by the man as to the market value of the land.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe reason that the highest bid is not accepted is because it is not the market value of the land.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIt is not what the owner conceives is the market value of the land, which is a very different thing. I think the experience of the right hon. Gentleman will have taught him that in a matter of this kind as a rule the owner, especially of land, always thinks it much more valuable than it really is. I am not putting that forward as criticism. It is a tendency of ownership—even of a few yards of land. It is the natural tendency of the ownership of a horse. A man only discovers what the real value of his horse is; when he goes into the market and finds that he is offered one-third of what he thinks the animal is worth. So much for the Bristol case quoted by the hon. Member for Preston.
I come now to the other case put to me by the hon. and gallant Member, and driven home by the right hon. Gentleman 103 near him. The point is put—which is perfectly true—that you cannot get rid of the whole of your land, and that if it was all put up it would become a drug in the market, and instead of being worth £500 an acre it would not perhaps be worth £50. Some carry the argument so far as to say, "Land may be worth £500 or £1,000, and if all the building land of the country was simultaneously put up for sale you would not get £5 an acre for it." That is true. But let me put this case to them. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said: "Here is a man who has got £1,000 in cash." Very well, if he puts that £1,000 into a company he has still got it; perhaps not in cash, but he has it.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI am assuming that he has got it, though it may be a little less or a little more. If he puts that £1,000 into agricultural land he has parted with his thousand sovereigns, but he has still got his £1,000.
§ Mr. PRETYMANBut the right hon. Gentleman does not tax it in that way.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEPerhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not mind following my argument step by step. He said: "If he gets £1,000 in cash, it is a fact; if he gets £1,000 in land, it is a fiction.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI said it was not realised.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIt is realisable! Supposing a man puts his £1,000 into a company which has a capital of £5,000,000. K you put the whole of the shares on the market simultaneously they would not be of very much value for the time. You could not realise them. At the same time, the £1,000 of that man is represented in value for which he pays Death Duties, and which he reckons in any statement of his assets. Whatever happens to him he would be perfectly justified in reckoning it as a real £1,000, although if the £5,000,000 of shares were put on the market simultaneously they possibly would not be worth £500. That is really the case with regard to land. If you put the money into a railway company the analogy applies there too. But we cannot carry the argument to that extreme. You must have regard to the particular circumstances. I agree to this extent: that you are bound to take the whole land in the vicinity into account. You cannot say, "I value this 104 particular plot of land," as if it were the only plot in the whole neighbourhood that is available for building purposes. When you value it you must take into account the fact that there may be hundreds and thousands of acres equally eligible in the neighbourhood. That calculation is an essential part of the market value. I agree to that extent with the hon. and: gallant Member. The hon. and gallant Member suggests that I have not dealt with my own Amendment. Well, sufficient to the day is the Amendment thereof. I gave an answer earlier to a point raised, and not strictly relevant, as to what was to be the result of a certain Amendment, and the Noble Lord the Member for Marylebone immediately moved to report Progress on the ground of the statement I had made. These courtesies are rather expensive, and therefore, if the hon. and gallant Member does not mind, I will give my answer to the particular Amendment to which he refers when the time arises. I do not say that if I gave the information now he would move to report Progress, but it might justify a Debate upon the Amendment which has not yet been reached. I have entered that caveat at the present moment, but I do not accept his interpretation when he said that it excluded all ripe land, or anything like all the ripe land. I have now dealt with all the points, and I think that, after this prolonged Debate, we might be allowed to get on with it.
§ 9.0 P.M.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI venture to protest against the suggestion that, allowing the Committee an opportunity of considering Amendments which are relevant to a particular issue is purely a matter of courtesy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is always courteous, but I ventured to suggest this is not a question of personal courtesy. We are put into the greatest difficulty in having to discuss Clauses 10 and 11, as we shall have to do to-night, without having the later Amendments bearing upon them before us. I do not want to follow the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech, but I enter a protest aganst the case which he put, namely, that the highest bid at an auction was practically a conclusive test of value. I should imagine anyone with experience of land would know that you could hardly get a more fallacious test. I could give the right hon. Gentleman case after case of auctions where there was actually no bid at all, or merely a contemptuous bid, but 105 where the land was sold a few months afterwards for a very substantial sum. My object now, however; is to appeal to the Government to see if they cannot consistently with their Bill accept such an Amendment as this which has been moved. The object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to tax land which is being improperly and unjustly held up to the detriment of the public. But if that is so surely he ought to put these words into the Bill instead of the words he has in it at present. Under the Bill as it stands at present case after case of hardship will arise. May I instance one, and it really affects a large amount of land. A ground is taken for football or for cricket. I know one case in the East End of London for which £400 was subscribed and £1,000 was borrowed. The object of the purchase of this piece of ground was to prevent its being built upon. It unquestionably was building land, and if it was not bought up for the purpose of football ground it would undoubtedly have been so used. Those who took part in the matter thought that they were doing a laudable action in keeping this open space instead of allowing it to be handed over to the jerry builder. Now they will be said to be guilty of holding it up. At present it is used for a football ground, and the only check that is put upon those who have it is that they cannot charge for admission. The object of the football ground is for people to play football, and not for the purpose of looking on, which is not as advantageous a form of amusement as the other. There is a mortgage on that land of £1,000, and under this Bill it would be impossible to keep that ground. There is a sub-clause in Clause 11 which gives certain power over land held up for recreation purposes, but by the Amendment which has been put down in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the whole of the benefit of that exemption is taken away, because if you take advantage of this Clause 11 your position is this: you never shall be able to build upon that land at any future time without the consent of the Local Government Board, and they must be satisfied that you want to build for the benefit of the public. That provision is amply suffi-
| Division No. 399.] | AYES. | [9.8 p.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Beale, W. P. |
| Alden, Percy | Barker, Sir John | Bellairs, Carlyon |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Barnard, E. B. | Berridge, T. H. D. |
| Baker, sir John (Portsmouth.) | Barnes, G. N. | Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) |
§ cient to make it impossible for us to borrow money on the land at the present time. No mortgagee would consent to lend money on it under these conditions. If you leave the clause in its present wide form you hit a case of that kind, and you will hit the bulk of the large football grounds in and around London. Some Members may know of a society known as the London Playing Fields Society. They have a large amount of land in the suburbs of London and in other parts. Undoubtedly in nearly every case the land they have taken is land let for building, and it has been taken simply and solely to prevent its being built upon and to keep it for open space. In every case the land bought is bought with borrowed money, and the interest is paid by the rent which is being paid by those who use the grounds for playing purposes. This Bill as it stands at the present time would hit all these kinds of places. I cannot believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer means to hit cases of that kind. There is no question but they are building lands, and they are being prevented from being developed as building lands. Under the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer these lands will be hit, and they either must pay the Undeveloped Land Duty, which would be the best course, or else they will have to raise the money in some way to pay off the mortgage. For these reasons I appeal to the Government to see if they cannot adopt the precise words of the Amendment to do something to give effect in some such form, either now or on the Report stage, to what has been suggested, so that instead of making the words of the Act so very wide as to make the tax apply to all undeveloped land of every kind, it should be made clear that the tax applies only to land which the Government did intend to hit — namely, land that they consider is improperly, from unworthy motives, being held up.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 171; Noes, 69.
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Hedges, A. Paget | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Helme, Norval Watson | Richardson, A. |
| Brace, William | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Bramsdon, Sir T. A. | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Branch, James | Higham, John Sharp | Robertson, sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Hodge, John | Robinson, S. |
| Brooke, Stopford | Holland, Sir William Henry | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Burns, Rt. Hon, John | Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, E.) | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Hudson, Walter | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Hyde, Clarendon G. | Rowlands, J. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Illingworth, Percy H. | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Jenkins, J. | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Jowett, F. W. | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)> |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Sears, J. E. |
| Clough, William | Laidlaw, Robert | Seely, Colonel |
| Clynes, J. R. | Lambert, George | Shackleton, David James |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Lamont, Norman | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Lehmann, R. C. | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Crooks, William | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Lewis, John Herbert | Steadman, W. C. |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Duckworth, Sir James | Lattrell, Hugh Fownes | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Lyell, Charles Henry | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Summerbell, T. |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Essex, R. W. | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Maddison, Frederick | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Falconer, J. | Markham, Arthur Basil | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Massie, J. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Masterman, C. F. G. | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Menzies, Sir Walter | Verney, F. W. |
| Furness, Sir Christopher | Micklem, Nathaniel | Walsh, Stephen |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | Molteno, Percy Alport | Walton, Joseph |
| Gill, A. H. | Mond, A. | Wardle, George J. |
| Glover, Thomas | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Montgomery, H. G. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Gulland, John W. | Myer, Horatio | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Hall, Frederick | Napier, T. B. | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Hancock, J. G. | Norman, Sir Henry | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | O'Grady, J. | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Parker, James (Halifax) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Partington, Oswald | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Rainy, A. Rolland | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| NOES. | ||
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Fletcher, J. S. | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
| Ashley, W. W. | Gardner, Ernest | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Percy, Earl |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Pecknam) | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Helmsley, Viscount | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Beach, Hen. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hill, Sir Clement | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hills, J. W. | Renwick, George |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hunt, Rowland | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Joynson-Hicks, William | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Cave, George | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Stanler, Beville |
| Chance, Frederick W. | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk) |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Magnus, Sir Philip. | |
| Dairymple, Viscount | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | |
| Doughty, Sir George | Moore, William | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Mr. H. W. Forster. |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Morpeth, Viscount | |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Newdegate, F. A. | |
| Fell, Arthur | Oddy, John James |
§ Question put, "That the word 'undeveloped' stand part of the Clause."
| Division No. 400.] | AYES. | [9.15 p.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Partington, Oswald |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Alden, Percy | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Haworth, Arthur A. | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) |
| Barker, Sir John | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Richardson, A. |
| Barnard, E. B. | Hazleton, Richard | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Hedges, A. Paget | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Helme, Nerval Watson | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Beale, W. P. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Robinson, S. |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Higham, John Sharp | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Hodge, John | Rowlands, J. |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Holland, Sir William Henry | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.) | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Brace, William | Hudson, Walter | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Bramsdon, Sir T. A. | Hyde, Clarendon G. | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Branch, James | Illingworth, Percy H. | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Jenkins, J. | Sears, J. E. |
| Brooke, Stopford | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Seely, Colonel |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Shackleton, David James |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Jowett, F. W. | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Laidlaw, Robert | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Lambert, George | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Lamont, Norman | Steadman, W. C. |
| Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Lehmann, R. C. | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Levy, Sir Maurice | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Clough, William | Lewis, John Herbert | Summerbell, T. |
| Clynes, J. R. | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Crooks, William | Lyell, Charles Henry | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Verney, F. W. |
| Duckworth, Sir James | Maddison, Frederick | Walsh, Stephen |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Markham, Arthur Basil | Walton, Joseph |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Massie, J. | Wardle, George J. |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Masterman, C. F. G. | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh) | Menzies, Sir Walter | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Essex, R. W. | Micklem, Nathaniel | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Falconer, J. | Molteno, Percy Alport | Watt, Henry A. |
| Fenwick, Charles | Mond, A. | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Money, L. G. Chiozza | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Montgomery, H. G. | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Furness, Sir Christopher | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Gill, A. H. | Myer, Horatio | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Glover, Thomas | Napier, T. B. | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Norman, Sir Henry | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | O'Grady, J. | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Gulland, John W. | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | |
| Hall, Frederick | O'Malley, William | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Hancock, J. G. | Parker, James (Halifax) | |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) |
| NOES. | ||
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Cave, George | Faber, George Denison (York) |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Fell, Arthur |
| Ashley, W. W. | Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Fletcher, J. S. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Clive, Percy Archer | Gardner, Ernest |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Clyde, J. Avon | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Cox, Harold | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Helmsley, Viscount |
| Beauchamp, E. | Craik, Sir Henry | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Dairymple, Viscount | Hill, Sir Clement |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Hills, J. W. |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Doughty, Sir George | Hunt, Rowland |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Joynson-Hicks, William |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Everett, R. Lacey | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. |
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 175; Noes, 83.
| King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Lane-Fox, G. R. | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) | Stanier, Beville |
| Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk) |
| Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Percy, Earl | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) | Pretyman, E. G. | Starkey, John R. |
| Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Randles, Sir John Scurrah | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Lowe, Sir Francis Wiliam | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Remnant, James Farquharson | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Magnus, Sir Philip | Renwick, George | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Marks, H. H. (Kent) | Ridsdale, E. A. | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Moore, William | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | |
| Morpeth, Viscount | Ronaldshay, Earl of | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Mr. H. W. Forster. |
| Newdegate, F. A. | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert | |
| Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) | |
| Oddy, John James | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE rose in his place, and claimed to move (in accordance with Standing Order No. 26, as recently amended) that "In respect of the words of the Clause down to the word 'or' ['the land shall be deemed to be undeveloped land if it has not been developed by being built upon, or'] the Chair be empowered
| Division No. 401.] | AYES. | [9.25 p.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Furness, Sir Christopher | Massie, J. |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Alden, Percy | Gill, A. H. | Menzies, Sir Walter |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Glover, Thomas | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Montgomery, H. G. |
| Barker, Sir John | Griffith, Ellis J. | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) |
| Barnard, E. B. | Gulland, John W. | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Hall, Frederick | Myer, Horatio |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Hancock, J. G. | Napier, T. B. |
| Beale, W. P. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Bellairs, Cariyon | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | O'Malley, William |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Partington, Oswald |
| Bowerman, C. w. | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Brace, William | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Bramsdon, Sir T. A. | Haworth, Arthur A. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Branch, James | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Hazleton, Richard | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Brooke, Stopford | Hedges, A. Paget | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Helme, Nerval Watson | Richardson, A. |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Higham, John Sharp | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Byles, William Pollard | Hodge, John | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Holland, Sir William Henry | Robinson, S. |
| Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.) | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Hudson, Walter | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Hyde, Clarendon G. | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Illingworth, Percy H. | Rowlands, J. |
| plough, William | Jenkins, J. | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Clynes, J. R. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Jowett, F. W. | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Cowan, W. H. | Laidlaw, Robert | Sears, J. E. |
| Crooks, William | Lambert, George | Seely, Colonel |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Lamont, Norman | Shackleton, David James |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Lehmann, R. C. | Silcock, Thomas Bali |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Duckworth, Sir James | Levy, Sir Maurice | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Duncan, c. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Lewis, John Herbert | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Steadman, W. C. |
| Erskine, David C. | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Essex, R. W. | Lyell, Charles Henry | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Falconer, J. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Summerbell, T. |
| Fenwick, Charles | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Maddison, Frederick | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Markham, Arthur Basil | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
§ to select the Amendments to be proposed."
§ Question put, "That in respect of the words of the Clause to the word 'or,' in page 8, line 30, the chair be empowered to select the Amendments to be proposed."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 178; Noes, 81.
| Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) | Waterlow, D. S. | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | Watt, Henry A. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Thorne, William (West Ham) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Verney, F. w. | White, J Dundas (Dumbartonshire) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Walsh, Stephen | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) | |
| Walton, Joseph | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) | |
| Wardle, George J. | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. | Wills, Arthur Walters | |
| Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| NOES. | ||
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Percy, Earl |
| Ashley, W. W. | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Perks, Sir Robert William |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Helmsley, Viscount | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Hill, Sir Clement | Renwick, George |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hills, J. W. | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hunt, Rowland | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Joynson-Hicks, William | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Cave, George | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Stanier, Beville |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt-Col. A. R. | Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Starkey, John R. |
| Chance, Frederick William | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Magnus, Sir Philip | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | Winterton, Earl |
| Dairymple, Viscount | Moore, William | |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Morpeth, Viscount | |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Newdegate, F. A. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A Acland-Hood and Mr. H. W. Forster. |
| Fletcher, J. S. | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | |
| Foster, P. S. | Oddy, John James | |
| Gardner, Ernest | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIn view of the decision of the Committee, I select the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Arthur Fell) and the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stockton (Sir Robert Ropner) as Amendments to be proposed to the clause, down to the word "or."
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON,in the absence of the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth, moved to leave out the word "halfpenny" and to insert the word "farthing," as the duty to be charged on the site value of the undeveloped land.
I would venture to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the demand the Government are making in this clause is not for a small contribution of one halfpenny in the £ on capital value once and for all, but that it is a request for a contribution of ½d. in the £ on site value every year. I propose to halve the amount of the duty. Let me point out what the demand of the Government amounts to. I will take the case of Glasgow. Two or three years ago there was a proposal to extend the city boundaries, and to take in something like 17,000 acres, all of which was to be urban land, and which would be building land within the 114 meaning of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's definition of undeveloped land. How much of this 17,000 acres is absorbed every year by the City of Glasgow? Sixty acres. That means that at the present rate of progress it will take two hundred years to absorb the whole 17,000 acres! Now while a surveyor may be able to calculate the total value of the acres to be absorbed, no surveyor can possibly say which particular 60 acres will be absorbed in any one particular year. Therefore, what you are doing, in fact, is, that you are making a man whose 60 acres may not be absorbed, or a portion of whose 60 acres may not be absorbed, until 299 years have passed—you are making him pay a yearly tax on the assumption that his 60 acres are going to be absorbed to-morrow. That is a proposal which I have no doubt commends itself to hon. Members below the Gangway, who make no secret of their desire that the land should be the first standard of taxation, and that taxation should be levied on land alone. Their concern is, not so much whether the subject is development or un-development, but whether the subject is, or is not, land. I have not gathered that the Government have arrived at that stage 115 of expressing their opinions in this House, whatever they may say outside, and in the hope that we may gather some further expressions of opinion and some idea as to what the progress of the Government really is, and what they really mean to do if they do know what they mean to do, which is a subject upon which I have, after listening to the Debates, some doubt—it is in the hope that we may get some further expression of opinion that I move this Amendment.
§ Sir W. ROBSONThe hon. Member says that he has moved this Amendment in the hope of eliciting some further expression of opinion from the Government; but I take it that the object of moving an Amendment is to elicit some expression of opinion from those who support it. The hon. Member, however, has said not one word as to the merits of this particular Amendment, which is to reduce the tax from one halfpenny to one farthing; but instead of dealing with that particular sort of Amendment the hon. Member has said nothing about it. He has not said why it should be a farthing instead of a halfpenny, and what he has said has not been as to the amount, but as to the whole principle of the tax. He has not said why this tax should be properly fixed at one farthing instead of at a halfpenny. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] This is his Amendment, and in reply to those interruptions I venture to say, "Yes, yes." He has said nothing about it. What is the class of land that is going to be subjected to the tax? I apprehend the hon. Member would at least show us that the particular class of land which is the subject of the tax is not land which can bear this particular burden, although it might more justly bear a smaller burden. He said nothing about that, however, and therefore I must really answer arguments which I anticipate, rather than arguments which have been advanced. What is the land which will come under the tax? Is it land of a poor character, land less able than other kinds of land to bear a fiscal impost? Far from it, we have excluded land of that kind, very properly, from a burden of this sort. The land which will come under this tax must be worth at least £50 an acre. It is to be worth more than £50 an acre, and no part of land which is devoted to its cultivation for agricultural purposes will come under the tax at all; therefore the land must be worth more than £50 an acre, and it must 116 have a value greater than its agricultural value. Without going any further, these two definitions bring us into a category of land of exceptional value and better able than other descriptions of land to bear a tax. But I have not exhausted the exemptions when I have mentioned that the land must be more valuable than agricultural land, and that it must be worth more than £50 an acre. If it has been developed to any reasonable degree of substantial and bonâ fide development, to have buildings placed upon it, or by being used for the purposes of some trade or business other than agriculture, because agriculture is already exempted, then also it is free from the tax.
Then, under a Government Amendment, land which is undeveloped, but which has come into actual process of development, that is to say, land which is in the hands of the builder, on which he is spending money in laying it out and which is spoiled for agricultural purposes, which is a good bonâ fide test that it is being devoted to building purposes— the moment the land is put into the process of genuine development, then the tax is inoperative. Thus it is provided that it shall only fall upon land capable of bearing it, and on land which is not already in process of development. Can a tax be more carefully safeguarded than that, if you are going to have a tax at all, because we understand that hon. Members opposite do not want any tax? That, however, is not this Amendment. If there is to be a tax, and we must now assume that there is to be one, it certainly ought not to be less than a halfpenny in the £1. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] We have not heard this afternoon that the tax is extravagant in amount. On the contrary, we have heard that it will not pay, and that it is not worth the cost of collecting, and as an hon. Gentleman opposite tells us, we have practically given the tax away, and there is almost nothing left of it. Now, however, after listening all the afternoon to complaints that there is nothing left of the tax, the next hon. Member says it is excessive. That may or may not be a businesslike plan of conducting the discussion, but it does not appear to me to be businesslike treatment of the Committee.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentlemen that the two statements which he mentioned are incompatible. It is quite possible to put upon a few people a tax which is wholly 117 unfair in amount and a very heavy burden upon them and upon their property and at the same time to get very little for the revenue, owing to the enormous expense of valuing ten properties when you are going to put a tax upon one. That is what it comes to, and I am perfectly prepared to meet the right hon. Gentleman's arguments on the question as to whether this tax is not excessive in amount in regard to the particular land on which it will fall. He used the words, that this tax would not fall upon land which already is in process of development. It will only fall upon unripe land.
§ Sir W. ROBSONThe hon. Gentleman used the word "unripe" this afternoon, and now he uses it again. He must not assume that I accept his definition of unripe land. You may have land very ripe for development which is not being developed.
§ Mr. PRETYMANThere is very little of such land. We have eases quoted perpetually, but there was a case thrown in my teeth just now where certain surface figures are taken, and you are told that a certain piece of land which is only bringing in so much to the rates has been sold for so many thousands of pounds, and these two facts are regarded as all that it is necessary to show. But there is a good deal more that is necessary. You have to show what the owner of the land has spent indirectly towards arriving at that high value, and surely it is quite unfair to jump to the conclusion that because a particular piece of land which is being put to no immediate use and perhaps is not fit for agricultural purposes, but is sold to a building valuer at £1,000 an acre, is land on which the owner has spent nothing and which will be subject to this tax. It is not fair to draw that deduction without making further inquiry and examining what efforts and what expenditure the owner himself has devoted to increasing its value. If that process is followed up the number of cases which hon. Members suppose to exist all over the country, where there is an enormously accrued value of land through no effort and through no expenditure on the part of the owner, will vanish away as the instance given by the hon. Member on the other side did just now. There really is not a large area of land in this country which is of high development value and which will not, under the very terms and exceptions of this Bill, be either wholly or very largely exempted from this tax, because this value is largely 118 due to the expenditure and exertions of the owner. That brings me to the point that where the owner himself has developed the land, or where the development is due to his exertions and his expenditure, the right hon. Gentleman admits that the tax will not be payable, and it will only be payable on unripe land or upon ripe land which the owner has not ripened. Is that a fair statement?
§ Sir W. ROBSONI say it is payable on ripe land.
§ Mr. PRETYMANBut it is admitted that it is payable on unripe land. It must be. The right hon. Gentleman does not admit that it is payable on ripe land?
§ Sir W. ROBSONWhat do you mean by unripe land?
