§ (1) For the purposes of this part of this Act the increment value of any land shall be deemed to be the amount (if any) by which the site value of the land, on the occasion on which Increment Value Duty becomes due, exceeds the original site value of the land.
§ (2) The site value of the land on the occasion on which Increment Value Duty becomes due shall be taken to be:—
- (a) Where the occasion is a transfer on sale of the fee simple of the land, the value of the consideration for the transfer; and
- (b) where the occasion is the grant of any lease of the land, or the transfer on sale of any interest in the land, the value of the fee simple of the land calculated on the basis of the value of the consideration for the grant of the lease or the transfer of the interest; and
- (c) where the occasion is the death of any person and the fee simple of the land is property passing on that death, the principal value of the land as ascertained for the purposes of Part I. of the Finance Act, 1894, and where any interest in the land is property passing on that death the value of the fee simple of the land calculated on the basis of the principal value of the interest as so ascertained; and
- (d) where the occasion is a periodical occasion on which the duty is due in respect of land held by a body corporate or unincorporate, the value of the fee simple of the land is ascertained for the purposes of the assessment of duty under this Act;
§ (3) Where, on any occasion on which Increment Value Duty is due in respect of any land, it becomes necessary, for the purpose of ascertaining the original site value of the land on which the duty is to be assessed, to apportion any original site value as first adopted for the purposes of this part of this Act, that value shall be apportioned between that part of the land on which duty is to be assessed and the remaining part of the land in such proportions as the Commissioners think just, and the value attributed on any such apportionment to each part of the land shall for the purposes of this part of this Act be treated as the original site value of that part of the land.
§ (4) Where the owner of any land proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that he, or any of his predecessors in title, has purchased the land within twenty 1658 years before the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, and that the amount then paid by him for the purchase of the land exceeds the total value of the land as first adopted for the purposes of this part of this Act, such sum shall be substituted for the purposes of Increment Value Duty for the original site value of the land as the Commissioners consider, having regard to the amount so paid for the purchase of the land, was at the time of the purchase the site value of the land.
§ Amendment proposed [Wednesday, 7th July] to leave out section (3).—[Captain Craig.]
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'where' stand part of the Clause."
§ Mr. J. F. MASONI think it will be conceded that this section (3) deals with about the most delicate and intricate part of the machinery of the whole of this Bill, but although this Amendment proposes to reject the sub-section. I quite admit that some such machinery as this is necessary, and that if what is described in this subsection were not adopted, it would be necessary to substitute for it something else of a more or less similar nature. What makes this particular proposal so intricate and difficult to my mind is, that to begin with. Clause 2 contains no qualification having regard to encumbrances, or Land Tax, or tithe, and that consequently the effect of any encumbrances and of Land Tax, or tithe, will have to be taken into consideration in apportionment, for which this section makes provision. I would like to point out to the Committee that this section provides only for a division of the original site value itself, and, so far as I can make out, there is no provision anywhere, either here or in any other part of the Bill, for a further division of any increment on which duty has already been paid on the site as a whole. The section, as I understand, makes no provision for a case where the original site-value on a given area has once been settled and where that land has later passed either by sale or death, and has paid Increment Duty on the whole as a whole. It makes no provision for the case of its being subdivided into small lots after that: for the subdivision of the increment as well as the site value. It is an important point, as there is, in my opinion he such provision in any part of the Bill. [...] gave the matter some considerable attention the other day, and I have drafted an 1659 Amendment, which I have in my pocket, and which I think may deal with the question, though I am not quite sure it actually deals with it.
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George)What is the Amendment?
§ Mr. J. F. MASONThe Amendment is at the end of the section, and is, "Provided that where subdivision of value is necessary, when Increment Duty has already been paid on any land as a whole, then the increment on which duty has already been paid shall be subdivided in the same manner, but not necessarily in the same proportion, as the original site value" I venture to think the point is a serious one and is one which should be made somewhere in the section, because it is a case which is extremely likely to happen.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe hon. Member is assuming a case where land passes as a whole either at sale or death and there is no subdivision on the first occasion. Then there is a second occasion, where part of the land is sold, and I understand the hon. Gentleman's point is that this section does not deal with the case. Is that the point?
§ Mr. J. F. MASONYes; I think that accurately describes it. This section, dealing as it does with the subdivision of the original site value, makes no provision for the subdivision of the increment which subsequently accrues upon it. Supposing a case of five acres, of the value of £500 an acre, or a total value of £2,500, and that land remains undeveloped for five or six years, but it is claimed that in the interim there is an increment of £1,000 on the whole, and that land is then valued at £3,500, then a new owner, finding an opportunity of developing it, has an opportunity of selling a small plot, say an acre, and it is necessary to subdivide the original £2.500 and also the £1,000, which has been added to the value. I think it is quite possible in such a case the increment will have been due to a particular part of the land, and may not necessarily be divided in exactly the same way as the original site value. I think it is necessary to make adequate provision for such a case. It is the same case where the owner of a certain area of land sacrifices one part of that area in order to provide amenities and to improve the rest. Take a case which is, 1660 perhaps, more easy to put than the other— the case of the owner of 10 acres of land who, in order to develop that land, deliberately makes two acres in the middle of it into a garden, or something of that kind—we will say a public garden. In sacrificing those two acres, which he does deliberately, because he never can realise on them without losing the additional value which his action gives to the other eight acres, it is quite evident that the site valuation of the whole 10 acres, in order to create a just position to the owner, would have to be put on the building value of the eight acres, because the two acres have no building value, and if they were built on they would diminish the value of the other eight acres. It is quite obvious also that unless the original value were spread over the eight acres, it would be quite possible for the owner to pay Increment Duty on eight acres, and still be left with a loss on the two acres. It is possible to reply that, if the whole of the site value were put upon the eight acres, it would leave the other with no site value at all. That would be so, and that would mean that these two acres were free from Undeveloped Land Tax. Again, take the case, an actual one, of a portion of 250 acres of property, already with some considerable building value, being given up in order to make a golf links; in order to sell or develop the other 200 acres the owner gives up 50. That is another case, though I do not think such a striking one as where the two acres are taken as a garden. There is only one other case which I think we ought to consider in discussing this section—where the owner of an acre worth, say, £1,000 divides it into 10 building plots, and he sells one building plot for £150. The original site value presumably being divisible between the whole 10 plots equally, the sale of the first plot would show an increment of £50 on which duty would presumably be paid. The total original value is £1,000; one-tenth of the acre is sold, and presumably under this sub-section £100 of the original site value would be allotted to that tenth, and therefore the increment on the first sale is £50. Supposing for some reason over which neither he nor the community has any control the locality becomes unfavourable to building, and the development does not continue as favourably as it began, and eventually he has to sell the other nine-tenths at under £100 an acre, so that in the end when he realises the whole of his sales he has only realised 1661 £900. There is a case where the increment which was paid on the first plot is distinctly unjustified by subsequent events, and ought to be recoverable when the total area is sold.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEThis sub-section suggests questions of extreme difficulty —when a number of years have passed— for the Commissioners to solve, because we take the first site value as in the present year, and it will be a matter of extreme difficulty for the Commissioners to say what was the original site value in 1909 of any part of the land then valued. Let me ask the Committee to project themselves in mind to the second millennium, 91 years' hence. Some prophets, of course, say there will then be a Chinese Government, but, assuming that is not so, the task of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue will be a peculiarly difficult one when the old unit which was taken for the original site value comes up before them to be broken up. They will have to turn up the new Domesday Book of the present year to find out what was the original value of the whole block. It may be a 1,000-acre farm, and by 90 years' time one little corner of it may come in for building purposes. Putting aside the argument that the value of money may have entirely changed, the prices of different descriptions of land may have changed enormously. We see the sort of change going on under our eyes.
For example, a few years ago the frontage site was infinitely more valuable than the back site, but on many a road where there is a great deal of main traffic the frontage sites are enormously depreciated. I am told that on the Bath Road, outside Maidenhead, the frontage is absolutely unsaleable, and those speculators who bought in the hope of a rise some year back have suffered a very heavy decrement, and it is the back land down the lanes which has the value now. Then the Commissioners will not have to consider the value at the time, but what was the back value in 1909. By that time there may be a reversion again. Motors perhaps may have been made perfectly silent and not provocative of much dust, and a great deal of conveyance may by that time have become aerial. That may restore the value of the frontages to some extent, and in developing property of that kind you will always have to allow some dock, free from the wind, where aerial conveyances may lie in safety. That means that an amount of land which is 1662 valuable now will not be valuable then, and these unfortunate Commissioners will have to throw their minds back to the present year in order to solve the problem. But they will also have to consider under Clause 14 the cost of divesting the land of all sorts of things. Clause 14 runs thus: "if the land were divested of any buildings and of any other structures on, in, or under the surface, which are appurtenant to or used in connection with any such buildings, and of all growing timber, fruit trees, fruit bushes and other things growing thereon."
They will have to consider what would have been the cost of divesting, not in the year 2,000, but in 1909. To do that they will have to consider labour conditions in 1909, the cost of labour, and the price of materials, because, of course, if materials are valuable the cost of divesting of structures will be smaller. Therefore the Commissioners will have to cast back to see what was the cost of all sorts of buildings and materials which could be used for road-making, etc. Some interesting points arise about timber. They will not consider the timber on the land in 2,000, but what was the value of the timber in the year 1909, and that will be a problem of some difficulty. Experts will have to be brought in to calculate at what rate trees have grown, and they will have to consult tables as to the price of timber in that year. Then they will have to look back and see what structures were on the land in 1909, and they will have to see, not what were on the whole unit of land, but on a particular corner. In order to do that rightly they must be able to have exact plans of what the Commissioners did when they fixed the original site value, and how much they deducted in respect of different structures and divesting the land of each of them, because when they come to a separate plot they will have to see whether in 1909 there was any structure upon it, and what would have been the cost of divesting it, apart from all the rest of the structures on the larger unit, and it seems to me that this problem, as time goes on, will be absolutely insoluble.
Then how is it possible for business to be done with this clause in the Bill? How can a man grant a lease when he does not know what the taxation will be? If a man has a block of property in land and grants a lease of part of it, all sorts of processes have to be gone through. First the rent is capitalised—the rent under the lease is capitalised—and from the capital of the rent the fee simple is inferred. There are 1663 still two processes to go through. The fee simple having been assumed, then the site value is got at by a series of deductions, and when the site value is got at it is to be compared with something which up to that point is entirely unknown, it is only when that process is gone through that the Commissioners will come down and say what they have computed as the site value of this piece of land and what they assume to be the fee simple they have compared with what they consider was the site value of that particular plot. Until that has been ascertained the owner of the land will not in the least be able to know what his profit will be, and, therefore, the effect will be to put a stop to business, because the comparison will be between something which is known or which may be inferred and something which is unknown until it is threshed out by the Commissioners. This clause will put a heavy check on perfectly legitimate and justifiable land business, which the Government certainly do not want to stop. Many other considerations arise, but perhaps my hon. Friend and I have asked enough for the moment.
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George)The hon. Member for the Central Division of Sheffield (Mr. James Hops) has referred to some very remote contingencies, one of them being the second millennium, when Chinamen will have control of this country.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI did not infer that
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI suppose that in anticipation of that time he is working up a complicated sort of Chinese puzzle which has no reference at all to the provisions of this Bill on a proposal whose meaning is quite apparent to the intelligence of every Member of the Committee. He wanted also to deal with aerial navigation in this country, and, so far as I could gather, his idea was that the garage will be the line of frontage of the original site. I think we had better deal with this clause with reference to the actual conditions of everyday life in this country now, and for that reason, and without any disrespect to him, I will leave his speech and deal with the speech of the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mason). The hon. Member for Windsor realises that if this Amendment were carried and sub-section (3) were left out, we would leave out a sub-section which in substance, at any rate, 1664 it is important to have in the Bill. You have got to deal with the question of apportionment, and, therefore, I think the view of the hon. Member is that this is really, an Amendment to enable the Committee to discuss the general provisions of the clause, and that he does not go to the extent of persisting in the omission of the sub-section, which would be a very disastrous thing for land-owners.
The hon. Member has put four or five practical questions, which I hope to deal with in an equally practical spirit. His first question was: What would happen, first of all, as to increment value in the case of the sale of the hereditament or unit as a whole? Afterwards there is a sale of a part; and he wanted to know whether the sub-section dealt satisfactorily with the apportionment in a case of that kind. I think it does, because the apportionment refers to the original site value and not to the increment. I shall point out later on what the Government propose to do to amend the sub-section. Before I do so I will refer to the second point. The hon. Member dealt with the question of the owner of a heritage making up his mind to sacrifice a central plot amounting to an acre or two, either for gardens or recreation purposes, in order to improve the rest of the property. That would undoubtedly enhance the value of the rest of the property, and to that extent the taxable increment would also be enhanced. The hon. Member wanted to know what would happen in a case of that kind. I think it would be desirable to move an Amendment, and the Government mean later on to do so, to meet these two cases and other cases raised by Amendments, some of which are down in the name of the hon. Member himself and some in the name of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Watson Rutherford). I think the owner should have the right to apply, at any time, to the Commissioners to reapportion the hereditament. 'There are several Amendments dealing with that subject, and I think the Amendment of the Government will really cover the two or three Amendments of which the hon. Member for Windsor has given notice. Supposing a man has got an estate, and at the time the original site value is ascertained he has no intention of converting it into a building estate, but later on he makes up his mind to cut up the estate into building plots. He allocates a portion of the estate for gardens or recreation grounds or for something 1665 that will add to the amenities of the estate. It may be a garden city. I think he ought to be entitled to go to the Commissioners and demand a reapportionment. I propose to move to leave out the word "and" ["as the Commissioners think just, and"], and, commencing as a new sentence, to insert the words "On the application at any time of any person entitled to the fee simple of, or to an interest in, any land, the Commissioners shall apportion or reapportion the original site value of the land among such parts of the land as may be specified in the application in such proportions as they think just." I think that would be fair, and it would substantially cover the points put by the hon. Gentleman. In a case of that kind I have not the slightest doubt that what would really happen would be that the owner would go to the Commissioners, if he had made up his mind to break up his land into building plots, and demand a reapportionment, so that he might know exactly how the apportionment might be located. He would locate it in his own way, subject, of course, to a hearing before the Commissioners, and there would be an appeal on the apportionment. I was told of a case where a land-owner had laid down golf links. The rent at first was £100, and now it stands at £250. It would be obviously unfair to treat this as a deduction from the value of the building estate. On the contrary, the golf links are a valuable commercial concern as they stand, and in most cases that is really what would happen. They do not pay for the first few years, but eventually they generally pay and become a valuable concern, apart altogether from the value which they contribute to the building sites. With regard to the fourth point put by the hon. Gentleman as to an acre which cost £1,000 being split up into 10 plots, the hon. Member has an Amendment down dealing with that point later on. If he does not mind, I think I will leave what I have to say until we get to the Amendment which specifically raises the point.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI think it will be admitted that in some form or other a sub-section of this kind is absolutely essential to the Bill, and that, therefore, it will be impracticable to leave it out altogether unless we are prepared to put something better in its place. The Bill seems to proceed on the footing of only the simplest possible transactions taking place in land. I have made a calcu- 1666 lation in connection with a case which existed, and I find in relation to a piece of land, say 10 acres in extent, that, granted there are two deaths, four conveyances, and one lease, the astonishing result will be that upon the next transaction relating to a part of that land no less than 156 apportionments would require to be made. I do not wish to weary the Committee with the details, but I can give any Member privately a copy of the pedigree of the apportionment showing how it will come about. My simple case was a case of this kind. A man died and left his property, consisting of ten acres of land, to his four sons. One of the sons died shortly afterwards. Another of the sons entered into a lease. The three sons and the representative of the dead son joined in selling a quarter of the property. Two houses were built on a small portion of that quarter. And after two deaths four conveyances, and one lease, in order to ascertain the actual site Value, the original site value and the new apportionment, you would require to make no fewer than 156 apportionments of these different things. When one comes to consider the wording of the clause it almost looks as if those who had drawn it up were in a state of childlike simplicity with regard to the consequences of the whole Bill. It is obvious that if this Bill is to work, if these extraordinary calculations have to be made, there must be some power to the Commissioners to do it. I have listened very carefully to the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend (Mr. Mason) and the Chancellor's proposed Amendment, and there is no doubt that the proposed Amendment of the Chancellor would meet one of the difficulties, and I think it would meet that in a very fair and reasonable way; and in fact, I had a further Amendment down exactly to the same effect myself. Because, if you give the owner of a piece of land, who is contemplating dealing with it himself, the right to go to the Commissioners in advance, and say, "I want this or that apportionment," then obviously, when he comes to deal with his land, he knows what he is doing and what he will have to pay as regards taxes on every particular piece that it is contemplated to sell. Certainly it would be a very great convenience, and I am personally obliged, if I may say so, to the Chancellor for the Amendment which he has foreshadowed, and which he is going to insert. But there are a number of other concessions necessary in this clause. One is that the converse is absolutely essential.
1667 Suppose a man has got two or three pieces of land and was then to deal with this as a whole. Why should not he have put them together? The Chancellor has taken in this sub-section a case of a piece of land which is afterwards divided up. But it is not an uncommon thing, as I can assure the Chancellor, for a man who has acquired a piece of land here from one person, there from another person, and a third piece of land adjoining it from someone else, to treat that as a whole and deal with it together. It seems to me that the converse is almost equally important, and it might be, and could be, very easily provided for in this sub-section. I have one other suggestion to make. Not only the original site value requires an apportionment, but all the different payments of Increment Duty paid out sometimes would have to be apportioned, because most of those payments would not be in respect of the particular piece that was being sold. Some of them would be in respect of half the land, some of them might be in respect of a quarter interest in the whole land, others in respect of a quarter interest in a quarter of the land; and there ought to be the widest possible power for apportionment. I was going to suggest that the sub-section should read something like this: "Wherever it is necessary to ascertain the total site value, the original site value, or the amount to be credited, if any, as having been already made, then such apportionment shall be made as the Commissioners," and so forth; so that you would leave the whole question as to what apportionments are to be made to the Commissioners in any particular case. In fact I do not think it would be found to work if you simply cut down the, power of the Commissioners, as you do in this subsection, to apportioning the original site value. The Commissioners will find that there are heaps of other things to be apportioned in almost every case, and that the clause does not give them power to apportion the other values. The Commissioners should have power to make an apportionment, both of the site value, the original site value, and the total site value, and of the amount of Increment Duty already paid; and they ought to have power to do that on the application of any person interested in land and at any time. I think the concession which has already been made is a most valuable one, but if the clause is to work the power which I suggest should be given to the Commissioners.
Mr. ARNOLD HERBERTPerhaps it would be better to postpone this section until we come to deal with the whole question of apportionment in the clauses which deal with apportionment, namely Clauses 16 to 19, because it seems to me to lead to confusion to deal with apportionment in different places. I am sure the Committee is very much indebted to the Chancellor for having indicated at this early stage of the discussion the Amendment with regard to apportionment which he proposes to put himself, and, at any rate, it will relieve the Committee of the necessity of considering the next Amendment on the Paper in my name, because, I think, the Amendment which the Chancellor has indicated entirely meets that point. He has recognised that there ought to be the possibility of the owner of the land coming before the sale has taken place and asking for an apportionment, in order that he may know how much he is to ask for the land and be in a position to deal with the question before he draws his particulars and conditions of sale. That. I think, is entirely met by the practical suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but what I want to point out is this: In this sub-section we are dealing with only one case of apportionment namely, that which takes place after the sale has taken place, and therefore, I confess I found great difficulty in seeing what was the proper place to put my Amendment down on the Paper, and I think, Sir, you felt an equal difficulty. But it does strike me that we should make the whole Bill a much better piece of draftsmanship and much more practical if we dealt with the whole question of apportionment before or after sale in one apportionment section, and, therefore, I would suggest for the consideration of the Government that it would be better to do so, and that it would be better as regards the point which the Chancellor has promised to meet—recognising, as he does, the difficulties that would arise when we get to more complicated transactions—to put it down later on and deal with the whole question of apportionment fully in one section.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILI venture to think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have consulted the convenience of the Committee and conduced to the proper consideration of the clause if he had given more attention to the suggestions of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. James Hope). It is quite 1669 true that my hon. Friend, in order to make his point clear, took an extreme case. The Chancellor said it is a very extreme case, but it is only 90 years, which is not so very extreme, but the case must arise constantly, not in 90 years only, but in 10 or 20 years. Take the commonest case of all—the reconstruction of an estate when a town lease falls in, and the owner rebuilds the whole estate and entirely changes its character. That is a thing we see going on in London constantly. You have the original site value taken in its present condition with the houses as they are, then the estate is rebuilt in an entirely different form. Even the position of the roads may be changed. What was garden may become houses, what are houses may become garden. Then it may be 20 years afterwards when the estate is being split up, as they always are being split up in these cases, the Commissioners may have to cast their minds back. I do not see any machinery for the purpose of recording all the existing condition of the estate. But there ought to be not only a valuation, but a most detailed survey of the actual condition of building estates all over the country. Otherwise I do not see how the thing is to be done. The Commissioners must go back to see what was on the estate in the year 1909, and what happened in order to obtain the clear site, that is to say, all the buildings and trees, if there are any growing, and everything of that kind; and apparently everything that is under the soil as well. So that you will have to have a survey not only of the surface, but of the underground portion as well. Then you have not only to do that, but there is a sub-clause—Clause 14, sub-section (4), sub-clause (a) —under which they have got to see what has been the value added to each portion of the site by the permanent works necessary for fitting the estate for building. Therefore if there was a road there and it passed one particular building in its present condition and the road had been altered so that it passed another building, you would have to go back and see what was the value added to that particular building at the time of the valuation and separate that up from the general value of the estate. That appears to me to be an operation which, to use the celebrated words, "It passes the wit of man to accomplish." But, at any rate, that is the operation as to which we should like to know if the Government have carefully considered, and also how exactly it is to be carried out. I am not a land valuer. I am not speaking of my 1670 own personal knowledge. These are the difficulties which have been put to me by a practical valuer of great experience. It is suggested there will be complications of an enormous character, and that one of the effects will necessarily be that every valuation will be of a much more detailed character than the Government contemplates. Owners for their own protection will not only require possibly a valuation and re-valuation, but they will require to have each particular plot valued—not the whole of the estate in one operation as is contemplated by the Bill, but each particular plot. That adds enormously to the expense under this Bill. I do not think the Government have yet realised— they have not given any indication that they realise—the gigantic expense which they are going to put on the owners of the land, and not only on the owners, but on everybody interested in reference to this valuation. It does appear to me to be becoming more and more evident that this is not a Bill for raising the revenue at all, but a Bill to establish the valuation of land. This is a constitutional departure of very great gravity, and one which I cannot think all the supporters of the Government have realised even yet.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Robson)I think the Noble Lord has somewhat exaggerated the difficulties in regard to apportionment. He has not quite considered apparently the way in which the machinery of the Bill contemplates meeting those difficulties. For instance, the first step in the valuation is the owner's return. The owner is empowered under Clause 16 to make his own apportionment. He is under obligation to give the value of each piece of land in separate occupation. He has also to make an apportionment of different parts of any piece of land which is under separate occupation. It would be to his interest to do that, and it would be to his own interest to make a very careful apportionment in his original return and to exercise great care and vigilance.
§ Mr. PRETYMANWhat about the expense?
§ Sir W. ROBSONWe will deal with one question at a time. It is quite sufficient to confine ourselves always to the one point. If the owner takes a piece of land of 10 acres, of which some part is likely to come into building value, he apportions it in accordance with what his views are as to the parts which will come into building 1671 value, and he will put his valuation where it will be of most use to him, and where he thinks the value is going to accrue. That will very greatly lessen the difficulties in many of the cases which have been put this afternoon. He will put the value where he thinks it is going to accrue in order that he may get the benefit of the exemption. One case was given by the hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Mr. Watson Rutherford), in which he said there would be 156 apportionments. I do not see where he gets that number of apportionments.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDOf course not. You do not understand.
§ Sir W. ROBSONBecause the hon. Member does not condescend to explain. The hon. Member says that in the instance he gave there would be 156 apportionments, and then, when we ask about it, he says we do not understand it. That is not quite the way to enlighten the Committee.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI will give it to you.
§ Sir W. ROBSONThe hon. Member may give it afterwards, and it is not desirable that there should be these running observations and merely pointless interruptions. The hon. Member has not explained where he gets his 156 apportionments, and what sort of apportionments they are. All I can say is if he has got the calculation made out be had better put it in and have it examined by a mathematician. For my own part, I do not believe there would be 156 apportionments. Take the case of 10 acres of land of uniform value or varying value. If there is a varying value, and the owner intends to separate them for conveyance, he will be careful to make the apportionment himself; he would know what the proper apportionment would be, and his opinion would have a very great weight with those concerned. The question is whether such apportionments involve elaborate calculations and reassessments. There is nothing in the hon. Gentleman's illustration to show that. Then the hon. Member took the case of an owner having two or three pieces of land and putting them together. The owner may add different pieces of land together and get their site value. What is the next step in apportionments The Commissioners themselves, when there is any assessment 1672 on the whole or any part of the land, may, of course, apportion the original site value. That is a matter as between the owner and the Commissioners; and it is not likely to be one of much difficulty. Remember they are being assisted on this occasion of the actual assessment by the purchase price, which would show how far the calculation of the original site value was right or wrong. They would know how to apportion the original site value. Then there is a further point in favour of the owner, who, if he thinks there is any injustice in dealing with the reapportionments, may call upon the Commissioners for a complete survey. They are all reapportionments of the original site value. Then under Clause 19 the owner may, of course, claim reapportionment when they come to assess him. That is one reason why it is not quite convenient as a matter of drafting for all these apportionments to be in one clause. I think perhaps the more convenient form is to deal with the question of apportionment on the cases as they arise. The Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) suggested that there would have to be a survey of every building estate. There always is. Whatever difficulties we may have in the matter of surveys and assessments, a building estate is very easy indeed to value.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILI was not speaking for a moment of a building estate, but of an estate covered with buildings, and which estate is being remodelled. Such estates are not capable of a survey except by very elaborate means.
§ Sir W. ROBSONI do not see the Noble Lord's difficulty there. You have a building estate of separate hereditaments. Ex Ex hypothesi, each of these separate hereditaments would be the subject of original site value. Hon. Members must not confuse the apportionment of the original site value, and the ascertainment of the increment or decrement of that value. They are quite different matters. So far as concerns a building estate, which consists of a large number of separate hereditaments, some difficulty may arise, but still not much. You are laying out your land, and the owner of the land has all the plots carefully marked out, the corners are indicated, the frontage and the back land are all carefully indicated, even down to the square foot. In that case he would have a further survey, which would enable him to deal with the matter without any difficulty whatever. Of course, we all assume 1673 that you do get a good survey of the land. You have already the one survey to begin with. We assume that our register, when completed, will be efficient. You could not work continually any system of land taxation at all, unless in the course of time, whether sooner or later, you have got a fairly efficient register. I think many of the difficulties of hon. Gentlemen arise from overlooking that fact. They seem to deal both with apportionment and site value on the footing that there would be no register and no record of land; but we have to make a register, and we have to keep a record. I think instead of contemplating the difficulties arising from the absence of a register, it would be better if hon. Members opposite looked at them in the light of there being a register and a record, and if they did so, many of these difficulties will disappear as they disappear elsewhere.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI do not know whether the learned Attorney-General thinks such an explanation as he has offered to the Committee can be reassuring to the owners of land. For my own part, each new explanation by the Government of the Bill's simplicity, each new explanation by the Attorney-General of how simple the matter will be for the officials, fills me with increased horror at the thought of the burdens and the expense which are being imposed upon citizens, whether any tax is gathered from them or not. What does the Attorney-General's explanation come to? He says: "The matter is very simple, because we have taken care that it shall be to the interest of the owners to apportion their own land very exactly." Just think of the expense which he is throwing upon the owners of land. The hon. and learned Gentleman says: "Expense is quite a different matter. I am not now talking of expense; I am talking of apportionment." But apportionment and expense go together, and valuation and expense go together, and the expense goes on, whether the tax comes in or does not come in. The burden which this Bill, as explained by the Attorney-General, is putting on the owners of land is out of all proportion to any money which the Exchequer can get out of it, and it is one of the flagrant hardships of this case that the whole of the cost of the valuations which are required under the Bill, and which, being for the purposes of taxation, ought to be carried out by the State, is to be thrown upon the 1674 owners of land. Unless they take the minutest precautions, and exercise almost superhuman foresight, under the Bill as it is drawn they and their successors will live to regret any carelessness. It was on a previous occasion that the Attorney-General informed the House that this apportionment would be elaborate, costly, and expensive. Indeed, it will, if it is to be anything like what the hon. and learned Gentleman described it. What does he tell us? Unless it is elaborate in the highest degree, and, therefore, both costly and expensive, the landowner will find that he has put some of its value where it is of no use to him; that is to say, that his land, being of the estimated value from which the taxable value ought to start, and which ought to be free of all taxation, unless he has the valuation very carefully made, and in the right way, some portion of that value will fall on some of the land which the Government are professing to leave exempt. It may be a very considerable portion that he will find is of no use to him, and on which he will be charged a duty. Three of my hon. Friends put questions to the Attorney-General arising out of ordinary business transactions daily taking place all over the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield spoke of having 90 years hence to review and ascertain the exact apportionment of the site value of to-day. The learned Attorney-General says that that is a very extreme case. Transactions in land for more than 90 years are habitually taking place from day to day in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Watson Rutherford) put the calculation before the House, which frightened even the Attorney-General, and he did not attempt to deal with it. He merely says he will refer that to mathematicians to examine it if the hon. Member will give him details. What are you to say of a tax, the incidence of which has to be ascertained by skilled mathematicians, and the defence of which, as we know, can only be clearly stated as an algebraic problem. Really, that is a nice kind of simple, easy tax to apply.
§ Sir W. ROBSONI have not stated that, it would require a mathematician to ascertain the incidence of the tax. That is not what I have said, or anything like it. I mentioned mathematicians with reference to the hon. Member's calculations which he has not explained.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINIf I in any way misstated, I will withdraw and restate it. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool stated that in a not very unusual transaction something like 156 apportionments would be required.
§ Sir W. ROBSONHe did not say how he got that figure.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe moment he offered to tell the learned Attorney-General how he got the figure the Attorney-General declined, and said he would refer the matter to mathematicians for verification and report, and he complained of interruption. Let us take neither of these cases that he thinks extreme, but let us take the first case put. I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer at all answered the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. J. F. Mason) in respect of the first point that arises, namely, that there was no provision whatever in the sub-section for allocating an increment which had already accrued and on which taxes had already been paid in the case of subsequent apportionment on the site value. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer omitted that case altogether, and that he omitted also my hon. Friend's argument that it would be extremely difficult to apportion tithes and other burdens in this matter. We should be glad to hear from him how these difficulties are to be met. As to the last case mentioned by my Noble Friend the Member for Marylebone (Lord E. Cecil), does the Attorney-General really think that the solution which he proposes meets the difficulties of dealing with the great London property? My Noble Friend said that, subsequently to the passing of the Act, or even already, when dealing with such an estate, you will have a most detailed account of how all the estate is broken up and of every separate occupation, and that that would require a most elaborate and costly valuation from the owner of the land, who will have to make that valuation according to the present occupation of the land. It may be his intention a short time hence to entirely alter the character of his estates and to separate the occupations of it. As soon as you have got that done, then assume, as my Noble Friend did, the rebuilding of the estate and the replanning, such as we have seen going on in many London estates. There would be new roads cut, roads widened, frontages taken off, perhaps a main road closed and 1676 a shorter main road opened—you have had a change in the whole character of the estate, taking, perhaps, a yard or two off here and a foot or two off there of the frontage of a particular plot. Then assume that that land is relet on long leases, with all the other transactions which follow. I wonder how on earth anyone is going to keep an account of all that has taken place, and how on earth is anyone going to apportion a particular plot of land which changes from what it was at the time of the original site value, and on quite different surveys.
The Attorney-General says the Ordnance Survey will do, and that here you do not need a mathematician nor surveyor nor valuer, and that all you have got to do is to sit down with the Ordnance Survey and the Attorney-General will tell you at once what is the original proportion of the site value. I do not know what is going to happen, I cannot conceive how anyone can carry out such a task as the Government are imposing upon these Commissioners and, which I may say in passing, they are not relying on the Commissioners to do, but which they are relying upon making the landlord do under penalty with the loss of money if he does not do it. What is to happen in any one of those cases, say, where a road has been closed and a new and more convenient road opened? The old road, on which there is no site value, is thrown into the estate. What happens there? I do not think the Government have thought of that case, and I am certain there will be a great number of complications like that of which not only the Government, but of which no one else has thought, and which will be incapable of solution hereafter. The learned Attorney-General passed from the London estate already built over, but undergoing, as I suggested, a process of transformation, to what he considered the less simple case of a building estate not yet developed in the neighbourhood of a town. He says that in that case it will be to the interest of the land-owner to make his apportionment at once, according to the way in which he is going to develop the land, and that he will have to make it very carefully. If it is not done that way you will find that he has so put his original site value in the wrong place, so that he has got decrement in one place and a great deal of apparent increment in another. How can any land-owner, whose land is not absolutely ripe for building, make out a plan? I suppose it has happened to anyone who has land in the neighbourhood 1677 of the town that, on being asked to part with any portion of it for public or private purposes, he has tried to have some kind of sketch plan to see how any portions that he might part with would interfere with the roads. That is a highly speculative thing to do. You cannot, years before, know what class of house your land will be fit for, whether it will be factories or houses, whether it will be workmen's houses or houses of superior quality. The whole subsequent apportionment of the land, the whole method in which they lay out the land depends on what use you put it to.
The learned Attorney-General invites the landlord to protect himself by making the apportionment at once. That is not a thing human foresight can do, you want the gift of prophesy, which even Government officials are not gifted with, and which the ordinary land-owner is not happy enough to possess. In some cases he may be able to make the apportionment. I am not at all sure he will be wise to do so, it may involve him in a great deal of needless expense, which he afterwards finds thrown away, for the apportionment which he designs for the moment may not be that which he has eventually to follow. It may also catch him by his allocating too high a site value for some of his plots, and too low a site value to others. The fact of the matter is that, whilst it is true, as the Chancellor said, if you are to have a tax of this kind in a Bill of this kind you must have some kind of sub-section as to apportionment; this whole discussion only serves to illustrate once again, as every practical discussion on the Bill has, the extreme hardship which it will involve to the owners of land, not owing to the amount of the tax, of which I am not now speaking, but owing to the cost of valuation. The extreme uncertainty which will attend all these valuations, the guesswork which will have to be gone through by the Commissioners or their referee, makes abundantly clear what I think has already become clear enough, that this House is not imposing a tax of any known rate upon any known value, but is empowering Commissioners of Inland Revenue in the future time to make a tax on individuals who own land at whatever it pleases them at the moment to do.
§ Sir ROBERT W. PERKSI am not quite certain that there is a general appreciation of the great difficulty that is going to be imposed on the small rural owner in 1678 connection with these somewhat intricate calculations about which we are now so busy. My Constituents in Lincolnshire are not mathematicians, and they are not sufficiently wealthy to call in the aid of mathematicians, and, therefore, would be obliged to do their best, as far as, to use a phrase of an hon. Member opposite, their bucolic minds would enable them to do. The Attorney-General has made it clear that unless a land-owner is going to expose himself to a very serious situation in the future he will have to take the estate plan, if he possesses one, or to make one for himself, and in endeavouring to discover the site value of his estate he must put a value upon each paddock and field. He has to figure out what the aforesaid field may be worth as separate from the rest of the property, or as sold in connection with the balance of the property. He has to go to another paddock or field and say, "Am I to calculate the value of this as having an approach or without an approach?" There are scores of questions that that man will have to put to himself which he has never hitherto had to consider, for the one simple purpose necessitated by the principle of this Bill, and the attempt of the Government to procure for the State a share of the increment value by the method adopted, which in my judgment is a roundabout and cumbersome method. The Attorney-General has clearly stated that a prudent owner, unless he is to be hit in some way in the future, must fix a site value to each individual field on his holding. I think that is the result of the Attorney-General's argument. He is not very familiar with rural transactions, but I think that that was unquestionably a fair inference from his argument, because he said that a man, unless he was to be hit in the future, must be extremely careful to put a proper value upon each field or each portion of his property. There is an obligation to put a site value where the land is in a separate holding, as I understand, but no such obligation where there are a number of fields under one tenancy. I am taking now the case of the small rural land-owner—not the great owner, not the capitalist, not the owner of broad acres, who may, rightly or wrongly, be considered a legitimate object for taxation. [An HON. MEMBER: "Plunder."] I did not say "plunder"; I said "taxation," which may be, and is generally, quite a different thing. I am taking the case which I wish to put here, and shall put in Lincolnshire, of a small freeholder close to a village, who has 1679 perhaps six or seven fields on his holding. What has that man to do if this Bill passes? He has to sit down and do things which he has never done before. The Attorney-General says it is perfectly simple with a building estate—a building estate is always valued. I think he confuses a survey with a valuation. A survey is one thing, but a valuation is another. A survey no doubt provides for the fencing of plots and so on, but it does not provide for the valuation of each separate plot. The small owner has, first of all, to put a value on every individual field. That will cause him endless perplexity. He cannot do it himself. It is absurd to suppose that he can. He has not done it; he will not do it; he dare not do it. If he does it, he exposes himself to no end of uncertainty in the result of his sales in future. He must call in some one to do it. Why should he be exposed to this enormous cost? The clause will impose very serious cost upon small landowners in rural districts, and it is very questionable whether it will be attended with any immense return to the revenue, certainly in the rural districts.
Further, in many cases a field is taken and sold separately. The owner then will be exposed again to the necessity, if he wants to protect himself in future, of having a new site valuation made of the whole of the balance of his little holding. Then suppose such an owner wishes to sell a field close to the village. Before he can sell the field he will have to have the site value apportioned. That will cause great delay in land transactions in rural districts. Three Commissioners, I suppose, are to be appointed, with a vast number of Sub-Commissioners and agents through the country, if the business is to be properly handled; but the delay to the small owner who sells under the conditions I have named will be a very serious problem. These are matters which I think ought to be taken into consideration when we are trying to apply this Bill to cases where there is no reasonable prospect of getting any increment value. The Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated the other night that he intended in some way to meet the case of the small owner or small freeholder. If that is so, the difficulties to which I am alluding may be to some extent modified. Another case of difficulty is where portions of property are taken under the Lands Clauses Acts by railway companies or other public bodies. I am assuming that the owner of 1680 the property has had a detailed valuation made, and a specific value allocated to each individual field. Then along comes a railway company and slices off little bits of perhaps a dozen fields. That, I presume, will involve a re-valuation of the site value of the balances of the whole of those fields, and there again under this clause a very serious burden will be imposed upon the owner, because it will be he and not the public authority who will have to pay for the reapportionment of the site values. These are some of the practical difficulties attending these small rural holdings. What I wish especially to submit to the Government is that these clauses impose a most serious burden upon the small rural land-owners, and are not likely to be attended, according to their own representations, in the country, with any immense return to the revenue.
§ Mr. A. J. BALFOURThe hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Perks) is almost the first speaker on that side of the House to discover that there are such persons as small rural landlords. ["No."] Perhaps he is not absolutely the first, but I do not remember the case having been urged before from that side. When we on this side have occasionally respectfully submitted that the land of this country is not entirely divided among what the hon. Baronet calls "broad-acred owners," we have been met with ironical, though not ill-natured, cheers from hon. Members below the Gangway. Perhaps they will take it from the hon. Baronet opposite that England, Scotland, and Ireland are not entirely divided among broad-acred owners, but that there are a certain number of small owners who have not at their command either those skilled surveyors or those managers who, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, exist upon every ordinary English estate, eminently qualified to carry out without cost, delay, or risk, even the elaborate valuation required under this Bill. We have come to a point now when the Government themselves admit that the valuation is to be elaborate. There was a time when, except for one unfortunate speech of the Attorney-General early in the morning, the Government were in the habit of saying that the valuation would be of such a character, that it dealt with properties so homogeneous in the same estate, that really the roughest and the readiest calculation was all that would be required to meet not only the justice but the necessities of the case. That is now entirely 1681 abandoned. The Attorney-General has admitted that the valuation must be of the most elaborate kind as regards the present, and that the valuer must be gifted with the power of prophesy as regards the future. We have it from the hon. Baronet opposite that not only will this great expense fall upon, and these remarkable powers of foresight have to be exercised, the elaborately equipped estates of wealthy owners of land, but that also the small owners, and, not least, the rural small owners will be hardly hit by them.