§ Mr. PRETYMANLand which is not yet in the front line of development, which has a value greater than its agricultural value. That is the land upon which this tax will mainly fall. The land which is in the front line and the land in the back line will more or less escape. That is clear, because the land which is right in the back line and has no value greater than its agricultural value will escape. The land in the front line will also escape where the owner himself has not had a large share in developing it. The middle line, upon which no expenditure has been incurred because it is not yet absolutely ripe, but which is an intermediate line between the two, worth perhaps £200 or £300—the owner would be justified in refusing less—will not be sold for years, and it has that value merely because it stands in an intermediate stage between land in front of it which has a ripe value of £500 or £600, and land behind it which has no building value at all. That is what I mean by unripe land. Is not that a perfectly clear and definite statement, and will the right hon. Gentleman traverse the fact that that is the position in which a very large area of land is in this country? So far as I can see, no explanation hitherto suggested from the Front Government Bench has met that particular case, and that is the particular form of land upon which this tax will mainly fall. Therefore, the Amendment is thoroughly justified. In the case of land of that character this is an extremely heavy burden, and it ought to be reduced by half because the land is only capable of producing a very small annual value. It will probably not be sold at less than the value which it has to-day, and the owner will be perfectly justified in putting that reserve 119 upon it, and he would be unbusinesslike if he did not do so. But hundreds of cases could be brought forward in practical daily business of land which has had that value for years, though building has gone away for some reason or other, perhaps to the other side of the town, and, after having had for years a reserve unripe value of £200 or £300 an acre upon which this tax will be payable, that value may melt away and disappear, and it may never be realisable, and the land may never come into the market at all. Does anyone deny that? [An HON. MEMBER: "No; we think it is a great sorrow."] The hon. Gentleman appears to take it very lightly. I hope he will do something to help us to reduce the tax. We are perfectly justified in pointing that out. The land I speak of is unsaleable at the moment as building land. There is no road giving immediate access to an immense proportion of it. It is in the second line of building land. It has no value for immediate building, and it is perhaps producing £1 an acre, and the gross rental is very different from the net income received by the owner. On that gross rental this particular tax might easily amount to anything from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent. on the actual receipts by the owner. It is an enormous tax in reference to any actual profit arising out of the land, and the hypothetical profit upon which the tax is assessed may never be realised, and may disappear after the tax has been paid for several years.
I think there is a very strong case, especially in view of the Amendments which are being proposed, because in the case of ripe land, which presumably would be sold in a short time, the owner can perhaps afford to borrow money or will find means to pay the tax in the sure and certain hope that he will, within a comparatively short time, be able to realise the capital sum and reimburse himself for the money which he has paid to the Exchequer. But in the case of unripe land there is no such immediate prospect. He has only the expectation of paying this tax for years. That is the certainty before him, and the only uncertainty is whether he will ever be able to sell his land at all. Under these circumstances I urge upon the Committee that a farthing in the pound is an ample tax, and that this Amendment is very thoroughly justified.
§ Mr. G. R. LANE-FOXThe right hon. Gentleman suggested that the reason why 120 this tax should not be reduced was that it would be levied on the richest and best class of the land. I would remind him that this is a tax which will fall on small owners in country towns and villages. I am rather loth to talk about small owners. I know that hon. Members on the Opposition Benches are supposed to talk about dukes, and that small owners are under the protection of hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House and below the Gangway. Still, if I may be permitted to speak for those men, I wish to put in a plea for them. It must be notorious that there are cases where small bits of land are accommodation land, not needed for building, but which are subject to a considerable amount of competition. It is quite obvious that there are many cases in which land of that sort is worth more than £50 an acre, and this is the very class of land which is not in the hands of big men. It is in the hands of small men, butchers and others, who will pay this tax, which may seem nothing to the Attorney-General and big speculators in towns, but which will be a very heavy tax on these men. Anybody who knows the North Country and Lincolnshire knows that it is a kind of case which prevails very largely. I would appeal to the Government to say whether this is not going to be a heavy tax on them. There is no reason why this land should be turned into building land. It would be a great disadvantage to many of the villages and small towns if it was turned into building land; and yet, under the Bill, it will be taxed as building land, and the owners may have to pay as much as a shilling, or at any rate 6d., in the £.
§ 10.0 P.M.
§ Mr. JOHN O'CONNORI cannot claim to have any profound knowledge of the subject which is now engaging the attention of the Committee; but I should like to give very briefly a recent experience of my own. In the course of last week I happened to be staying with a friend in a part of the country which cannot be said to be at all agricultural land. The land upon which the house in which I resided is built is not agricultural land. There are a great many other houses built round about, and the land there has a site value not because of any other reason than that of the altitude of the place where the houses are built. It has a residental value because the houses are built on what may be said to be a mountain. That is to say, the land is 800 or 900 feet above the level of the sea. The land has only residential value in consequence of its altitude, and it 121 is recommended by physicians in London and elsewhere. The land round about has been prepared for building purposes. Roads have been made, plantations have been preserved, and the place has been made a residential locality. It, to my mind, fulfils the conditions given by the Attorney-General in his speech this evening showing that this cannot be said to be undeveloped land. What was my experience? I met the proprietor of this locality in the course of the afternoon, and I discovered that he had discharged every labourer in his employment because he feared the tax on undeveloped land. I pointed out to him that a fair reading of the Bill showed that his land was not undeveloped land, and that it would not come under the lash of the tax. I was pleased to find that my interpretation of the Bill was confirmed by the Attorney-General. I strove hard in the course of the evening to point out to this Gentleman that his land was really developed land, that it was land which was ready for the purpose of building, that he was not holding it for a selfish purpose, but he was holding it for sale for building purposes, and that therefore it was not land which would come under the lash of the Bill. I was very much concerned to know that he had discharged all his employés; I know that portion of the country, which is in one of the Home Counties, is represented in this House by an hon. Gentleman who is a zealous supporter of the Government. I was surprised—I think I may say I was shocked—to learn that the proprietor of this land, which could not possibly come under the tax, had discharged no less than 100 people, whose votes will be cast against my hon. Friend who sits on the Ministerial side of the House. I could not help thinking that the action of this man had some political significance, and I think that a great deal of the Opposition to this Bill, which I myself declare to be a just Bill, is due to politics, and to politics alone.
§ Sir FREDERICK BANBURYThe hon. Member for North Kildare (Mr. John O'Connor) informed us that the case to which he referred would not come under the Bill. I should like to point out to the hon. Member that he is quite in error, unless the Amendment to be proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is accepted. That Amendment exempts land on which £100 per acre has been spent. According to the Bill as it stands, the land to which the hon. Member re- 122 ferred would come under the tax. The question now before the Committee is whether the tax shall be halfpenny or farthing. I am in rather a difficult position, and I hope the Attorney-General will do his best to aid me in extricating myself from it. I object entirely to the tax. I think it is wrong. I do not know whether to vote for a farthing or a halfpenny. I think both are wrong. But as I must vote for one or the other, I would ask the Attorney-General to assist me in coming to a just and proper conclusion. The hon. and learned Gentleman has not advanced any argument in favour of the halfpenny tax. I did not hear a single word which would show me the virtue of the halfpenny. If you can show me that there is any great advantage in the halfpenny, as I am always anxious to do the right thing, I will vote for the hon. and learned Gentleman and against my hon. Friend, but if he cannot show me there is an advantage in the halfpenny I shall vote for my hon. Friend. I thought he would have said that the finances of the country wanted that half million of money which could be got by putting on this halfpenny tax, and in no other way, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own figures show that this halfpenny tax, added to the tax on ungotten minerals, is going to bring in only £350,000 a year. I do not know how much is due to the halfpenny or how much to the ungotten mineral, but if we say that £175,000 is due to each, and it is in order to get £175,000 that the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to get this tax put on, then if he could show me that for the-finances of the country, which require the spending of £162,000,000, it was necessary to get £175,000 by this extraordinary method which was going to cause inconvenience to everybody, I would vote for the hon. and learned Gentleman. That is a fair proposition. But if he cannot advance any argument of the kind I must vote against him.
§ Sir ROBERT PERKSIn order to be able to come to a conclusion as to the relative proportions of a halfpenny and a farthing it is important to have information as to what is likely to be the product of the tax. I do not know whether the object of the tax is simply to introduce a principle capable of expansion in future regardless altogether of the revenue which at present may be derived. But at all events, this House is accustomed to clear statements as to the Budget. The object is to raise the revenue for the current expenses of the year; and one has been 123 accustomed to hear clear financial statements showing what that revenue will be, and how it is going to be applied. That would have been extremely valuable information if one could have got it on this specific point. Reference has been made by the last speaker to the estimate at present before the Committee, of the revenue which this new form of taxation is likely to provide, and we have been told that the two taxes to which reference has been made will unitedly produce £350,000 in the first year, which is capable of indefinite expansion. One cannot shut one's eyes to the fact that there have been great inroads made, and, I think, reasonably made, on the revenue-producing capacity of this. For example, it is perfectly apparent that if we adopt the clause which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has placed upon the Paper, namely, that all land on which £100 per acre has been spent is to be exempt from the taxation proposed in this clause, then at once there must be ruled out a vast quantity of land which otherwise would have produced an appreciable proportion, probably a considerable proportion, of this £175,000 per annum, into which the hon. Member who spoke last divided this revenue. Speaking in the interests of the local authorities, I appreciate the concession which has been made to them, but I think it would have been very much better had it been extended as was recommended by the Royal Commission to the whole of the revenue arising from this special form of taxation. But I want to point out that there have been great inroads made into this source of revenue. As an illustration of what I mean, I may mention that recently there was a railway built from the centre of the City to Northern London, which pierced for the first time under Hampstead Heath, and brought into the condition of building land vast tracts of country which hitherto had been let for purely agricultural purposes. That land was offered to the railway company at the ground rent of £20 per acre, saleable for the freehold price of £400 an acre, but, unfortunately, the railway company, prohibited by statute, was not permitted to get the benefit of this expenditure. That vast increment, which has risen from £400 an acre to about £3,000 an acre, owing to the construction of that railway, passes into the hands of the landlords. That certainly seems to me to be a case where the landlords might reasonably have been expected to pay a share of the increment and 124 also of the Undeveloped Land Tax. But these hundreds of acres are, as far as I can understand from the Bill, completely exempted from the payment of what is likely to be any revenue from increment, and they are ruled out under one of the clauses of this Bill from the contribution of the Undeveloped Land Tax, because one of these great tracts of country belongs to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, which, I suppose, is one of those public and charitable bodies.
Is it that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are a charitable organisation? Are they a public organisation? If so, then these great corporations like that, growing up in wealth, and who have been notorious for their exactions from the London tenants and leaseholders, under the beneficent operation of this curious exemption, are ruled out altogether from the obligation to provide Increment Duty and Undeveloped Land Duty upon vast areas of the country, which, through no efforts of their own, through no efforts of the community, but through the efforts and expenditure, unproductive for the moment, of a railway company, have been increased from £400 per acre to £3,000 per acre. I think it will take all the genius, for which I have the highest possible admiration, of my learned Friend the Secretary of War to defend that result. I could adduce a great many illustrations of exemptions which would work in this curious way and which seem to have been lavished among those people who have sat still and quietly enjoyed, and still enjoy, the benefit of the expenditure and exertion of other people, who, by the provisions of this Bill, are not allowed to derive the benefit of that expenditure and exertion for themselves. I support the remark made a few moments ago with reference to the small land-owners in the villages of this country, and whose numbers are very much greater than some hon. Members realise. There are, I believe, between 900,000 and 1,000,000 landowners in this country, of whom about 600,000 own less than an acre. In the immediate neighbourhood of small villages, and in our rural districts—there are 142 villages in the division of Lincolnshire which I represent—there is a great deal of land owned by the village shopkeeper, by the small owner, who has put his earnings into a piece of land, which is worth perhaps £60, £70, or £100 an acre, but which, treated as purely agricultural land, would be worth possibly only £20, £30, or £40. It does seem to me to be an unjust im- 125 position upon that small proprietor that he is to be charged this Undeveloped Land Tax upon a proportion of the value which may be said to have a sort of incipient or embryonic building value that may materialise at some future and distant time which cannot be measured.
But there is a further point. Whenever this man sells his bit of land, the first question as to which his lawyer will have to satisfy the purchaser is whether the deed has been properly stamped and whether the Undeveloped Land Duty has been paid, because under the provisions of this Bill there is a provision which says that this taxation is to be a charge on the land due to the Crown, and is to accumulate from year to year. So that the buyer of a property is bound to inquire—the Statute of Limitations does not run at all against the Crown—whether all these duties have to be paid in respect of this land in so far as it may possess value for undeveloped land taxation beyond its purely agricultural value. It is a blot on that man's title, not merely is it a blot on that man's title, but it will be a cause of no inconsiderable delay in the completion of every purchase of every small property in rural districts. These are practical points. They do not travel into the high region of economics. They are naturally capable of intelligent appreciation by the humblest intellect, among which class I venture to range myself. My Constituents think that this charge is too insignificant and small a charge to occasion this extraordinary cost, first of valuation, which I am glad to know is going to be put on the shoulders of somebody else—I suppose the community at large. I submit this is a serious blot upon the title of every small owner of property, and that it is a charge which must be greater upon that class of the community for the simple reason that you have ruled out of contribution to this particular taxation vast quantities of rich people who, because they do not contribute to this—
§ The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott)The Amendment is to reduce the tax from a halfpenny to a farthing, and the hon. Member seems to be arguing against the tax as a whole.
§ Sir R. PERKSOne of the reasons why I was trying to show that a farthing is better than a halfpenny, if it is a reasonable tax at all, is that small people who will be left in will have, by reason of these great exemptions, to pay a larger proportion of the tax.
§ Mr. BALFOURI listened with much interest to the speech of the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Perks). I confess he commanded my sympathy throughout, because he was evidently torn between two opposing detestations, his detestation of the Budget, and his detestation of the Church. I was not quite sure which form of hatred would get the upper hand, and I was glad to see that as he advanced towards his peroration the Church was forgotten, and the detestation of the Budget remained in striking and quite undiminished proportions. May I also sympathise with the hon. Baronet in the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not here in his place to listen to his speech, because I am perfectly convinced if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been here he would have at once, in accordance with the custom adopted by the Government whenever a formidable opposition is threatened from any quarter, give notice to accept an Amendment to exempt every tradesman in the small rural districts in England who happened to have a plain piece of property of more than £50 and less than £100 in value, and who was the owner thereof. I am quite certain if the hon. Gentleman would really present his case to the Chancellor of the Exchequer he will find he will give him the most sympathetic hearing, and he will be only too pleased to take the burden off the numerous shoulders, for whom the hon. Gentleman speaks, and find a few Dukes here and there on whom he could plant down some additional burden of, I was going to say revenue, the pittance which he is going to squeeze out of this particular portion.
§ Sir R. PERKSThere is only one Earl, and there are no Dukes in Lincolnshire.
§ Mr. BALFOURThat earl has my sympathy. There was another part of the hon. Baronet's speech which had no reference either to the Church or to his Constituency, but which I sincerely think ought to receive more attention than the Government have yet deigned to give it. In my experience of Budgets it has always been the practice for the Government of the day to form some estimate to the best of their ability as to what any particular tax will bring in. What have the Government done in reference to the proposal we are now discussing? The tax is entirely novel in its principle; that is admitted. It may be good or bad, but it is new. We have surely a right to know what it is expected to bring in. The Government have 127 refused to answer questions at Question-time; they have postponed the matter until it should come forward for Debate. This tax has now come on for Debate, and I ask the Government quite formally what they think the tax is going to bring in? That is strictly relevant to the question whether the tax shall be a halfpenny or a farthing. All the information we have had so far on the point is derived from the printed financial statement laid upon the Table of the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on May 12th, in which we are told that the joint revenue of the halfpenny duty on the capital value of undeveloped land and of the halfpenny duty on ungotten minerals amounts to £350,000 in the course of this year. I understand that the Government are going to modify their proposal with regard to ungotten minerals. They have not told us so in the House; but we are not accustomed to getting information about public business in the House. There are methods which the Government prefer, with which they are more familiar, and which, I do not doubt, yield them much greater advantage. From this source of information we learn that the Government are going to modify the tax on ungotten minerals. In any case we shall have to treat this particular as something by itself. It is in a separate clause; it has to be, and is always defended by a different set of arguments; it is a quite separate financial proposal. The only thing in common between the tax on ungotten minerals and the tax on undeveloped land is that both are at present fixed at a halfpenny. Therefore, treating this as a wholly separate tax, the Committee have an absolute right to ask the Government what part of the original estimate of £350,000 they think is to be allocated to the halfpenny tax on undeveloped land, leaving the residue to be obtained, or not as the case may be from the shadowy tax the discussion of which is not yet in order.
The second question is one also suggested by the speech of the hon. Baronet, namely, how much have the Government lost of this original portion of the £350,000 through the changes they have already made in the Budget? The alteration must be enormous. They have absolutely excluded every acre of land on which £100 has been spent. Can they give us the roughest estimate of the number of acres of land appropriated to building, or having a building value, to use their own phrase, which are not exempted 128 from the scope of this clause by the fact that £100 per acre has been spent upon developing them? They have no estimate whatever. Then I am bound to say there is a third question suggested by the hon. Baronet. That is, how much of this £350,000 is going to be reduced by the fact that you exclude all these corporations—ecclesiastical, educational, and others? Some of these corporations the hon. Baronet sympathises with. With others I think his sympathies are of the very coldest description. We have some right to know how we stand in that respect. What are the estimates which the Government now frame of the money which they are going to get not in the two taxes taken together, but in the tax that we alone are in order in discussing now t Inasmuch as you, Mr. Emmott, would certainly call me to order if I were to discuss the halfpenny tax on ungotten minerals, that proves conclusively that according to the practice of this House these two taxes must be regarded separately. I ask what the yield of this tax is. I specially want to know the yield of this tax as diminished, qualified, and altered by the various changes which the Government have put into it. I refrain altogether from that part of the controversy suggested by the hon. Baronet's speech. I refrain from asking the Government on what principle the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to extract the bonus for the State from the increase in the value of the land not made by the State, not made by society, but made by a particular section of shareholders. That is a very proper question, and one directly suggested by some utterances of the Chancellor of the Exchequer-himself on a recent very public occasion. I do not, however, gather that it is really relevant to this clause. I shall ask the question at a more convenient season. For the moment I content myself with respectfully asking the Government to do now what surely they ought to have done long ago, which is that in a Budget Bill intended to deal with the particular yield of a particular tax in a particular year, how much they expect that particular tax is going to put into the Exchequer.
§ Mr. HALDANEThe right hon. Gentleman has put three questions to the Government. The first is how much of the £350,000 given in the White Paper of May i3 attributable to the tax which we are now discussing. The second is, How much are we losing owing to concessions? The right hon. Gentleman has asked the ques- 129 tion in the first place about the yield from this tax. It is perfectly obvious that so far as that means on what principle is the tax based the question is one which is wholly independent of the amount. The amount for the present year is £350,000— the answer which was given by my right hon. Friend to a question. If you divide that amount into about half and half—it is perfectly plain that you cannot count with any accuracy—that is the calculation. As regards the future, the right hon. Gentleman in the discussions on the Budget pointed out that this tax would not at the outset amount to a large figure. It is limited to a halfpenny on the capital value. It is not an amount which can grow to any very large figure. The question is, Is the tax a just tax? I ask hon. Members opposite what money do they expect the country is going to raise in the future. You are going to have eight "Dreadnoughts," and you want money for other things. You want social reform. We have made an estimate and we find that the taxes in this year must be substantially heavier than in the year gone by, and this tax is a contribution, and a modest contribution, towards the amount we are going to raise. That is my first answer. You cannot tell the exact figure the tax will produce. It will not be a large amount—£350,000 to the best of our belief and no calculation in the circumstances can be anything but approximate. I come to the question as to what is the loss. I do not think it will be very large. My hon. Friend behind me is very apprehensive about the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. That is a most proper question to raise on Clause 25, and there the legal acumen of my hon. Friend will guide him as to how we stand upon that matter, and at all events it will be open to him to make his comments then, when the question comes up to be argued. Then my hon. Friend went into another question. He said there would be difficulty in the case of purchasers who bought land which might be affected by the Stamp Duty. Clause 13 says: "The amount unpaid shall hi recoverable from the owner of the land for the time being or from the person for the time being entitled to the freehold of the minerals, as the case may be, as a debt due to His Majesty, and shall be borne by that owner or person, notwithstanding any contract to the contrary." So that by no contract can this be made a charge upon the land. It is a debt to the Crown. I think that answers the second point. I do not propose to enter upon 130 other matters which have been considered and substantially discussed. As regards the amount of the tax, it is one halfpenny in the £ on the capital value, which works out, roughly, at 1s. in the £ on the annual value. It is suggested it should be less, but hon. Members opposite do not suggest what standard should be adopted. I ask them what would they put forward as an alternative? Do they suggest a farthing? Or on what hypothesis would they proceed? They have put forward none.
§ Mr. BALFOURI am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, but I think he will feel that he has given very poor comfort to those seekers after knowledge on this side of the House who really do want to know how much the Government did intend to raise by this tax. I must ask whether the rough calculation which I made after listening to the right hon. Gentleman bears any approximation to the facts as they present themselves to the Government. I understand the Government originally took these two different taxes on undeveloped land and minerals together, and made out the amount for the two £350,000. They then considered how to divide that gross sum between the two separate taxes, and they concluded that the amount would be about half for each. This is one of those happy coincidences upon which I venture to congratulate those who advise the Government. That leaves us with £175,000 to be allocated to the produce of this particular tax. Of this total half goes to the localities, and roughly speaking that leaves £87,000 for the Exchequer. From that sum the Exchequer will have to deduct the cost of valuation. We have laboured hard, earnestly, and patiently to find out from the Government at what rate they estimated the cost of valuation, but we were put off to those subsequent clauses which are extending in magnitude with almost every discussion we have upon the earlier clauses, and which really hold out before the Committee a great task, because whenever a discussion is started it always has to be decided in the future and never in the present. I have tried to discover what this cost of valuation will be, and my conclusions are as vague as if I were one of two valuers dealing with undeveloped land—I have to choose between the lowest estimate which is £10,000,000, and the highest, £30,000,000. That is the sort of valuation which always comes in when this class of valuation has to be worked out. If you put it at £10,000,000, 131 the gain to the Exchequer is £87,000. But that is not all, because from this you have to deduct the tax on all those acres upon which £100 have been spent. I asked the Secretary of State for War, with all courtesy, how he estimated the diminution of the tax due to these causes, and for some reason he forgot to deal with that part of my speech, and turned to deal with the remarks of his hon. Friend behind him (Sir K. Perks). I do not know whether his hon. Friend is happy or satisfied with the result. I rather doubt it. You are going to get £87,000, diminished, mark you, by all the land on which £100 has been spent. My hon. Friends inform me that is a very large proportion of the land which is ripe for building, but let us adopt the Government method, and say half. Then the tax will give something between £40,000 and £50,000. If I remember rightly, this Government have put down a new item in the Votes of £50,000 a year for entertainments by the Government at the public expense, so that, literally, we are fighting this tax with all the friction, all the difficulty, all the public controversy, and all the rest of it in order to get a sum of money just about double what this Government have for the first time voted to give entertainments of their own at the public expense. We propose that it should be reduced to a farthing, and in that case the expense will be exactly the same; and this new duty on the capital value of land will exactly and precisely pay for the entertainments given by the Government to distinguished visitors from abroad and their particular friends, and, let me add, as a grateful guest, to their political opponents. I think that equalisation will be a happy augury. This tax has been reduced by the successive concessions actually made by the Government to such exiguous proportions, not-counting the concession which I am sure they will make to the hon. Baronet the Member for the Louth Division of Lincolnshire (Sir K. Perks) when they know his case, that I do really think to ask the House of Commons, in order to meet a deficiency of £16,000,000, to spend night after night on whether we should get £40,000 or not is to reduce the Committee on the Budget Bill to a farce.
§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYThis tax may be right or it may be wrong, but, at any rate, it cannot be accurately described as a small tax. The yield of the tax may be small, and yet the tax itself may not be 132 small. We ought to bear in mind that it is an Income Tax levied on hypothetical income; and, if we take as hypothetical income realised at the rate of 4 per cent., it is really an Income Tax on a hypothetical income at the rate of 1s. in the £. That, of course, is not a small tax. If it is, we arrive at a very easy means of making the Income Tax a popular instrument. We merely say to a man possessing a 4 per cent, security: "We will tax you a halfpenny in the £ on the capital value," and the Income Tax immediately becomes a small and popular tax. I shall vote against this Amendment to reduce the tax from halfpenny to farthing. I have, as the Committee is aware, advocated graduated taxation, and my strongest objection to this proposal is the fact that the tax is not graduated. I have no illusions on the subject of small landowners in this country. I know the greater part of the land is owned by a comparatively small handful of the population; but we should not, because that is true, be unjust to any small number of small individuals; and it certainly is objectionable that a tax of this kind, a tax on hypothetical income, is not graduated, but falls at the rate of 1s. in the £ equally upon the small and upon the big man. It is 1s. in the £ on the hypothetical income of the rich man who possesses undeveloped land. It is 1s. in the £ on hypothetical income in such s, case as was quoted by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Cox), where you had a woman earning her living as a teacher and paying out of her salary this tax on undeveloped land which she may happen to possess. It would also cover the cases mentioned by the hon. Baronet the Member for Louth (Sir R. W. Perks) of small owners in his division. I admit at once that it is very difficult to graduate a tax of this kind. I endeavoured to draft Amendments making it a graduated tax, but I found it impossible. This Budget in other parts recognises and admits the principle of the graduated taxation, and the very fact that it is impossible to apply that principle to this particular tax is a very strong objection to it. I do not know whether the Amendment I have put down to Clause 11, which endeavours to graduate the tax by providing that such small owners as were mentioned by the hon. Member for Louth will be excluded by reason of the fact that their incomes are under a certain amount, will be in order—
§ The CHAIRMANI was just going to suggest that the hon. Member is really 133 anticipating his Amendment to Clause 11. I do not think that Amendment is in order as put down, but it might be moved as a separate sub-section at the end of the clause. I think it is not wise for hon. Members who wish to raise points like this to try and anticipate their discussion in this way.
§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYIt is surely worth the consideration of the Committee whether some plan cannot be devised to graduate this tax, in view of the fact that while it appears to be a small tax taken upon capital value, it is really a large tax on incomes.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONOnly two speeches have really been delivered in opposition to the Amendment which I moved over an hour ago. They both came from Members of the Government—the Attorney-General and the Secretary for War. The former asked why a farthing should be substituted for a halfpenny as the amount of the tax. I do not like the tax at all, but surely I am entitled to take the point of view that if we are to have a tax it is better it should be a farthing instead of a halfpenny. The Secretary for War has told us that the basis of the tax is the desire for better housing accommodation. I do not quite see that. Land is the raw material of houses; you cannot build houses unless you have the land to build them on, and is it not very interesting to hear the pillars of the Free Trade theory supporting the taxation of raw material on the ground that it is going to secure better housing accommodation?
The third point is the one on which our whole opposition to the tax, or our strongest grounds of opposition, is founded. It is that this tax is not based, as the Secretary of War said, earlier in the evening, upon solid facts. It is not based upon
| Division No. 402] | AYES. | [11.0 p.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Branch, James | Cooper, G. J. |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Brocklehurst, W. B. | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Brooke, Stopford | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Bryce, J. Annan | Cowan, W. H. |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Crooks, William |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Cross, Alexander |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Dalziel, Sir James Henry |
| Barker, Sir John | Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) |
| Barnard, E. B. | Byles, William Pollard | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John p. |
| Beale, W. P. | Cawley, Sir Frederick | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Beauchamp, E. | Chance, Frederick William | Duckworth, Sir James |
| Beaumont, Hon. Hubert | Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Clough, William | Erskine, David C. |
| Brace, William | Clynes, J. R. | Essex, R. W. |
| Bramsdon, Sir T. A. | Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Evans, Sir S. T. |
§ what a man has got or what he is going to get; it is based upon what a tribunal may think he is going to get, which is quite a different thing. Any skilled man who is accustomed to deal with the question of annuities will tell you how many men out of 100,000 now alive and of the age of 20 are going to be alive in so many years, but he cannot say whether any particular person, A, B, or C, is likely to be alive five or six years hence. In the same way, although an expert may say what is likely to be the value of land of a good class taken over a period of years, it is impossible to say what is going to be the value of any given plot or plots belonging to one owner, and you are driven to go on the unjust assumption which the Government go upon, that all these plots are going to be immediately ripe for building; they have to act upon the assumption that the contingency which might happen is certainly going to happen. Take the case of an estate valued for Estate Duty, subject to a contingency, as it often is, if that contingency does not arise the duty is refunded; but there is no provision that if the contingency in this case, which is sale, does not arise the duty shall be refunded. You are taxing a man upon an amount which he has not realised, and which he may never realise, and so long as that is the basis of your taxation, small as may be the total fund which your tax may produce, great will be the injustice of the form in which you propose it.
§ Mr. HALDANE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 210; Noes, 100.
| Everett, R. Lacey | Levy, Sir Maurice | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Falconer, J. | Lewis, John Herbert | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Fergusson, R. C. Munro | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Flennes, Hon Eustace | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Freeman-Thomas, Freeman | Lyell, Charles Henry | Sears, J. E. |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Seely, Colonel |
| Furness, Sir Christopher | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Shackleton, David James |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Gill, A. H. | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | M'Micking, Major G. | Silcock, Thomas Bali |
| Glover, Thomas | Maddison, Frederick | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Markham, Arthur Basil | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) |
| Guiland, John W. | Massie, J. | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Masterman, C. F. G. | Steadman, W. C. |
| Hall, Frederick | Micklem, Nathaniel | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Hancock, J. G. | Mond, A. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Montgomery, H. G. | Summerbell, T. |
| Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Myer, Horatio | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Napier, T. B. | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan. E.) |
| Hedges, A. Paget | Norman, Sir Henry | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Helme, Nerval Watson | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Thome, William (West Ham) |
| Hemmerde, Edward George | O'Grady, J. | Verney, F. W. |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Parker, James (Halifax) | Walsh, Stephen |
| Henry, Charles S. | Partington, Oswald | Walton, Joseph |
| Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Wardle, George J. |
| Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Higham, John Sharp | Perks, Sir Robert William | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Hobart, Sir Robert | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Hodge, John | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Holland, Sir William Henry | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Holt, Richard Durning | Rainy, A. Rolland | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.) | Raphael, Herbert H. | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Hudson, Walter | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Hyde, Clarendon G. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Illingworth, Percy H. | Richardson, A. | Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Jenkins, J. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Jowett, F. W. | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Kekewich, Sir George | Robinson, S. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Laidlaw, Robert | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Lambert, George | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Lament, Norman | Rogers, F. E. Newman | |
| Lehmann, R. C. | Rose, Sir Charles Day | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Rowlands, J. | |
| Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| NOES. | ||
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) |
| Ashley, W. W. | Doughty, Sir George | Lambton, Hon. Frederick William |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Lane-Fox, G. R. |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond.) | Faber, George Denison (York) | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Fell, Arthur | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Fletcher, J. S. | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Forster, Henry William | Lonsdale, John Brownlee |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Foster, P. S. | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Gardner, Ernest | Magnus, Sir Philip |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Marks, H. H. (Kent) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Middlemore, John Throgmorton |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Moore, William |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hamilton, Marquess of | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Morrison-Bell, Captain |
| Cave, George | Helmsley, Viscount | Newdegate, F. A. |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Hill, Sir Clement | Oddy, John James |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r) | Hills, J. W. | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Hunt, Rowland | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Joynson-Hicks, William | Percy, Earl |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Kerry, Earl of | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Dairymple, Viscount | Keswick, William | Remnant, James Farquharson- |
| Renton, Leslie | Stanier, Seville | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Renwick, George | Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk) | Winterton, Earl |
| Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Starkey, John R. | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Ronaldshay, Earl of | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) | Younger, George |
| Ropner, Col. Sir Robert | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | |
| Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) | Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.) | |
| Salter, Arthur Clavell | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia. |
| Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. | Walrond, Hon. Lionel | |
| Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.) |
§ Question put, "That the word 'halfpenny' stand part of the Clause."
| Division No. 403.] | AYES. | [11.7 p.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Gulland, John W. | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Hall, Frederick | O'Grady, J. |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Hancock, J. G. | O'Malley, William |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Partington, Oswald |
| Barker, Sir John | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Barnard, E. | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Beale, W. P. | Haworth, Arthur A. | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) |
| Beaumont, Hon. Hubert | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Rainy, A. Holland |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Hazleton, Richard | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Berridge, T. H D. | Hedges, A. Paget | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Helme, Norval Watson | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Brace, William | Hemmerde, Edward George | Richardson, A. |
| Bramsdon, Sir T. A. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Branch, James | Henry, Charles S. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Brooke, Stopford | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Higham, John Sharp | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Hobart, Sir Robert | Robinson, S. |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Hodge, John | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Holland, Sir William Henry | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Holt, Richard Burning | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Byles, William Pollard | Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.) | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Hudson, Walter | Rowlands, J. |
| Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Hyde, Clarendon G. | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Illingworth, Percy H. | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Jenkins, J. | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Clough, William | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Clynes, J. R. | Jowett, F. W. | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Kekewich, Sir George | Sears, J. E. |
| Cooper, G. J. | Laidlaw, Robert | Seely, Colonel |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Lambert, George | Shackleton, David James |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Lamont, Norman | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Cowan, W. H. | Lehmann, R. C. | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Crooks, William | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Cross, Alexander | Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Levy, Sir Maurice | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Lewis, John Herbert | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Steadman, W. C. |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Duckworth, Sir James | Lyell, Charles Henry | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Summerbell, T. |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh) | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Erskine, David C. | M'Micking, Major G. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Essex, R. W. | Maddison, Frederick | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Markham, Arthur Basil | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Falconer, J, | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Massie, J. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Masterman, C. F. G. | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Micklem, Nathaniel | Verney, F. W. |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Mond, A. | Walsh, Stephen |
| Furness, Sir Christopher | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Walton, Joseph |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | Montgomery, H. G. | Wardie, George J |
| Gill, A. H. | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Glover; Thomas | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Myer, Horatio | Watt, Henry A. |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Napier, T. B. | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 112.
| White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Williams, J. (Glamorgan) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) | |
| Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph pease and Captain Norton. |
| Williamson, Sir A. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon | |
| Wills, Arthur Walters |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Gardner, Ernest | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Ashley, W. W. | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Percy, Earl |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond.) | Haddock, George B. | Perks, Sir Robert William |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Hamilton, Marquess of | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Randies, Sir John Scurrah |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Helmsley, Viscount | Renton, Leslie |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Renwick, George |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hill, Sir Clement | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hills, J. W. | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Ropner, Col. Sir Robert |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hunt, Rowland | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Joynson-Hicks, William | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Salter, Arthur Clevell |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Kerry, Earl of | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Keswick, William | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Cave, George | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Stanier, Seville |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Lambton, Hon. Frederick William | Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Starkey, John R. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Chance, Frederick William | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A, R. | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury) |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Valentia, Viscount |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Magnus, Sir Philip | Warde, Col. C E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Dairymple, Viscount | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | Whitbread, S. Howard |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Doughty, Sir George | Middlemore, John Throgmorton | Winterton, Earl |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Moore, William | Younger, George |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Morpeth, Viscount | |
| Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.) | Morrison-Bell, Captain | |
| Fletcher, J. S. | Newdegate, F A. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Mitchell-Thomson and Mr. Fell. |
| Forster, Henry William | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | |
| Foster, P. S. | Oddy, John James |
§ Sir ROBERT ROPNER moved to insert at the end of Section (1) the words "but the duty shall in no case exceed five shillings per acre of such undeveloped land."
§ I think I shall, at any rate, have the kindly feeling of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer with me in moving this Amendment, because he has frequently said in this House, "After all the development tax is a mere trifle; it is only a copper." I am going beyond the copper altogether; I propose to limit the tax to 5s. an acre, which is 120 coppers. Seeing that I move an Amendment which exceeds the intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer by so many coppers, I have every confidence that the right hon. Gentleman will assure me and the Committee that in no case shall the development tax exceed 5s. an acre, which I think every member of the Committee must agree is a very large one indeed. I know a gentleman who thirty years ago bought 120 acres of land. At that time I dare say there was a prospec- 140 tive value in it, because it was situated two or three miles from a town and close to a railway station. He bought it at the rate of £200 or £300 an acre. Calculated at 5 per cent, per annum interest, that land now stands to him and his heirs at something like £800 per acre. Since the land was purchased at £200 an acre, there has been built—I will not say a village— but some houses have been built in the immediate neighbourhood. Being near a railway station and not far from a town, some speculating builders have been paying at the rate of £400 or £500 an acre for land.
§ Hereafter very possibly when the present man dies there will be a question of Increment Duty. A sum of £200 having been paid for the site value, that may now be valued at four or five hundred pounds,, and consequently there will be Increment Duty. In the meantime there will also be the Development Tax. Supposing to-day the heirs of the estate valued it at £200, they would still have to pay the Undeveloped Tax on that, and they would run 141 the risk when the Increment Duty becomes payable of losing a heavy amount. If the owners valued at £400 they would have to pay the Undeveloped Tax of a halfpenny per acre, which on £400 would amount to 200 pence, or 16s. 8d. per acre. If the value were put at £500 the tax would amount to £l 5s. per acre, while the whole land is let at £82, or not quite a pound per acre. So that if these poor unfortunate people are called upon to pay upon what hereafter may be the present value they would have to pay far more per annum than the actual income. Here is a case which clearly shows how unjust a development tax of this kind can be on certain owners. I do not mean to say that the Bill acts in the same manner all round, but when you legislate you must legislate in such a manner that nobody is going to be taxed unjustly. In this case I am quite ready to give the name of the owner to the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so that he can make all inquiries as to the facts I have stated. It is only fair that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should protect unfortunate people, who are in the same position as that I have referred to. Everyone who looks at this matter from a common sense point of view must admit that what I say is perfectly correct. If you will have a Development Tax, let it at all events be such a tax as can honestly and justly press upon the shoulders of the people who own land. I say if you limit it to five shillings, which is long beyond what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has frequently made people believe, then that should be the maximum amount which ought to be placed upon any man who owns land in this country. I beg to move.
§ Sir W. ROBSONThe Amendments moved by hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to alternate between two entirely inconsistent views, both of which are supported with equal enthusiasm. We listened just now to an interesting and entertaining speech from the Leader of the Opposition pouring contempt upon this tax because of the smallness of its amount, but that speech, curiously enough, was delivered in support of an Amendment which proposed to reduce the tax by one-half. Now we have a speech treating the tax as oppressive, and desiring to put a limit upon its exorbitant character. It is certainly a most remarkable limit which the hon. Member (Sir R. Ropner) proposes. He does not propose to exempt the smaller class of land for the operation of the tax. 142 As soon as the land reaches a value of £120 per acre, according to him the tax is to cease to have any operation. The land may go up to £5,000 per acre, but there is to be no additional tax upon its undevelopment. The Amendment carefully differentiates in favour of the land which ought most emphatically to be taxed. That is not a very practical way of limiting the tax.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe Attorney-General has discovered inconsistencies where none exist. The Leader of the Opposition pointed out that, if such scanty information as the Government have given is correct, and for the purpose of dealing with the Government we are bound to assume that it is, the yield of the tax will be absolutely paltry, and the State may be a loser by the whole transaction, because it may have to spend more upon valuation than it will gain from the tax. That is quite consistent with the tax being oppressive to individuals. Perhaps now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is present he can give us a little further information. A Question was put quite specifically by the Leader of the Opposition and forgotten by the Secretary of State. It was repeated by my right hon. Friend, and the Secretary of State then moved the Closure—from which the Committee may draw the conclusion that the Secretary of State's brief did not give him the answer. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of course, has the information, and, following in the footsteps of his predecessors, will doubtless give it to the Committee. In considering Amendments specifying the amount of the tax or the limitations to be imposed, the expected yield of the tax is a very important matter. The Leader of the Opposition, starting from the original estimate of £350,000 for the undeveloped land and the ungotten mineral taxes together, and accepting the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that each of these two taxes accounted for about half of the sum, and that therefore this particular tax might be expected to yield £175,000 in the current year, asked what was the effect of that estimated yield upon the concessions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already announced? It would be natural for me to inquire what is the amount that the Government expect to get in a normal year; but I abandon that inquiry, because they have not told us that from the start to the finish. They have refused details, 143 and not merely refused them, but have justified their refusal to give us any estimate of the normal yield of this tax on the ground that it was quite outside their knowledge—that they had not the slightest means of arriving at the estimate. They had the means, however, of arriving at a rough estimate for the present year. I want them to give us some rough estimate for the present year; so that my request is confined to that tax, the concessions, and those Amendments which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already announced his intention to introduce.
Then I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say what is the real answer of the Government to the case of hardship which has been put by my hon. Friend behind me in the case of people who are going to pay a tax of more than 20s. in the pound on the revenue from their taxable properties. We have tried to get at that many times from the Government. I ventured to raise the question at a very early stage of these discussions, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer confined himself then to the simple contradiction of the possibility of such a case arising. He challenged my presumptions, and said that not only could a 20s. in the pound case not arise, but a 10s. in the pound case on the annual value could not arise. Now it has been conclusively proved that such cases will not merely arise, but that they will be numerous. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government intend that such a result should follow? If they do intend it how do they justify it? If they do not intend it, by what proposals which they have put into their Bill do they think it will be prevented?
§ Mr. WILLIAM PEELAs the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had one or two questions addressed to him on this point, I think it may possibly assist him in replying if I inform him of the replies given by the Secretary for War. The right hon. Gentleman said that the amount of the Tax is entirely independent of the Amendment. When asked as to what had been lost by the deductions or exemptions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he replied, "Distinctly something." I mention these points in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may avoid those snags and pitfalls into which the Secretary for War fell when he was trying to deal with these questions.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe right hon. Gentleman has asked me one or two ques- 144 tions. He has asked me first with regard to the estimates. The right hon. Gentleman has had a longer experience than I have had in estimating revenue in the Department with which I am associated now.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINAbout the same.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEWell, the right hon. Gentleman knows just as much as I do of the difficulty of making these estimates, and especially with regard to new taxes. This is a perfectly novel tax. I put it forward as such, and therefore it is very difficult to make any estimate. I do not profess the estimate made is anything beyond, I will not say pure guesswork, because it involves making some inquiry, but the estimate is that the halfpenny tax on undeveloped land would produce £175,000 this year. The right hon. Gentleman asked how the estimate would be affected by the concessions of which the Government had given notice. My view of these concessions is that, although they meet hard cases, I do not think they are numerous cases, and I do not think they seriously affect the estimate. I abstained from giving revised estimates to the House upon Increment Taxes and upon the two other taxes until we had got through the whole concessions, so as to enable the officials to make their estimates. You cannot make these estimates from day to day on particular Amendments, but when you have the whole of the Amendments fairly settled, when the three taxes have assumed their final shape as far as the Committee is concerned, then I think the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee generally would be entitled to ask what is the view of the Government on the advice of their officials as to the amount the tax would produce having regard to the concessions made. I do not think hon. Gentlemen would be justified in asking us to make estimates from day to day. If the right hon. Gentleman asked me "What do you think such and such an Amendment would cost you?" I could not answer that. One Amendment might cost £500,000, another £20,000, but until we get the whole of the Amendments together and see the final shape the taxes will take, we cannot estimate what loss the concession will entail. For the moment I stand by the estimate made. I do not think the Amendment of which notice is given will substantially alter the amount. It will, in the opinion of the Government, get rid of certain hard 145 cases which are not very numerous. The next point made by the right hon. Gentleman was when he said there might be cases in which the halfpenny tax might amount to 20s. in the pound of the actual income. I can conceive cases where no income is derived at all, but where at the same time the halfpenny tax will fall.
But my view is that that is absolutely temporary, and as far as it goes it is an inducement to make that temporary state a short one. There may be cases, as I say, where there may be no income, but I hardly think I said that in certain cases the tax would amount to 10s. in the £. It may amount to more, but taking the vast majority of these cases I do not think it will amount to anything like 10s. in the £. In the particular case cited by the right hon. Gentleman it will not amount to 10s. in the £. The mistake made is that whenever you estimate the amount per acre of this tax you first of all overestimate the probable valuation. I feel confident that is so after taking some advice upon it. There is a general tendency to over-estimate the amount of the valuation. This is the fundamental error in all these calculations. Because a certain plot of land has sold for £500 or £1,000 an acre it is assumed that the valuation will be £500 or £1,000 an acre for all the land in that neighbourhood. I do not think it would be, and I am certain that that would not be the valuation at all. For these reasons I think an exaggerated view has been taken as to the amount of the valuation. If that were the real basis, then the amount of this tax would be a very considerable one, but I have never taken that view. If the fears of the Opposition are justified then the estimate of the Government is an exceedingly low one, and much too low. I do not myself think that is the case. I do not say that £175,000 represents anything like the normal amount to be derived from this tax, because I think there will be a considerable increase, but it will not be such a large increase as that anticipated by hon. Members opposite who have talked about 10s. and 20s. per acre. The value will have to be very considerable indeed to go beyond 8s. First of all you have to deduct the agricultural value before you come to the taxable subject matter. I know that the hon. Member for Dulwich gave a case at Glasgow where the land let at £2 an acre, but that is a very exceptional state of things. The case he took means in this country accommodation land in regard to which the rates are paid by the landlord. I 146 am told the rates are very high, being about 15s. an acre.
§ Mr. YOUNGERThat is not very high. It is only 7s. 6d. in the £.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEBut there is not very much land rated so highly within the boundary that you can get at £2 per acre.
§ Mr. PRETYMANIn the rural area of the Lews the rates are 28s. in the £.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThat, surely, is a very exceptional state of things. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is much too fair a controversialist to quote that as a sample. I am taking agricultural land as a rule, and 15s. an acre or anything like it is very exceptional for rates. The inference I drew was that it was land within the boundaries of Glasgow. I say there is very little land within the boundaries of a town like Glasgow which is let at £2 per acre. The accommodation value of land within these neighbourhoods is considerable, and the higher it is the greater will be the deduction from the total, and therefore the narrower the margin in which you raise your tax of a ½d. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are rather exaggerating the amount which will be raised per acre. "In the case of agricultural land exceeding that value, Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged so far as the site value of the land is due to the value of the land for agricultural purposes." I have observed very few hon. Gentlemen when they are computing the actual amount, ever take account of the subsection. It is going to make a very considerable difference in our estimates. In some cases accommodation value is very high, £4, £5, £10 per acre, and I have even heard of a case of £20 per acre. That was a market garden. A lawyer told me the other day he was engaged in a case where a market gardener was charged £20 per acre. All that would be deducted before you came to the margin taxable under that section. There is, therefore, a good deal of exaggeration in the amount which will be charged.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINWhat is the right hon. Gentleman's authority for saying that agricultural land means any land, whatever purpose it is suitable for, which happens to be used for agriculture at the moment?
§ Mr. PRETYMANLook at Clause 11, Section (2):—"In the case of agricultural land exceeding that value, Undeveloped 147 Land Duty shall not be charged so far as the site value of the land is due to the value of the land for agricultural purposes." Does agricultural land there necessarily mean land which is used for agriculture only?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIf the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at Clause 27 (Definitions) he will find: "The expression 'agriculture' includes the use of land as meadow or pasture land or woodland, or for market gardens, nursery grounds, or allotments, and the expression 'agricultural land' shall be construed accordingly."