There is one point upon which, in the Government's reply, we have received no satisfaction as regards this sub-section. The sub-section leaves the whole of the decision of these re-valuations to the original site value entirely to the discretion of the Commissioners. I do not know whether there is to be an appeal on that point or not. I assume that the Government, if they do not give it now, will be driven by the force of argument to make the concession later on. I gather from the nod of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that is their present intention. But even the Commissioners, as a tribunal of first instance, must have some principles to go on. It is not enough to say: "We leave it to these very sensible men to make the reapportionment." You must have in your mind some vague idea, at any rate, of the method by which the reapportionment is to be carried out. You cannot ask people, however well qualified, to do a task which is inherently and intrinsically impossible. I do not insist at the present moment that the Government should put down those principles in black and white in the Bill, but I think they are bound to give us some idea in general terms of how the apportionment is to be made. Consider the case hinted at, but not developed, by the Mover of the Amendment. I came across the case a few days ago in a very practical shape. It was the case of an estate which had been acquired by a syndicate, who proposed to lay out a large portion of it at great expense as a golf course, and to put up the remaining portion as a building estate. They did not expect to make a profit on the golf course, but they did expect to make a profit on the building land. Supposing that the land had been acquired and portioned out after the Bill had been passed, and after the first valuation had been made? The land would all have been valued more or less at the same value.
1682 Those who valued it would have had no foresight, no instinct, as to what use the land would be put to in the future; that after that original site value had been fixed, this particular apportionment as between the golf course on the one side and the building land on the other, would be made. The golf course has no value regarded as a separate part, while the building estate has a great value as a separate part. How are you going to rearrange that value? A plot is sold for a house. The house is built, and then resold to a tenant who buys it because it is in proximity to the golf course. The golf course gains in popularity as a well-known fashionable resort, and the house rises in value. But if they belong to different people I do not see how on earth you are going to apportion the increment value on the house on the one side and the golf course on the other! The truth is that the original site was laid out as a whole. The plots of land were arranged in relation to the golf course, and the golf course arranged in relation to the plots of land. Their value is mutual and reciprocal. It was designed by the owners of the land that the site value as a whole having been fixed, that then each particular portion of that land went on its own fiscal path, having its own special increment dealt with by its own special methods of taxation. How can you possibly make the allocation? Granted that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are endowed with every species of wisdom, and that the Court of Appeal is of a most impartial kind, it does not matter how good your court is if you do not give them materials to work upon or the facts which they can weigh and judge! Neither common-sense nor mathematical ability— which is invoked not too early by the learned Gentlemen—will enable you to solve a problem which is inherently insoluble, you cannot deal with an estate which has been treated as a whole, and from which one part cannot be cut or regarded as separate from the other. You cannot regard it as consisting of separate units, and try to levy upon each independently your increment value. Nothing, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) said, can show more clearly than this brief discussion on this special sub-section that the Government are really attempting to solve a problem which is inherently insoluble. They take land as if it were a simple matter, forgetting that land in every civilised country— and not the least in this country—is so 1683 complex a subject, is dealt with in so many different manners, can be divided and subdivided with such infinite variety, that the rough-and-ready methods of dealing with it contemplated under this Bill will not only throw—as the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has shown—an intolerable financial burden upon those who happen to own it at this particular moment, but on later owners. The Government are endeavouring to deal in a simple way with that which is complex and in a manner which has relevance only to the present with regard to interests of great magnitude which are going to arise in the future. Their method refers transactions which may and will take place at intervals not merely through the lifetime of this generation, but of future generations in this country, back to a past which will be as impossible for our descendants to reconstruct as it is for us to reconstruct the arrangement of the land, its occupations, and uses two or three hundred years ago. The Bill is open to many objections, as I think, on principle, but there is one objection which lies deeper even than principle. The Bill is open to the objection that it is utterly and hopelessly impracticable, and nothing in the world shows its utter impracticability more conclusively than the discussion we have had this after noon.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEWhen the right hon. Gentleman in his concluding sentences said that the Bill was hopelessly and utterly impracticable he reminded me that these were exactly the same phrases applied to the Act of 1894. Over and over again the same phrases were used not merely by one, but by several speakers on the other side of the House. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that everything that deals with land in this country must necessarily be complex, whether it be a tax, a conveyancing Act, or a land settlement Act. Every sort of legislation, fiscal or otherwise, dealing with land in this country must necessarily be rather complex, because the land system is about the most complex in the world. But when the right hon. Gentleman says that the problem is insoluble he must remember that these are the very questions with which they were confronted in practically every great city in Germany. Here, again, I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. It is very little use merely denying, but my hon. and gallant Friend will allow that one of the great difficulties with which they 1684 have been confronted is that of apportionment. In some cases I agree they have dealt with it in a rough-and-ready manner, and in a way that I do not think is altogether fair and equitable; but I think in our case we have dealt with the matter in a much fairer way. We have a much fairer way by letting the apportionment have some reference to the real value of the particular plot that is sold. Well, now, that is the problem which we are told we are to regard as insoluble. It has been found so practical in Germany that city after city has followed the example of Frankfort—Cologne, Hamburg, Dresden. What has happened to-day? The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have only to read to-day's "Times" and they will find there that Imperial Germany has adopted this proposal for the whole of the Empire.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEThey are taking two years to draft their Bill.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGETwo years? Oh, no. As a matter of fact, they are taking just as much time as we are. The hon. Gentleman does not think we are drafting the Bill now. If it is suggested that Amendments are necessary, what is the good of the House of Commons unless the Members can make suggestions? I have never resented that. To say that when a Bill is passing through Committee of the House of Commons occasional things are pointed out that the Member in charge never foresaw—well, the man who says that that is not possible is not fit to conduct a Bill through the House. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have made very valuable suggestions to me, if I may be allowed to say so. The Imperial German Parliament—it is not a mere local thing—has actually adopted, as "The Times" shows, these very recommendations, having come to the conclusion that in future these taxes in Germany shall not be municipal, but Imperial. They do not think that this problem is insoluble, but consider that the tax is a perfectly practicable one. After all, the moment you cut up an estate into building properties you are confronted with apportionment. Therefore there is really no difficulty—well, of course, there is a difficulty, but it is a difficulty which every builder and every owner of an estate is confronted with on the occasions I have mentioned. The hon. Gentleman talked as though every small rural land-owner had to immediately cut up his little field into building lots. How ridiculous; how perfectly absurd.
§ Sir R. PERKSI did not suggest anything so ridiculous. The right hon. Gentleman is attributing to me things that I never said.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEWhat does the hon. Member mean when he says that each paddock and each field had to be valued?
§ Sir R. PERKSThat does not mean building land.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIf this has to be valued at all, the suggestion is that it has to be valued for building purposes. [Cries of "No, no."] Well, I do not see the object of it then. The Attorney-General was dealing with the apportionment of building lots, and the hon. Member got up and spoke as if every owner of agricultural land throughout Lincolnshire would have to cut up his property. He has to do nothing of the sort. It would be an absolutely unnecessary expense. If that is the sort of advice my hon. Friend is going to give to his constituents he had better study the Bill before he goes down to them. The matter has absolutely no reference to 95 per cent, of the land in Lincolnshire. A little while ago my hon. Friend said there was very little building land in Lincolnshire. What there was was just outside twelve towns, and the rest was purely agricultural. Very well, in these cases there would be absolutely no necessity for these apportionments.
§ Sir R. PERKSBut you did not exempt agricultural land?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEReally, I think the hon. Member would get on better if he tried to understand the point. Even supposing for a moment you do not exempt agricultural land, I do not agree with the hon. Member. Supposing you do not, at any rate it would not be necessary to cut it up into paddocks for the purpose of valuation. As a matter of fact, I think we do exempt it. But that matter is passed over as no consequence, and the hon. Member is here pleading for the little rural land-owner who has got six fields. As I told him and told the Committee last week, it is proposed to exempt these little owners. At the end of his speech, after about four-fifths had been spent—I will not say in exaggeration, but in impressing upon us the grievances of this little owner whom we had already informed the Committee that it was proposed to exempt— [HON. MEMBERS: 1686 "When, when?"] In the speech I made in reply to the hon. and gallant Member. I said that the Government proposed to introduce words to exempt the very small owners. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the definition of the small owner?"] I will put an Amendment on the Paper. It will have to be a separate clause. That is the case in the Lands Clauses Act. My hon. Friend said what would happen in the Lands Clauses Act? I do not think that a man who has got to part with his land under the Lands Clauses Act has very much grievance. My hon. Friend knows perfectly well in these cases three or four times the value of the land is obtained.
§ Mr. IVOR GUESTNot three or four times.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEWell, twice. It is very often ten times. I could give many cases, at any rate, where it is more than twice. In cases of that kind there is a good deal of difficulty, but the difficulty under this Bill is nothing to the difficulty under the Lands Clauses Act. There are arbitrations and references, but the owner is very well compensated for them, and as I say, the difficulty is nothing to the difficulty to be encountered under the Lands Clauses Act. I do not think my hon. Friend treated my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General fairly. He just exaggerated what he said in regard to building land, and applied that as if it had reference to the whole of the rural land of England. That is really not the case, and I think he will find when he comes to deal with the matter practically it will not be so difficult as that any owner should not be able to afford it.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe right hon. Gentleman has made an extremely important announcement, namely, that he will exempt small owners, and as regards that I only say if the taxation is unjust everybody should be exempt, and if the taxation is just there is no reason why the small owner should not be included as well as the rich, unless the object of the right hon. Gentleman is to plunder certain political opponents. The right hon. Gentleman has fallen back upon his own argument. He says that his apportionment is based upon Frankfort and other foreign towns. I do not know why we should be legislating upon the example of foreign countries; but, accepting the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, I do not know why it is because certain things have taken place in foreign countries the right hon. Gentleman should come forward and 1687 ask us to accept that doctrine when on Tariff Reform he comes down and says the example of foreign countries is not to be accepted at all. I do not know why in this instance the example of foreign countries is better than any other example. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question, and to contradict me if I am wrong in this. I have studied the Blue Book relating to this particular taxation in foreign countries. The right hon. Gentleman knows it better than I do. As far as I understand that Blue Book there is no single instance where the site is separated from the building. The impost in that Blue Book is upon the value of the property as a whole, that is, upon the value of the site and buildings. Am I wrong?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEAbsolutely wrong.
§ Sir F. BANBURYWill the right hon. Gentleman tell me where I am wrong? Let us take Frankfort——
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI thought the hon. Baronet included the Colonies.
§ Sir F. BANBURYNo; the right hon. Gentleman gave us the example of Frankfort.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe question put to me by the hon. Baronet is that in this Blue Book there was not a single case where the buildings were separate from the sites. He did not found his question upon foreign countries only. If he did I beg his pardon.
§ Sir F. BANBURYOh, yes, on foreign countries, and, therefore, as far as foreign countries are concerned there is no single instance where the site is separate from the buildings. The Attorney-General said in reply to the Noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord Robert Cecil) that in London there would be no difficulty in making this apportionment, because upon every estate in London there are already existing houses and sites, and that the value would be easily obtained. May I point out an instance which occurred to me while the right hon. Gentleman was speaking. Only about a fortnight ago the Trevor estate in Knightsbridge was sold to Mr. Humphreys the iron building trader. That estate is bounded by Knightsbridge-road on one side, and Brompton-road on the other. It is just past Knightsbridge Barracks, and at the present moment, with the exception of Trevor-square, it is built over with small 1688 houses varying in rental from £50 to £90 per year. The lease falls in, I believe, in about from 14 to 28 years from now, and according to the paper which gave the details of the sale, Mr. Humphreys intends to pull down these houses to make a road across into Brompton-road and to build a different class of houses. What is going to happen in that easel The site value will be determined upon the conditions of the property as it is now with these small houses upon it. When it comes to be developed 14 or 25 years hence, according as the leases fall in, and when all the roads with the exception of Trevor-square have disappeared, there will be new roads, and new houses will stand upon bits of sites of the other houses, one house on perhaps two sites, and a little bit of another, and one house on one site, and a bit of another. I give a concrete instance which occurs to me at the moment, and there must be thousands of these cases in other parts of the country. I would like to ask how the Attorney-General proposes to deal with them. He says we shall have the history and survey of the property. Who are "we"? Are "we" the Commissioners, and if so at whose expense is the history and survey of the property to be made? It is going to be made at the expense of the unfortunate land-owner, and now apparently he is to have a different valuation made, and all documents duplicated, one to be handed to the Commissioners, and the other to be kept by himself. The result will be that all development will be stopped by reason of the expenses which have got to take place before the development can be made, and consequently we shall find that the building trade will suffer and the result will be that large portions of workmen will be thrown out of employment, and for what? To obtain what practically is nothing in the way of additional revenue. I should like to have an answer to the questions which I have put.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI appeal to the Committee now to come to a decision. This Amendment is not an Amendment which was intended to be persisted in, but to have raised a general Debate. All the specific points put in the course of the Debate are raised by Amendments later on. There is hardly one point mentioned in the course of the Debate but is covered by such subsequent Amendments. I hope we shall be able to get on now. It is very difficult, in a rambling Debate of this kind, to answer every point put forward.
§ Mr. PRETYMANWith regard to the point to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just now referred, I agree that they may be better discussed on specific Amendments, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a most important announcement, and I am not quite sure he realises the effect of it upon the structure of his Bill. He has announced to the House that he does not propose to include in the valuation small owners. The committee must be aware that the whole structure of this Bill is founded upon original site value, which is to be the basis of all future valuation, and upon which the whole fabric of the taxation is to rest. He now informs us that a class of property which embraces a very large proportion of the property of the country is to be entirely exempt from the operation of this Bill. It follows from that that there will be no original site valuation in respect of this property, and, therefore, when it is sold to larger owners, as frequently occurs, and will become liable to Increment Value Duty, there will be no original site value upon which to fix a valuation, and this would be completely destructive of the whole Bill. It is quite impossible for the Committee to go on discussing the Bill on the present basis, because we do not know where we stand until the right hon. Gentleman tells us what the extent of the valuations are that are to be covered by the exemption. I submit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the whole structure of the Bill has gone if he exempts a large proportion of the land from original site value.
One of the points in the general question dealt with by the Chancellor was that in which he tells us that the apportionment of this tax—and he used the expression "this tax"—had been very easily dealt with abroad, particularly in Germany, and so far had they now gone that this tax is to be embodied in an Imperial tax. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in face of the Committee, to tell us where there is a single tax in Germany or anywhere else where there is an original site value fixed as the basis for taxation is fixed in this case? There is no such case, and it is really leading the Committee astray. The class of difficulties which we have been debating ever since we commenced this afternoon have been solely based upon the difficulties of assessing duties in the future and the apportionment of them in face of the structure of this Bill upon which original site value is to be fixed for all time, and comparison 1690 made upon all future periodical occasions when the tax becomes due. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gets up and misleads the Committee by saying this difficulty is met abroad.
It is not the same difficulty, it does not even approach this difficulty, it is not of the same character, and there is no case in this Blue Book where this particular difficulty is dealt with. What are these foreign taxes? They axe a stamp duty upon transfers, and nothing else. It is a perfectly simple case of a comparatively simple matter. You take the Transfer Duty upon the stamps, and charge the Stamp Duty upon it on transfer, and upon the information you compare the value obtained with the duty paid on previous occasions. You have one comparison only between the stamp fixed by the purchase and another fixed stamp by the purchased price of yesterday, and you have simply to compare the prices. You have only the period between two simple transactions, and between these two only, and you have to consider the apportionment upon any change. That is a comparatively simple matter. What have you got to do now? You have got for all time for the future to go back to the original valuation which is to be fixed in a time already provided by several months, and since large innumerable complications have already occurred, I say it would be extremely difficult now to go back and say to-day what was the value of land several months ago, and from the time this Bill passes the difficulty will be enormously increased. Sales have been going on every day, and hundreds of these transactions are taking place daily. Land is being transferred from hand to hand, not so much as would have been the case if this Bill had not been brought in, but, nevertheless, an enormous number of transfers are taking place. Now all these transactions have to be traced, and what are the different factors? I have put down what occur to me as the different factors in the mathematical problem to which the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite has referred. There are questions of sub-division, changes of value, subsequent payment of Increment Duty upon different parts of a property, leases, and, more complicated than all, you have the difficult questions of deductions under three separate headings which we discussed for hours last week. Here you have seven factors to be considered, totally different in character, all having a different effect upon the composite subject. You have to con- 1691 sider the interaction of all these factors upon one another, and hon. Members know the great difficulty on a question, like this caused by the introduction of only two or three factors. In this case, however, you have seven different factors, all acting upon the property over a long period of time, throwing back to an original valuation made a number of years ago. You have no precedent for any proposal of that kind by any sane Government, and there is no such proposal in the Blue Book which has been issued. I have read this Blue Book dealing with foreign countries very carefully, and I can say that in regard to the German taxes there is no Increment Value Duty which I can discover. To pass this clause in this form is merely a crude attempt to get over the difficulty pointed out in the Debate on the Resolution, namely, the question of the unit of valuation. I cannot help thinking that this sub-clause has been introduced as a consequence of that Debate, and it seems to me to be an attempt to get over a difficulty which the Leader of the Opposition has already pointed out is really an insurmountable one. By this proposal the right hon. Gentleman destroys the whole structure of his Bill, because he can get no original valuation unless he applies it to the whole of the land. Who is going to pay the expense of having the small owners' property valued? The Chancellor of the Exchequer must also tell us what a small holder is. Until we know what this exemption amounts to, and what the right hon. Gentleman means by a small owner, the Committee is placed in such a position that it is impossible to go on discussing this Bill, because we do not know where we are.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI really must apologise to the Committee for taking part a third time in the Debate upon an Amendment which the Opposition themselves would be very sorry to see carried out. I will not charge the hon. and gallant Member (Mr. Pretyman) with misleading the Committee, because, I am sure, he did not intend to do so. I must, however, correct a misrepresentation he has made in reference to what are the intentions of the Government. I cannot at this stage place before the Committee the actual proposals of the Government, because that would be irrelevant to this clause, and will have to be put down as a separate clause. If the hon. and gallant Member imagines he has discovered, for 1692 the first time, that if there is no valuation we shall be deprived of increment for all time to come, he is attributing to us a simplicity which I am not conscious any Member of the Government pride themselves upon possessing. He must realise that we have foreseen all that. I am not going to tell the hon. and gallant Member what those proposals are now. We have to discuss this question upon the basis of the Bill as it stands, and that question will come up when the proposals of the Government are placed on the Paper. Until then I must decline to discuss Amendments which are not even on the Paper. The hon. and gallant Member suggested that this is the first time I have given this information, but that is not a fact, because I gave it last week. Last week I made it perfectly clear, not only in the course of the Debate in the House, but in answer to a question, that it was the intention of the Government to deal with the small holder later on. On a former occasion, when the hon. and gallant Member pleaded not for the great land-owner, but for the poor small holder, I could not resist his argument any longer, and I made a concession. Therefore, instead of having these fierce, extravagant denunciations, I think I ought to be congratulated upon doing the right and just thing. I will not say that the hon. and gallant Member is not sincere, because he may have altered his mind after discovering the Government are prepared to make a concession on that point. As for the nature of our concession, it is not for me to explain it at the present moment, but I shall put it down on the Paper. [An OPPOSITION MEMBER: "When?"] I think I shall be able to put it down this week. I trust the Committee will be satisfied with this explanation, and allow us to proceed with the Bill.