§ Mr. G. RENWICKI wish to say a word on this Amendment from a purely business point of view. We have heard a good deal about the views of the landowners, but not much from the manufacturers' point of view. I rise to support this Amendment, not because I am in favour of this tax, but because I think that if injustice is to be done the smaller the injustice the better. Depend upon it, great injustice is going to be done. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said a good deal about the reduction of agricultural values, but in the case I propose to refer to the question of agricultural value does not come in at all. It is absolutely nil while, no doubt, it is difficult for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to arrive at the amount he is going to get from this tax, we have heard sufficient to show it is extremely small, and out of all proportion to the injury that is being done to the trade and commerce of the country. The uncertainty is what the manufacturers are afraid of. If they know what they have to pay they are not afraid of it. Uncertainty paralyses the extension of works, and is responsible for a diminution of employment. I am going to refer to a case in which I am personally interested. Fifteen years ago I bought, on behalf of a company I was then forming, some land on the banks of the Manchester Ship Canal. We bought at chief rents of £125 per acre, the capital value being £2,500 per acre. In all we purchased eighteen acres of land. Eight acres we used; ten acres are lying idle. We have advertised them for sale, and have been unable to dispose of them. For fifteen years we have paid £ 1,250 for that ten acres. What I want to know is, are we going to be taxed for that land? If we are, it is not a matter of a few shillings; it means that the tax of ½d. per £ will work out at £5 2s. 4d. per acre per year. There is no deduction for 148 agricultural value. I want a straight answer from the right hon. Gentleman.
Does land of this description come under this tax? There are seventy miles of land on the two sides of the Canal, most of it is valuable land awaiting a purchaser. It principally belongs to the Manchester Ship Canal Company, which, in addition to its own money, spent five or six millions of money supplied by the Manchester Corporation in the endeavour to develop an important industry in Lancashire. The shareholders have had no dividend. Is that seventy miles of land on the banks of the Canal to be taxed? Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer answer that question? The case of Trafford Park has been mentioned. We have been told by an exceedingly prosperous manufacturer, who is accustomed to large dividends, that that company is doing well. But, as a matter of fact, it has been spending large sums for ten or fifteen years on which it has never had a dividend. There is another and even a greater hardship. The land of the Manchester Ship Canal is offered in competition with similar land belonging to the Manchester Corporation, which by this Bill will be exempted from this tax. We are told that this is a fair tax. What is there fair about it? Is it not manifestly unjust We maintain that manufacturers have done something to develop the trade and commerce of the country, and they are prepared to do something more. They are prepared to risk their money, but they ask to be treated in-a just manner, and not in the unjust manner proposed by this Bill.
These are cases which, I maintain, are entitled to the consideration of this Committee, and yet since six o'clock to-night I have been endeavouring to find an opportunity to bring facts like these before them. I maintain that they are important points. It is, as I have said, very difficult for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to arrive at the amount that he is going to get out of this tax, but it is not difficult to imagine the amount of mischief which is being done by the inflammatory speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade. They lead the people of this country to believe—[Cries of "Order."] —I am coming to the point. I am strictly in order. It may be unpalatable, but I think I have the right to say it. The point I wish to make is, that by these inflammatory speeches they are leading the people of this country—
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is really very wide of the Amendment.
§ Mr. RENWICKI just wish to say that I believe the people of this country have no idea of the small amount that is going to be got from this tax. They have an idea that the Government are going to tax the rich man and get ah enormous amount of revenue from him. But let me look at it from another point of view, and I will be strictly in order. I want to ask if the object of this tax is to force land into the market for the purpose of dwelling houses entirely, or for the purpose of dwelling houses and factories?
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is supposed to be speaking to an Amendment which would confine the tax per acre to 5s., and his remarks are not relevant to that.
§ Mr. RENWICKI will strictly keep to that, but I must say I am only following the example of other speakers; but I am quite willing to leave it there, I think my points are so good and so forcible, and I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give a definite answer to the three points I have put before him.
§ Mr. J. McD. HENDERSONI am very interested in what this tax is going to produce. We have heard it mentioned that somebody or other has stated that it will produce £3,000,000, and putting the value of each acre at £400 that would represent 3,800,000 acres. The Chancellor of the Exchequer puts it at £175,000. I think he also is too high. The Leader of the Opposition put it at £87,000. He is too high.
§ 12.0 p.m.
§ The CHAIRMANThis really is not in order. This is an Amendment to make 5s. the maximum tax on any acre of land. This is not a time for arguing how many acres there are unless it bears upon this Amendment.
§ Mr. HENDERSONYou allowed the Chancellor to go into figures as to what the tax was to produce.
§ The CHAIRMANWhat happened was this. Questions were asked of the Chancellor, who did not happen to be here during the last Debate, as to certain figures. That question has been answered, and it is not relevant to go on arguing about it. Argument must be relevant now to the Amendment before us.
§ Mr. HENDERSONI submit that if I prove that the tax will not produce anything like what it is estimated to produce, that is a reason for opposing the reduction.
§ The CHAIRMANI really do not think this is a time to go on arguing what the tax is going to bring in. The hon. Member is not dealing with the Amendment at all, but with certain figures which do not seem to be relevant.
§ Mr. YOUNGERI support the Amendment because I think in Scotland this tax will press very hardly on urban areas. The aggregate amount of land within the burgh areas in Scotland is 150,000 acres more or less. Of that, only 50,000 acres are built upon, and therefore it is obvious that the tax will press in some cases extremely harshly upon people who own undeveloped land in those urban areas, and particularly in Glasgow where we only have a building area of some 60 acres per annum added to the built-upon area. Only two or three years ago the Glasgow Corporation promoted a Bill which would have added 16,500 acres of unbuilt-upon land to the area within the burgh, thereby extending the heavy rating of the burgh to a very large amount of undeveloped land outside that area, which would not for hundreds of years at the present rate of increase come in at all. To limit the tax in ease3 of this kind to 5s. an acre is in these circumstances a very fair proposal, because of the enormous amount which is unbuilt upon which will come under the tax and which therefore requires special treatment in many cases.
§ Mr. BURDETT COUTTSI have observed that in the cases which have been brought before the Committee the relation between the taxation and the existing, income of the land has been particularly dwelt upon. The case I wish to bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman is one which he admitted the possibility of, where there is no income at all derived' from the land. Although it may be in some respects a peculiar case, yet I know of others in the neighbourhood of London where land is put to very similar uses. It is a property of about 20 acres just within the four mile radius from Charing Cross. A certain portion of the land is devoted to a tennis ground for people who are not very well off. Another portion of the ground is devoted to allotment gardens for the people living in the crowded neighbourhood close by, but the major portion of the land is devoted to the use of cricket 151 clubs, football clubs, and school outings. The people in the neighbourhood are composed entirely of the poorer classes. With the exception of a very small rent which is charged for the tennis ground and the allotments gardens, which is practically given back to those who enjoy the land, nothing is charged for any of these users. That land is maintained at considerable cost, because it has to be kept in condition. It is now proposed to tax that land as undeveloped land. I have studied very carefully the exemptions which were already in the Bill and the exemptions proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his recent Paper, and I am quite certain that that land will not come under any of these exemptions.
§ The CHAIRMANI do not think that is a matter which can be discussed on the Amendment now before the Committee. Clearly it is a matter for discussion on the next clause, which deals with exemptions.
§ Mr. BURDETT-COUTTSI only alluded to it because I am arguing that the taxation of land so used ought to be reduced to the lowest possible limit. That appeared to me to be germane to the Amendment under consideration. But if it is argued that such users of land are not equally important to turning the land to building purposes, why then I have to add another detail in regard to this particular property. Some years ago a certain portion of the property was developed for building purposes. Roads were made, and the land was offered in building lots, but so great has been the slump in urban building at this time which the Government choose for imposing a tax that hardly any of that building land has been let for building purposes. I venture to suggest that to tax land in the position in which I have described is one of the rankest pieces of injustice that have been proposed.
§ Major LESLIE RENTONFor the purposes of the grazing industry it is absolutely essential that we should have some fields in the vicinity of towns where cattle could be sent to recuperate after a long journey from where they have been bred. The land over which they graze is very valuable, and if it is to be taxed as de-scribed it will deal a heavy blow to the grazing industry of the Midlands, which is an industry which has struggled on for a good many years now under the greatest 152 difficulty, and which does not deserve a blow of this character. A great deal of this land may be worth £10 an acre. It is absolutely impossible to send straight to market animals which have come a long railway journey. They must have some place to recuperate, and this explains the great value of the land to which I have referred. I have been speaking to many graziers and cattle dealers about this subject, and they all asked me to bring it forward. If this Amendment is not carried it will deal to agriculture a blow which certainly it does not deserve.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI want the Chancellor to say a word in answer to the speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Renwick). There is land adjoining the Manchester Ship Canal which will be very seriously affected if subject to this tax. Reference has been made to agricultural land at £30 and £40 an acre. Personally, as a borough Member, I am rather tired of all that. There is land in the country which is worth a great deal more than that, large commercial pieces of land, of which we have heard to-night, worth £2,500 an acre, land which has been bought for the purpose of development, which is appointed for development. But you cannot get people to buy land of that character except people who are going to establish industries on it. On this land near the Ship Canal, which was intended for the purpose of developing the industries of Lancashire, you are going to put a tax of £5 2s. 4d. an acre. The object of this Amendment is to limit the tax to 5s. an acre. We have had no answer from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the learned Attorney-General, who replied to the Mover of the Amendment, simply gave us no answer whatever. We have met case after case in which the tax will amount to more than the income derived from the land. In my own experience with regard to building land, the tax will inevitably amount to fully 10s. or 20s. in the £ of the annual value. In the cases put by my hon. Friend, the tax will amount to many times the annual value at present receivable from the land. As far as I can see at present, it would be fair to limit the tax to 5s. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not like 5s., some other limit might be fair in respect of some really valuable land which it is not suggested for a moment is being held up, and I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should give an answer which will be more satisfactory than anything we have hitherto had up to the present.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
| Division No. 404.] | AYES. | [12.17 a.m. |
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Fell, Arthur | Newdegate, F. A. |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Forster, Henry William | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Foster, P. S | Oddy, John James |
| Ashley, W. W. | Gardner, Ernest | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. |
| Banbury Sir Frederick George | Goulding Edward Alfred | Percy, Earl |
| Banner, John S. Harmood | Guinness,. Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds) | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Haddock, George B. | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Renton, Leslie |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Helmsley, Viscount | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hill, Sir Clement | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Hunt, Rowland | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Joynson-Hicks, William | Stanier, Beville |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Kerry, Earl of | Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk) |
| Cave, George | Keswick, William | Starkey, John R. |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Lambton, Hon. Frederick William | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Dairymple, Viscount | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Winterton, Earl |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Magnus, Sir Philip | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | Younger, George |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Moore, William | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir R. Ropner and Mr. Renwick. |
| Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.) | Morpeth, Viscount |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Erskine, David C. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Evans, Sir S. T. | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Everett, R. Lacey | Laidlaw, Robert |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Falconer, J. | Lambert, George |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Fenwick, Charles | Lamont, Norman |
| Barker, Sir John | Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Lehmann, R. C. |
| Barnard, E. B. | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Fuller, John Michael F. | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Beale, W. P. | Gill, A. H. | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David |
| Beaumont, Hon. Hubert | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Glover, Thomas | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Brace, William | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Bramsdon, Sir T. A. | Griffith, Ellis J. | M'Callum, John M. |
| Branch, James | Guiland, John W. | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) |
| Brooke, Stopford | Hail, Frederick | Maddison, Frederick |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Hancock, J. G. | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Massie, J. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Mond, A. |
| Cautson, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Haworth, Arthur A. | Money, L. G. Chiozza |
| Chance, Frederick William | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Montagu, Hon. E. S. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Hedges, A. Paget | Montgomery, H. G. |
| Clough, William | Helme, Norval Watson | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) |
| Clynes, J. R. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Morrell, Philip |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Henry, Charles S. | Myer, Horatio |
| Cooper, G. J. | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Herbert T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Higham, John Sharp | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Cross, Alexander | Hobart, Sir Robert | O'Grady, J. |
| Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Hodge, John | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Holland, Sir William Henry | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Holt, Richard Durning | Partington, Oswald |
| Duckworth, Sir James | Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.) | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Hyde, Clarendon G. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Illingworth, Percy H. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Jenkins, J. | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh) | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) |
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 96 Noes, 175.
| Rainy, A. Rolland | Seely, Colonel | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Raphael, Herbert H. | Shackleton, David James | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Sherwell, Arthur James | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Richardson, A. | Silcock, Thomas Ball | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Ridsdale, E. A. | Simon, John Allsebrook | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Stanger, H. Y. | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Robinson, S. | Strachey, Sir Edward | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) | Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Summerbell, T. | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Rogers, F. E. Newman | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Rose, Sir Charles Day | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Rowlands, J. | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) | Wood, T. M Kinnon |
| Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | |
| Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Verney, F. W. | |
| Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Walsh, Stephen | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | Walton, Joseph | |
| Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
§ Mr. W. R. PEEL moved in Section (2), after the words "being built upon," to insert the words "or laid out or prepared for building."
§ The object of this Amendment is very apparent. It is quite clear that a man is not intending to hold up land if he expends money upon developing it, levelling it, or preparing it in other ways for building. He is already standing out of any interest on the money he has expended on the land, and it is impossible to suppose that he wants to stand out of the additional money he is using in the way mentioned in the Amendment. I think it is quite fair that the exemption of land built upon should apply also to land upon which money has been spent for the purpose of laying it out or otherwise treating it for building. I understand that later on the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to exempt from the tax land upon which £100 per acre has been expended. It is not quite clear what that specific proposal means. My Amendment makes it quite clear that if a man has expended money in partially preparing land for building, that land should be exempted; it also meets cases where less than £100 per acre has been expended, and I think it is only fair that those cases should be met.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe general principle of this Amendment I certainly have no quarrel with, and I do not challenge. Where a man spends a substantial sum of money upon preparing the land for building he makes it useless for other purposes. He is doing his very best to get rid of it as far as he can. I quite agree in a case of that kind that the land should hardly be treated as undeveloped land. In order to meet cases of that kind I have put down an Amendment. If I may do so, perhaps I might suggest that my hon. Friend should withdraw his Amendment in favour of mine, because I think the dis- 156 cussion would be more legitimately taken on my Amendment. If my hon. Friend thinks that meets the case it will be quite open for him to move to strengthen my Amendment. That will be better than that at this stage his Amendment should run the chance of being negatived.
§ Mr. BALFOURIs it quite clear that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman meets the case intended to be met by the Amendment of my hon. Friend? As my hon. Friend has drawn his Amendment the land must itself be laid out. My hon. Friend's Amendment would not help the owner of the land unless the expenditure was on the land itself. I want to know whether in that respect the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman is parallel to that of my Friend, or whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to deal with the case to which reference was made earlier in the day. For instance, railways or other costly means of approaching an estate was suggested. They involve a vast expenditure which applies to the estate as a whole. My hon. Friend's Amendment is quite clear on this aspect of the case. I shall be very glad to know what the general policy of the Government is, for it appears to me that you ought to take into account both forms of expenditure on the land itself (in the shape of kerbing, drains, etc.). That point is dealt with by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment, and by the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I do not say which is best, but they both deal with the same thing.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI do not claim that there is any substantial difference so far as policy is concerned; but, at any rate, whether or not my Amendment carries out the intention of the right hon. Gentleman as now expressed, that can be discussed on the Amendment of my hon. Friend to my Amendment. Money spent on the process 157 of preparing that particular land for building purposes will be placed to the credit of the land, and there will be no charge. As I understand it, that is the question?
§ Mr. BALFOURYes, but do you go any further?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIf I may say so, I think mine is the better Amendment. It is more comprehensive, and it meets the case put to me by the builders. My Amendment is designed to meet that case, and I would suggest that it would be far better to discuss the whole question oh that Amendment.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI have an Amendment on the Paper which I presume will be affected by whatever decision is come to in regard to this Amendment. My hon. Friend's Amendment and mine were down upon the Paper before the Chancellor of the Exchequer put down his Amendment or before we had any idea that he was going to put it down. I put down my Amendment in consequence of a deputation that waited upon me in reference to this business. These people said: "We have laid out land for building, and we have made a reasonable building scheme, and we have offered to let the land on reasonable terms, or to sell it in suitable plots, but nobody has come forward to buy, and it is unreasonable we should be penalised on the ground that someone thinks we have not done something we ought to have done." The Chancellor of the Exchequer has met the difficulty in a certain number of cases. The owner of land who has spent £100 per acre on it has afforded some criterion that he has done something to develop it, but there are a large number of cases where the land does not require £100 an acre spent on it. A piece of land lying along a road would not want £100 per acre spent on it, while a piece of land square with the road would require £100 per acre spent on it. It occurred to me as reasonable that some Amendment should be passed, covering everything a reasonable man would be supposed to do with regard to his property. The Chancellor's Amendment in its present form does not seem to me conclusive or satisfactory, not as good as one which uses a certain formula showing what a reasonable man ought to do in certain circumstances.
§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYDoes the right hon. Gentleman intend his concession of expenditure of £100 per acre to refer only 158 to land for building purposes? Suppose a man had a piece of land w7orth £2,000; would the expenditure of £100 per acre or more upon gardens be reckoned to come under the concession of the right hon. Gentleman?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI would rather not discuss that matter here, but I should say, at any rate, that that is not the intention of the Government. I think it would be far better to approach my Amendment with a perfectly free hand.
§ Mr. BALFOURI wish to ask would it be possible to move, as an Amendment to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment, words carrying out the views of my two hon. Friends who have Amendments down on the Paper upon this point. If that is so, perhaps the most convenient course would be not to divide the discussion. If this Amendment is negatived I should like to know would the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment be in order at all? Exceptions may be made in favour of the Government, and they ought to be treated differently to the ordinary non-official Member, but I wish to know, if this Amendment is negatived, would it be possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to move his Amendment?
§ The CHAIRMANIn this particular case I admit that the two Amendments on the Paper are meant to deal with the same problem, but they seem to have considerable differences, and if this Amendment were negatived I should not rule out of order the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment. It is, however, very undesirable that we should debate things two or three times over.
§ Mr. PEELIt being understood that the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer can be so amended as to apply to external as well as internal development, and that if can be further amended by reducing the amount to £100, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Mr. MARKHAMBefore the Amendment is withdrawn I should like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has not misunderstood the effect of granting a rebate—
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member has asked leave to withdraw his Amendment, and I have already put that question.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI have no desire to force on the Committee the 159 Amendment standing in my name, and I am inclined to agree that it would be better to discuss it on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That in respect of the words of the Clause to the end of
| Division No. 405.] | AYES. | [12.45 a.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Hancock, J. G. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leak) |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Harvey, W. E (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Barker, Sir John | Haworth, Arthur A. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Barnard, E. B. | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Richardson, A. |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Hedges, A. Paget | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Beale, W. P. | Helme, Norval Watson | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Beaumont, Hon. Hubert | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Robinson, S. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Henry, Charles S. | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Brace, William | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Bramsdon, Sir T. A. | Higham, John Sharp | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Branch, James | Hobart, Sir Robert | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Hodge, John | Rowlands, J. |
| Brooke, Stopford | Holt, Richard Durning | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. w. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Hyde, Clarendon G. | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Illingworth, Percy H. | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Jenkins, J | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Seely, Colonel |
| Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Laidlaw, Robert | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Lambert, George | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Lamont, Norman | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Clough, William | Lehmann, R. C. | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) |
| Clynes, J. R. | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Cooper, G. J. | Levy, Sir Maurice | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Lewis, John Herbert | Summerbell, T. |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Cross, Alexander | Lyell, Charles Henry | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | M'Callum, John M. | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh S.) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Dickinson-Poynder, Sir John P. | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Verney, F. W. |
| Duckworth, Sir James | Maddison, Frederick | Walsh, Stephen |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Markham, Arthur Basil | Walton, Joseph |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Massie, J. | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Masterman, C. F. G. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Micklem, Nathaniel | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Falconer, James | Mond, A. | Watt, Henry A. |
| Fenwick, Charles | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Montgomery, H. G | White. Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Morrell, Philip | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | Myer, Horatio | Williams, W. Llewellyn (Carmarthen) |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Glover, Thomas | Norman, Sir Henry | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | O'Grady, J. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Gulland, John W. | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | |
| Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Parker, James (Halifax) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Hall, Frederick | Partington, Oswald |
| NOES. | ||
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Bowles, G. Stewart | Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) |
| Ashley, W. W. | Bridgeman, W. Clive | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Bull, Sir William James | Craik, Sir Henry |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Land.) | Burdett-Coutts, W. | Dairymple, viscount |
| Banner, John S. Harmood | Carlile, E. Hildred | Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Cave, George | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers |
| Beauchamp, E. | Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Faber, George Denison (York) |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Chance, Frederick William | Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.) |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Clyde, J. Avon | Fell, Arthur |
§ Section (3), the Chair to be empowered to select the Amendments to be proposed."
§ Question put, "That in respect of the words of the Clause to the end of Section 3, the Chair be empowered to select the Amendments to be proposed."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 162; Noes, 81.
| Forster, Henry William | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Foster, P. S. | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Gardner, Ernest | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) | Smith, Hon W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Stanier, Beville |
| Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Magnus, Sir Philip | Starkey, J. R. |
| Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edm'nds) | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Haddock, George B. | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Moore, William | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Hay, Hon. Claude George | Morpeth, Viscount | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Helmsley, Viscount | Newdegate, F. A. | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | Winterton, Earl |
| Hill, Sir Clement | Oddy, John James | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Younger, George |
| Hunt, Rowland | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. | |
| Joynson-Hicks, William | Percy, Earl | |
| Kerry, Earl of | Pretyman, E. G. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia. |
| King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Randles, Sir John Scurrah | |
| Lambton, Hon. Frederick William | Remnant, James Farquharson | |
| Lane-Fox, G. R. | Renton, Leslie |
§ The CHAIRMANActing on the decision of the Committee, I have to say that the first Amendment I suggest for discussion is one standing in the name of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Lawrence Hardy), as well as in the names of several other hon. Members, omitting the proviso to Section (2) of Clause 4 [as to the treatment of developed land which has become vacant or unoccupied]. I think I should say that the prior Amendments dealing with agriculture are, in my opinion, Amendments which should be treated as exemptions under Clause 11.
§ Mr. E. A. RIDSDALE—the hon. Member for Ashford not then being in his place— moved the omission of the following proviso to Section (2):—
Provided that where any land having been so developed becomes vacant or unoccupied, or ceases to be used for the purposes for which it has been developed, it shall after the expiration of one year be treated as undeveloped land for the purpose of Undeveloped Land Duty until it is again developed.I cannot see why a person who has done his best to develop the land should be penalised, supposing that land is afterwards used for fresh purposes. Suppose a man wished to develop his land for the purpose of a brickfield and he used it for the purpose of making bricks. Suppose he carries it on for some time and then having used the clay he builds houses on it, is he going to be penalised and is it going to be considered as undeveloped land I He has already used it as well as he can for the purpose of making bricks, and then he is to be taxed. It seems to me that that cannot be maintained, and I therefore move that these lines be omitted.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI am not very sure what the objection of my hon. Friend 162 is. I can only deal with it from the illustration that he gave. He took the case of a brickfield in which the owner, having exhausted the clay, proposed later on to convert the field into a building site. He surely does not propose that because it was a brickfield at one time, or at the time when the valuation takes place, it shall be exempt for ever after from the Land Tax. If these words are omitted here it will have that effect. I am sure that is not the intention of my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. RIDSDALEIt was.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThen I do not agree with him. That is exactly the case which we wanted to meet. It cannot be contended that because a man used the land for one purpose for a certain time, and afterwards for another purpose, that it should for all time be excluded from taxation. I think he has made out no case for the exclusion of the words.
§ 1 A.M.