§ Sir EDWARD CARSONIt is all very well for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a speech of the kind he has just delivered in reply to serious arguments. He is very good at trying to turn off an argument, but we are dealing here with serious business. We are now being asked to pass from this Debate, in which it has been pointed out that by the new sub-section as it stands you are going to throw the expense of an almost impossible valuation upon millions of owners of land in this country. The right hon. Gentleman replies, "No, you are wrong in that, because I am going to exempt small holders." We want to know, What are small holders? At 1693 the present moment not a single hon. Member in this House has the least conception of what the right hon. Gentleman means by a small holder. Is this question to be regulated by the valuation of the particular unit being sold? Is that a small holder 2 Can a man be a small holder if he is a millionaire owning small property? I am the fortunate owner of two acres of land, and I want to know whether I am a small holder or not? The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not know. Why should the right hon. Gentleman find fault with us if we insist upon debating this question until he applies the closure? Why should he find fault with us if we say that we refuse to go on until we know who we are putting the expense upon under this section? What else are we here for? We are here to find out who this Bill is going to affect. It seems to be forgotten that you are dealing with everyday transactions which occur in thousands and thousands of cases relating to the transfer of property, in regard to which this cumbrous procedure has to be gone through. Has the right hon. Gentleman made any calculation as to how many cases per annum are involved in this sub-section if it passes into law? Can he give us the remotest idea on this point? I do not believe he can. Therefore we are asked to go on with this sub-section not knowing in the first place to whom it will apply, and in the second place how many cases are involved. In that state of circumstances we are asked to rest content with what, I venture to say, for all prac-
§ tical purposes, is an absolutely impossible machinery for the purposes of carrying out the intentions of this Bill. Since my hon. and gallant Friend (Mr. Pretyman) spoke the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not said much about foreign countries. It is clear that in foreign countries the whole thing is based upon a definite consideration, and you are dealing not upon an hypothesis but in relation to actual sums of money. What I cannot understand is, if the right hon. Gentleman is so anxious to get more money out of the transfer of land in this country, why on earth he did not increase his tax upon the ad valorem principle. That would be a matter that everybody concerned with land would understand. I submit to the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman is asking us to go on discussing this impossible sub-section without giving us the information which is necessary for us for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion. Under these circumstances I venture to move that you, Mr. Emmott, do now report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
The CHAIRMANI do not think I can permit this question to be discussed. The promised new clause is only partially connected with this sub-section. I shall put the Question at once.
§ Question put, "That the Chairman do now report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
§ The Committee divided, Ayes, 98; Noes, 219.
1695| Division No. 264.] | AYES. | [6.3 p.m. |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Fardell, Sir T. George | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col A. R. |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Fell, Arthur | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) |
| Ashley, W. W. | Flotcher, J. S. | Lonsdale, John Brownlee |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Forster, Henry William | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Loud.) | Foster, P. S. | M'Arthur, Charles |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gardner, Ernest | Magnus, Sir Philip |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Mason, James F. (Windsor) |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Middlemore, John Throgmorton |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Gretton, John | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds) | Newdegate, F. A. |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Oddy, John James |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Heaton, John Henniker | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Helmsley, Viscount | Percy, Earl |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Hill, Sir Clement | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Hunt, Rowland | Renton, Leslie |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Kerry, Earl of | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. | Keswick, William | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Kimber, Sir Henry | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Lambton, Hon. Frederick William | Scott. Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Douglas, Rt. HON. A. Akers- | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Stanier, Beville |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham) | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) | Younger, George |
| Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) | |
| Thornton, Percy M. | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Viscount |
| Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) | Winterton, Earl | |
| Walrond, Hon. Lionel | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Waiter | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Freeman-Thomas, Freeman | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Fuller, John Michael F. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Fullerton, Hugh | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Alden, Percy | Furness, Sir Christopher | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Atherley-Jones, L | Gill, A. H. | Pointer, J. |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Pollard, Dr. G. H. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Radford, G. H. |
| Burlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) | Grant, Corrie | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) |
| Barnard, E. B. | Griffith, Ellis J. | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth) |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Beale, W. P. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Hart-Davies, T. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Bell, Richard | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Hedges, A. Paget | Robinson, S. |
| Bennett, E. N. | Helme, Nerval Watson | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Bertram, Julius | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Bethel), T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Henry, Charles S. | Rowlands, J. |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Black, Arthur W. | Higham, John Sharp | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) |
| Brace, William | Hodge, John | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Brigg, John | Holland, Sir William Henry | Seaverns, J. H. |
| Brodie, H. C. | Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.) | Seely, Colonel |
| Brooke, Stopford | Horniman, Emslie John | Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford) |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Horridge, Thomas Gardner | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Hudson, Walter | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Idris, T. H. W. | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Steadman, W. C. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Cameron, Robert | Jowett, F. W. | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Kekewich, Sir George | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Laidlaw, Robert | Summerbell, T. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster) | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Lambert, George | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Clough, William | Lamont, Norman | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury) |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Lehmann, R. C. | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Cooper, G. J. | Lewis, John Herbert | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Tomkinson, James |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Vivian, Henry |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Walton, Joseph |
| Crooks, William | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Wardle, George J. |
| Cross, Alexander | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W. | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Crossley, William J. | M'Micking, Major G. | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Curran, Peter Francis | Mallet, Charles E. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Marnham, F. J. | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Massie, J. | Weir, James Galloway |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Masterman, C. F. G. | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Menzies, Sir Walter | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Micklem, Nathaniel | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Molteno, Percy Alport | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Dickson-Poynder, St. John P. | Mond, A. | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Morrell, Philip | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Winfrey, R. |
| Essex, R. W. | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Napier, T. B. | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Norman, Sir Henry | |
| Fenwick, Charles | Nuttall, Harry | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Ferens, T. R. | O'Grady, J. |
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI wish to claim the indulgence of the Committee while I take up the challenge of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir W. Robson) about the number of apportionments that will be required by two or three simple transactions in land. I think he went so far as to say he did not believe it, and that it would take a mathematician to prove it to him. A man leaves a piece of property to his four sons—A, B, C, and D equally. The original site value is taken in the year 1909. In 1911 A sells his quarter, and upon that transaction you have to ascertain the site value of the whole, and make one simple arithmetical calculation and take one-quarter of the increment. In 1912 B dies. You have then to ascertain the site value of the whole. It is a different increment at that stage, and you have to make a simple arithmetical calculation, dividing by four, and paying the duty. Although these years are imaginary, the transaction itself is one which occurred. I am simply projecting it into the future, about 20 years after 1909. In 1915 A's purchaser, B's executors, and C and D join in leasing a fourth of the property, being approximately half of the front. You then require to apportion the site value of the whole, so as to find out the particular extra site value of the front, and you require to give credit for the proportions, and you have to apportion among them all the two Increment Duties which have been paid on the two previous occasions by A and B. In 1918 the lessee, having built two houses on a part of the front, sells his property in such houses. Upon that occasion there are four apportionments, which it is absolutely essential you must make in order to arrive at the Increment Duty payable by that particular person on that particular transaction and all of which have to be referred back to the original site value of 1909.
§ Sir W. ROBSONWas the land left to A, B, C, and D as joint owners?
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDIt was left to them in equal shares and as tenants in common. In 1925 there is a sale of a plot which adjoins the first piece. It would be necessary on that to have eight apportionments either of site value or of duty previously paid in order to find out the exact proportion of the duty required to be paid on that particular transaction. D, one of the sons, next sells a half part of his quarter interest in the three-quarters of the remaining property, plus his quarter 1698 share in the fee simple reversion under the lease. The Attorney-General will find, in order to get at the exact duty on that occasion, there would be 32 apportionments required, because not only would you require to apportion the site value, but, to get at this particular piece included in this transaction you would require to apportion to each part of each portion of the property the exact part of the duty in respect of the fractional interest made on the previous occasion. In 1935—and this brings me to the point we are discussing —in 1935 C dies, holding one - quarter of the fee simple under the lease of half the property in front, and also a quarter of the residue. It will be found that there are 64 apportionments now required on this transaction, and, as C leaves six children, one of whom sells his interest, there are 128 apportionments required. Immediately after that the local authority, under an Improvement Scheme, take a slice of the front of the property, and in 1942 there is a sale by all the six parties interested of two houses, one included in the piece that was at first leased and built upon, and one in the further piece built upon afterwards. It will be seen that, upon that transaction, there are no less than 256 apportionments to be made. When I said there were 156 I may explain I took off 100, because it is perfectly obvious that about 100 of the apportionments are mere cases of dividing by two or four, and I did not consider that was a fair thing to put in as involving anything in the nature of a different calculation, but the hon. and learned Gentleman may take it from me that, in saying there were 156 apportionments to be made, I was well within the mark.
§ Mr. BERTRAMWe have been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that every holder of building estate is confronted with difficulties of valuation and apportionment, and the learned Attorney-General said it was to the interest of every owner of land to make an accurate valuation as early as possible. But the question is not quite so simple as it would appear to be, because the owner often has to make the valuation long before the time when the building scheme is due. If the building scheme is immediately in front of him, then, no doubt, he can value the land and get at the site value. But take the case of a man with a small piece of land which has a right of access, but which is surrounded on all sides by land belonging to somebody 1699 else. He is bound to wait on the movements of the surrounding land-owner, and those movements, whatever they may be, may entirely alter the apportionment and development of his own land. Again, take the case of a man with a piece of land intersected by a public footpath running east and west, and surrounded north, east, and south by another land-owner. If the other land-owner, in developing his estate, places the right-of-way in the middle of his new road, the small owner will have two pieces of building land, each with a frontage to the new road; but, on the other hand, if the surrounding owner puts his road along the north side of the plot of land the owner will have two pieces of
§ land, one a long strip fronting the new road, and the other a perfectly useless strip cut off from the rest by the public footpath, which he can only sell to the adjoining owner. It will be seen, therefore, that it is not easy for those men who have to depend on development by other persons, to decide how their own land may be, developed. It must involve enormous expense to a small man.
§ 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, 231; Noes, 107.
1701| Division No. 265.] | AYES. | 6.25 P.m. |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Cox, Harold | Hodge, John |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Crooks, William | Holland, Sir William Henry |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Crosfield, A. H. | Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Cross, Alexander | Horniman, Emslie John |
| Alden, Percy | Crossley, William J. | Horridge, Thomas Gardner |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Curran, Peter Francis | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Hudson, Walter |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | Hyde, Clarendon G. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Idris, T. H. W. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Barker, Sir John | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Kekewich, Sir George |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Laidlaw, Robert |
| Barnes, G. N. | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster) |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Dobson, Thomas W. | Lambert, George |
| Beale, W. P. | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Lamont, Norman |
| Beauchamp, E. | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Elibank, Master of | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) |
| Bell, Richard | Essex, R. W. | Lehmann, R. C. |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Evans, Sir S. T. | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Bennett, E. N. | Everett, R. Lacey | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Fenwick, Charles | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Ferens, T. R. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Freeman-Thomas, Freeman | Mackarness, Frederic C. |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Fuller, John Michael F. | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Brace, William | Fullerton, Hugh | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) |
| Brigg, John | Furness, Sir Christopher | M'Micking, Major G. |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Mallet, Charles E. |
| Brodie, H. C. | Gill, A. H. | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Brooke, Stopford | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Marnham, F. J. |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.) | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Massie, J. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Grant, Corrie | Menzies, Sir Walter |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Griffiths, Ellis J. | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Byles, William Pollard | Grove, Archibald | Mond, A. |
| Cameron, Robert | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) |
| Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Morrell, Philip |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Hart-Davies, T. | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) |
| Clough, William | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Myer, Horatio |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Hedges, A. Paget | Napier, T. B. |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Helme, Norval Watson | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Cooper, G. J. | Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) | Nussey, Sir Willans |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Henry, Charles S. | Nuttall, Harry |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | O'Grady, J. |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John | Higham, John Sharp | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) | Walton, Joseph |
| Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | Seaverns, J. H. | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Seely, Colonel | Wardle, George J. |
| Pointer, J. | Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Pollard, Dr. G. H. | Silcock, Thomas Ball | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Ponsonby, Arthur A. W, H. | Simon, John Allsebrook | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Radford G. H. | Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Weir, James Galloway |
| Rainy, A. Rolland | Soares, Ernest J. | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Steadman, W. C. | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Rees, J. D. | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth) | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Strachey, Sir Edward | Wiles, Thomas |
| Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Summerbell, T. | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Sutherland, J. E. | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Robinson, S. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury) | Winfrey, R. |
| Rogers, F. E. Newman | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Rowlands, J. | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Thomas, S. A. (Glamorgan, E.) | |
| Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Thomasson, Franklin | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | Tomkinson, James | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Fletcher, J. S. | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Forster, Henry William | Morrison-Bell, Captain |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Foster, P. S. | Newdegate, F. A. |
| Ashley, W. W. | Gardner, Ernest | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)) | Oddy, John James |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Gretton, John | Percy, Earl |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hamilton, Marquess of | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Bertram, Julius | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Heaton, John Henniker | Renton, Leslie |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Helmsley, Viscount | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Hill, Sir Clement | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hunt, Rowland | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Kerry, Earl of | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Cave, George | Keswick, William | Stanier, Beville |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Kimber, Sir Henry | Starkey, John R. |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Lambton, Hon. Frederick William | Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.) |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt-.Col. A. R. | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.) |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Willoughby do Eresby, Lord |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Winterton, Earl |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | M'Arthur, Charles | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Magnus, Sir Philip | Younger, George |
| Du Cros, Arthur | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount |
| Fardell, Sir T. George | Middlemore, John Throgmorton | Valentia and Lord Edmund Talbot. |
| Fell, Arthur | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
§ Question put, "That the word 'where' stand part of the Clause."
1702§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 111.
1705| Division No. 266.] | AYES. | [6.35 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Bell, Richard |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Bellairs, Carlyon |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Barker, Sir John | Bennett, E. N. |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) | Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) |
| Alden, Percy | Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Barnes, G. N. | Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine |
| Astbury, John Meir | Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Black, Arthur W. |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Beale, W. P. | Boulton, A. C. F. |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Beauchamp, E. | Brace, William |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Beck, A. Cecil | Brigg, John |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Brodie, H. C. | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Rees, J. D. |
| Brooke, Stopford | Higham, John Sharp | Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth) |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Hodge, John | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Holland, Sir William Henry | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Horniman, Emslie John | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Horridge, Thomas Gardner | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Howard, Hon. John Geoffrey | Robinson, S. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Hudson, Walter | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Cameron, Robert | Hyde, Clarendon G. | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Idris, T. H. W. | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) | Rowlands, J. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Clough, William | Jowett, F. W. | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Kekewich, Sir George | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Laidlaw, Robert | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster) | Seaverns, J. H. |
| Cooper, G. J. | Lambert, George | Seely, Colonel |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Lamont, Norman | Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Lehmann, R. C. | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Cox, Harold | Lewis, John Herbert | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Crooks, William | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Cross, Alexander | Lyell, Charles Henry | Steadman, W. C. |
| Crossley, William J. | Lynch, H. B. | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Curran, Peter Francis | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Summerbell, T. |
| Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan) | Maclean, Donald | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | M'Micking, Major G. | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury) |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Mallet, Charles E. | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Markham, Arthur Basil | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | Marnham, F. J. | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Massie, J. | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.) |
| Elibank, Master of | Masterman, C. F. G. | Tomkinson, James |
| Essex, R. W. | Menzies, Sir Walter | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Micklem, Nathaniel | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Molteno, Percy Alport | Walton, Joseph |
| Fenwick, Charles | Mond, A. | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Ferens, T. R. | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Wardle, George J. |
| Foster, Rt. Hon Sir Walter | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Freeman Thomas, Freeman | Morrell, Philip | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Wason, John Carthcart (Orkney) |
| Fullerton, Hugh | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | Myer, Horatio | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Gill, A. H. | Napier, T. B. | Weir, James Galloway |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)- |
| Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.) | Nussey, Sir Willans | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Nuttall, Harry | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | O'Grady, J | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Grant, Corrie | Parker, James (Halifax) | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Paulton, James Mellor | Wiles, Thomas |
| Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Griffiths, Ellis J. | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Greve, Archibald | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | Wilson, P. W. (St Pancras, S.) |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Pointer, J. | Winfrey, R. |
| Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Pollard, Dr. G. H. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Hart-Davies, T. | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | |
| Hedges, A. Paget | Radford, G. H. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Helme, Norval Watson | Rainy, A. Rolland | |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Bull, Sir William James |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Burdett-Coatts, W. |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Butcher, Samuel Henry |
| Ashley, W. W. | Bertram, Julius | Carlile, E. Hildred |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Bignold, Sir Arthur | Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Bowles, G. Stewart | Castlereagh, Viscount |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Bridgeman, W. Clive | Cave, George |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hill, Sir Clement | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Hills, J. W. | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield. | Ronton, Leslie |
| Chaplin Rt. Hon. Henry | Hunt, Rowland | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Kerry, Earl of | Ropner, Col. Sir Robert |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. | Keswick, William | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Kimber, Sir Henry | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. |
| Dalymple, Viscount | Lambton, Hon. Frederick William | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford) East) |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Stanier, Beville |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Starkey, John R. |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham) | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Du Cros, Arthur | Lockwood, Rt. Hon Lt.-Col. A. R. | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Fardell, Sir T. George | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.) |
| Fell, Arthur | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Fletcher, J. S. | M'Arthur, Charles | Valentia, Viscount |
| Forster, Henry William | Magnus, Sir Philip | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Foster, P. S. | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Gardner, Ernest | Middlemore, John Throgmorton | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Morpeth, Viscount | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Morrison-Bell, Captain | Winterton, Earl |
| Gretton, John | Newdegate, F. A. | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Hamilton, Marquess of | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | Younger, George |
| Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Oddy, John James | |
| Harris, Frederick Leverton | Parkes, Ebenezer | |
| Harrison-Broadley H. B. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. J. F. Mason and Mr. Watson ford. |
| Heaton, John Henniker | Percy, Earl | |
| Helmsley, Viscount | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | |
| Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Pretyman, E. G. |
§ Mr. FELLI beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name, after the first "is" ["Where, on any occasion on which Increment Value Duty is"] to insert "considered to be."
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDThere are two other Amendments of which I gave notice at the beginning of the sitting, and which come before this. They come in after the word "where," which we have just decided to retain, and I venture to submit most respectfully that those two Amendments stand next in order.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell)The first one handed in is covered by the previous Amendment.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI think perhaps it is.
§ The DEPUTY - CHAIRMANThe second one has obviously been disposed of already. It provides that where a man owns two or three properties, are adjacent, and belong to the same owner, such owner shall be entitled to require the Commissioners to treat the property as a whole. The matter was fully discussed on the Amendment of the Noble Lord the Member for Hornsey on the 5th inst.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI beg, on the point of order, very respectfully to submit to you that the question has not been decided. The point of the Amendment is to enable a land-owner who has acquired one or two pieces of land, which 1706 have been in different original site values, to ask the Commissioners to treat that piece, which consists of various portions out of other site values, as a whole. That point has never been dealt with at all, and for that reason I submit that this is the right place in which it should appear.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIt involves the question of decrement, which has been already determined.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI respectfully submit to you, Sir, who have, of course, to decide this question under great difficulties, because, although the hon. Member handed in his Amendment some time ago, it has not been before you— may I submit that this is not a question of decrement, but a question of proportion, and is really the converse of what the Government propose to do in this connection. The Government propose that we are to base ourselves upon the original valuation as one, and that basis may be apportioned among the various properties into which it is divided. My hon. Friend proposes the converse, namely, that where the property was originally valued as several pieces of land, but has been brought together as one property, it should be equally in the power of the Commissioners, on the application of the owners, to unite the originally divided site values, instead of to divide site values which were originally one.
§ Sir WILLIAM ROBSONI submit that it has everything to do with decrement. What is suggested now is that an owner may be entitled to add to any separately valued piece another piece so as to amalgamate the two site values and get the benefit of them as one. That is really an attempt to get behind the decision of the Committee that an owner may not take into account the decrement upon an adjacent site. That is enabling him to take into account the decrement of an adjacent site and get the benefit of it by amalgamating them.
§ Mr. E. G. PRETYMANThe point raised by the Attorney-General as perfectly accurate as regards increment value on the second valuation, but what we are dealing with now is original site value, and there is no question of increment or decrement.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYMay I ask, on a point of order, whether I might move the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Arnold Herbert), because there is a point in it which is not covered by the Amendment foreshadowed by the right hon. Gentleman?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANWe have passed that.
§ Mr. BALFOURMay I ask, if it is not in order to raise it here, where it would be in order? Evidently it is a question of considerable importance, and it is a point which has nothing whatever to do with either increment or decrement. It has to do with the apportionment of the original site value. The Government have already come to the conclusion that they must amend their Bill by giving us power to divide land which was originally valued as one. All that is asked now is that there should be power of treating land as one which in the original site value was treated as more than one, but for the purpose of original site value, and not for the purpose of increment or decrement on the original site value.