§ Mr. BALFOURIt may be that I misunderstand the character of this section, but if I do understand it accurately it seems to me that the Amendment is in accordance with the new Amendment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to propose in the course of the Debate. The proposal of the Government is that wherever land has been developed and then becomes vacant or unoccupied, it shall then immediately pay the Undeveloped Land Tax. How is that consistent with the Government's policy of saying that if land is vacant it is not in use at all, but if £100 has been spent on it, it shall be charged the Undeveloped Land Duty? I cannot imagine how they can adhere to this section in view of their own declaration of policy? I may say incidentally that I do not agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his criticism of the brick- 163 field illustration. But let us assume that the right hon. Gentleman is correct about the brickfield, and that the brickfield ought to have this halfpenny tax put upon it if the unfortunate tenant loses his tenant. I do not think so at all, but let us assume it. That is not the only case. How does the Chancellor of the Exchequer deal with the case in which there has been an attempt to develop land, an attempt which has succeeded for a short time, or even, perhaps, for a long time, but then the land ceases to be used as building land, and there are no tenants? In that case it seems to me, according to the Bill, the land lapses into undeveloped land. Does the Government think that is right when the man who has tried to develop his land and has failed is excused from duty? His case is not a bit harder than that of the unfortunate man who has developed his land, but who, for some reason for which he is not in the least responsible, finds that his land cannot be used for its original purpose. Most people would regard that individual as an unhappy victim of circumstances, and one who ought to be treated with consideration; but it is on that man that the Government proposes to re-impose the tax, although he has not only tried to develop his land, but has succeeded in developing out. He has actually carried out the policy the Government desire, but then, through circumstances for which it may be he is not responsible, he finds himself again brought within the clutches of the Exchequer. He is again to be compelled to pay the tax although he has done everything he can to develop his land, and has actually succeeded in doing so, and only after that event is reduced to a position which the Government chooses to define as the possession of undeveloped land. How does the Chancellor of the Exchequer reconcile his determination to adhere to this section with the Amendment which he proposes to put forward directly in respect of land which is developed for building purposes, but on which no building has taken place?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe right hon. Gentleman objects to my confining myself to the illustration cited by the hon. Member for Brighton. I will take another. The right hon. Gentleman assumes that the development is confined purely to building. He must recollect that the development is not merely a matter of building, but refers also to where the land 164 is used bonâ fide for any business or industry. Let us leave the brickfield and take the case of a timber merchant. A timber merchant occupies, it may be, a couple of acres of land for the purposes of his business. Very well, if he occupies the couple of acres for the purposes of his business it is fully developed under this clause and there will be no charge. But suppose that that timber merchant takes his business elsewhere. Then the land becomes unoccupied; it is vacant. Is it to be said that simply because it was developed at the time the timber was upon, it it is never after to be claimed as undeveloped land, although it may be absolutely unused for any purpose whatever?
§ Mr. BALFOURI agree that the case of the timber merchant is analogous with the case of the brickfield, but will the right hon. Gentleman deal with a case which I will put to him? A man uses his land for building a factory. Perhaps the industry which the factory serves fails. The factory remains on the land, but neither the land nor the factory can find a tenant. Is that unfortunate man to find himself again charged with the tax because his land is undeveloped?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI quite appreciate the case which the right hon. Gentleman has put, but it is based on an entire misapprehension of the real meaning of the words. He assumes that the moment the building is unoccupied the land is undeveloped within the meaning of the proviso. That is certainly not the intention of the proviso and not the meaning of the proviso. The meaning is when the land is vacant or unoccupied. It is certainly not the intention of the Government to treat the land as undeveloped, merely because the building which is erected upon it is unoccupied.
§ Mr. CAVEI do not now quite see how the proviso is to be reconciled with the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer later on. Supposing land is built upon and the building becomes vacant, and is vacant for a year, would the land then be undeveloped land?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGENo.
§ Mr. CAVEThere is another case which is just as important. It is the case of land which is adapted and used for a particular trade or business, to be either occupied by the owner or let for the purpose. Supposing the business does not succeed, or for some other reason the occupier 165 desires to give up the business. The land therefore is no longer used for the business. It may be absolutely and entirely adapted to the business. It may be just the land for it, and the owner may desire to let it again for the same purpose; yet, because the business has failed or ceased to be carried on, that land is to be regarded as undeveloped, and is to bear this particular tax. I do not think that is fair. Then take the third case— and this is evidently not contemplated by the author of the proviso. Supposing the nature of the business changes, and, according to the proviso, it "ceases to be used for the purposes for which it has been developed," but is used for another just as useful purpose within the spirit and meaning of the clause, yet as the proviso stands the land which is used for that purpose is to pay duty as undeveloped land. The proviso is full of pitfalls of that kind, and I must say that I do not think it has been carefully considered. Then take this point, which I think wants a little consideration: how is the proviso to be reconciled with the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Take the case of land on which £100 an acre have been spent, but which falls within the meaning of the proviso, because it is no longer used for the purposes for which it has been developed—is it to pay duty or not? The proviso says "Yes," and the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment says "No." Which is to prevail? You will have endless trouble if you pass the proviso in this form without considering points of this kind. It would be better to thoroughly re-cast the proviso, so as to effect the intention, as I believe, of the Government. If you do not, you will have lots of trouble and no end of hardships.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThis really resolves itself entirely into a question of drafting. So far as I can see there is no difference in the view taken by Members on both sides of the House as to what the proviso ought to be, and it is therefore purely a question of drafting. I do not agree with the observation made by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cave), though I have some diffidence in disagreeing with so high an authority on a question of this kind as to the meaning of the proviso. He says that if the land is used for any particular business, and that business fails, and the owner then uses it for another purpose, he will have to pay. That is not so. The words "for the purpose of Undeveloped Land Duty until it is again developed," cover that particular 166 case. If he ceases to use it for one particular purpose the moment he begins to use it for another purpose, the words come in "until it is again developed." With regard to the suggested inconsistency in the proviso and the new section of which I have given notice, I confess that I cannot see it. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not think the omission of the words "or unoccupied" made clear the object of the proviso, but I am perfectly certain his words were not clear. He says the land could be stripped of everything. You might have a factory which is tumbling down. That is not, strictly speaking, a building, and yet the land might be very valuable for building, and as long as you keep this tumbled-down building there, in the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman, you would not be able to charge the tax upon it, although it was valuable building land or valuable for other purposes. I am sure that his words are infinitely worse than the words of the proviso, even assuming the words are capable of the interpretation placed upon them by the Leader of the Opposition. If the words "or unoccupied" are left out it would not be capable of the interpretation alleged.
§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYI do appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce a drafting Amendment, so that an unoccupied house shall not be taxable in respect of its site. I would refer my right hon. Friend to the fact that the proviso must be read with what went before it. He has pointed out truly "that the words "ceases to be used for the purposes for which it has been developed" applies bond fide to any business, and it seems to me a court of law would want to know why the proviso was introduced, because, obviously, a house could not easily tumble down, and, even if it did, the foundations would remain. Therefore, it would become clear that the proviso was introduced on the ground that if a house or building becomes vacant the land on which it stands becomes unoccupied. Reading the clause in conjunction with the proviso, if the building becomes vacant or unoccupied the land becomes an undeveloped site. As I take it that is not the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will introduce a drafting Amendment to make the matter perfectly clear.
§ Mr. ASHLEYI do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to accept some Amendment in the sense which the hon. Member 167 who has just spoken has urged upon him, because surely it cannot be the intention of the Government that a house, through no fault of the owner—because an owner does not allow his houses to remain unoccupied if he can help it—should be taxed as undeveloped building land if unoccupied for a year. We are always being told by hon. Gentlemen opposite that this tax is to be put on in order to make people build houses, and yet here we have the Government proposing that a man who has done the very thing they want, namely, built a house, if the house remains unoccupied for one year through no fault of his own, he shall have to pay the Undeveloped Land Duty. No owner of a house allows it to remain unoccupied if he can possibly help it. An unoccupied house deteriorates very quickly, and the tax is obviously unfair and unjust if the Government do not accept an Amendment in the sense which Hon. Members on this side have pressed upon the Government. I would point out that through no fault of the owner his houses may remain unoccupied through a change of fashion, such as has occurred during the last fifty years in Bloomsbury, and in parts of Kensington and the South-West of London. If through such changes of fashion the owners find it difficult to get tenants, they are taxed as if there were no houses upon the land, surely that is the acme of injustice.
§ Sir W. ROBSONThe hon. Member is entirely mistaken. The sites of empty houses could be treated as vacant and undeveloped land. There are the words, "or unoccupied." They become unoccupied when they "cease to be used for the purposes" of the trade or business for which they had been developed. It would really be said in the case of the man who has built a house on land, and that house becomes empty, that the land is thereby vacant.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINSurely if the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at the section and the proviso he will see that the first pare of the proviso refers to the first part of the section, and the latter part of the proviso to the later part of the section. The proviso says that where land of certain character becomes vacant or unoccupied, certain results shall follow. I submit that the words "vacant or unoccupied" refer to the land which in the first place has not been built upon, but which has subsequently been built 168 upon. It will be seen that the reference to trade or industry in the section are followed by the words in the proviso, "or ceases to be used for the purposes for which it has been developed." I want to press the Attorney-General on another point. What is vacant land? Surely it is a term which is perfectly well known. It does not mean land which has not a building upon it, but land which has not a tenant—which is not occupied by a tenant. "Vacant or unoccupied" are really two words expressing the same thing. To take out the word "unoccupied" is not to alter the effect of the proviso as long as you leave the word "vacant." The word "vacant" must refer to the occupier— must refer to whether the land is in occupation or is not in occupation. If the land is not in occupation then I submit that it is vacant land. I did at first think, on hearing what was said by the Government, the words "ceases to be used for the purposes for which it has been developed" would undoubtedly bring in the vacant factory to which the Leader of the Opposition referred; but, on considering the matter further, I think the word "vacant" is fatal, and that there is nothing to be done but to withdraw the proviso altogether, to enable the Government to bring up words which will stand examination, and which will carry out the common desire of both sides of the House. It is quite useless for us to pass the words as they stand in the Bill.
§ Mr. J. C. WEDGWOODI think the proviso as it stands is correct, and should be stuck to by the Government. I must say that I regard this proviso as being rather important, because it does provide for the first time for the taxing of empty houses. For many years past some of the County Councils have advocated that they should have the power to rate empty houses. Now, part of this tax is going to local rates, and I think anyone who advocates the rating of empty houses should advocate the taxation of empty houses, particularly when half of the tax is going to the rates and on principles which are, not purely financial. Apart altogether from the advantage of raising money from the rates or the taxes, I think empty houses are bad for the community. When we see places overcrowded as we see them in the East End of London and at the same time see lower down in the same street empty houses, I think it is obvious that any system of taxation or rating which would tend to force the owners of 169 those houses to reduce the rents and allow people who are over-crowded to get into the other houses at cheaper rents will prove an advantage to the whole community. However much hon. Members may think it a shame to penalise a man whose house is empty, I think it is about time that we considered the consumer also —that is to say, the person who requires a house and cannot get a house. I trust the Government will stick to this proviso as it stands; and that they will consider the consumer rather than the landlord, and enable a man to get a house more cheaply than he can at present.
§ Mr. BALFOURI do not know whether the Government agree with the mover of the Amendment or with the hon. Gentleman who now appeals to them to nail their colours to the mast. The hon. Gentleman has compassion for the empty houses. I should like to know how he reconciles this clause to the new section. This new section says that if the builder has only prepared the ground for the house he thereby escapes taxation, but if he goes a step further and builds a house he goes back to his original position.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI think the right hon. Gentleman asked me how I reconciled the two things. I beg to point out that the Amendment is not mine.
§ Mr. BALFOURI beg the hon. Member's pardon. I for the moment mistook him as one of the supporters of the Bill. I respectfully apologise. As I find he is not in agreement with those who object to the proviso, nor in agreement with those who have drafted it, nor in agreement with those who are going to modify it—I mean the front bench opposite—he will not regard me as disrespectful if I do not allude further to his observations. I really got up to suggest to the Government that I think their own policy would be better carried out by a change in the section. If I understand their policy aright it is that they are determined to have a section which will deal with cases of land which, having been used for industrial purposes, when that purpose comes to an end, they say should become unoccupied and undeveloped land again. They think, with myself and others on this side of the House, that an unoccupied factory does not come within that description at all, and that it does not represent a deserted brickfield or a deserted timber yard. I venture to suggest that they should introduce into the section words which occur in the first part of Section (2), and make it read 170 as follows: "Provided that where any land not having been developed by being built upon becomes vacant, it shall after the expiration of one year," and so on, leaving out the words "having been so developed," and the words "or unoccupied, or ceases to be used for the purposes for which it has been developed."
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI am not quite sure that that quite covers all the cases. I must say that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. J. C. Wedgwood) rather converted me to the view taken by the Opposition as to the effect of the proviso. If his interpretation of it is correct it shows that it stands in need of Amendment. The words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) might cover cases where land had been developed by being built upon, but also the case taken by the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) where the land has been stripped and becomes really undeveloped land. If a man holds up land purposely I think he ought to pay this halfpenny tax. I would rather not, at the present moment, assent to anything more than the omission of the words "or unoccupied," but I will promise to consider very carefully the criticisms directed by the Opposition and by my hon. Friends below the Gangway to the proviso, and see whether words can be introduced on the Report stage which will meet them, and so bring the proviso more into conformity with the general intention which has been accepted on both sides. If the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) and those who support him will accept that pledge I shall be very glad at the present moment to assent to the omission of the words "or unoccupied."
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI only rise to ask what are the cases which the Government wish to tax. The hon. Member for Brighton gave the case of a brickfield, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not at all meet the equity of the case put forward by him. I have a case in my mind where a man owned clay out of which bricks are made. The owner finds a tenant who fails in business. The owner still desires to use the land for the same purpose, but he has to wait many years before he can find another tenant to take that old field for that particular purpose. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in altering the proviso, make it clear that in cases of that kind the man who had developed the land for a particular purpose and had been unfortunate enough to lose money on it 171 shall not be taxed because he waits for another opportunity to develop it. There is another case not covered by the proviso nor by the intention expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I know of a case in Scotland of a particular factory which failed ten years ago. It came into the hands of friends of mine as a bad debt. They have kept it for the whole of the ten years, getting not a penny and paying considerable feus. They have kept it in the hope that at some time that particular trade might revive, and they might again utilise the land. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer mean that if buildings of that kind fall out of repair, and it can be shown that the land could be used properly for other purposes, he will tax the man who has spent all this money in developing it, and who is waiting in the hope of finding some other tenant to utilise it?
§ Mr. MARKHAMI should like to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if the words suggested by the Leader of the Opposition are accepted they will apply to the case of certain works in Wales where a company with which I am associated spent half a million on the development of steel works. The works failed. The land was then stripped, and we are now selling it for the purpose of building. It is continually increasing in value. In that case we should be able to get the whole of the increased value from the increment which takes place, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will derive no revenue from it whatever.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDThis section gave every student of the Bill very considerable difficulty. Those who studied it carefully came to the conclusion pointed out by the hon. Member below the Gangway opposite (Mr. Wedgwood) that the words "vacant and unoccupied" clearly referred to built-upon land. We put down Amendments to meet these difficulties, to the effect that where a house has become vacant it is not to be treated as undeveloped land. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer really means, and what we on this side think would be a fair construction of the section, is really something like this: "Provided that where any land having been built upon or developed is afterwards reduced to the condition of undeveloped land within the meaning of this section, and so remains for one year, it shall be treated as undeveloped land." I think those words would meet every case that has been given.
§ Mr. BEAUMONT rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ The CHAIRMANwithheld his assent, and declined then to put that question.
§ Debate resumed.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDShould I be in order now in moving the insertion of the words I have read?
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member would not be in order at the moment, because there is an Amendment before the Committee.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI have consulted with my legal advisers as to what the exact effect of the words suggested by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rutherford) would be, and I confess I rather like them. They convey the intention of the Government undoubtedly, and if the Committee would consent now to the words down to the word "developed" standing part, then the hon. Gentleman could move the words immediately afterwards. We must, however, first get the words, "Provided that where any land having been so developed," because the Chairman has only put the words up to that point.
§ Mr. YOUNGERMight I say that the very fact of accepting words of that sort might destroy the benefit to be derived from Clause 14 (4) (b), which allows the owner the cost of divesting the land of buildings, timber, trees, or other things. If the Amendment is inserted in these terms it appears to me it will cut away that advantage.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI am not quite certain in what position we stand and what the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has undertaken. Are we right in understanding that he accepts the words which my hon. Friend has proposed at this stage of the Bill?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEYes, I should be prepared to accept this subject to further consideration of the actual words between this and the Report stage. I think the suggested Amendment really covers the intention of the Government, and meets what I believe to be the wishes of the Committee.
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out ["Provided that where any land having been so developed becomes 173 vacant or unoccupied, or ceases to be used for the purposes for which it has been developed, it shall after the expiration of one year be treated as undeveloped land for the purpose of Undeveloped Land Duty until it is again developed"] stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI move to leave out from the word "developed" ["Provided that where any land having been so developed" down to "be" ["after the expiration of one year be"] and to insert the words "reverts to the condition of undeveloped land within the meaning of this section and so remains for one year, it shall."
§ Mr. LEIF JONESAs far as I can see it is impossible for this land to revert to undeveloped land within the meaning of the section, because the provision there relates to land that has not been developed by being built upon. I would point out that land which has been built upon can never again become land which has not been built upon. The words require reconsideration, though in regard to their intention there is very general agreement.
§ Mr. J. F. HOPEI suppose if you found the remains of a Roman bath or a Druidical temple you would be able to claim that the land had been developed at some time.
§ Mr. HALDANEWe agree with the principle of the Amendment, and I may repeat what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already said, namely, that it will be the subject of consideration between now and the Report.
§ Mr. YOUNGERMay I repeat that I am not at all certain if the proviso stands as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now agreed it should do, whether land so divested may not be cut out from the advantage of Section 4 (b) of Clause 14. I am rather interested in this question, because I know many factories in my part of the world which have been vacant for some time—large and valuable buildings which have been kept in good order at considerable expense— in the case of which I do not think the cost of divesting the land would leave any site value at all. I can assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there are many instances of great hardship which ought to be provided against.
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
174§ Question proposed, "That the words 'reverts to the condition of undeveloped land within the meaning of this Section and so remains for one year, it shall' be there inserted."
§ Mr. BALFOURI hope the Government are not going on. We have finished the paragraph. It is now very late, and I hope they will allow the Committee to adjourn. I move "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press that Motion now. I think we ought to get to the end of Clause 10. There is not very much of substance left. We have discussed the main principles of the clause upon the first seetion, and if the right hon. Gentleman casts his eye over the Amendments I think he will find there is really nothing of importance from this point onwards. I do not propose to go on after Clause 10.
§ Mr. BALFOURSurely the right hon. Gentleman must recognise that it is impossible that these Amendments should pass without discussion. They raise questions of really extraordinary importance. There is the whole question that the clause stand part. That Question is one of the most important you could put. Surely the Government do not propose that we are to discuss the principle of this new tax at five o'clock in the morning? If so, it is an extraordinary innovation in the procedure of this House.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI do not want to appear to be unreasonable if there is a real desire to discuss the whole principle of the clause. I think we have already discussed it on two or three of the Amendments. I do not think any one who has listened to the Debate could really doubt that. But at the same time I agree that the discussion has been conducted with some difficulty, because the rules of the House have, on one or two occasions, necessarily limited the full extent of the discussion owing to the character of the Amendments being discussed. If the Leader of the Opposition desires to have a Debate upon the Question of the clause standing part, then I do not press my suggestion so long as it is understood that we begin the Debate to-morrow on the Motion that the clause stand part.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe right hon. Gentleman has gone some 175 way to meet my right hon. Friend, but I do ask him to consider a little further what it is he is asking us to do. Here is his Amendment appearing starred on the Paper for the first time to-day. It introduces a new subsection as to which we asked for information at an earlier period this evening, recognising its great importance. The right hon. Gentleman then refused to give us any information of what this Amendment was, or what its working would be, because, he said, the proper time for that would be when it came on, and that we ought not to discuss it until we really reached the Amendment. This Amendment puts forward a proposal which we believe to be of very considerable importance. We have necessarily had to allude to it, but we have not been able to do more than allude to it, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, although he disputed the interpretation of some of my hon. Friends upon it, said we could not discuss it until we came to it. Are we really to be asked to begin this discussion, and get such information as we can, at two o'clock in the morning, when the Chancellor refused to give us any information earlier in the day? If the right hon. Gentleman is going to ask us to sit up all hours he must consent to give us information when we ask for it at a reasonable hour, and not put us off to a time when no reports can appear, when we cannot all be present, and under other circumstances of great difficulty. I do press on the right hon. Gentleman that it is not an unreasonable demand that we should begin a new day with the new sub-section which he is proposing.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI am sorry that I cannot accede to that. No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman what it really means. It would mean that we should probably take up the best part of to-morrow in discussing the few remaining Amendments before we came to the clause. We have got to make progress with the Bill, and this is our alternative to anything like a guillotine procedure. With regard to my Amendment I should like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that this is a concession, and a very considerable concession. It is a substantial acceptance of Amendments on the paper in the names of two or three Gentlemen on his own side of the House. Therefore, it is not as if it were proposing some new principle which would enlarge the scope of the Bill, and 176 which would increase the burdens. On the contrary, we are proposing a very substantial concession, and the only point to consider is whether we have met the views of the Opposition in regard to it.
§ 2.0 P.M.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINMy hon. and gallant Friend described it as a substantial concession earlier in the day, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer dissented from the statement, and said it was a very small matter which scarcely affected the revenue at all.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe right hon. Gentleman does not accurately quote me. What I said was that taking the concessions as a whole, I did not think they would substantially affect the revenue this year, but that they did remove certain cases of hardship. That is exactly the case here. I do not think there are many cases of the kind, though there are cases of considerable hardship, and to that extent it is a substantial concession.
§ Mr. PEELEarlier in the day I moved an Amendment bearing on this particular point of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I withdrew it, and it was understood that I could raise Amendments afterwards to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment. It is, however, extremely difficult to do that between one and two o'clock in the morning. If we had an opportunity of an hour to-morrow to consider the matter we might possibly be able to draw up an Amendment which would meet with the satisfaction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYI should like to ask the Government what is their general intention as to keeping us up at night on this Bill, for it does seem to me that if Members are to be asked to sit till five or six in the morning for four days a week, it is little short of a farce, and it obviously means that a great many Members for large portions of the time are unable to attend this House. Now that the Government have altered the rules of the House in order to facilitate progress ad hoc on this particular Bill, they ought to drop the use of the weapon they have hitherto used, namely, that of physically exhausting the Opposition by keeping them up all hours of the morning.
Mr. STANLEY WILSONThe Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that this 177 new section is a concession. I think he will agree that it is a good thing to discuss even a concession, and it is sometimes necessary to do it. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his determination, because, after all, the Opposition this evening have given him very great assistance. We have reconstructed in the last quarter of an hour or so his proviso and have given him, as I think he will admit, the very greatest assistance. I think under the circumstances he ought to be satisfied with the work we have done, and be quite content if he gets his clause, at any rate, by dinner time to-morrow.
§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYI do appeal to the Prime Minister to take into consideration the fact that we are dealing here with important matters of business. If any two men in the country were to discuss the sale of one of the sites or buildings concerned in the Bill after two o'clock in the morning they would be considered fit inhabitants for a lunatic asylum. I have never heard of business being done at these hours. I therefore suggest to the Prime Minister—not that I am not prepared as much as anyone on this side to give time to the matter—to make arrangements for the House to meet earlier in order that we may give the time that is necessary. I am quite prepared to come here at 10 o'clock in the morning, but at the same time I am not prepared to sit here till 4 or 5 o'clock the next morning. I would seriously suggest to the Prime Minister that he should make arrangements so that business matters can be discussed in what I should regard as business hours.
§ Mr. W. MOOREThe question that the-provisions of this section should not apply to Ireland will come up at a later part of the Clause. That is a very important matter to Irish Members, and the reason I specially urge why the Motion to report Progress should be adopted is that Irish Members below the Gangway are pledged to fight this Budget inch by inch in the interests of Ireland, and I think it would be unfair in the absence of 85 per cent, of the Irish Members that it should be forced on at this hour of the morning.
§ Mr. CONOR O'KELLYHow many Ulster Unionist Members are here?
§ Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSI should like to remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the opinion which he expressed in 1900. The right hon. Gentleman then said:—
It was absurd to say that matters could he discussed after 12 o'clock. Such discussion was really no discussion at all; it was absolutely ineffective in calling public attention to the questions considered. Alter midnight the House was not in full command of its temper or faculties, and to press important business at that hour was simply to provoke a repetition of the scenes recently experienced.We can bear an all-night sitting occasionally, but when it conies to an all-night sitting every day of the week these, words-of the right hon. Gentleman are very forcible, and I recommend them to him on the present occasion.
§ Mr. F. MADDISONThe quotation just given from a speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1900 shows how much he has improved since that period. I think discussions after midnight are very clear. For instance, there are not the attractions which exist before 12 o'clock on the Terrace and elsewhere. The hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Chiozza Money) made an appeal to the Prime Minister. I also make one to my right hon. Friend, and it is to disregard the appeal of the hon. Member for Paddington. I am all for free discussion and hate the closure, which is a very objectionable necessity; but if hon. Members opposite exorcise their full rights, with which I am not quarrelling, to examine a Finance Bill line by line, there is only one thing to do, and that is to extend the time for discussion. The Leader of the Opposition said that this Bill must be passed during the current session. But this Bill is not going to be passed during the current session unless we sit up these abnormally long hours. If the Opposition will not concentrate their discussion more—I do not accuse them of obstruction at all—then the only thing that can possibly happen is for us to extend the hours of sitting. Some of us are often here, but we never take part in Debate, because we want to give hon. Gentlemen opposite the time we should occupy. But we are anxious that this Budget, and especially these land clauses, should be put through, and we do ask the Prime Minister to have some regard to the wishes of the men who are loyal to his Government. What I think a little serious is this—the very Amendment which is to be discussed is a concession to hon. Members opposite. I, for one, am quite willing to make these concessions wherever there 179 is a real case made out; but if we are to be met in this fashion then we shall revolt against the Government making these concessions.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI simply want to point out that I think we on this side, as well as hon. Gentlemen on the other side, have appreciated to-day the personal courtesy with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has replied to all appeals and the way in which in this House—I am not referring to other places —he has dealt with the subject. But I appeal to him on behalf of a body of men who are in earnest in dealing with this Bill to consider that we are not—at all events consciously — bringing forward either stupid or ridiculous Amendments or frivolous Amendments, but that we have put down Amendments, which we thought would meet or ameliorate the state of affairs brought about by this Bill. And the appeal I wish further to make is this: We would like to know what is the intention of the Government with regard to the reasonable discussion of this Bill during the next few weeks? Can we get from the Government some idea? If the * Chancellor of the Exchequer were to get up and tell us that they wanted on the average to try to get a clause a day, and said that if they got that clause a day they would not press for more, we should know where we were. If we had known earlier to-day that it was the intention of the Government to get to the end of this clause and to take the next clause to-morrow, we should have worked to a considerable extent with that idea of the Government in view. Not merely as a matter of courtesy, but as a matter of convenience, I ask for some reasonable information as to how the Government propose in future to deal with this matter. Sitting up to deal with a matter like this is no hardship to me, because I have been used to doing a good deal of my work late at night or in the early hours of the morning; but this sort of thing is having a terrible effect upon the bulk of the Members of this House. What was the consequence of the all-night sittings the week before last? The result was that Members of the House were hardly able to transact business after two or three o'clock the following night, and it had a paralysing effect upon the whole of the business of the House. It lasted for days after those three late sittings. I do think, under these circumstances, that we have made out a case for 180 asking the Government to give us some idea on this Motion as to how they intend to deal with this Bill in future.
§ Mr. LLOYD - GEORGEThe hon. Member has asked me when it would be possible to give any indication as to how far the Government intend proceeding on future days in connection with the Bill. I am not sure that it is desirable that information of the intentions of the Government should be given earlier than it is given now, and those who are experienced either in the conducting of Parliamentary Bills through the House or in criticising Parliamentary Bills, will appreciate why it is not desirable too clearly to state the intentions earlier in the day. However, I shall be very glad to meet the views of the Opposition whenever it is possible. I beg that the hon. Member will just look at the state; of the Bill. There are 45 or 50 clauses to get through, and I am quite sure that he does not wish to be here another 60 days or another 15 weeks. And that is why I think the House would rather sit up late than have the session prolonged. I am sure the view of the vast majority of the Members—if they were consulted privately about it—would be that they would infinitely prefer to sit up till three, four, five, or six o'clock than to prolong the session by three weeks or a month. [Opposition cries of "No, no."] I expected the hon. Members to protest; but I do not think it is a very emphatic protest, and I doubt whether it is a very earnest one.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYYou can drop parts of the Bill.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI can assure the Noble Lord that that is a matter which we should not contemplate for an instant, and the Noble Lord does not imagine even in his wildest moments that we should do that. I think we have met the Opposition very fairly to-night. My intention was that we should get the Clause.
§ Mr. J. F. REMNANTDoes the right hon. Gentleman propose to continue the Amendments to the end of the clause, including his own?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEYes.
§ Mr. REMNANTThen I do not think there is much that we have to be thankful for at this time of the morning. As one of the rank-and-file on this side, I desire to say that if the right hon. Gentleman has any doubt as to the enthusiasm that pervades us, I—
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI did not mean anything contentious. My suggestion was as to the alternative of sitting up late and having a late Session, and I said I thought, as a whole, the vast majority of Members would prefer the late sittings.
§ Mr. REMNANTI am sorry if I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. Having sat in this House and admired his splendid fighting qualities when in Opposition, I was rather surprised at what fell from him. Surely we would much rather that the Session should be extended by 15 weeks than have things rushed through in the way the Government propose. After all, we are here to look after the interests of the country. If we are to place any faith in the opinions expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister when they were in Opposition it is quite useless for us to attempt at this hour to seriously discuss the great problems affected by this
| Division No. 406.] | AYES | [2.24 a.m. |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Baldwin, Starley | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds) | Percy, Earl |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Haddock, George B. | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Renton, Leslie |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Helmsley, Viscount | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hill, Sir Clement | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hunt, Rowland | Stanier, Beville |
| Cave, George | Kerry, Earl of | Starkey, John R. |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Lambton, Hon. Frederick William | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Dairymple, Viscount | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Winterton, Earl |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott- | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Younger, George |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Moore, William | |
| Forster, Henry William | Morpeth, Viscount | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia. |
| Foster, P. S. | Newdegate, F. A. | |
| Gardner, Ernest | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petorsfield) | |
| Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Oddy, John James |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Fenwick, Charles |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R | Chance, Frederick William | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Fuller, John Michael F. |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Gibb, James (Harrow) |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Clough, William | Glover, Thomas |
| Barker, Sir John | Clynes, J. R. | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford |
| Barnard, E. B. | Cooper, G. J. | Griffith, Ellis J. |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Guiland, John W. |
| Beaumont, Hon. Hubert | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Hall, Frederick |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Hancock, J. G. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) |
| Brace, William | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) |
| Bramsdon, Sir T. A. | Duckworth, Sir James | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.) |
| Branch, James | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) |
| Brooke, Stopford | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Haworth, Arthur A. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Evans, Sir S. T. | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Everett, R. Lacey | Hedges, A. Paget |
| Burnyeat, W. J, D. | Falconer, James | Helme, Norval Watson |
§ Budget Bill. I hope that the Government will go on for another 15 weeks sooner than have Amendments hurried through. This Bill is not going to be fought solely on the land clauses; we are going to fight the other clauses as well.
§ Mr. ROWLAND HUNTThe Government have used the guillotine and the Closure to-day very heavily. I have been closured myself on two occasions. So have other hon. Members who know more about English land than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Yet he is going to keep us up an indefinite time. These three things have never been used together before. It is rather a strong order for such a small Opposition as we are.
§ Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 69; Noes, 151.
| Henry, Charles S. | Montgomery, H. G. | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | Morrell, Philip | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Higham, John Sharp | Myer, Horatio | Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.) |
| Hobart, Sir Robert | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Stanley, Hon A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Hodge, John | Norman, Sir Henry | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Hyde, Clarendon G. | O'Grady, J. | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Illingworth, Percy H. | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | Summerbell, T. |
| Jenkins, J. | Parker, James (Halifax) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Partington, Oswald | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Paulton, James Mellor | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Laidlaw, Robert | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Verney, F. W. |
| Lambert, George | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Walsh, Stephen |
| Lamont, Norman | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Lehmann, R. C. | Rainy, A. Holland | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Raphael, Herber H. | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, w.) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Richardson, A. | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Ridsdale, E. A. | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Lyell, Charles Henry | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Robinson, S. | Whitehead, Rowland |
| M'Callum, John N. | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Rogers, F. E. Newman | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Maddison, Frederick | Rose, Sir Charles Day | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Markham, Arthur Basil | Rowlands, J. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Massie, J. | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | |
| Masterman, C. F. G. | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) | |
| Micklem, Nathaniel | Seely, Colonel | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Mond, A. | Sherwell, Arthur James | |
| Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Silccck, Thomas Ball |
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI rise to move the Amendment which stands in no' name as follows, at the end of Section (2), after the words "until it is again developed," to insert the words, "and (b) Where the owner of any land shows that he or his predecessors in title have spent sums at the rate of at least one hundred pounds per acre for the purpose of so developing the land, that land shall, for the purposes of this section, not be treated as undeveloped land although it is not for the time being built upon or used for any business, trade, or industry other than agriculture, but for the purpose of this provision no sums shall be taken into account after ten years have elapsed since the time when the sums were spent."
I may say that I rather agree with the Leader of the Opposition that in the form in which it appears on the Paper, the Amendment is probably too wide, and might lead to the conclusion that expenditure at any time on land, even within 50 or 60 years, for the purpose of developing it, although nothing has happened subsequently in the way of development, might exempt the land altogether from the halfpenny tax. Therefore, I intend to propose a modification in the Amendment which I shall indicate later on. I will now explain to the Committee what prompted the Government to move the Amendment. A deputation came to me from the building trade and pointed out that considerable sums of money were being spent, and have been spent, upon preparing the land 184 for building. The land by that process has been rendered unfit for any other purpose. Kerbs, roads, and drains have been made, and the land has been cut up so that it could not be used for market gardening or other purposes of a similar kind. Therefore, to that extent, the land was in process of being developed, and the builders claimed that at any rate they were not holding up the land, but on the contrary they were doing their very best to develop it as rapidly as they could. Under those conditions they suggested that it would be rather unfair to charge them the halfpenny tax on undeveloped land. I admitted the strength of that representation, and the Government decided either to accept an Amendment which appeared on the Paper or to put down an Amendment of their own. I have accordingly put down the Amendment which stands in my name. I find that £100 per acre is the very minimum which has been spent for the purpose of kerbing, draining, and laying out roads. As a matter of fact I believe the lowest figure in London is £150 an acre, and £100 covers not only London, but provincial towns where labour is cheapest. The Government are anxious, however, to connne the concession purely to development for building purposes, and I think the words of the section which I now move will have that effect. But we propose to add at the end, to prevent a section of this kind exempting land for all time from the Undeveloped Land Tax, words providing 185 that the purpose of the expenditure should be confined to a period of ten years. The exact words I add are these, "but for the purpose of this provision no sum shall be taken into account after ten years have elapsed since the time when the sums were spent." It is quite conceivable that unless there is some limit of time, expenditure on land for building purposes might count for 30 or 40 years, although as a matter of fact the land was really being held up and no real development had taken place.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI am not now surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused at an earlier period of the evening to give us any indication of what he means by this Amendment. A few minutes ago the right hon. Gentleman spoke as if it was very unreasonable of us to desire to discuss at a reasonable hour what he described as a concession, but the first thing he does in moving the Amendment is to whittle down the concession as much as possible. He put down words of very wide import, and no sooner is that pointed out to him than he alters his mind. On what principle does the Chancellor of the Exchequer put in the limitation? There is no principle; there is no pretence of principle. The right hon. Gentleman has found what we have pointed out repeatedly to him, namely, that this particular provision would hit an industry very hard, and would be extremely unpopular with a great number of people. He himself has become convinced of that. Injustice does not affect his attitude, but the fear of losing votes does. He has found his Bill as it stands would be unjust. That does not matter. But it would be unjust to too many people, and therefore he introduces a proviso. He only increases the injustice by so doing. What is the effect of the limitation? Take the case introduced to the notice of the Committee by, I must say, the ill-mannered, ill-tempered speech of the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Mond) earlier in the evening. [A MEMBER: "Oh."] The hon. Member is here and can answer for himself if he desires. But the less he says about the matter the better, unless it is to apologise to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) for what he said.
§ Mr. MONDI shall be much obliged if the right hon. Gentleman will explain to me what I have to apologise for.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThis is purely a question of complete exemption and of 186 treating land as developed. I am not limiting the deductions at all to ten years. I want to make that point clear. For deductions there is no limit of time. Where money is spent with a view of creating value, and value is created by the expenditure, that expenditure can be deducted at any time. If the value is attributable to that expenditure I do not propose to limit it at all. This is a totally different proposition. This is a question of whether you are going to treat land as developed or undeveloped at all. It is a question of the exemption of land of this kind, and I propose to limit it to ten years, but when you come to deductions you can deduct at any moment. I am not limiting the deductions.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINWhat I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say is that deductions are not affected under this proviso; that the deductions which are allowed may run from any date and from any time.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGESo long as the value is attributable to the expenditure.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThey are not deductions unless the value is attributable. Of course, we have not come to the point as to how you are to ascertain whether the value is attributable or not— what is reasonable to attribute to the expenditure. All that this proviso does is to say that apart from any deductions to which taxable land is subject there is to be certain other land which is not taxable, certain defined land on which £100 has been spent within ten years is not taxable. That £100 has to be spent for the purpose, not necessarily of building, but of developing any industry except agriculture. If you spent £100 in fitting it for agriculture you would not get any credit for that £100. You would be a fool for your pains. But provided you had spent it for some other industrial purpose and within ten years then you would be exempted from the tax. That will cover the cases of little plots of land in rapid development. But surely the Chancellor knows that there is a great deal of land which people are bonâ fide attempting to develop which remains undisposed of even for longer periods than ten years. Although there is no return for the owner or developer within ten years the Chancellor refuses to give any relief. That might assist the Chancellor electorally by relieving the pressure from a 187 great number of people who would have been very hardly affected, but it would not relieve the injustice of the tax. On the contrary, it would only aggravate it by introducing a new differentiation of treatment.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI wish to move to amend the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer by inserting after the word "title" ["predecessors in title"] "or any of his or their lessors or tenants or other persons in contract with him or them." The exemption should not be confined to the owner himself and his predecessor in title. Supposing a man, as frequently happens, has a short lease of the land, or has entered into a contract with somebody to lease it, and has stipulated that the lessor or the contractor should spend so much upon the property in doing some work upon it. Of course, he has then, inferentially, himself spent £100 an acre. If he has done anything which has brought about the expenditure of the £100 the effect of my Amendment would be that the mere fact of £100 being expended at the instance of the owner would be sufficient to take him outside the scope of this tax.
§ Mr. HALDANEIn the words as drawn the expenditure is carefully limited to expenditure by the owner of the land or his predecessors in title. That is wide enough to cover all money which they have arranged to be expended or over which they have had the control. But if you extend it, as the hon. Member proposes, to the lessees, tenants, or other persona you open up a vista by which it would be impossible for any tribunal to determine whether the money was spent or not.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDIn asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, may I be permitted to say that the object of the Amendment was really to ascertain whether the Government intended to allow a man to make a contract or to lease the property and to stipulate for the money to be spent; but as it appears from the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman that it is not intended to allow a man to have the benefit of this exemption unless he or his immediate predecessors actually spend the money out of their own pockets, the Government's Amendment for which they are going to take credit to-night practically amounts to little or nothing. 188 As I know it is no use driving a matter of this sort to a division, I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. PEEL moved to leave out from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposed Amendment the words after "have" to "land" ["he or his predecessors in title have spent sums at the rate of at least £100 per acre for the purpose of so developing the land "] and to insert instead thereof the words "either spent sums at the rate of £50 per acre for the purpose of so developing the land, or have laid out the land for building."
§ I am very disappointed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has thought fit to make this limitation of ten years—first, because a great deal of land is laid out for building before there is any real prospect of letting that land for building. That procedure should be encouraged, because if the land is laid out, when the demand for building comes houses can be quickly put up to meet the demand, and I submit that everything should be done to increase the amount of building, and not discourage such building, as I am afraid this Amendment would do. It is quite impossible that the land can revert w its original purpose. It cannot revert to agricultural land, and there is no way except by building to get any income out of it at all. I regret therefore the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have made that limitation. But whether there is that limitation or not, my Amendment is perfectly germane. I wish to make it clear by my Amendment that there are two specific kinds of development—that which has to do with exterior development and that which applies to money spent on the actual development of the land itself. In the case of land laid out for building I do not put in any Amendment because it is clear that if the land is developed for building that ought to be enough to exempt builders from the tax entirely, seeing that the tax is based upon the idea of their holding up land, and as the land is developed for building it cannot be used for agricultural purposes. It is quite enough to say that they have laid out land for building. I divide by this Amendment the two classes of development—outside development and inside development—and I think it meets the point made earlier in the evening and makes rather more definite the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
189§ 3.0 A.M.
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman)I do not think the hon. Gentleman is quite correct in stating that this is a more definite and less vague Amendment than that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and certainly it would widen the scope of the concession far beyond the idea the Chancellor of the Exchequer had in view. His idea was very definite. It was to meet the case where builders had locked up a considerable portion of their capital in laying out sewers, etc., and where they found they were unable themselves to build on the land so laid out. It was submitted to the Government by a good many builders and others in the actual work who were of the deputation that it was rather unfair to call such land undeveloped land, and that it was unfair to put upon capital they had already laid out on the land an Undeveloped Land Tax. The amount of £100 per acre was chosen as being the limit which might be assumed to be a real bonâ fide development. I am familiar with a case where in an attempt to develop a South Coast watering-place a sum much less than £100 per acre has been spent on land which is still agricultural land, though it may come under the definition of land laid out for building purposes, and may altogether escape the Undeveloped Land Tax. I think the Government has gone very far to meet the case of the builders in the words that are proposed, and I would ask the Committee to reject the Amendment which has been proposed.
§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYI really think the Government will be well-advised to consider the proposition which has been submitted to the Committee. It has not the effect which they suppose it has. I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman intended the concession he gave to apply to a case like this, and—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell)That point does not arise here.
§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYOn a point of order, Mr Caldwell, I received an intimation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I should have an opportunity of raising this point.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI know nothing about that. It is not in order on this Amendment.
§ Mr. A. C. BECKThe Under-Secretary who has just spoken has forgotten the 190 watering down of the concession of the right hon. Gentleman which has just taken place. I mean the ten years. The hon. Gentleman's argument would have been very sound if there had not been that ten years. £100 an acre with an unlimited time is a different concession to that which provides that £100 should be spent during the last ten years. Therefore, I shall support the Amendment to reduce the sum. I do not know whether I am in order in protesting against these sudden-changes in the Bill which take place, not from day to day, but from moment to moment. It really makes it extraordinarily difficult if after the Amendment has been put down upon the Paper, a, week afterwards the Chancellor of the Exchequer gets up at this hour of the morning and waters down the concession which he has given us in this very considerable way.
Mr. C. SCOTT-DICKSONI would, suggest to the Government that the words of my hon. Friend's Amendment should be adopted. I think the words "laid out the land for building" are necessary in order to carry out the effect and purposes which the Government have in view, viz., to provide for money which has been spent on laying out roads, channelling, and so on, and my point is that the words "so developed" do not cover that expenditure at all. If you examine the Amendment with the previous clause, "so developed" means that land is to be built upon. According to the best judgment I can give the language of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment will not in the least carry out the purposes which the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained to the Committee. If you carry out the expressed purpose of the Chancellor of the Exchequer you must put in words which my Friend proposes to insert at the end of the Amendment. I agree it is a technical point, and as the Secretary for War is-considering the matter, I put it to him that the words "or developed" have the meaning I have attributed to them, and have not the meaning the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he thought they had, and, no doubt, intended them to have.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESThe Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer says "for the purpose of developing the land"; it does not say "in developing the land," and, therefore, I think that expenditure on roads for the purpose of developing land on which development is to follow would be covered by the words of the 191 Chancellor of the Exchequer. I agree that it is important to specify in this clause what we mean by the "expenditure of at least £100 per acre for the purpose of so developing the land," and I have handed in an Amendment adding after the word "land" the words "on roads, including paving, kerbing, metalling, and other works in connection with roads or sewers." That will meet the point raised by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Scott-Dickson), and I think the Government will accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. HALDANEIt will be convenient when we get to the point to take in some such words as my hon. Friend (Mr. Leif Jones) has suggested. Whether they are sufficient or not is a matter for consideration when we come to them. I agree with the learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Scott-Dickson) that some specification is desirable in this matter. It seems to me that the words of my hon. Friend (Mr. Leif Jones) go very near it. In principle I should be prepared to accept them.
§ Mr. MONDI should like to point out that Section (2) of Clause 10 does not refer merely to land built upon, but also to land
| Division No. 407.] | AYES. | [3.15 a.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Falconer, James | Lehmann, R. C. |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Fenwick, Charles | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Fuller, John Michael F. | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Barnard, E. B. | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Beauchamp, E. | Glover, Thomas | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Beaumont, Hon. Hubert | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Griffith, Ellis J. | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) |
| Brace, William | Guiland, John W. | Maddison, Frederick |
| Bramsdon, Sir T. A. | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Branch, James | Hall, Frederick | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) |
| Srocklehurst, W. B. | Hancock, J. G. | Massie, J. |
| Brooke, Stopford | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Mond, A. |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Money, L. 3. Chiozza |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Montgomery, H. G. |
| Chance, Frederick William | Heworth, Arthur A. | Merrell. Philip |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Myer, Horatio |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Hedges, A. Paget | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Clough, William | Helme, Norval Watson | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) |
| Clynes, J. R. | Henry, Charles S. | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Cooper, G. J. | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Hon. S.) | Partington, Oswald |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Higham, John Sharp | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Hodge, John | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Illingworth, Percy H. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Jenkins, J. | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Duckworth, Sir James | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Laidlaw, Robert | Richards. T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Lambert, George | Richardson, A. |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Lament, Norman | Ridsdale, E. A. |
§ being used bonâ fide for any business or industry. If £100 is spent on a railway siding, surely that land should be treated m the same way as if roads or kerbs were made. The Secretary for War has accepted an Amendment making the expenditure of £100 applicable only to what I call developing a building estate, and which will cut out the development of land for other purposes.
§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYI do not think that is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant. He clearly told us that he intends to limit the concession to the particular case of what we may call manufacturing land for building purposes; that is to say, the making of roads or sewers. But the English of the clause is quite clear. It seems that if on a ten-acre site a mansion of £2,000 is erected—an average expenditure of £200 per acre—that would be covered by the Amendment put down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The drafting of that Amendment will have to be entirely altered if the Chancellor of the Exchequer desires his purpose to obtain.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'for' ["one hundred pounds per acre for the purpose "] stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 139; Noes, 55.