§ Sir W. ROBSONHow can such a case be one of apportionment? It is not one of apportionment at all. Apportionment relates to a case where, having a piece of land in separate plots, it is desired to divide it for the purpose of giving greater value to one part than to another in relation to original site value, but this is a totally different matter. This is not apportionment, but aggregation, and it may 1708 be used for the purpose of getting on to the original site value some part which may be the subject matter of decrement.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINDoes not the elaborate argument of the Attorney-General go to show that this question should be argued by the Committee?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI think it is quite plain that the original site value is an element in determining the increment value. Undoubtedly here it is proposed to do that which we have already determined should not be done, that is to say, you are to take advantage of any decrement in one portion by adding it to the whole, and then apportioning it afterwards, so that we are really raising the very question which has been raised before on the question of decrement.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYI rise to move the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wycombe, which will follow after the word "where," which has just been carried by the Committee.
§ Sir W. ROBSONI understood you called on the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell).
§ Lord ROBERT CECILThere is no other word but "where" in the section. Of course it is in order.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANWhen the Amendment was called upon the hon. Member in whose name the Amendment stood on the Paper said he did not move it, and I called upon the hon. Member for Yarmouth to move the next Amendment.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYAfter you called on the hon. Member I rose in my place to move it. Simultaneously another point of order was raised, and I had no opportunity of attracting your attention till the point of order was disposed of.
§ Mr. A. J. BALFOURI understand you have not put any words beyond the point at which my Noble Friend desires to move the Amendment. If the Amendment is in order there can be no doubt that it is legitimate to raise it.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe reason why the Amendment was not moved by the hon. Member for Wycombe was because the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised to bring up an Amendment, and that being so it is not convenient to take up a question which is to be dealt with by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINAre we to be prevented from discussing an Amendment which is upon the Paper, and which is in order at this place because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has mentioned that in another position he proposes to move another Amendment? And may I further submit that quite irrespective of whether the Amendment was on the Paper or not, we being still at the point at which we have decided only that "where" stand part, my Noble Friend would be entitled to move the Amendment even if no notice had been given to come in at the same place, and he could do that now.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIf the Noble Lord says he rose to a point of order immediately upon my calling upon the hon. Member for Yarmouth I will allow the Noble Lord to move.
§ Viscount HELMSLEY moved after "Where," in section (3), to insert "the owner of any land so desires he shall be entitled at any time to require the Commissioners to apportion the original site value upon any part or parts of his land, and to grant a certificate of such apportionment or where"
§ I think it would be a great advantage if the Government would consider the point with a view to incorporating some part of this Amendment on to the Amendment foreshadowed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that is the point of granting a certificate of the apportionment. That is the only part of the Amendment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not hitherto conceded. It seems to me very valuable when we bear in mind the length of time which will elapse in a great many cases between taking the original site value and the Increment Value Duties becoming due. It is very important that the owner of the land should have some document which he will be able to show both to possible purchasers and also to the Commissioners, if necessary, which will show what the original site value of that part of the land is. If this plan is adopted it will very much simplify the whole matter for the owner of the land.
§ Sir W. ROBSONI am sorry the Noble Lord should insist upon raising a discussion which may have inconvenient consequences for those who desire to see the Amendment adopted at this place. My right hon. Friend has said that the subject in question would be better dealt with when the whole Amendment comes up. But it is certainly not a convenient place 1710 at which to take it here. I can imagine no reason on the merits why hon. Members should object to it being taken with the Government Amendment. I cannot imagine why there should be any desire to insist upon it being placed in this particular spot rather than at that part of the clause which we think most convenient. To force us to a Division now might make it difficult to raise the Amendment later on.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI am sure my Noble Friend does not wish to force the Committee to a Division on the matter now. He has said his object was to call the attention of the Government to this point, which is not covered by the form of words of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave notice. The Attorney-General has undertaken to consider it, I hope favourably, on the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I hope we shall not spend much time over it now.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYMy object was to draw the attention of the Government to the matter at this point, as I thought it was more likely if they had this interval before placing their Amendment on the Paper that they would be able to make a concession.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. FELL moved, after the word "is," to insert the words "considered to be."
§ This little point will arise on many occasions when an apportionment is sought from the Commissioners on the sale of a portion of the land. The vendor who wishes an apportionment made does not go to the Commissioners saying, "Increment value is due from me in respect of a sale I have just made, will you please apportion the original site value of the land as undivided? There is some increment value now due and I shall be glad to pay it." That is not what the occasion will be. The question whether any increment value is due will depend upon the apportionment itself, which will be made afterwards by the Commissioners. He does not go to them and say, "This is due." He says, "Will you please have an apportionment made, and then we shall see whether any increment value has accrued and whether there is any money due on the sale." It will arise in the case of a man who has bought five acres for £1,000 upon the site value taken in April last. He sells two acres for £600. That, on' the face of it, shows a profit of £200 and payment to 1711 the Government of £40. But, until apportionment is made, it is entirely beside the question to say whether there is any profit being made on the sale of the land or not. It may easily happen that although on the face of it it shows a considerable profit, yet, if you valued the land cut up —as it would be under these circumstances—it would show a loss, and, therefore, this apportionment, when it is made, would probably show for the purposes of sale that the land at the top of the field would be £300 an acre, and at the bottom of the field less than £200, and it would be apportioned in that manner. The vendor is not going to put himself in the position of saying that increment value is due in respect of the sale he has made and of asking the Commissioners what he has to pay. That is a case which must frequently arise Other cases will arise where the land-owner has sold other portions of his land at even less than £200 per acre, and it may be that an increment value has arisen On these occasions it may be doubtful whether it has arisen or not, and some words are wanted in the sub-section to qualify the statement, "Where, on any occasion on which increment value is due." A man does not want to confess that any money is due from him until it has been found by the apportionment that it is due.
§ Sir W. ROBSONI think these words would add an element of uncertainty to this clause. The purpose in view is to indicate the occasion upon which the original site value may be apportioned. For that purpose the words in sub-section (3) follow upon sub-section (2), which indicates the occasions upon which site value becomes due. The hon. Member (Mr. Fell) says that it may not be due at all. An owner is entitled to a reapportionment under the Amendment of which the Government have given notice. So far as I can understand there can be no loss to the owner. The owner will henceforth be able to get an apportionment, even on other occasions than the one on which some particular increment value becomes due or payable. There can be no harm to the land-owner in the words of the subsection standing as they are.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe hon. and learned Gentleman says quite truly that under the words which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to insert later on it will be possible for an owner to demand an apportionment at any 1712 time if he so pleases. But that has nothing to do with the particular case raised by this Amendment. The words of the section are: "Where, on any occasion on which increment value is due in respect of any land, it becomes necessary, for the purpose of ascertaining the original site value of the land on which the duty is to be assessed to apportion any original site value as first adopted for the purposes of this part of this Act." How are you to tell whether increment value is due or not until that apportionment has been made? You have a piece of land which is valued as a whole at £100 per acre. You sell a portion for £200 per acre and another portion for £50 per acre. Is there Increment Value Duty due on that occasion? That is a question which no man can answer until the values have been apportioned. When they have been apportioned it may turn out that there was no Increment Value due, and that the Commissioners, in making an apportionment, have acted ultra vires, unless they have been asked to make the apportionment by the land-owner. The land-owner may have sold an acre of his property at double the average price of the whole land. The Commissioners may claim Increment Duty, and the landowner may say there is none due. Unless you put in some such words as my hon. Friend suggests to enable the Commissioners to act, they will not be able to say that the Increment Tax is due.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDWhat the Government really mean is on any occasion that Increment Value Duty is primiâ facie payable, there should be an apportionment. If the land-owner is asked to admit that on an apportionment there will be something due, he is asked to give himself away in advance, and he would be precluded from asking an apportionment in order to show that there was nothing payable. What is wanted is that the Government should put in the words primâ facie, or similar words, in order that the land-owner may not be compelled to give away his case in advance.
§ Sir W. ROBSONHe does not give away his case in advance at all. He will be entitled to contend that there is no Increment Duty due. If the Commissioners say "We are of opinion that there is Increment Duty due," they must show that there is, and thereupon they will proceed to assess the value of the land. There may be an increment on one part and not on another. In that case it would be to the interest of 1713 the land-owner to say that he wants an apportionment. I do not think the Commissioners should be compelled to make an apportionment, but if the owner thinks that an apportionment will favour him, then we have given him the right to ask for it, irrespective of the occasion. If he does not think that an apportionment will favour him, of course he will not ask for it. I do not think that hon. Members desire that the Commissioners should compel him to have it made.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI am afraid I did not make my point clear. I agree that the land-owner will be able under the words which are not now in the sub-section, but which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to introduce, to apply for an apportionment, but my point is that the owner will avoid an apportionment involving a separate valuation if he can, because that valuation will cost him something. If he thinks there is no Increment Value Duty due he will say that no occasion has arisen. What will then happen? The Attorney-General says that the Commissioners will say, "We are of opinion that there is an increment which is taxable." What right have the Commissioners to say that? The Bill as drawn gives them no power to say that they "consider" it due, and if they make an apportionment except on the two occasions when under the Bill they may do so, they will have acted vitra vires.
§ Sir W. ROBSONI am only desirous that the owner should be properly safeguarded without introducing words which are unnecessary. The right hon. Gentleman says that there are two occasions on which the right of apportionment arises. One is where the Increment Value Duty is due, and the other where the owner asks for an apportionment. Sub-section (3) of Clause 2 deals with the first of these two occasions, namely, that there must be increment value due before the right of apportionment arises. If the Commissioners say that increment value is due and the owner says that it is not, the Commissioners can satisfy themselves on the point by having the value assessed. Suppose it turns out that the Commissioners were wrong, the right hon. Gentleman says they will have acted ultra vires. The valuation may show that they have been mistaken, and that increment value has not arisen, but they will not have acted ultra vires in endeavouring to ascertain the true state of the facts.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINWould not the owner be put to expense in connection with the valuation?
§ Sir W. ROBSONHe would not be put to expense, because the taking of the valuation would be simply the action of the Commissioners. It is not proposed that the owner should be put to any expense in ascertaining whether the Commissioners were right or wrong. No damage would be done to the owner. A thing of this kind should be carefully considered. We are only anxious not to introduce unnecessary words. I think it would be rather dangerous to introduce words which would have this effect, "where on any occasion on which Increment Value Duty is considered to be due it becomes necessary for the purpose of ascertaining the site value." Now, merely "considering it to be due" does not make it become necessarily due, and I think it is desirable that the words in sub-section (3) should be connected with those in Clause 2. The word "due" is very difficult to manage. It has an ambiguity which has given consideration to those who drafted this Bill. When we come to the Report stage, when this Bill has assumed its final shape in the Committee, one would have to consider this word "due" from beginning to end of the Bill. It is a word which lends itself to two meanings. You may use it in relation to the whole duty which is ultimately to be paid by everyone or you may use it in the sense of duty which is to be collected in a given time. When you speak of money being due at a given moment you may very easily mean the whole of the duty which is to be assessed against all of the persons, or you may mean simply the duty to be payable in respect of the particular case which is to be assessed. I want the word "due" here to follow the word due in Clause 2. It may very well be when we come to the end of the Bill, if we ever get there, that all the use of the word "due" will have to be very carefully considered, so as to try to avoid any ambiguity which I cannot help thinking may attach to it in any particular case if the word is used now. Therefore I do not want to change the word now. I merely make the explanation; but I assure hon. Members that suggestions of this kind will be very carefully considered in redrafting.
§ Sir EDWARD CARSONI do not intend to follow the Attorney-General in the discussion of the word "due," because there are Amendments down on which that will arise, but it is interesting to observe 1715 ROW that we have been several days in Committee and have passed the word "due" several times that we do not know what is really meant or in what sense it is meant, and we now come, having considered the matter for several days, to a promise to recast the Bill.
§ Sir WILLIAM ROBSONNo, I have not promised that the Bill is to be recast at all, not even in the case of the word "due." I have stated that when the Bill gets its final shape in Committee we will have to consider the word due in every aspect; it may be to make it more explicit or it may not, but that is no occasion for saying that we have not considered it. We have considered it a great deal and very often.
§ Sir EDWARD CARSONI did not say that the right hon. Gentleman had not considered it. I am sure they have considered it very carefully, and I know perfectly well that the learned draftsman who drafts these Bills considered every word carefully. But all I am pointing to is, that this demonstrates to the Committee the extreme difficulty in finding words to carry out what is the intention of the Government. But let us see now what the right hon. Gentleman's statement comes to. It comes to this, that in every case whether there is an increment or not you are to go through this process, that is, you have to go through the elaborate process of apportionment even though there is no increment. I have asked over and over again, taking annually what business we will have, what expense will be put upon the owner. And let the Committee realise it is now admitted that all this has to be done on every occasion, even though there is no duty or no tax reaped by the Government. That seems to me an extraordinary way of levying a tax. The Attorney-General says there will be no expense put upon the owner. I entirely dissent from that. Whether a tax is payable or not he will be put to exactly the same expense. If you are to have an apportionment for the purpose of seeing whether there is Increment Duty it will not be the mere ipse dixit of the Commissioners —at least I hope not. I hope the owner who is saying there is no increment will have a voice in the matter. The Attorney-General says there will be merely the expense that the Commissioners are put to. Surely the man who is resisting the tax and saying there is no increment must be 1716 heard, and heard not only on the increment value and on the original site value, but obviously he must be heard on the apportionment; and he will be put to expense in valuing, and he will be put to the expense in every case upon the apportionment not merely of having a survey made in relation to the particular unit that is under discussion but also in relation to the original unit on which the original site value was fixed, and he will also have to give evidence upon how far his previous estimate of the original site value was true, by going into any other portion of that original unit which he may have sold in the meantime. And let us contemplate what we are to do. We are saying that in every case, no matter how trivial and no matter how plain we have to go through this process, and we have to put on the owners an enormous expense—in some cases it certainly will be enormous—and when in the end the owner is found to have been right in his contention that there is no Increment Duty, what is his remedy? Are the Government going to pay his costs, or is this to be what this House is going to lay down—that, having put the owner to all this expense, and his contention having proved to be right, he probably will pay more than even the tax would have been worth if the tax were levied? I submit to the House that that is an impossible condition, and I suggest to the Attorney-General, if he is really going on with this kind of machinery for apportionment, that he ought in common fairness and common honesty towards the subject make provision that if the original contention of the subject is right, he ought to be relieved from all expense, at least upon the part of the Government. I do not find, from beginning to end of this Bill, though there is an immense amount of work and expense put upon the subject aiding the Government to come to a conclusion as to whether taxes are to be levied or not, I do not find one single syllable in favour of the subject to relieve them from the expense he is being put to needlessly in cases where he is found to be right. I submit, under these circumstances, that the Bill, as it at present stands, is in an impossible form, and I would urge the Attorney-General to assure us before we go further that he will consider the advisability in some way or other of relieving the taxpayer, who has-been attempted to be unjustly taxed, from all expenses in relation to so complicated a matter.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
1718§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 103; Noes, 228.
1719| Division No. 267.] | AYES. | [7.25 P.M.. |
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Fardell, Sir T. George | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Fletcher, J. S. | Percy, Earl |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Forster, Henry William | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Foster, P. S. | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Ashley, W. W. | Gardner, Ernest | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury St. Edm.) | Renton, Leslie |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lend.) | Haddock, George B. | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Hamilton, Marquess of | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George O. |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Helmsley, Viscount | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hill, Sir Clement | Stanier, Beville |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Hills, J. W. | Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk) |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Starkey, John R. |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Kerry, Earl of | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Lambton, Hon. Frederick William | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury) |
| Cave, George | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Walde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Whitbread, S. Howard |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Magnus, Sir Philip | Winterton, Earl |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | Younger, George |
| Cross, Alexander | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Morpeth, Viscount | |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Morrison-Bell, Captain | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Fell and Mr. Samuel Roberts. |
| Du Cros, Arthur | Newdegate, F. A. | |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Fuller, John Michael F. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Fullerton Hugh |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Furness, Sir Christopher |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Byles, William Pollard | Gibb, James (Harrow) |
| Alden, Percy | Cameron, Robert | Gill, A. H. |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.) |
| Astbury, John Meir | Cawley, Sir Frederick | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Clough, William | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) |
| Barker, Sir John | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) |
| Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) | Cox, Harold | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Crosfield, A. H. | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Crossley, William J. | Hart-Davies, T. |
| Barry, Redmond J (Tyrone, N.) | Curran, Peter Francis | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) |
| Beale, W. P. | Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Hedges, A. Paget |
| Beauchamp, E. | Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | Helme, Norval Watson |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Bell, Richard | Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) |
| Bennett, E. N. | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Higham, John Sharp |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Dickson Poynder, Sir John P. | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Dobson, Thomas W. | Hodge, John |
| Black, Arthur W. | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Holland, Sir William Henry |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Duncan J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Hooper, A. G. |
| Brace, William | Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh) | Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.) |
| Brigg, John | Elibank, Master of | Horniman, Emslie John |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Essex, R. W. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Brooke, Stopford | Evans, Sir S. T. | Hudson, Walter |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs, Leigh) | Everett, R. Lacey | Hyde, Clarendon G. |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Fenwick, Charles | Idris, T. H. W. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Ferens, T. R. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Jowett, F. W. | O'Grady, J. | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Kekewich, Sir George | Parker, James (Halifax) | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Laidlaw, Robert | Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Summerbell, T. |
| Lambert, George | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Lamont, Norman | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis | Pickersgill Edward Hare | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) | Pointer, J. | Ternant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Lehmann, R. C. | Pollard, Dr. G. H. | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, N.) |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Radford, G. H. | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Lyell, Charles Henry | Rainy, A. Holland | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.) |
| Lynch, H. B. | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burgh) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Tomkinson, James |
| Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth) | Trevelyan, Charles Phillips |
| Maclean, Donald | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton) | Vivian, Henry |
| Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Ridsdale, E. A. | Walton, Joseph |
| Macpherson, J. T | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Wardle, George J. |
| M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Warner, Thomas Courtney T. |
| M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Mallet, Charles E. | Robinson, S. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Msrkham, Arthur Basil | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Marnham, F. J. | Rogers, F. E. Newman | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Massie, J. | Rose, Sir Charles Day | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Masterman, C. F. G. | Rowlands, J. | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Menzies, Sir Walter | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Micklem, Nathaniel | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Molteno, Percy Alport | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Mond, A. | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Seely, Colonel | Wills, Arthur Walter |
| Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Worrell, Philip | Silcock, Thomas Ball | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Morse, L. L. | Simon, John Allsebrook | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie | Winfrey, R. |
| Murray, Capt- Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Myer, Horatio | Soares, Ernest J. | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Napier, T. B. | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) | |
| Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Steadman, W. C. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Nuttall, Harry | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
Question, after "part" to insert "or a proportionate amount thereof," put and agreed to.
The CHAIRMANThe Amendment next on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Northampton (Sir Francis Channing) and the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Sir J. Dickson-Poynder) are consequential upon the previous Amendment. With regard to the next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Mr. Watson Rutherford), I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman intends to raise it in respect of the Commissioners. If so, that has been decided.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDNo, Sir. It has reference particularly to the question of apportionment, and the point of my Amendment is this. It is to leave out, after the words "in such proportions as," the words "the Commissioners think," and insert "shall be." It would then read, instead of "the Commissioners think just," in such proportions as shall be just." We have had a discussion on the powers of the Commissioners, but here, if I understand the Bill aright, the Commissioners have to decide the apportionment, and, if they decide it in any judicial way then, we are given to under- 1720 stand, I think, that there is to be provision for appeal. But this clause certainly carries the powers of the Commissioners to a most astounding extent. It is what the Commissioners "think." I could understand it if the Commissioners were to fix their decision in writing, or if they were to give a certificate, or if they were to sit formally to hear witnesses and give a decision against which there could be appeal. But if the whole of this Clause is to be conditional on what the Commissioners "think," then I submit we have come almost to the limit of what is possible. I can only conclude that this particular clause about apportionment has not been drawn up by any lawyer at all. I do not believe that any lawyer has had anything to do with these words, or he would certainly have avoided putting in anything about what "the Commissioners think." I believe these words must have come from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's amateur adviser, who has had no experience of drawing up clauses of this description. If the Government want to make the clause reasonable at all on this question of apportionment they will have to consider the advisability of leaving out such astounding words as "the 1721 Commissioners think," and put in some words showing that they are to decide upon the property in such a way that there may be an appeal if necessary. I beg to move.
§ Question proposed, "That the words the Commissioners think' stand part of the Clause."
§ Sir W. ROBSONWhether the hon. Member desires it or not, the question raised by him is the old question we have discussed so often, namely, whether the Commissioners shall be the persons to make the apportionment.
The CHAIRMANI did not understand the hon. Member to say that at all. If he had said so, I should have ruled him out of order.
§ Sir W. ROBSONQuite true; he has not said so, but that will be the inevitable effect of his Amendment, because it cuts out the words "the Commissioners think," and though it is not the object of his Amendment, it is the inevitable effect of it, that the Commisioners would be unable to make the apportionment, and it would be left to the courts of law.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDOh, no.
§ Sir W. ROBSONWhat the hon. Member proposes to do is to cut out the words "the Commissioners think," and he substitutes no other tribunal to make the apportionment, and, therefore, he leaves it to the courts of law. He seems to be under the impression that the words "the Commissioners think" are intended to indicate some secret mental process which never becomes known beyond the range of the Commissioners themselves. What the clause says is that the Commissioners are to apportion the land in such proportions as they think just, and what they think is evidenced by what they do.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDWould you agree that the words "the Commissioners decide" or "determine"?
§ Sir W. ROBSONNo. There is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the Noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord Robert Cecil) which suggests that instead of the words "think just" we should have the word "determine." To that I agree.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI am ready to withdraw my Amendment if the other word is accepted.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out "think just" and insert "determine."
§ Mr. CAVEBefore that is put, in discussing the last Amendment the Attorney-General said that, if the valuation has resulted in showing that there is no duty, the cost to the owner would be nothing at all, and he gave as a reason that the valuation was a purely domestic matter to the Commissioners, without reference to anybody else.
§ Sir W. ROBSONThe hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. I was dealing with apportionment by the Commissioners, and I said it would be ultra vires if it turned out that if a case for the duty had not arisen to throw the cost on the owner. I said it would be purely a domestic affair as far as the Commissioners were concerned, in order that they might ascertain the duty. I was not making any general observation about valuation at all.
§ Mr. CAVEThe hon. and learned Gentleman says the valuation will be a purely domestic matter in the sense that it is to satisfy the Commissioners. That seems to me to carry with it that nobody else will be heard upon it. I want to be clear about this, whether before the Commissioners "think" or "determine," whatever it is, they will hear the persons who are interested in the matter, or whether they are going to arrive at their decision without hearing the parties interested.
§ Sir W. ROBSONOf course, they will proceed in this matter as they proceed in all matters where they have similar duties to perform. Wherever the party desire to be heard, the Commissioners are ready to see them and hear them. Never in the fifteen years that the Finance Act has been administered has there been any complaint against the Commissioners to the effect that they have refused either to receive representations from the parties or to see the parties, or to give a hearing to the parties. They are always willing to do so.
§ Mr. CAVEI quite follow, but, of course, the result is that the expense will be incurred, and the argument against the last Amendment really falls to the ground. May I take it that if the Bill does not sufficiently provide for the hearing of the-parties proper words will be inserted?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEindicated assent.
§ Mr. W. W. ASHLEYWill the procedure be, in any apportionment, that the owner should first send in his estimate of what a particular bit of land ought to be valued at, and will it then be considered by the Commissioners, who, if they are satisfied, pass it, and, if they are not satisfied, confer with the owner and ultimately decide; or whether, first of all, the owner is to have nothing to say and the Commissioners apportion the value without asking him to send in his estimate first of all?
§ Sir W. ROBSONThat does not arise on this Amendment; it is a general question.
§ Mr. ASHLEYIt is very much on this Amendment. Before I vote, surely I ought to know whether they are going to give the owner first of all an opportunity of stating his view on what a particular bit of land ought to be valued at as compared with the whole, or whether he is to be put aside altogether and not paid any attention to by the Commissioners, who will decide the whole thing. It seems to me rather an important point, and we ought not to be satisfied to be put off and told that we shall be informed at some future time.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kingston put a question to the learned Attorney-General and myself whether this means apportionment made in the absence and without the knowledge of the parties concerned, or whether information would be conveyed to the people as to this apportionment, and if it were not so would they be made clear on the face of the Bill. My answer is certainly, if it is not clear, and that at any rate the party would be notified of any proceedings of the kind. I understood that that answer was regarded as satisfactory. The words themselves could not possibly be discussed on this Amendment, which is to strengthen the Bill from the point of view of making the Commissioners decide this matter; not exactly by judicial procedure, because there are to be no witnesses, but in the ordinary procedure after the parties have been notified.
§ Sir E. CARSONI think that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer says is, of course, right, namely, that there will have to be opportunity given in cases of this 1724 kind to the subject sending in his own estimate and his own valuation, and sending in, if necessary, his own survey, As I said in the last Amendment, that would cause considerable expense. As to the answer, I think a great deal depends on whether there is going to be a right of appeal. The Attorney-General constantly refers to the Finance Act of 1894, but he always seems to me to leave out of consideration that there is always in the background the proper lever for bringing any readjustment of the question of value to the Court of Appeal. As to that question, on this occasion I do not know how far an appeal has been promised or on what particular matters.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThere is an appeal.
§ Sir E. CARSONYou mean to the referee?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIs the right hon. Gentleman raising the general question of appeal?
§ Sir E. CARSONI am not, but I am only saying a great deal depends on whether we are to have a real appeal, I do not mean an appeal to the parties, because if we are to have it very much modifies the objections on the present occasion.
§ Question, "That the words 'think just' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
§ Sir E. CARSONproposed after the word "just" to insert "and in making such apportionment the Commissioners shall have regard to the prices realised upon any sale or lease of any portion of the land upon which the original site value was fixed where it is proved that the consideration of such sale or lease was less than the amount fixed in estimating the original site value." My object in proposing this Amendment is this. A man, upon the unit on which he has fixed the original site value, may have fixed a considerable sum. He may find when he comes to sell or lease a portion of the land that the price originally fixed was, if taken in connection with that price, too high. I think that is not an unlikely thing to happen. In such a case as that, what I want to provide for is that when you come to the apportionment you should consider that factor in this way, namely, that in estimating the relative proportions of the land that is 1725 sold at a high price and on which increment is being claimed, you should allow the surplus that remains of the portion, which has been sold at a lower price than the original amount, to be applied to the land that is remaining. If a man has 10 acres of land on which he places a value of £100 an acre, and if he sells half of it at £50 per acre, then I say that £250 which he has over-estimated in that way should be referred in making the apportionment to the remaining portion, and that he should not be mulcted as regards the increment by estimating the acreage in relation to the portion of the land which he had sold for the £50, but that the whole surplus should be thrown back on the land remaining. I submit to the Attorney-General that it will be only fair to do so in such a case.
§ Sir W. ROBSONI did not really quite appreciate the precise object of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment when I first read it. I find now that it is our old friend "compensation for decrement." That is the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. It is really sought by this means to get compensation for loss on some of the parcels of land by way of a purely artificial addition to the original site value of the remaining part. He gave an instance of 10 acres of land worth £100 an acre, which is the original site value.
§ Sir E. CARSONI did not say "worth £100." I stated he had estimated the value of the land at £100 an acre.
§ Sir W. ROBSONHe had 10 acres of land which he had valued at £100 per acre. That is the value which is given, and which we must assume to be correctly given, as the sum which people would give for that land at that time. Shortly afterwards, or a long time afterwards, five acres is sold for £250, so that upon the basis of £100 being the original site value there would have been a loss of £50 per acre. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to enable the owner to get compensation for that loss by adding it to the original site value of the other five acres, quite irrespective of what might be the true market value, that is really to add the loss on the five acres so as to increase the exempt value of the other five acres. That is a roundabout way of trying to get the benefit of decrement, and that is what the Committee have decided again and again, and very rightly decided, cannot be done. If five of those acres have risen in value they must pay, and they cannot be allowed 1726 to prevent the attachment of the increment value to have added to their exempt value the sum of £250, which in no way represents the market value.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI really cannot tell where we are after the extraordinary proposal of the Attorney-General. There is the case of the man with 10 acres of land valued at £1,000. Half of it is afterwards sold at £250. Now, what this Amendment proposes is that in that case the original site value fixed on the remainder shall not be proportionately taken out on the acreage, but on the total sum, and that the original site value of the remaining portion should be the difference between £250 and the £1,000, which was the original site value. If that cannot be accepted, I do not really know where we are. That is not decrement at all, it is a question of the reapportionment. It is only just that the remaining value should be credited to the balance of the land quite irrespective of what the acreage is. You have got the original site value definitely fixed and if you do not do that we do not know where we are. What does original site value mean? What does the original site value definitely fixed, after fixing it, you are to depart from it, and start on a new basis simply on the ipse dixit of the Commissioners? It will be impossible to argue the Bill unless we can have questions of this kind settled on a very different basis from that adopted by the Attorney-General.
§ Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTONDoes not this Amendment really come to this: It is an apportionment, not as the Commissioners think just, but as the transaction proves to be just?
§ Mr. STEWART BOWLESI do not think the Attorney-General can really have appreciated the force of this Amendment, or have meant to convey what has been understood on this side of the House. The one solid fixed thing about this Bill up to now has been that at any rate you started from an unchangeable original site value, and the only question under this sub-section was how, in considering the infinite changes which a particular plot of land might undergo, you were to apportion the original site value between the various interests which might have been created. We have always understood that in regard to any particular plot of land for which an original site value had been fixed, whatever might happen to it in the future, into whatever hands it might 1727 pass, whether it became part of a great property or was divided and sub-divided into very small plots the land between those particular boundaries would have that original value site attaching to it for all time. But let the Committee consider the alternative presented by the Attorney-General Apparently the original site value is to be changeable at any moment. You may have ten acres valued at £1,000. I have always understood that those ten acres, whatever might happen to them, would continue to have that original site value of £1,000 attaching to them; and the only question was how, in case plots were sold or merged into a greater estate, that £1,000 was to be divided among the various portions. But now all that is to be altered, and the original site value may be changed as the Commissioners desire. It appears to be sufficiently ridiculous, illogical, impossible, and unworkable to fix for every plot of land in the country an original site value, and to attempt to hold on to it through all the ages; but if the Government do not intend even to hold on to that, and if the one rock or foundation upon which we had been resting in the Bill is to be subject to alteration at the will or whim of the Commissioners or any other authority, there is no solid point in the whole of the scheme. If the contention of the Attorney-General be anything like correct—I cannot believe it is so—the whole fabric of the Bill is chaotic and the scheme is more unworkable than we had thought.
§ Mr. BALFOURI think the Government cannot have appreciated the point of the Amendment or they would not have returned the kind of answer to which we have listened. The original estimate on which the site value was formed was either right or wrong. In the case suggested, the owner makes the estimate without having any actual transaction to guide him. Forming the best estimate he can of what the ten acres are worth, he puts the value at £1,000—not £100 for each individual acre, but £1,000 for the ten acres. Five of those acres are afterwards sold for £250. One of two things is certain. Either the remaining five acres are worth much more than £100 an acre or the original estimate was quite wrong; and this unfortunate man is to be mulcted for an incorrect estimate which he could not make correct because he had no actual transactions upon which to base it. Whichever of these hypotheses is correct, a 1728 remedy ought to be provided. Take the first hypothesis, namely, that the estimate was right. It was right for the ten acres taken as a whole, and not for the ten acres taken separately. In that case evidently the remaining five acres are worth at least £750, and all my right hon. Friend (Sir E. Carson) asks is that that should be recognised in the apportionment. Then take the other hypothesis, namely, that the original estimate was a mistake, and that the land was really only worth £50 an acre all through. The estimate was honestly made, but the first transaction shows that it was a mistake. I am bound to say that I think the Government ought to provide in the Bill some machinery for preventing the man from suffering a perfectly undeserved misfortune for having made an erroneous estimate when he had no transactions to guide him. These are the only two possible hypotheses, and I suggest that the Government should provide machinery to deal with both of them.
§ Sir W. ROBSONThe right hon. Gentleman says that either the original site value was wrong or there must have been extra value attaching to a portion of the land, and that the extra value making up the total £1,000 must have been on the five acres which are left rather than on the five acres which are sold for £50 an acre.
§ Mr. BALFOURI am assuming no change of circumstances.
§ Sir W. ROBSONThat is the point. The Amendment overlooks the change of circumstances altogether. It is the change of circumstances on which I lay stress. What really can have happened, and most probably has happened, is that there has been a decrement on the five acres; therefore it would be highly incorrect to say that that decrement would be added to the value of the other five acres, so as to increase their exempt value. That is the very point which makes us object to the Amendment. The short argument against the Amendment is that it seeks to add that which may have been a loss upon part of the land to the value of what remains, in order to postpone the occasion upon which Increment Value Duty will have to be paid.
§ Mr. BALFOURMy right hon. Friend is quite ready to allow the Commissioners to be judges of those circumstances.
§ Sir W. ROBSONThey are already. Supposing there has been no change in the 1729 circumstances that affect value, and five of the acres have been sold at £50 an acre, the Commissioners will be entitled to deal with that on the apportionment, because the question of apportionment would come in. The owner would say, "You must reapportion the value," and that would be a very strong circumstance in the view of the Commissioners, tending to show that the fact was as the right hon. Gentleman has indicated, namely, that the extra value was really on the five acres which remained, and not on the five acres which were sold; and under those circumstances the Commissioners would have power, as matter of apportionment, to say, "We will apportion the value of the five acres which were sold at £50 per acre, and make the value of what remains £750." That would be a strict apportionment of the original site value, and the Commissioners are allowed to do that now without the proposed Amendment.
§ Sir E. CARSONThe Attorney-General says that the Commissioners have this power without my Amendment. That is a matter on which I am in conflict with him. If he directs the attention of the Commissioners to this point, so that they will be compelled to do what he says they will be able to do, I shall be quite satisfied. To make the matter perfectly clear, the Amendment might read, "may if under the circumstances they think proper," instead of "shall."
§ Sir W. ROBSONI think those words most unobjectionable and misleading. What I am pointing out is that in making the apportionment the Commissioners may take into consideration any circumstances which have a bearing on the original site value. Any circumstances which may affect their opinion as to how the value ought to have been originally apportioned they may take into account. Clearly that is the purpose of the apportionment. We do not want any words that would give power that we do not wish. I think these words might be used for other than their original purpose. What we have to remember is that particular words put into a statute may embody one meaning on the part of the Legislature, and another when an astute lawyer comes to construe them a short time afterwards. I cannot help feeling that the words suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman might be used in that way. They might be used as indicating that if the Commissioners thought proper they might make good the loss upon the five acres.
§ Sir HENRY CRAIKThe hon. and learned Gentleman seems in a difficulty about the very simple principle of this Amendment that has been so clearly put before him by the right hon. Gentleman below. I am not going to touch upon it again; but I wish to put specially before the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the real practical effect of this in working. Supposing a man is asked to buy this ten acre field for £1,000, and his object in buying it is not to make a profit so much as to help forward the matter of small holdings in the village. To a certain extent he will recoup himself by selling at a fair market value what remains of his ten acres. But if the right hon. Gentleman refuses to accept this very simple Amendment, what is left to the owner who has bought these ten acres? He can part with it in no other way but as a whole. He cannot buy that field and allow a certain part to go at a cheaper rate in order to ease his poorer neighbours, because he would not be allowed, if the transaction takes place a week or a fortnight later, to count the loss on the one side against the increment on the other. His only alternative, therefore, would be to sell the whole as one plot, as one unity. Surely that is a practical matter that would work very hardly in the case of a man wishing to benefit the poorer inhabitants of a certain village.
§ Sir GEORGE DOUGHTYI would like to put to the Attorney-General this case: A man buys 10 acres of land for £1,000. He sells five acres at £50 per acre for £250. This leaves £750 for the other five acres. Supposing, two years afterwards, he sells the other five acres for £750, he has only got his £1,000 back. But he will have to pay Increment Value Duty on the £250, which would mean really that he would be £50 out of pocket. I say he might be placed in that position, therefore I think that the Amendment is only common-sense.
§ Mr. D. S. WATERLOWThe idea of this Amendment is that the Commissioners should take account of the price realised. If I had this 10-acre field valued at £1,000, and I wanted to humbug the Commissioners, it seems to me—if they have to take account of the prices realised—that I could be very philanthropic and sell one or two acres to somebody for a very low price indeed, and then call upon the Commissioners to take account of that price of, say, £25 an acre, and get the whole thing altered——
§ Mr. BALFOURIf the hon. Gentleman was philanthropic, and did not wish to humbug the Commissioners, he would, unfortunately, lose heavily on the whole transaction.
§ Lord CASTLEREAGHI would like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give an answer to the case put to him by the hon. Member for Grimsby (Sir George Doughty).
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI agree that it is a rather perplexing problem altogether. As I understand, what the right hon. Gentleman says is—to take the illustration of the 10-acre field— "Why do you not, in the apportionment, take account of the different values?" I think he will agree that you cannot make that absolutely imperative, because other conditions may affect the matter. Supposing the owner of this field had another one adjoining, and he sold that to a railway company and got a very high price for it, thereby depreciating the five acres next to it, would it be fair that the price there should be the dominating factor in the apportionment? It would not be fair that you should consider the £250, and not count the three times in the other—in the adjoining field.
§ Mr. YOUNGERBut you have the increment upon that!
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEPerfectly right. So far as that transaction is concerned it is a perfectly clear transaction. But it is not fair that he should add to that the value of the remaining five acres.
§ Mr. YOUNGERIf you get the increment on the one and decrement on the other, they balance.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThat is another matter. The complaint here is that no attempt has been made to get at the genuine apportionment. This is purely another way of getting at the decrement. That is not the point put by the Leader of the Opposition. I confess I am in sympathy with that point. The point of decrement, for better or for worse, we have dismissed. The right hon. Gentleman says you ought to take the price into account. I think you ought to take it into account both ways, and it is in the interests of the owner of the land that you should take it when the price is high and when you are dividing the acres. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had thrown out the same suggestion it might be taken as an element into consideration.
§ Sir EDWARD CARSONThat is all I put in the Amendment.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGENot quite. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may mean it so, but he will forgive me that I must take the advice given me as the interpretation of these words. I am told that they would be imperative words, giving a direction to the Commissioners to take this into account not merely as an element but imperatively. If the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw these words at this stage I would consider what I might substitute for them. I could not possibly accept them in this form. But I would consider words which would enable Commissioners to take the price paid, whether high or low, into account as an element for consideration. I could not go beyond that.
§ Sir E. CARSONI think what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said is fair, and I am prepared to accept it. I should like to explain that I did not at all go as far as the Attorney-General said. In the first place, I only used the words that they would have regard to the price. I did not say that these prices were to be absolute, I only said "have regard to these prices," so that they might be taken into consideration. If I wanted to have the whole of that taken absolutely and as an imperative matter I would have said "shall deduct," but I only said "Shall have regard to." As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he was willing to consider the matter, he will see my point is very much more limited than he represented it to be. On that understanding I will be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI beg now to move the Amendment which I promised earlier in the afternoon—after the words "as the Commissioners think just, and," to omit the word "and" and to insert "on the application at any time of any person entitled to the fee simple of, or an interest in, any land, the Commissioners shall apportion, or reapportion, the original site value of the land amongst such parts of the land as may be specified in the application in such proportion as they think just."
§ Question, "That the word 'and' stand part of the clause," put and negatived.
1733§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI think the Amendment which has been moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer requires another verbal Amendment, namely, by the insertion after the words "or any such apportionment," of the words "or reapportionment."