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Robinson, S. | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Strachey, Sir Edward | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Summerbell, T. | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Rogers, F. E. Newman | Trylor, John W. (Durham) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Rowlands, J. | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Seely, Colonel | Verney, F. W. | |
| Sherwell, Arthur James | Walsh, Stephen | |
| Silcock, Thomas Ball | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Simon, John Allsebrook | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | |
| Stanger, H. Y. | Waterlow, D. S. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm's.) | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Haddock, George B. | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Helmsley, Viscount | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hill, Sir Clement | Stanler, Seville |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hunt, Rowland | Starkey, J. R. |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Kerry, Earl of | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Cave, George | Lambton, Hon. Frederick William | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Cecil. Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewlsham) | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Dairymple, Viscount | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Moore, William | Younger, George |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Morpeth, Viscount | |
| Forster, Henry William | Newdegate, F. A. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir William Bull and Mr. Peel. |
| Foster, P. S. | Oddy, John James | |
| Gardner, Ernest |
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDThe next Amendment I have to propose to the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a very important, but comparatively simple one. It is to add after the word "acre" ["at least one hundred pounds per acre"] the words "of the net land capable of development." In explanation of the object of the Amendment I may point out that in the development of land for building purposes a large portion of the site is taken away for the purpose of constructing streets and passages. As a matter of fact, four acres of land in the state of agriculture, becomes, when undergoing development, no more than three acres of land on which to build houses. Therefore, when it becomes necessary to make a calculation as to how much per acre has been expended, I suggest you should take it on the net quantity of land which you have left that #is actually available for building. At all events, it is necessary that there should be some explicit declaration as to whether the acreage is to be calculated on the original condition of the property or upon; the net quantity of land. If the discussion on the Amendment does nothing else it will, at all events, elicit from the Government a distinct statement as to what condition of land is intended to be taken 194 into account in connection with the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is under those circumstances, pointing out as I do the absolute necessity of saying what particular measure you are going to take in dealing with building land, which alters immediately you put down kerbs, lay out roads, and so on, that I move my Amendment. In the case of the building of comparatively small property, you have, under the regulations, about 75 ft. of depth on which you put up houses or cottages. Then you have 9 ft. for the passage at the back, and if you are going to have a 22-ft. roadway you must have 6 ft. for a footway on each side, which makes 34 ft. altogether. The Committee will readily see that when you have cut off 34 ft. and 9 ft. you no longer have four acres of land to measure. As a matter of fact, you have reduced the whole area of the land by one quarter, and I should like to know the Government's idea of how the matter should be dealt with.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI am rather doubtful as to whether the words the hon. Gentleman has moved would really carry out his design. When I first looked at the words of his Amendment to my Amendment I must confess that I had not the remotest idea what they meant, and now that he has explained his intention I still 195 think the words are not referable to the intention he has in his mind. I think it is perfectly certain that they would not except the pavements and road of which he has been speaking. What he really means is that he wants to reduce the amount of £100 which the Government have fixed in their Amendment, and this is the only way he sees of doing that. But as I have already explained to the Committee, we have covered everything by taking £100 as the amount, because I am sure that £150 is the minimum sum spent on land where labour is cheapest. As the whole case is covered, and as the Amendment would not meet the object of the hon. Gentleman, I hope he will not press it.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINMay I suggest that if the words of my hon. Friend will not meet the case an Amendment could be framed which would do so. Certainly the draftsmen could devise words which would express the intention of my hon. Friend. I confess that I rather hoped from the opening passage of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech that he was going on to say that, while he did not think the words would do, he was in complete sympathy with the object of my hon. Friend and would bring up words to give effect to it. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to put before him a consideration which is, I think, of weight and ought to alter his views. He says that really this is only another way of reducing the limit of £100—a figure which I have already stated is very low, because under ordinary circumstances for making roads you spend more than that sum per acre. Even assuming that the figure of £100 is as low as the Chancellor thinks, yet the form in which the relief is given is not the form which is most, conducive to the public interest. What will happen? The landlord will say, "If I spend £100 per acre on the estate I am free; not £100 on the land which I build on, and from which I secure a profit, but £100 per acre of the whole estate." The Government therefore direct his attention to the percentage which his expenditure bears to the whole estate, and the inevitable result will be that he will try, not to develop his estate, but to get the very largest profit, the very largest return, that he can out of it, and the result of the form in which the proposal of the Government is put, as distinct from the proposal of my hon. Friend behind me, will be that the owner will be discouraged 196 from giving up more land than is necessary for any other purpose than putting a house upon it, and that he will allot to each house as small a portion of land as possible. He will make his roads and back ways as narrow as the bye-laws permit.
An hon. Gentleman says they do that now. Is that why it should be perpetuated? Is that what you want to encourage, or do you wish rather to encourage that newer and better form of development, which does involve a considerable sacrifice on the part of the landlord, and which is in practice in certain places, such as the garden cities and the place just outside Birmingham by Mr. Cadbury and the Trust he has created, as also by private landowners, probably on a much smaller scale, generally speaking, in the past? Do you wish to discourage that other form of development and drive landlords to get the utmost possible number of houses on this land that the law allows them to place there? I submit to the Chancellor that if he will accept the spirit, if not the words of my hon. Friend's Amendment, and make his £100 exemption applicable to the net amount of land which the owner actually turns to profit by his building, he will encourage the setting apart by landlords of spaces for the public in one form or another, not necessarily as a park, but, it may be, as gardens or shrubberies, and flower-beds planted in the midst. I will accept, for the purposes of my argument, that the words of this Amendment will not, as the Chancellor says, have this effect, but that is the result which I and my hon. Friend wish to secure. My hon. Friend put one illustrative case, and I put another. We wish not to do anything that discourages the non-commercial, but essentially beneficial, use of a portion of the land. The Chancellor's proposal will certainly have the effect of causing the landowner to try and cover as much land as he can with building. The Chancellor says the words of this Amendment will not do what we want. Of course, it is open to him to refuse an Amendment, on the ground that the words are not suitable or will not effect the purpose. But when the right hon. Gentleman has to admit that there is a case and wishes to propose words himself to meet the case, he wants time to do it, and thinks it very unreasonable that he should be called upon for a different form of words across the floor of the House. It is more difficult for us to produce a form of words across the floor 197 of the House without the assistance which the right hon. Gentleman has at his disposal. I take the opportunity of my hon. Friend's Amendment to raise this question, and to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if lie will meet us on a point which he has raised, even if he cannot accept the words which my hon. Friend proposes. We may help him to find other words if he is unable to do it by himself.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe hon. Gentleman wants to encourage the landowner, who sets aside an acre or two in the development of his estate for an open space. That is the case in a garden city where a considerable plot of land in the middle of the developed area is set aside purely as a breathing space for the general public. That is a different thing in the computation.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThat is perfectly true as far as it goes, but I do not mean necessarily a considerable plot of land on an estate. The only garden city with which I have acquaintance is Bournville, and there I do not think there is a considerable plot of land for the general access, set apart as a playground or a park for the whole community. There are small plots and places where the corners are cut off and where a small plot is laid out at the meeting of two or three roads, whereas if the object was merely to get the greatest amount of value out of the land they would have drawn through roads at right angles, and would have used two or three more acres instead of having the small plots and gardens which are a great addition to the amenities of the place.
§ Mr. LLOYD - GEORGEThe hon. Gentleman's point is a very substantial one and well worthy of consideration, but. I am perfectly certain that these words would not meet the case he has in view. If these words are withdrawn now I will certainly consider, and consider favourably, the case the right hon. Gentleman now puts—the question of encouraging open spaces in the middle of an area of this kind by eliminating the aggregate area out of the computation of the number of pounds. If the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Amendment I will promise to consider some future words that would cover a case of that kind.
§ Mr. REMNANTMy hon. Friend mentioned one-fourth of the land for development as being taken for the amenities of a particular district, but I venture to say that in view of the more modern require- 198 ments one-third of the land to be developed would be nearer the mark than one-fourth. It is most important that in the development of an estate as much land as possible should be given up to the public as open spaces for the benefit of the district. Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer be satisfied with such words as these—"on such ground only as is retained from private occupation"?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI am rather doubtful whether these words would cover the point alluded to, and I think the hon. Member had better not tie the Committee's hands at the present stage to a particular form of words. I can see the object the hon. Gentleman has in view. I do not agree with him about the roads, but I think the question of open spaces is a very different affair.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDIn moving my Amendment I had in my mind a number of purposes for which the land might be used. There are roads of necessity. Then there is in many places a narrow strip of land left for ornamental purposes, such as the planting of trees or a little strip of grass, which a good many philanthropic landowners in laying out their land provide. There are also corners with little gardens in the centre. It is a very great pity to discourage all these things in fixing a limit of £100 per acre. If we are to have this tax let us have it in such a way that it will not prevent people doing their best for the land so as to be of advantage to the community. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks we have gone too far in asking for £100 on the net land, and if he has made it £100 on the land which is going to be used, I should feel inclined to accept it. Anything is better than to pass this clause in such a shape that it will discourage landowners from doing things which are calculated to be of advantage to the community. I am inclined to accept the proposal in the spirit in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has met us, and I hope when he is drawing up the words which he is going to put in on Report he will have regard to all these different amenities as far as possible and make the words as wide as can be. Under the circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Mr. A. B MARKHAMBefore the Amendment is withdrawn, I wish to say that I very much regret that these concessions are being given by the Chancellor 199 of the Exchequer. I think he will give up a great deal of his revenue if he continues to give these concessions to hon. Members opposite.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODIf the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to make an alteration by taking the net area instead of the gross area, will he bear in mind the suggestion of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Watson Rutherford) with regard to the limit?
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESThe Amendment I have to move is to insert after the word "land" the words "on roads (including paving, kerbing, metalling, and other works in connection with roads) or sewers."
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDWill the hon. Member's Amendment prevent anyone moving that the word "so" be left out?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell)It would not be competent to do so if this Amendment were first moved.
§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYAm I in order in asking whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has any intention to move on behalf of the Government an Amendment to give effect to what I believe is the real intention of the clause?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat does not arise at the present moment.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD moved to leave out from the proposed Amendment the word "so" ["for the purpose of 'so' developing the land"].
§ The difficulty we get in by the use of the word "so" is that it refers us back to the development described in the previous part of the clause. It is not, however, intended to do so. The intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been made perfectly clear that the £100 may be spent on development of any kind, and is not restricted to the exact words of the previous section. The whole of the difficulty would be cured by leaving out the word "so."
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI am rather afraid to accept this Amendment, because we have to confine the purpose to that which has been already declared in the first section of the clause, and if you leave out the word "so" it would extend the 200 purpose of development beyond that which we have already laid down. I trust the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.
§ Mr. LYTTELTONI hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider that decision. Are we to put a premium, if possible, on landlords to develop land in the proper way? If that was his object it surely would be a very disastrous thing to attach that premium merely to the development of the land, or for the development of land for use other than in agriculture? My hon. and learned Friend pointed out a short time ago with the full assent of the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Haldane) that the result of this word "so" would be to confine the benefits of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment simply to cases where the land was being developed by the builder or being used for the benefit of business, trade, or industry. In modern building on an estate open spaces and recreation grounds are things eminently to be encouraged. The right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) promised that the Bill should contain certain provisions. But here we have got an Amendment put down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, and yet there is not a trace of the encouragement which we all had looked for. If he insists upon keeping that word "so" the effect of this clause will be to discourage every landlord who wishes to get a return for his money from doing anything outside the bare building and the commercial use of his land. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to give easy terms, and to make some Amendment in future or to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI am fully in sympathy with the object the right hon. Gentleman has in view. I think the development of what is known as the Garden City and that class of idea will be best dealt with when we come to Clause 11, to which I have already put down a number of Amendments. I do not think the remission of the word "so" will have any effect at all here.
§ Mr. CAVEI desire to put a point which has not been quite fully considered. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that the main object of this Amendment was to meet the builders; but it seems to me he does not meet the builders at all. Expenditure on roads is not developing land for building or for trade purposes. If 201 you have the word "so" you shut out the very purpose which you desire to carry out. I cannot help thinking that the point has not been fully considered. This Amendment ought to be accepted, subject, of course, to reconsideration hereafter.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider in Clause 11 the putting of words in saying that these various exceptions are to be taken into account in the computation?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe hon. Member is asking me now to make a very exceptional concession. In answer to him and to the right hon. Gentleman, I do not see why the word "so" should make all that difference. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War promised to accept an Amendment in order to make it perfectly clear that the case of the builder was covered; but I do not see that the deletion of the word "so" would make the slightest difference. All we want here is to make it perfectly clear that we only refer to the development for building and development for industry.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDIt will stop them making it into gardens.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEGardens are "agricultural" under the definition clauses. If a garden is part of the scheme of development for a village or city, very well—all that will be covered by Clause 11, and I agree that in that clause they ought to be taken into account. I am very anxious not to mix the two up, and we are, I fear, rather doing it now.
§ 4 A.M.
§ Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYI really think the Chancellor of the Exchequer includes more than he intends. Earlier in the Debate I asked him whether he intended to cover the case of a mansion averaging more than £100 an acre over a site of five or ten acres, and he replied in the negative. I would point out to him that his Amendment, as drawn, does cover that case.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThere was an observation which fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a moment ago which interested me. I am interested in gardens—not personally, although I wish I had one—but I take a certain pleasure in them. The right hon. Gentle- 202 man said that gardens were agriculture for the purposes of this Bill.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEMarket gardens.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThat is quite a different matter. The kind of garden laid out for garden cities is not a market garden.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI said that would be a matter for consideration under Clause 11.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThen the question of the garden is to be reserved for Clause 11 or some future Amendment. That is really a little difficult. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the Amendment he proposed stood entirely by itself; that it was quite apart from all exemptions and deductions allowed in any other part of the Bill; and that it was an exclusion from the purview of the tax of certain land which but for the proviso would be included in the tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot have it both ways. He cannot at the moment refer us to other clauses as an answer to his arguments, and at another moment tell us that the proviso is not affected by other clauses. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us an undertaking that he will try to meet the case of land which might be built upon or be capable of development, not by being used for building or for any industry, but by means of the general amenities of the place. Will the right hon. Gentleman look at Section (2) of this clause and consider the Amendment just proposed in the light of that section. It recognises only two forms of development—development by building upon the land or by utilising the land for an industrial purpose. He does not mean to confine his present proviso to those two purposes. He means distinctly to include other purposes and to allow land to get the benefit of exemption which is not used for an industrial purpose. How can he do so if he uses the word "so," which repeats the four lines of Section (2) in this proviso. Leave out the word "so," and you do not repeat those four lines. All our present difficulties arise from the fact that that short word of two letters incorporates in this proviso four whole lines of Section (2). The difficulty was seen by the Secretary of War and by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Leif Jones), and they tried to meet it by qualifying the word "so." That word is not wanted, 203 and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not given any reason why we should retain a word which is not only otiose but absolutely injurious.
§ Mr. WILLIAM MOOREI should like to know whether the word "garden" will come in under this Amendment or in Clause 11. The kind of gardens referred to in this Amendment are flower plots in front of three or four houses. They add to the amenities of the houses and to their light and air. The only gardens referred to in Clause 11 are those to which the
| Division No. 408.] | AYES. | [4.10 a.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Harcourt, Rt. Hon, L. (Rossendale) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Barnard, E. B- | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Beaumont, Hon. Hubert | Haworth, Arthur A. | Raphael, Herbert H |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Richardson, A. |
| Bowerman. C. W. | Hedges, A Paget | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Brace, William | Helme, Nerval Watson | Robinson, S |
| Bramsdon, Sir T. A. | Henry, Charles S. | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Branch, James | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Rowlands, J. |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Higham, John Sharp | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Brooke, Stopford | Hodge, John | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Illingworth, Percy H. | Seely, Colonel |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Jenkins, J. | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Burnyeat, W, J. D. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Chance, Frederick William | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Laidlaw, Robert | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Lambert, George | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Clough, William | Lamont, Norman | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Clynes, J. R. | Lehmann, R. C. | Summerbell, T. |
| Cooper, G. J. | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Lewis, John Herbert | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Duckworth, sir James | Lyell, Charles Henry | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Verney, F. W. |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Walsh, Stephen |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Maddison, Frederick | Wason, John Carte art (Orkney) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Markham, Arthur Basil | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Falconer, J. | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Fenwick, Charles | Massie, J. | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Masterman, C. F. G. | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Micklem, Nathaniel | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | Mond, A. | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Glover, Thomas | Montgomery H G. | Wilson. J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Morrell, Philip | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | Myer, Horatio | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Guiland, John W. | Parker, James (Halifax) | |
| Hall, Frederick | Partington, Oswald | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Hancock, J. G. | Paulton, James Mellor |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Hill, Sir Clement |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Hunt, Rowland |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Dairymple, Viscount | Kerry, Earl of |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Lambton, Hon. Frederick William |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Lane-Fox. G. R. |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Forster, Henry William | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Foster, P. S. | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) |
| Cave, George | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds) | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r) | Haddock, George B. | Moore, William |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Helmsley, Viscount | Morpeth, Viscount |
§ public are to have the right of access. That is quite a different matter.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGENot with the Amendments I have put on the Paper.
§ Mr. W. MOOREI am dealing with Clause 11 as it stands. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not seem to realise the distinction.
§ Question put, "That the word 'so' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 129; Noes, 52.
| Newdegate, F. A. | Starkey, John R. | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Oddy, John James | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | Younger, George |
| Percy, Earl | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) | |
| Randles, Sir John Scurrah | Valentia, Viscount | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Watson Rutherford and Mr. Peel. |
| Stanier, Beville | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) | |
| Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent. Mid.) |
§ Mr. LEIF JONESI move in the proposed Amendment after "land" ["at least one hundred pounds per acre for the purpose of so developing the land"] to insert the following words "on roads (including paving, kerbing, metalling and other works in connection with roads) or sewers." The Secretary of State for War, I think, intimated the intention of the Government to accept these words, and I rather gather from my right hon. Friend that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will confirm that. The whole object of the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to exempt from the Undeveloped Land Tax land which is in process of development. I think these words will make clear the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment. The hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) has said that the words I am proposing to the Committee would make nonsense, but if they are looked at carefully it will be seen that is not so. The purpose of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment is to exempt land on which a sum of money has been spent in making roads for the purpose of development, and my Amendment makes its purpose clear. I therefore hope the Committee will agree with it.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI think the Amendment which the hon. Member (Mr. Leif Jones) has just moved is one of vast importance and goes far to whittle away the concession which the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes in his Amendment. Hon. Friends of mine who were here during the speech of the Secretary of State (Mr. Haldane) did not think it was the intention of the Government to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member. They understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Government would consider the matter.
§ Mr. MASTERMANThe appeal came from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Scott-Dickson).
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINMy hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow will speak for himself, but I think the Under-Secretary will find himself mistaken as to the attitude of my hon. Friend. My hon. 206 Friends did not understand that the Secretary of State (Mr. Haldane) had pledged the Government to accept these words, and I hope they are not so pledged. I will tell the Committee why. Consider for a moment what the Amendment does. It goes directly counter to concessions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just promised us he will make and confines the exemption to money spent on roads or sewers. That is to say, money spent on anything but roads and sewers would not come in for the purposes of the right hon. Gentleman's proviso. If the words of the hon. Member (Mr. Leif Jones) were accepted, any money which a landlord might spend in laying out bits of gardens, fencing them in, planting them, and so forth, would not come to his credit. That is contrary to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just said and directly contrary to the Government's own Housing Bill. I only occasionally expect the Government to be consistent throughout one Bill, or throughout one section or one clause of a Bill. It is altogether too much to expect that they should stick to the same principle throughout two Bills. As I have said the hon. Member's Amendment directly refuses that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just consented to grant. That is not all. Consider some of the cases of land developed for building. Take Eastbourne. Is all the expenditure of the ground landlord on the sea-front to go for nothing? He has had to expend money on walls and protection works. It is just the same kind of case as exists all along the East Coast where the sea is encroaching on the land. Yet all kinds of expenditure except that which is actually incurred on two particular objects—laying roads and putting sewers into roads—would be excluded by the Amendment. It might be right to exclude all such expenditure. I do not think it would be, and the Government do not think it would be; but clearly if it is right to admit a portion of the expenditure, the expenditure on roads and sewers, it is equally right to admit expenditure on such other objects as I have spoken of, such, for instance, as the construction of a sea-front, necessary to the buildings behind.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe right hon. Gentleman has been guilty of what he is not often guilty of, and that is he has really confused two or three sections. He seems to be under the impression that it you exclude sea walls and gardens and other expenditure from this proviso the landlord is not to be given credit for them. That is not the case. The sea walls, the protection of the land, the efforts made for the reclamation, and all other such forms of expenditure as the landlord has incurred at Eastbourne, would be given credit for in any land which the landlord developed there, but it has nothing to do with this proposal.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThat is exactly my point. It is the correction which the Chancellor administered to me earlier in the evening which, I think, has made me right upon this point. They will be admitted in the other places as deductions from the site value upon which an owner will be charged, but in this proviso they are not to be admitted as ground for exemption from any charge at all. The Chancellor pointed out to me earlier in the evening that I was suffering from confusion, and that the deductions of which he is speaking have nothing to do with this proviso. The fact that such things are allowed elsewhere as deductions from the site value on which duty is to be charged is no answer to my point that they ought equally to be allowed in this proviso as land for exemption altogether.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThey are two very different cases. In the other case the landlord gets full credit, not merely for what he spends but for the value he creates by his expenditure. That is all, I think, which he is entitled to. Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not mean that if, by adding up all his expenditure, a landowner is able to make it £100 he should be exempted whatever the value of the land is? Supposing the sea-wall and the promenade and all that kind of expenditure were spread over the whole of Eastbourne you would soon cover hundreds, if not thousands, of acres to the extent of £100 an acre.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINA promenade would come in because it is a road.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIt would come in if it were developing a piece of land. Take a sea-wall. That would be a heavy 208 expenditure. Let us assume it would cost anything from £50,000 to £100,000. It would cover no end of acres at the rate of £100. I do not think you ought to be entitled to bring in expenditure of that kind for the purposes simply of running up £100 an acre for exempted land which would be worth £2,000 an acre. You ought to bring it in as a deduction for what it is worth, and what it has produced, however far it goes, and even if the expenditure is sufficient to cover hundreds of thousands of acres—but you ought not to bring it in here. I understand from the Secretary of State for War that he accepted this Amendment very largely because of the wishes of the Opposition. I stand by that promise. It is the promise which was given to the builders. They never asked for anything more. They simply asked for the money that was spent on curbs and roads, and upon sewers to be deducted. They said, "It is money which is spent by us in order to prepare the land for building, and destroys it for any other purpose." That is what I promised to do.