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI think so.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (for Mr. J. F. Mason) moved to add at the end of section (3) the words: "Provided that, if upon subsequent sale or lease of the remaining part of such land, it shall appear that the site value of the remaining land on the occasion of such sale or lease together with the site value of the part upon which duty has been assessed as hereinbefore provided does not exceed the original site value of such land, the Increment Value Duty paid in respect of such part shall be repaid to the owner by the Commissioners." In the absence of my hon. Friend I move the Amendment standing in his name. I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get out of his mind altogether that this is anything to do with decrement. I know if he starts with the idea that it has something to do with decrement, he will start with the idea that he will refuse it, and it will not, therefore, I think, have fair treatment at his hands. It is not intended by this Amendment to allow a man to set off decrement against increment, but what is intended is to prevent him being charged upon an increment, which has not, in fact, taken place. I think I can make the case clear by taking for instance a field of 10 acres valued at over £1,000. One acre is sold at £150. The owner may be able to show that that increased price shows no increment at all. He may say it is quite true that the average price of the whole ten acres is £100 an acre, but in fact at the moment he purchased this land this particular acre was worth £150, and the £150 that he paid for it was included in his price of £1,000. What will happen if the Commissioners take the opposite view? He goes to the referee, and the referee has to decide two things— whether in fact the extra £50 above the average price of the whole was all along attached to this acre, or whether, in fact, it is an increment which has accrued since, and whether the other nine parts are not worth £100 or £150, and when the referee 1734 decides his decision is final. If he decides there is an increment of £150 on that one-tenth part his decision is final, and the owner must pay his tax of £10 then and there. He proceeds, we will suppose, to develop the rest of the land as rapidly as possible, and to the best advantage, and when he has sold the remaining nine acres he then proves that his contention is right, and that the Commissioners and the referee made an error in their judgment. There has been no profit on the transaction at all. The man simply gets back the money he paid for the land. He has been charged increment on a part of it. That is not the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he has had no windfall, and there is no decrement. In a case where the increment, only existing in the imagination of the Commissioners, and levied owing to their mistake in supposing an increment had arisen, which had not arisen on the completion of the whole transaction, when the Commissioners are proved to be wrong, I am asking that their error should be rectified by the return of the amount of the tax improperly collected. Perhaps the words moved by my hon. Friend, although I had something to do with their drafting, are not very complete, and not the best which could be chosen. They will, however, serve to raise the question, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer can suggest better words we shall be glad to accept them. We wish to deal with the case where an excess has been charged over the increment which has actually arisen. The Government always charge interest on money due from the taxpayer from the time it becomes due to the time it is paid, or if the taxpayer pays too little, and it is proved that he ought to have paid more they charge him not only the difference but the interest as well. Under those circumstances I think it is only fair that the Government ought to return to the taxpayer where he has been overcharged not only the difference in the amount charged, but also the interest just the same as if the mistake had been in his favour, and not in theirs. Those are matters to be dealt with hereafter, and I desire to move the Amendment as it stands on the Paper in order to raise the point where the Increment Tax is charged owing to an error on the part of the Commissioners or the referee without any increment actually having occurred; when the Commissioners or the referees are proved by the closure of the whole 1735 transaction to be in the wrong, that the money unjustly collected ought to be refunded to the taxpayer from whom it has been taken. I beg to move.
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThis is one of those very plausible Amendments which at first sight rather captivates one's judgment, but after closer examination I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) will agree that it is hopelessly impracticable. It is assumed that the decrement which takes place is entirely due to an error in judgment either on the part of the owner, the Commissioners, or the referee. That, however, is not quite the case. It should be attributable to the fact that the value of the property has gone down. You must have an original site value fixed within three years, together with an apportionment of the whole of the property. On that transaction, and on that apportionment, a certain increment would be paid to the State. Twenty years hence property in the meantime might have gone down in that neighbourhood, and the rest of the property is sold at a very diminished price. Then the owner of the property comes back and says, "This property was apportioned 20 years ago on the assumption that this particular bit of land was worth so much. It has turned out to be worth not so much, and so far from having made a profit on the whole thing I am actually out of pocket." That man comes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer 20 years hence and says, "I want you to pay me that money which I paid to your predecessor so many years ago." Now, that is unfair to the Chancellor of the Exchequer 20 years hence, and I do not think it is justified. That is really what is the effect of this Amendment. I do not think you ought to so embarrass future holders of this office as to make it possible that wherever a man makes a bad bargain or does not administer his affairs in a proper way; where a man holds when he ought to sell, and sells when he ought to hold, I do not think he should be entitled to come to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask to be refunded the losses which have been made.
§ Mr. J. F. MASONThe Chancellor of the Exchequer very naturally points out that the effect of this Amendment might be to get some future Chancellor of the 1736 Exchequer into a difficulty in having to make good an injustice created by a former Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGENot necessarily an injustice.
§ Mr. J. F. MASONMy object was to point out how injustice is likely to arise. The particular case I had in mind when I put this Amendment on the Paper was that of a man owning, say, an acre of land, the original site value of which is fixed at £1,000. He builds a house on one-tenth of that area, and he lets it on a short lease. He then dies, and for the reason that there is that house left on one-tenth of the land it is assumed that the value of that acre has now become worth £1,500, or an increment of £500. Shortly after his death the lease falls in, and, for some reason or other, the locality is not found to be suitable for residential purposes. The owner perhaps cannot let that one house, far from building any others, and he is driven ultimately either to pull it down and turn the whole acreage to less profitable purposes or to sell it for £900. Having already paid Increment Duty of £100 on a property which was originally valued at £1,000, and having sold it for £900, it seems to me he suffers an injustice, to meet which an effort ought to be made. I quite agree there is some difficulty, and it is not the only difficulty we have had to face in endeavouring to overcome cases of hardship and injustice which must arise; but the fact that there is a difficulty for some future Chancellor of the Exchequer is hardly an adequate reason why a case of this sort should not be met. If the words I suggest do not meet the case, I am quite open to conviction on that, but it seems to me some endeavour should be made to meet the evident injustice which does arise.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYI really do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done enough, even if he succeeds in proving that this particular Amendment has certain practical disadvantages. He has to go further and show that his tax as proposed is capable of fair adjustment. It is not sufficient for him to say that the case is one which appeals to his sympathy, but is one which he cannot adopt, because it may prove inconvenient to the Treasury. These difficulties would not have arisen at all if the Government had acted more on the model of Germany, which they have quoted so much. We were led to believe 1737 that the exact model of his taxes was to be found in Frankfort. We are very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving us the advantage of perusing this Blue Book which he has had printed, because by it we are able to clear up a great many of those doubts and difficulties which have been raised over Germany's taxation. I find this difficulty does arise to the same extent in Germany, because there is a totally different method of assessment of increment. You do not there have valuation and apportionment of original site value in the same way as you have under this section. The Committee will see if they turn to page 21 of this Blue Book that it gives the Frankfort law. The original site value upon which, of course, apportionment has to be made is the original purchase price, and the purchase price is denned by reference to other bye-laws. If there is no purchase price, then the market value is taken to be the original site value, and the increment is assessed upon the market value. Then comes the important difference which, I think, solves all the difficulty in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer finds himself. Instead of making certain deductions in the original site value, certain additions are made to the original site price, and it is just the facility with which those additions are made which obviates all those difficulties of apportionment which have arisen under this section. It is true, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, that there are still certain difficulties of apportionment in Germany, and it is not by any means true to say that they have been satisfactorily settled, because I find that the Report of the Commissioner, who, I suppose, was sent out by the right hon. Gentleman to examine this case, quotes Dresden. He says:—
The Dresden scheme also deals in a simple, if rather drastic, manner with the difficulty which might arise in arriving at the proper basis of charge in cases where an estate is broken up and sold in parcels. It is provided that the purchase price of each parcel shall be taken to be its proportion of the purchase price of the whole, having regard to the relative areas only, and not to the comparative value of the different parcels for building or other purposes.They have got over the difficulty by taking a very simple method. It is obvious the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not been able to show any reason in justice why he should not accept this Amendment. He admits the case may happen, and that, if it does, it will be a hard case, and yet he says he cannot accept the Amendment because it might embarrass some future 1738 Chancellor of the Exchequer. If that is the case, it only shows how ridiculously unfair the tax is, and if such an eminently fair Amendment cannot be accepted it is rather an argument for rejecting the whole tax.
§ Mr. G. YOUNGERThis is one of those cases which prove very clearly the impossibility of this tax. The real difficulty arises in the extraordinary assessment of valuation adopted. We are endeavouring to get at the difference between two abstractions. There is no realty in either valuation, and it is impossible to collect this tax on a difference of that kind without entailing the most serious unfairness and injustice in many eases such as that my hon. Friend for Windsor (Mr. J. F. Mason) has alluded to. It is very interesting to notice the difference to which my Noble Friend (Viscount Helmsley) has referred to between the system of collecting this tax in Germany and that proposed under this Bill. We are brought back to a consideration which has been very present to my mind all through. The real object of this Bill, as I have said before, and as other hon. Members have said, is not to get this increment at all, but to get this extraordinary system of valuation for which the Lord Advocate (Mr. Ure) is very largely responsible. I can, of course, very easily guess the use it is intended to make of it, but I am quite sure it is completely and perfectly impossible to collect this Increment Tax on these abstractions.
§ Mr. R. W. ESSEXIt has been stated by the Noble Lord (Viscount Helmsley) that this is introducing a new principle. Is that really so? The Amendment, as I read it, is an invitation to make the Chancellor of the Exchequer a sharer in a man's losses as well as his profit. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is how it seems to me.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYIt is intended to prevent the taxing of a hypothetical gain.
§ Mr. ESSEXWe have the same thing in connection with the Income Tax. Supposing a gunsmith has 10 fowling-pieces of a high quality. He sells two at a profit, and he declares the profit on them amongst other things, and on that Income Tax will be collected. For some reason or other, change in pattern, improvement in mechanism, or what not, the remainder of that particular type of gun declines in value, and he has to clear them out at a reduced price. He will not be entitled to go to the tax collector and ask that a rebate shall be made.
§ Mr. YOUNGERNo, but he gets the loss allowed him next year.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYThe tax is based on the average of three years.
§ Mr. ESSEXEvery man who is in business and holds stock knows that his Income Tax is collected on an average of three years, but he is not entitled to handle a particular parcel of stock, say, it has unexpectedly depreciated, and claim a special rebate on it. The same argument applies to dealers in land.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDIf he sells the others at a loss that loss must come in next year's computation, and he will get the benefit of it.
§ Mr. ESSEXThen, of course, in such a case this man will get off his Income Tax. But the Amendment proposes that he shall be able to set up a special claim and make the State share in his losses as well as in his profits. That is a new proposal which, I think, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must necessarily reject. A good deal of building land is dealt with on this system. A man is given a lien on a piece of land, say, of about 100 acres, on the outside of a town. He takes up the land, and he is promised that he will have his leases as he goes along. But he may break down in the middle of the transaction, which is one which may extend over 20 years. This Amendment, as I understand it, proposes that in the event of such a circumstance arising—and these things are happening in London to-day, where land values are probably lower than they were 15 years ago—the State is to be called upon to refund the money collected as having been paid under the Increment Tax, because, at the moment when the claim is set up for refunding, there has been a general slump in the value of the land in the neighbourhood of towns. I cannot help thinking that that arrangement is not possible of acceptance, and a man, if he incurs any losses under such circumstances, must grin and bear them.
§ Viscount CASTLEREAGHI am not certain that the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer have not proved more conclusively than anything else that the tax is a most unjust one, and will operate very harshly in a great many cases. Take the case put forward by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mason). The increment took place after the apportionment, but that apportionment was forced on the individual, who did not ask for it, 1740 and he was made to pay the Increment Duty on the amount which the property had appreciated at the time. The right hon. Gentleman says it is very hard on successive Chancellors of the Exchequer that they should be asked to refund under such circumstances, but we are considering a new tax, and before it is brought into law it is obvious the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to consider the case of individuals likely to be affected by it. I thought the case put forward by my hon. Friend was very conclusive. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it would be very hard on his successor 20 years later to have to refund. I appreciate that difficulty, and I will therefore venture to suggest a way out of it. I will move as an Amendment to insert, after the words "if upon subsequent sale or lease," "within a period of 10 years." The Amendment will then read: "Provided that, if upon subsequent sale or lease within a period of ten years of the remaining part of such land, it shall appear that the site value of the remaining land on the occasion of such sale or lease together with the site value of the part upon which duty has been assessed as hereinbefore provided does not exceed the original site value of such land, the Increment Value Duty paid in respect of such part shall be repaid to the owner by the Commissioners." I beg to move.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI do not know whether the Lord Advocate, finding himself left alone by the receding tide of Ministers——[An HON. MEMBER: "He is quite equal to it."] I am sure he is equal to any task he is willing to undertake, but I am not certain he is willing to undertake the defence of this Bill at this stage. I think he will see that my Noble Friend (Viscount Castlereagh) has endeavoured to meet the most serious objection that the Chancellor of the Exchequer put to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mason). The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that this might be running for a great number of years; that a man might keep the land too long and not dispose of it at the moment he might do so to advantage, and that then, 20 years afterwards or more, he would come down, not on the original wrongdoer, but upon some hapless and innocent successor, and require him to refund money which the right hon. Gentleman had improperly taken. There is some force in that objection, and I quite admit with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would not do to leave such a provision as that contained in the Amendment running for ever, because, 1741 if you did, it would cease to be possible to distinguish what is in fact decrement from what may, in fact, be an error in judgment on the part of the Commissioners or referees. I do not suppose that my Noble Friend will insist on the exact term of 10 years if the Government are willing to meet him in this matter. I would, of course, prefer the longest term available, but still if the class of transaction I have in mind is to be dealt with a long period of years is probably not necessary. It has been the boast—I think it an ill-founded boast, but still the repeated boast—of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he is doing nothing to interfere with industry, or trade or commerce in land, but if he does not accept something of the kind suggested in the Amendment to the Amendment can he pretend for one moment that he will not be inflicting an injustice on these small men upon whom, at present, rests, and in future must still rest, the great burden of the development of land around towns—little land companies, or individual builders, who take small plots of land in order to build houses, and dispose of them at once? We have had the class of place described in the Debates on previous Amendments, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has always expressed himself as most desirable of meeting such cases and preventing his Bill working any injustice, or putting any obstacle in the way of people carrying out this necessary work. This proposal, I suggest, would place a quite unnecessary obstacle in the way of development. It would leave it open for such an injustice to occur.
§ Amendment proposed to proposed Amendment, after "subsequent sale or lease" to insert the words "within a period of ten years."
§ Amendment as amended proposed, "Provided that, if upon subsequent sale or lease within a period of ten years, of the remaining part of such land, it shall appear that the site value of the remaining land on the occasion of such sale or lease together with the site value of the part upon which duty has been assessed as hereinbefore provided does not exceed the original site value of such land, the Increment Value Duty paid in respect of such part shall be repaid to the owner by the Commissioners."
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI say there would be great injustice in such a 1742 case, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer admits there would be. The hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. Essex) stands alone amongst those who have spoken in thinking that there will be no injustice at all. He has fallen into the confusion which has afflicted the Prime Minister, though, no doubt, he will not regret to find himself in error in that distingiushed company, but an attempted comparison between Income Tax and Increment Tax on land will not hold water for an instant, because one is a tax upon an annual income and the other is a tax upon the capital value. His argument is also based upon a misconception of what Income Tax Law is, because if a man's stock falls in value the man may write down his stock before he returns his profit, and he will not suffer by what the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor desires to do under this section of this clause. If the hon. Gentleman will turn from the hon. Member's illustration to what he himself said he thought would be a proper course, then he and I are at one. The hon. Member said, after all, he thought we must keep to the rule, there was no other safe course for us to adopt, and that was to tax on the profits as they were made. Of course, I oppose the tax and he supports it, but, if there is to be such a tax, I agree you must take it upon profits such as are made, but the whole object of this Amendment is to prevent you taking it where there are no profits. But profits is not the proper word. It is not the word used by the Government, because they talk of a windfall. They want to tax a windfall. By all means, if you want to do that do so, but do not collect a windfall tax when there has been no windfall. The hon. Member and I are at one in that, at any rate as far as words go. My whole object is to prevent the tax being taken when no profits have been made or where no windfall has occurred. Supposing you can show, having bought your acre for £1,000, that you sold one-tenth part of it for £150, does the hon. Gentleman say—of course he would not— that necessarily you had made any profit on that at all. It all depends upon what you can sell the rest of it for. Suppose you sell the rest some day——
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINIf you do not propose to sell the rest, this Amendment will not arise. It is evident the 1743 hon. Gentleman has not looked at the Amendment, which only comes into play where the whole of the land has been sold. Therefore, if having sold one-tenth, you do not propose to sell the other nine-tenths, the Amendment would not have anything to do with the other part of the case, and the owner could not plead it in his favour. It is only when he does propose to sell and does sell the whole that the Amendment comes in at all. This we have conclusively proved. I hope I have convinced the hon. Member, as I convinced the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that there are cases of this kind where great injustice may arise, and where a very simple error on the part of the Commissioners or referee may cause it. It will not be carelessness, it will not be wilful perversity, which will induce them to make an error of that kind; it will be the extreme difficulty and, indeed, the impossibility in many cases, of actually saying what is the amount of the increment or whether there has been an increment or not. But if it is admitted that there is an injustice, is it tolerable that it should be left where the Government have left it? The Chancellor of the Exchequer complains that we say the Bill is unworkable, but that is the only real objection that he has urged against the Amendment. He says it is unworkable. If we have framed it in terms that are too wide and which will include more than the special injustice we want to prevent, and is therefore unacceptable to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will the Lord Advocate suggest to us narrower words which will meet the argument we have made and not go beyond it? If the Lord Advocate will cut out the words he objects to and protect us against the case in which the tax is levied in error, well and good. We are not wedded to our words, we are contented to abide by his greater sagacity; but it is not open to the Government, while admitting that their Bill is unjust as it stands, or will work injustice in certain cases, to say that they cannot accept our words and at the same time refuse to produce any of their own. If they admit injustice and do not accept our words, then I think they are bound to produce words of their own.
§ Mr. UREI listened attentively to the right hon. Gentleman's argument on both occasions, and, as I follow him, he desires to guard against an injustice which is due to no fault of the Commissioners, or of those who judge, but is the consequence of some mistake. I do not think that this 1744 Amendment will guard against an error in judgment at all, and I do not think it will protect against any kind of injustice. I will take an illustration, which is certainly the best way of explaining my view of the matter. Let me assume that a man owns two acres of ground, and values them at £100. That will be a very much simpler instance than the hon. Member gave us at an earlier period in the evening. He has two acres of ground, and a value of £50 apportioned to each acre. At any time henceforward—I do not know what number of years or months, —one of those acres is sold for £70. There is an increment of £20, upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes a tax. Subsequently, I do not care at what interval of time, the other acre is sold at £20, the price of the two being £90. The right hon. Gentleman opposite says a great injustice is done to that man, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer should reduce the Increment Tax which he has collected for the first acre, that is to say, on the £20. Is there really any injustice suffered? Suppose, after the first acre was sold, a sanatorium for consumptives was erected on the other side of the wall. It would pull down the value of the other acre intolerably, and would reduce it to less than half its original value. That would not be the fault of the Commissioners. They have committed no injustice. [An HON. MEMBER: "The community."] Be it so. But the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to guard against injustice committed through error on the part of the Commissioners.
Take another case. Suppose the value of the land in that particular neighbourhood has fallen—the value of land does fall in a great number of neighbourhoods, and it rises in a great many others—that will not be due to any error on the part of the Commissioners. They have made no mistake. What the Commissioners value when valuing original site value is the market price which a man presumably could get if he went into the market there and then with his land. How does it follow that because that land diminishes in value at some subsequent period the Commissioners have made an error in judgment in their original valuation? How could anyone say they had made an error in judgment because the value of an acre of land, of which they had apportioned £50, was sold for £30 or £40 in some subsequent year? It would be not merely an endless, embarrassing, and difficult, but it would be an impossible inquiry. No injustice would be done to any man who buys two 1745 acres of land for speculation, if when he sells one acre he gets an increase of price owing to an increase of value, and on the other acre he makes a loss. Is there any difference between the case put by the right hon. Gentleman and the case of a man who has an acre of land in Wick and another in Penzance? The principle is exactly the same.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThat shows that the right hon. Gentleman has not in the least understood what I said. I do not for a moment suggest that if a man has one acre in Wick and another in Penzance the decrement in one case is to be set against the increment in the other. The case I have in mind is the case of a builder buying four or five acres in the neighbourhood of a town. He sells off the most advantageous plots first, and they naturally fetch higher than the average price which he has paid for the whole. He contends that that is due to their position and that they always had a higher site value than the average site value. The Commissioners dispute it, and levy the Increment Tax. He develops his land as quickly as he can. The transactions may follow each other in a year or a couple of years or in two successive days, and may show that the Commissioners were wrong when there had been no opportunity for any other cause to intervene or when it could be clearly shown that no other cause had intervened, and yet you would levy the tax, although it had only been imposed by an error of judgment. If the Attorney-General says the Amendment is too wide, and covers much more than that, I agree with him, but that is the case I wanted to guard against.
§ Mr. UREI understand the right hon. Gentleman perfectly when I said the principle is the same. It is conceivable that a man may have his land valued at £100 today and sell it to-morrow for £200. We are not going to guard against cases which will never in ordinary business life occur, We must say in answer to the Amendment what has been said in answer to all the others—that it is totally opposed to the principle of the Bill.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPE moved, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after "original site value of such land" to insert the words "or exceeds it by an amount less than the increment value of such land."