§ Mr. CAVEIf the Chancellor thinks that in accepting this Amendment he is complying with a request made on this side of the House he is mistaken. What was asked was that these matters should be included in the exemption in this clause, but not that they should be put in the place of all the other exemptions. The effect of accepting this Amendment is that the Chancellor is withholding three-fourths of what he calls the concession, the modification of his Bill, which is made by the Amendment on the Paper, because he confines the modification in the. Bill—the credit given by this section —to the one category of the expenditure on road-making. By so doing he shuts out all the other matters which would be covered by the Amendment which he himself put upon the paper in black and white There are several things which would be covered by the Amendment on the Paper which would not be covered if that Amendment were amended as now proposed. Take the case of ornamental enclosures of all kinds and of spaces which have been set apart for the purposes of amenities in connection with an estate. The expenditure in those matters would not be covered by the exemption if this Amendment were accepted. What I mean is that land on which this money has been spent will be held to be undeveloped land, although, as a matter of fact, it would 209 have been developed at a heavy expenditure, and in the best way it can be used, and in the way in which it will be permanently used. Yet it will be called undeveloped, and will be treated by this section as what it is not—nameIy,undeveloped land. That is going contrary to the wishes of many on both sides of the House, and contrary to the Amendment which has been put on the Paper and upon which we have relied. Large sums of money may have been spent on expensive works and yet the very land on which those works have been carried out will be treated as if it were wholly undeveloped. If you modify the clause as is now proposed you shut out all sorts of things which are for the development of the land. You shut out land which is extensively advertised, and make it pay the Undeveloped Land Duty. I regard the Amendment as cutting away three-fourths of the value of the Government Amendment, and I hope it will be resisted.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI only rise to call attention to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that his Amendment is made to meet the case of builders. I happen to have had the opportunity of conversing with a gentleman in that profession who was one of a deputation that waited upon the right hon. Gentleman, and he told me that one of the common forms of expenditure in developing building land was to spend a large sum every year in advertising. He informed me that in the case of a single estate in the neighbourhood of London he spent £2,000 on that purpose, and you will find that builders are constantly doing the same thing.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI have an Amendment to cover that case.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI should also like to remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he has not really mot the statement of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Cham-
| Division No. 409.] | AYES. | [4.40 a.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Bums, Rt. Hon. John | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) |
| Barnard, E. B. | Chance, Frederick William | Evans, Sir S. T. |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Everett, R. Lacey |
| Beaumont, Hon. Hubert | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Falconer, J. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Clough, William | Fenwick, Charles |
| Brace, William | Clynes, J. R. | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace |
| Bramsdon, Sir T. A. | Cooper, G. J. | Fuller, John Michael F. |
| Branch, James | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Gibb, James (Harrow) |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John |
| Brooke, Stopford | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Glover, Thomas |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Duckworth, Sir James | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford |
§ berlain). The right hon Gentleman, in dealing with his own Amendment, gave my right hon. Friend distinctly to understand that, he would take into account all cases like those of garden cities, or cases m which landlords are developing their land in that way. Everyone who is acquainted with that kind of work will agree that a very considerable sum of money is spent in laying out little parks, building fountains, and things of that kind. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree that his promise to my right hon. Friend was that expenditure of that kind would be taken into account in the very proviso we are now discussing.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThat deals rather with a pledge I gave him in reference to an Amendment of the hon. Member for West Derbyshire. It was purely with regard to the area in which you compute your £100. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to eliminate open spaces. I thought he made a case, and I promised to consider it. That is all I promised, and I should not like to have any misconception as to it.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI think the right hon. Gentleman is confusing the point. How can this proviso take into account the promise he has made by limiting the amount of land to which the £100 is to apply if he at the same time says that no part of the £100 is to apply to any expenditure of that kind?
§ Amendment proposed, to insert in the proposed Amendment after "land" ["so developing the land"] the words "on roads, including paving, kerbing, metalling and other works connected with roads or sewers."
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 127;. Noes, 51.
| Griffith, Ellis J. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Seely, Colonel |
| Guiland, John W. | Macpherson, J. T. | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Hall, Frederick | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Hancock, J. G. | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Maddison, Frederick | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Markham, Arthur Basil | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Massie, J. | Summerbell, T. |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Masterman, C. F. G. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Micklem, Nathaniel | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Hazel Dr. A. E. W. | Mond, A. | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Hedges, A. Paget | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Helme, Nerval Watson | Montgomery, H. G. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Henry, Charles S. | Worrell, Philip | Verney, F. W. |
| Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Myer, Horatio | Walsh, Stephen |
| Higham, John Sharp | Parker, James (Halifax) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Hodge, John | Partington, Oswald | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Illingworth, Percy H. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Jenkins, J. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Price Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Rainy, A. Rolland | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Laidlaw, Robert | Raphael, Herbert H. | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Lambert, George | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Lamont, Norman | Richardson, A. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Lehmann, R. C. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Robinson, S. | |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | Rogers, F. E. (Newman) | |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Rowlands, J. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. | |
| Lyell, Charles Henry | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Foster, P. S. | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds) | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Haddock, George B. | Stanier, Beville |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Helmsley, Viscount | Starkey, John R. |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hill, Sir Clement | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hunt, Rowland | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Cave, George | Lambton, Hon. Frederick William | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Dairymple, Viscount | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Younger, George |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Moore, William | |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Newdegate, F. A. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord Kerry and Mr. Hugh Barrio. |
| Forster, Henry William | Oddy, John James |
§ Mr. LYTTELTON moved to omit all words from "agriculture" to the end of the proposed Amendment.
§ I take serious exception to these words because we do not regard it as fair that an Amendment should for 14 days remain upon the Paper with constant references made to it by the Government in the course of the Debate and then find, after we have acceded to some proposals made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that about two o'clock in the morning the clause is considerably amended by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Leif Jones), and by further limiting the effect of the clause to ten years. The effect of this Amendment, thrust upon us at the last moment, is to put a premium not upon good development, but upon bad development. But even if this condition had any merits whatever, I 212 submit to the Committee that it is not fair to the Committee and to the Opposition that an Amendment should be altered and limited by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself after it had stood upon the Paper for several days and after constant attempts have been made during this Debate to shorten the discussion and to get Amendments on the Paper withdrawn. After this Amendment has been used as a bait throughout the whole day as a means of influencing the course of the Debate, we find the Chancellor of the Exchequer at two o'clock in the morning substantially altering it. I do not say it is a breach of faith, but I say it is an action which requires the strongest protest.
§ Mr. MASTERMANI regret that the right hon. Gentleman should suggest that there has been any breach of faith on the part of the Government.
§ Mr. LYTTELTONThat is exactly what I did not suggest.
§ Mr. MASTERMANThen I regret that the right hon. Gentleman used words that might lead others to suggest it. The Chancellor frequently stated that there would be the fullest opportunity for discussion on this Amendment of his, and as the Committee will recognise full opportunity has been given during the three and a-half hours. I have no recollection of the Chancellor of the Exchequer making any pledge that he would refuse to accept Amendments, or Amendments of importance, and why the hon. and learned Member for Kingston should suggest that it was monstrous that we should accept an Amendment from this (the Government) side of the House and fair to accept Amendments from that side I do not know.
§ Mr. MASTERMANThe Chancellor of the Exchequer explained at least three times, the Secretary for War tried to explain, and I have tried to explain the purpose of this Amendment. It was to meet a pledge given to the building profession of this country to deal specificially with one specific point, namely, the point that arose when builders have a difficulty in getting rid of their land after they have spent considerable sums of money on roads and sewers and laying out the land. The Amendment as it stood before the words were added might be open to misinterpretation which would make it altogether ridiculous. It was said that in some cases you might have to go back to the Norman conquest, and even beyond that in order to find out what the predecessors in title had spent in making the main roads fit for use. That is obviously beyond any desire or demand of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The case raised by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lyttelton) is one which we have been extremely anxious to meet all through these Debates, namely, the right development of estates in connection with garden cities and suburbs. That has nothing whatever to do with this Amendment. This Amendment was not designed to meet that particular case. There are Amendments on the Paper designed to meet that particular case, and if it is not met by those later Amendments my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will favourably consider any further suggestions. Those are entirely questions of deductions, and not questions of the 214 exemption of land upon which a certain sum of money has been spent.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThey ought to be.
§ Mr. MASTERMANWe have given ten years after a bonâ fide expenditure and after a bonâ fide attempt to develop the land. If builders are holding up land for more than ten years after making the expenditure, we have a right to claim that they are holding up land for a higher amount of money, hoping to get an increased price in the prospective future, and therefore they are, under the general principles of this tax, legitimate subjects for taxation.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI cannot congratulate the hon. Gentleman in his third attempt to explain this Amendment. He made a distinction which is very gratifying to many Members of this House. He said the Chancellor of the Exchequer had explained the Amendment, that he himself had tried to explain it, and that the Secretary for War had also tried to explain it. Apparently of the three the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the only one who succeeded. The hon. Gentleman has talked a great deal about garden cities and other things which have nothing whatever to do with this Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said from the first that he intended by this Amendment to meet every legitimate claim by builders after they had spent money in developing land and tried to sell it without success. He now says that the man who spends money and succeeds in finding a buyer is to escape, but the man who goes through the same process and is unlucky enough not to find a buyer is penalised. I cannot accept the Amendment as fulfilling the pledge as given to those engaged in the industry of developing land. There is no case of an estate of any extent round London where the whole estate has been got rid of in ten years. If they go on spending money year after year, and part of the estate is left unsold at the end of ten years, are they to get no benefit from this Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's? There was a distinct promise given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that general cases of this kind would be met, but the words he has put into his own Amendment do away with a great part of its benefit.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDThe hon. Gentleman who has replied on behalf of the Government (Mr. Masterman) has 215 not dealt with our complaint. We were dealing with the Bill as we found it until last Wednesday. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave notice of an Amendment which appeared on Thursday morning; in the Notice Paper that we received. From three o'clock until two o'clock this morning we were all under the impression that the Government's Amendment might be relied upon as being the considered view of the Government. Upon that basis we have dealt with the whole of the preceding part of the clause down to this point. Much to our astonishment, at two o'clock this morning, the Chancellor of the Exchequer got up and said, with regard to the Amendment which he had put on the Paper, that he intended to move it in a shape which whittled it down, and practically deprived it of the benefit it gave to those who had expended money in developing land, but had not been able to sell it for ten years. I call that a shabby trick. I say we have been deliberately deceived—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI do not think the hon. Member is entitled to use the words "deliberately deceived."
§ 5.0 A.M.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI quite agree that you are absolutely right. [Cries of "Withdraw."] I do withdraw it, absolutely and unreservedly. All I will say is this, that the course taken by the Government has deliberately deceived us. I do not impute the slightest desire on the part of the Government to bring that about, but what I do say is that the effect of what has been done has been to deceive us. We have been deliberating on this clause down to two o'clock on a certain basis, and the alteration in the Amendment of the Government is of so important a character, so subversive of what it was held out to us as intended to do, that we are obliged to protest. I take it that not only on the merits of the Amendment itself, but also as a matter of decent Parliamentary procedure, we are entitled to make this protest against the action of the Government. It is on that ground principally that I support the Amendment now moved.
§ Mr. PEELI am one of those who wish to protest against the action of the Government, and I have the very best reason for doing so. I moved an Amendment to this particular Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's, and, speaking for my- 216 self, I can only say—I bring no charge against anybody—that I should never have thought of withdrawing that Amendment if I had known that subsequently the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going further to amend his original Amendment. However, I may say that I have learned a lesson, for the future. Of course, if, after moving an Amendment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer considers that he should be at liberty to change it as he pleases, it will be impossible for others to know whether they should or should not press Amendments which they may have the opportunity of moving. The Under-Secretary (Mr. Masterman) gets up and says, "Why, the Amendment as it is, is ludicrous." That is how he treats an Amendment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer as had on the Paper for a fortnight.
§ Mr. MASTERMANOn a point of order. I said that hon Gentlemen on the other side during the evening had held my right hon. Friend's Amendment up to ridicule.
§ Mr. PEELI think the Under-Secretary said mush more than that. He said that as it stood it would enable any expenditure after the Norman Conquest to be taken into consideration.
§ Mr. MASTERMANThose are the words of the Opposition.
§ Mr. PEELNo, no; the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary said that this proposal was absurd, and so it is; but to go back to the Norman Conquest is a very different thing from ten years. I should like to know on what principle is the period of ten years fixed. That is a ludicrously short time in which to exhaust the virtue of money expended and improvements made in this particular way. We have heard a great deal in the course of our Debates about the holding up of land by landlords, but we have not heard a word of truth upon it. The Under-Secretary, rather like an under-secretary, improves on this suggestion. He supports the Amendment, not because landlords hold up land, but because builders when they have spent their money on developing property themselves hold up the very land on which they have made that expenditure. That, I venture to say, is a most grotesque proposition. To suppose that builders, who have probably borrowed money, would, when they have spent the money on developing land, deliberately hold up that land for some undefined purpose is absurd. It is 217 one of the most grotesque reasons which I have ever heard advanced to support an unfair addition to a clause.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI wish to join my protest to that of others against the course of conduct the Chancellor of the Exchequer has adopted. I do so at this stage because unless objection is taken now the same kind of thing may occur at any future point in our Debates, and we shall never know where we are. We shall never know whether we are to trust the intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as expressed by an Amendment on the Paper or whether when the time comes for him to move his Amendment we shall find that he has another Amendment up his sleeve which he intends to put forward. All through this discussion we have heard at intervals of the great concession the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to make to us. Under those circumstances what did we expect? We expected a reasonable opportunity of discussing the concession as it stands, and ascertaining whether it goes as far as we think it ought to go, or as the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks it will go. But the last thing we expected, or that the practice of the House or Ministers would lead us to expect, was that this concession which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has held out to us through twelve hours of the day should, when the time came to move it, be whittled away to our disadvantage. What is the one explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's conduct which he has given to the House? It is that the whole object of this Amendment was to redeem a pledge he had given to certain representatives of the building trade somewhere. I do not know why he puts an Amendment on the Paper without a word of warning to us as to the particular object it is intended to secure. He holds it out as a concession to us and to the arguments we have adduced, and then at the last moment it appears that it is a particular concession he has promised to a deputation, of the proceedings of which I have seen no account published in any of the newspapers. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to treat Amendments in that way it would be well if, in the first place, he put them down with marginal notes explanatory of their object, such as we have in the Bill itself. If he had put a marginal note to this Amendment of his it would run, "Concession intended to buy off the master 218 builders." That is what he has told us to-night; it is only putting in plain language what he has said. He allowed us to believe that he meant the concession to be as wide as it was when the Amendment was placed on the Paper.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition referred to this Amendment. I said that I agreed with him in thinking it was too wide, and that I should move words which would limit its application. I said that hours and hours ago.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI do not know exactly at what hour that took place. I am told half-past one—that is to say, half an hour before the right hon. Gentleman moved his Amendment. What we have been discussing is not the Amendment but the change the Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced in the Amendment. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that although he did not intend to deceive when he found we had been deceived by the notice on the Paper, he not only allowed us to proceed with the discussion under that misconception, but still continued to hold out the Amendment, which he knew we had misconceived, as a great concession to the demands which we had put forward. I do not think that is right. It is not conducive to business, and does not facilitate progress at the earlier stages of the Bill, because it prevents us having any confidence in the notices which stand on the Paper.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman's remarks to go unchallenged. Although he has not charged me exactly with breach of faith, it is really tantamount to that. His suggestion is that we deliberately allured the Opposition on by pointing to a concession on the Paper, that they withdrew Amendments in consequence, and allowed us to make the most rapid progress, and that when I was doing this I had something at the back of my mind which would deliberately whittle away the whole of this concession. This Amendment was referred to the first time it became relevant.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI think the Chancellor will agree with me when I remind him that the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford referred to the importance of this Amendment early in the afternoon, and that it was raised then, although the right hon. Gentleman himself did not then discuss it.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI simply referred to it to say I could not discuss it then. That is a very different thing from saying that I dangled it before the Opposition. On the contrary, I endeavoured to curtail discussion by refusing to discuss it. What is the charge brought against me? Here is a concession which I promised to make to the building trade, to the men who are actually engaged in that business, and who came to me and placed their grievance before me. That I listened to them is regarded by the Opposition as a grievance. I have an idea that there was an hon. Member from the Opposition benches present at the deputation. At any rate, there were two or three Members from the Government side of the House, whilst my impression is that half of the Gentlemen of the deputation were Unionists, some of them from Belfast. I told them I would consider the matter, and I afterwards placed this Amendment on the Paper. I listened to criticisms from both sides of the House. Am I only to listen to criticisms from one side of the House? I think the Government is always entitled to listen to representations, not merely from those who oppose them, but from those who support them too. That is really all I did. The criticism to which I deferred in the first instance came from the Leader of the Opposition. He said he thought it was too wide. I agreed with him, and that is my offence. I seem to have deceived the Committee because I listened to the Leader of the Opposition. There were also criticisms from this side of the House. Notice was given of this Amendment. I looked at it, and I thought that on the whole it was an improvement of my Amendment, and instead of accepting it I embodied it in the Amendment in order to save time. Really, I do not see what there is wrong. The Government must really reserve to themselves the right of accepting an Amendment, of making a concession to any side of the House if they think it reasonable that the concession should be made. That is the whole history of this transaction, and I really must reserve the right of accepting Amendments and of making concessions.
§ Mr. GEORGE WYNDHAMThe Chancellor says the Leader of the Opposition criticised this Amendment as
| Division No. 410.] | AYES. | [5.20 a.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Bramsdon, Sir T. A. |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Beaumont, Hon. Hubert | Branch, James |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Bowerman, C. W. | Brocklehurst, W. B. |
| Barnard, E. B. | Brace, William | Brooke, Stopford |
§ being too wide. That was when my right hon. Friend was pointing out the absurdities that would arise if a man lost such benefits as the Government give because a house was without a tenant, whilst under the Amendment which the Chancellor was going to move later on another man would get such benefits because he had spent £100 an acre without going so far as to build a house at all. That was the criticism of the Leader of the Opposition. I make no charge against the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I say it is not unlikely that after so many hours he had forgotten what that criticism was, and that it had no relation whatever to the Amendment which the Chancellor made to his own Amendment. This Amendment is almost a contradiction of one-half of the purport of the original Amendment. The original Amendment refers to an owner and his predecessors in title. When you think of a predecessor in title your thoughts do not generally run towards a limit of ten years. If you draw up this Amendment merely to suit the interests of a certain class against whom I have nothing to say—really the speculative builder—you are placing a handicap upon the efforts of those whom in the future will conduct the development of land along lines which are most desirable.
§ Mr. LAMBTONThe Chancellor of the Exchequer accused us of having deceived him. When we carry on discussions at this hour everyone can be deceived. I do not say the right hon. Gentleman has intentionally deceived us, but he has certainly deceived me, amongst other people, as regards this concession. It is simply confined to roads and sewers that are not more than 10 years old.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out from "agriculture" to the end of the proposed Amendment ["other than agriculture, but for the purposes of this provision no sums shall be taken into account after 10 years have elapsed since the time when the sums were spent."]
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 123; Noes, 49.
| Bryce, J. Annan | Hedges, A. Paget | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Helme, Norval Watson | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Henry, Charles S. | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Hon. S.) | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Chance, Frederick William | Higham, John Sharp | Richardson, A. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Hodge, John | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Illingworth, Percy H. | Robinson, S. |
| Clough, William | Jenkins, J. | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Clynes, J. R | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Rowlands, J. |
| Cooper, G. J. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Seely, Colonel |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Lambert, George | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Lamont, Norman | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Duckworth, Sir James | Lehmann, R. C. | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Lewis, John Herbert | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Lyell, Charles Henry | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Falconer, J. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Macpherson, J. T. | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Verney, F. W. |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | Maddison, Frederick | Walsh, Stephen |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Markham, Arthur Basil | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Glover, Thomas | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Massie, J. | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | Masterman, C. F. G. | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Guiland, John W. | Micklem, Nathaniel | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Hall, Frederick | Mond, A. | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Hancock, J. G. | Montgomery, H. G. | Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) | Morrell, Philip | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Myer, Horatio | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Parker, James (Halifax) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Partington, Oswald | |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| NOES. | ||
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds) | Percy, Earl |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Haddock, George B. | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Helmsley, Viscount | Stanier, Beville |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hill, Sir Clement | Starkey, John R. |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hunt, Rowland | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Kerry, Earl of | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Cave, George | Lambton, Hon. Frederick William | Walker, Colonel W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r) | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Younger, George |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | |
| Dairymple, Viscount | Moore, William | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount Valentia and Mr. H. W. |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Newdegate, F. A. | |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Oddy, John James | Forster. |
| Foster, P. S. | Paulton, James Mellor |
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved that the proposed Amendment, as amended, stand part of the Clause.
§ Mr. W. MOOREOn this Amendment I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the point of view of that part of the United Kingdom which is called Ireland, with regard to the limitations proposed. I do suggest to him that what might be a reasonable limit of £100 for England would be a limit far in excess of the real necessities of the ease for Ireland. You have only got five towns in Ireland in which there is a population of over 40,000, but there are a few running from 3,000 to 5,000, while 2,000 to 1,500 was enough to 222 form rural areas. The houses are small; outside the towns they do not let at special rates. In these cases it is not a matter of constructing private roads which ultimately become public; the houses are built by the side of the main roads. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will find, if he wants to, that the relative proportion of the £100 in England would have to be reduced to about £50 in Ireland. My only remedy is to object to the clause as it stands, but the £100 limit is an extravagant one for Ireland. Before the Committee goes to a division, I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider the matter from the Irish point of view.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI think the £100 is a very low figure, and that it will cover the Irish case. I think, if the hon. and learned Member will inquire, he will find it is regarded as a reasonable figure.
§ Mr. MOOREBelfast and Dublin, I know, approximate to English cities more or less; but Belfast and Dublin estates would be no criterion for the smaller places. It is an entirely different condition of affairs where the population is only 3,000 or 5,000.
§ Question, "That the proposed Amend-
| Division No. 411.] | AYES. | [5.40 a. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Hall, Frederick | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Hancock, J. G. | Partington, Oswald |
| Caring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Barnard, E. B. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Beaumont, Hon. Hubert | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Rainy, A. Holland |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Haworth, Arthur A. | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Brace, William | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton), W.) |
| Bramsdon, Sir T. A. | Hedges, A. Paget | Richardson, A. |
| Branch, James | Helme, Norval Watson | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Henry, Charles S. | Robinson, S. |
| Brooke, Stopford | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Higham, John Sharp | Rowlands, J. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Hodge, John | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Illingworth, Percy H. | Seely, Colonel |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Jenkins, J. | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Chance, Frederick William | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) |
| Clough, William | Lambert, George | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Clynes, J. R. | Lamont, Norman | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Cooper, G. J. | Lehmann, R. C. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Levy, Sir Maurice | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Lewis, John Herbert | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Duckworth, Sir James | Lyell, Charles Henry | Verney, F. W. |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Walsh, Stephen |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Macpherson, J. T. | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Maddison, Frederick | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Falconer, J. | Markham, Arthur Basil | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Massie, J. | Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Masterman, C. F. G. | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | Micklem, Nathaniel | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Mond, A. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Glover, Thomas | Montgomery, H. G. | |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Morrell, Philip | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | Myer, Horatio | |
| Gulland, John W. |
| NOES. | ||
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Foster, P. S. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Percy, Earl |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds) | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Haddock, George B. | Stanier, Beville |
| Bull, Sir William James | Helmsley, Viscount | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hill, Sir Clement | Talbot, Lord E. (Chicheser) |
| Cave, George | Hunt, Rowland | Walker, Colonel W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Kerry, Earl of | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r) | Lambton, Hon. Frederick William | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Younger, George |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Viscount Valentia and Mr. H. W. Forster. |
| Dairymple, Viscount | Moore, William | |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Newdegate, F. A. | |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Oddy, John James |
§ ment, as amended, be agreed to," put and agreed to.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE rose in his place and claimed to move, "That in respect of the words of the Clause to the end thereof the Chair be empowered to select the Amendments to be proposed."
§ Question put, "That in respect of the words of the Clause to the end thereof the Chair be empowered to select the Amendments to be proposed."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 124; Noes, 44.
225§ The CHAIRMANBy virtue of the decision of the Committee, I select the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Mr. Watson Rutherford), to leave out the words "underneath the surface of the land" ["minerals underneath the surface of the land"] as an Amendment to be proposed to the Clause, before the end of the Clause.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD moved, in Section (4), to leave out the words "underneath the surface of the land" ["minerals underneath the surface of the land"].
§ When minerals are referred to it is perfectly useless to say minerals underneath the surface of the land. We all know that there are certain minerals underneath the surface. We also know that there are a few minerals which are not underneath the surface. The clause might very well stop at the word "minerals."
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI beg to move "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again this day (Tuesday).
§ And it being after half-past eleven of the clock on Monday evening Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, in pursuance of the Standing Order.
§ Adjourned at Five Minutes before Six a.m. (Tuesday, 10th August).