§ The reception of this Amendment by the Lord Advocate is just another example of 1746 the golden maxim of the Government: Heads I win, tails you lose. These two pieces of land which we are discussing were included in the same original valuation as one unit. That makes the whole difference between taking a piece of land at Wick and a piece of land at Penzance. When a piece comes to be sold the Government look at the price and say there seems to be an increment upon this piece of land, and they compare it with an imaginary supposititious site value of their own, which was not the original site value, but one which they assumed for the purpose of collecting the tax, to have been the original site value of that particular piece. That was not a fair site value, as is proved by the loss on the second sale, and the site value when it was sold, so far from being more, was less than the original site value, and it is quite unfair for the Government to arbitrarily select one part and take the profit on that when the result proves that on the whole of the original unit there is an actual loss. I am not entirely wedded to the words of the Amendment, and I think they want some little amplification, and for that reason I desire to move the words I have given notice of, which will meet the case on which there is no absolute loss but on which the result of the double transaction has to be balanced with reference to the first.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDAs the Amendment now stands it is eminently satisfactory, and ought to be accepted by the Government. We generally understood that the principle at the basis of this tax was that where a profit had absolutely been made by the owner of any property on the sale or lease of it, or where a profit made itself manifest at the death of the owner, the State should take one-fifth of that profit. That is the basis of the tax if we are to impose it at all. When we come to apply that in practice we find it extremely difficult to levy it, and we are by our Amendments, whether they are accepted or not, endeavouring to point out the gross injustices which would arise if the words of the Government clauses are accepted as they stand. I take the illustration given by the Lord Advocate. There was a piece of land consisting of two acres. These two acres are taken as a unit of site value. It is not each acre that is taken as a separate unit, but for the purpose of the hon. and learned Gentlemen's illustration they are taken as one unit. What happens? Either there is a lease or a sale of one of the 1747 acres, and one of the acres is transferred upon the death of the owner. An occasion arises where duty has got to be paid, presumably, upon one of the acres, and one only. On that occasion there is an apportionment. The hon. and learned Gentleman assumed that the apportionment for the purpose of his illustration was a simple case of dividing by two.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANBefore the hon. Gentleman proceeds further the Committee should dispose of the Amendment to the Amendment. The Question is, "That those words be there inserted."
§ Sir F. BANBURYI would like to know the opinion of the Government on the Amendment to the Amendment. If the Government accept it I shall say no more about it. Do they accept it or not?
§ Sir F. BANBURYI think we should have some reason why they do not accept it?
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI understood that you (Mr. Chairman) properly called attention to the fact that we should amend the Question before going on with the discussion of the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire.
§ Sir F. BANBURYQuite so. I understand the forms of the House. There is an Amendment to the Amendment moved, and the Government say they are not going to accept it, but they do not give any reasons. There is no representative of the Treasury here at present, although we are discussing the Finance Bill. We have to put up with these things. There are two learned law officers present, and surely it is not beyond their capacity to state -why the Government do not accept the Amendment to the Amendment.
§ Mr. UREThe reason is exceedingly simple. The Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the Central Division of Sheffield (Mr. James Hope) only modifies to some extent the Amendment. It does not alter it in principle in the slightest degree. I do not know that the Committee quite appreciate the effect of the illustration I gave. Let me illustrate again with my two acres. The first acre is sold for £70, and the second for £45. The total price of the two acres is £115, 1748 but Increment Duty has already been paid on £20—that is on the sale of the first acre. Take £15 from £20, and the amount left is £5, and you give a reduction of the Increment Duty on the £5. That seems to me to be exactly the same principle as in the original Amendment modified by the answer I have given.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI want to make one observation on the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, and one observation on procedure. I take procedure first. I quite understand that the Government will not accept the Amendment to the Amendment I moved. They will not have the Amendment as it stands on the Paper, or as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield proposes to amend it. I think those who attach importance to the Amendment would prefer to see it in the form proposed by the hon. Member for Sheffield. If I am right in my contention, the hon. Member for Sheffield is right in his also. I suggest, therefore, that the Government ought not to oppose the Amendment to the Amendment. They should allow the Amendment to be amended so as to put it in the shape we prefer before dividing upon it.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe Lord Advocate instanced a case in which two acres were bought for £100. He said one of them was sold at £70 so that there was an increment of £20. That is the whole point in dispute. How does he know that there is an increment of £20. One of the acres is worth £70. There are any number of possible combinations in determining the value of the other acre.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI wish to correct an error on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, who assumes that this is a limiting Amendment, when, on the contrary, it is an extending Amendment. The Amendment originally drafted only provided for cases where there was an absolute loss on the whole transaction, but this Amendment provides for those cases in which there has been too much Increment Duty paid on the first and too small on the second sale. It does not show a total loss. It shows a gain so slight that the Increment Duty already paid wipes it out.
§ Question proposed, "After 'land' to insert 'or exceeds it by an amount less than the increment value of such land.'"
1749§ Question proposed, to add at the end of section (3): "Provided that, if upon subsequent sale or lease, within a period of ten years of the remaining part of such land, it shall appear that the site value of the remaining land on the occasion of such sale or lease, together with the site value of the part upon which duty has been assessed as hereinbefore provided, does not exceed the original site value of such land or exceeds it by an amount less than the increment value of such land; the Increment Value Duty paid in respect of such part, or a proportionate amount thereof, shall be repaid to the owner by the Commissioners."
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe hon. and learned Gentleman is begging the whole question by saying that when half the land is sold for more than half the original price, it necessarily follows that there is an increment. You might just as well take the case of a whisky and soda, and if half the liquid was sold for more than half the price, assume there was an increment without stopping to inquire whether the half that was sold was the whisky or the soda. That is exactly parallel to what the learned Lord Advocate does, because the Government are assuming that wherever you buy a considerable bulk of land, and wherever a saleable portion shows a price greater in proportion than the size of that farm bears to the whole, that, therefore, that is and must be an increment.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDIn this illustration of the original site value which has been taken there were two acres, one of them being sold or leased at a price that will evidently, if the two acres were equal in every respect, show that there was an increase in value. The hon. and learned Gentleman says it is right that the State should then collect upon that sale of one of the acres the amount of Increment Duty which has arisen. For instance, in the case given by the hon. and learned Gentleman, one acre was sold for £70. There is an increment of £20 and there is £4 duty, and that £4 would actually be paid by the owner of the property to the State on that occasion. But what subsequently happens is this, that he sells the other acre with the terms of this 1750 Amendment. As it now stands, this transaction must take place within 10 years. Within 10 years the other acre is disposed of. The price that was assumed in the illustration was £30, therefore he said the original owner of this property has not made any profit at all. He has got £100 back for his land for which originally he gave £100. But the point that I was endeavouring to make was that where a man sells in two pieces for £100 property for which he has given £100 he makes no profit at all. It makes no difference, or ought to make no difference, that he will dispose of one acre of that land at a profit and part of the other acre at a loss afterwards. When a man in the simple transaction of buying a piece of land and selling it in two parts makes no profit at all it is perfectly evident that he ought not to pay any tax.
In the illustration I gave last week in one of these discussions the identical position mentioned in this Amendment arose and was practically accepted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It would amount to this: Suppose the first acre sold had been sold for £30 and the second acre for £70, it was clear that the man had made no profit at all. When I pointed that out on last Wednesday the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that it was a case in which no duty should be paid. I put it to the Committee now judging of the merits of this Amendment. Supposing we take the two parallel cases. A man has bought two acres here and two acres there. We will say he has given £100 for each group of two acres, and he sells an acre of one of these two acres for £30 and an acre of the other two acres for £70; then he sells the remaining acre of the first two for £70 and the remaining acre of the second for £30. He simply reverses the two transactions. In each of the cases he has given and received £100 for the two acres. But in one of the cases he has had the misfortune to pay Increment Duty because some Commissioners have taken hold of him and have thought that there was an increment of £20, and he has had to pay £4. What does this Amendment say? That when it is quite clear that on the whole transaction a man has made no profit, and he has paid that £4 within 10 years, then he should have it back. We have had no reply on the merits or the justice of the case. It is not possible. If the total sale comes off in 10 years, it is perfectly clear 1751 that the man who has had no profit should have returned to him the duty which unfortunately he has already paid. If he has made a loss of profit, then according to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. James Hope) he would get a proportion of the duty returned to him. I am bound to say, upon the basis of the principle on which this tax is levied, the principle being that there should be no tax payable to the State where a man makes no profit at all, there is no answer to the Amendment.
§ Mr. G. N. BARNESI shall vote against this Amendment, which appears to me to cut into the principle of the Bill, that there shall be an Increment Duty paid in respect of each particular sale or transfer. The last speaker put the case of two acres of land, and said it was possible that there might be no increment at all payable on one of them. That is perfectly true if one acre is valued at £70 and the other at £30; but, as I understand the case put by the Lord Advocate, it is that there had been an apportionment by the Commissioners, who have valued each acre at £50. It is within the discretion of the Commissioners to apportion the value of each of the two acres of land, and I am assuming that they will value each acre at £50; therefore, if £70 is obtained for one there is, as I have said, an increment of £20 on which £4 Increment Duty is payable. It is asked that the £4 should be given back in the event of a loss on the second acre. The hon. Member for Sheffield assumes that these two acres are one unit; in fact, he says that the two acres belong to one man, and therefore they are one unit.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPENo, that is not my point. When the original site value was taken they were regarded as one unit.
§ Mr. BARNESI want to put the case of the two acres being owned by two men, each having one acre. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcestershire Mr. Austen Chamberlain) said one of the great objects that he and those associated with him had in view is to protect the small seller of land. I want to know how this particular Amendment will protect the small man; in fact, it seems to me that it would not affect him at all. The owner of the first acre, which had been -valued at £50, gets, say, £70 for it, and he pays £4 Increment Duty on the transaction. Supposing the other small man, holding the second acre, also valued at 1752 £50, gets £30 for it, this Amendment would not cover him at all. Why should you have an Amendment adopted by the House which would not cover the little man pleaded for by the right hon. Gentleman, but which will benefit the large land-owner and give nothing to the small owner?
§ Mr. FELLI would call the attention of the hon. Member to the Amendment, which is, "if upon subsequent sale of the remaining part of such land." That entirely does away with the case of the two men.
§ Mr. BARNESAt all events it does not do away with the case I have quoted. The Amendment would benefit the case of a man who has two acres against the man who has one acre; and it seems to me that the more you extend the application of the idea that I am endeavouring to put before the Committee, the more unfair this Amendment becomes. You may split up large areas of land, but you cannot split up the small areas so readily. I am simply taking the two acres for simplicity, and I say that if we take the two acres as owned by one man—the case put by the hon. Member for Sheffield—this Amendment might conceivably benefit that man, but if the two acres were owned by two separate men, it would not benefit either one or the other. As representing more particularly the man who owns one acre, and not the man who owns a lot of acres, and for the further reason that I think the Amendment is inconsistent with the principle of the Bill, namely, that Increment Duty should be charged on each particular sale of land. I am going to vote for the Bill as it stands and against the Amendment.
§ Mr. TUDOR WALTERSI think the more closely the Amendment is examined, the less appears its fairness or reasonableness. By the clause as it stands the Commissioners are to apportion as between the different parcels of land the different values. One or two difficulties arise. The first is that it is quite open to a man to sell the first acre and if he is not satisfied with the amount the Commissioners put on the first acre he sells, he can appeal to the referees and get a fair value adjusted. Having done that, end presumably paid what he thinks a fair value, is he to be allowed, after a period of ten years, to be able to set off a second acre on which he makes no profit, against the profit that he has made on the first acre? Take the case 1753 of a man who has a piece of land left on his hands, and he gets a fairly good offer for it, but waits, thinking he can get a higher price, and eventually has to sell at a lower price than the original offer. These cases occur. I myself have received a good offer, but expecting a better have not taken it, and in the end have accepted a worse offer than the original one. A man thus by his own folly does not make the profit which he ought to have made. A second difficulty arises. Supposing a man takes a low price for a piece of land, having been able to get a large profit on the first piece of land he has sold. He might sell to a friend at a lower price than the fair value; but he would be actually more in pocket than if he had got a fair price for it and had to pay the full Increment Duty. I think that is a cogent reason; it is an inducement to the man to sell at a low price, or even a fictitious price, or even by way of a deal, because he thinks he can by selling at the lower price make a better bargain than if he sold at a fair price, and had to pay the full Increment Tax. It seems to me to point the way to irregularities and to depart from any fixed or stable principle in the Bill. The Commissioners ought to be prepared to make as many different estimates of any part of the land as fairly represent varying values. If a man is not satisfied he can appeal against it, but that assessement having been fixed I think the owner is bound by it, and ought to rest on the amount which he has accepted.
§ Mr. PRETYMANIf there was one fixed and stable principle in this Bill it was that a unit of valuation having been once fixed, and the original site value upon it having been settled, beyond that sum the owner was not to be charged, and that he was to know where he stood. The hon. Gentleman's Amendment touches a real difficulty which the purchasers and sellers of land and all concerned in the transaction in this country feel, and that is not the amount of taxation now proposed to be levied but the cost of valuation in the first place, and still more the uncertainty of the position in which they stand. They would be far sooner absolutely certain of having to pay a larger tax than to have to face this uncertainty, especially where it refers, as the hon. Member as a valuer must know, to property which does not remain in the hands of one person. That makes an immense difference. In this case the man 1754 has got to deal with two people at once— with the prospective purchaser and with the Government. His relations with the one depends on his relations with the other as to whether he can sell at a profit or at a loss. It is of the utmost importance to-him as a dealer in land to know for certain before he enters into the final agreement for sale exactly where he stands and what he will have to pay. We had a certain point of departure where a man had a unit of value and where he was quite certain, as long as he did not sell any part of the property, or as long as he did not get more than the original site value, he would not have to pay duty.
This Debate makes it perfectly clear that even if he has got the original site value fixed upon that unit he does not know where he stands. He may sell one portion on which he will have to pay increment value, and on the second portion there may be no increment value, so that now we are in a state of chaos again. Nobody knows where we stand. Nobody throughout the country knows, and we hear of all kinds of transactions in real prosperity held up because no seller will now go into the market if he can possibly help it, because he has no idea of how his property is being depreciated. He knows it is depreciated by the proposals of the Bill, but he hopes that the Bill may be modified, or the land clauses rejected, so that in a few weeks' time his property may again be worth what it was before the introduction of this Bill. At the present moment, and especially from the Debate which has taken place to-night, the uncertainty is deepened and increased. This is not a case, as we understood it, of increment and decrement with two separate units, one of which could not be set off against the other, but it is a case within one unit. It really comes to this, where this Bill tries to be just, it becomes unworkable, and when it tries to be made workable it becomes unjust. I do not think that the hon. Member (Mr. Walters), speaking as a valuer and with the knowledge of land as such, can really maintain that it will conduce to the real property market that this element of uncertainty should be introduced, and that it is a matter of far greater importance to have the matter on a certain clear basis than to leave it in the form in which it stands in the Bill at the present time.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYI do not think that the hon. Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) really appreciated the particular 1755 point of this Amendment. He seemed to think there was some dark design to benefit the large owner and to injure the small owner of land. I venture to assure him that there is no such hidden meaning in the Amendment. The case of two acres being in separate occupation does not really arise under this Amendment. The case we are arguing only arises where the two acres have been valued together, and where it ultimately becomes necessary to sever the value of one from the other. The whole difficulty arises from the fact that under this scheme you are really working backwards; you have Increment Value Duty becoming due when you do not know what the original site value is. You work back to it by basing your calculations upon the actual selling price. The hon. Member for North Herts (Mr. Bertram) pointed out that the property of one owner might be very considerably altered in value by the action of the adjoining owner. He gave an instance of a right of way going through a property. If it were possible to make the right of way a continuation of a road and so have a frontage on both sides there will be considerable opportunity for building on that particular property, whereas if the road ran north or south in the opposite direction, perhaps part of the land would be valuable, and the other part would not be. Take that as the case of these two acres, say originally valued at £100. Then take it that the adjoining property is sold and one of these acres ultimately sells for £100 and the other for £30. What we point out in this Amendment is not that we wish the decrement under 30 to be taken into account in paying the increment under 70, but we want the sale of the two at 70 and
§ 30 to be taken as primâ facie evidence that that was the original site value, or at all events an indication of the original site value of those two particular acres. The fact that an acre which joins the road sells for £70 shows that as a matter of fact that at the time the original site value was arrived at it was worth nearer £70 than £50, and that, therefore, all the time that was the inherent value in those two separate acres, one at £70 and the other at £30. We maintain, if that is shown by the subsequent sale of the second acre, that the increment value which has been paid on the first acre should be refunded. I submit that is altogether a different case from taking the value for which the second acre has sold as a decrement, and taking the decrement from the increment, and thus setting one against the other. The Lord Advocate said he could not dissociate the question of decrement from the Amendment. I hope, after what I have said, he will be able to look upon the difference, not as a decrement, but as prima, facie evidence of the original value, and he will then see that there is more force in the Amendment than he has been inclined to grant. I submit that the Amendment ought to be accepted, so that the errors of the Commissioners may be corrected instead of men being taxed upon them. I hope the Government will reconsider their decision, and at all events give an undertaking that the point shall be seriously dealt with.
§ Mr. URE 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, 246; Noes, 101.
1759| Division No. 268.] | AYES. | [10.5 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. | Byles, William Pollard |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Bonn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Cameron, Robert |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Bennett, E. N. | Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight |
| Agnew, George William | Berridge, T. H. D. | Cawley, Sir Frederick |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. |
| Alden, Percy | Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Clough, William |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Black, Arthur W. | Cobbold, Felix Thornley |
| Astbury, John Meir | Boulton, A. C. F. | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Bowerman, C. W. | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Brace, William | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Bramsdon, Sir T. A. | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Brigg, John | Cross, Alexander |
| Barker, Sir John | Brocklehurst, W. B. | Crossley, William J. |
| Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) | Brodie, H. C. | Curran, Peter Francis |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Brooke, Stopford | Dalziel, Sir James Henry |
| Barnes, G. N. | Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Bryce, J. Annan | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) |
| Beale, W. P. | Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) |
| Beauchamp, E. | Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.) |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. |
| Bell, Richard | Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | Lehmann, R. C. | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Rowlands, J. |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Lewis, John Herbert | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Lyell, Charles Henry | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. |
| Elibank, Master of | Lynch, H. B. | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Essex, R. W. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Maclean, Donald | Seddon, J. |
| Fenwick, Charles | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford) |
| Ferens, T. R. | Macpherson, J. T. | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Fullerton, Hugh | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Furness, Sir Christopher | Mallet, Charles E. | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | Markham, Arthur Basil | Steadman, W. C. |
| Gill, A. H. | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Massie, J. | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.) | Masterman, C. F. G. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Micklem, Nathaniel | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Geech, George Peabody (Bath) | Molteno, Percy Alport | Summerbell, T. |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Mond, A. | Sutherland, J, E. |
| Grove, Archibald | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Morrell, Philip | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Morse, L. L. | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.) | Myer, Horatio | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Hart-Davies, T. | Napier, T. B. | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.) |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Tomkinson, James |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Norman, Sir Henry | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Hedges, A. Paget | Nussey, Sir Willans | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Helme, Norval Watson | Nuttall, Harry | Verney, F. W. |
| Hemmerde, Edward George | O'Grady, J. | Walsh, Stephen |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Parker, James (Halifax) | Walters, John Tudor |
| Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Walton, Joseph |
| Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Higham, John Sharp | Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester) | Wardle, George J. |
| Hobart, Sir Robert | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | Warner, Thomas Courtonay T. |
| Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Hodge, John | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Holland, Sir William Henry | Pollard, Dr G. H. | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Watt, Henry A. |
| Horniman, Emslie John | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Horridge, Thomas Gardner | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Hudson, Walter | Radford, G. H. | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Hyde, Clarendon G. | Rainy, A. Rolland | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Idris, T. H. W. | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Rees, J. D. | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Jenkins, J. | Rendall, Athelstan | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Jowett, F. W. | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Kekewich, Sir George | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Winfrey, R. |
| Laidlaw, Robert | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Robinson, S. | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Lambert, George | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | |
| Lamont, Norman | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis | Rogers, F. E. Newman | |
| NOES. | ||
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Castlereagh, Viscount | Fardell, Sir T. George |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Cave, George | Fell, Arthur |
| Ashley, W. W. | Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Forster, Henry William |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Foster, P. S. | |
| Balcarres, Lord | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Gardner, Ernest |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Clive, Percy Archer | Gretton, John |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Clyde, J. Avon | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds.) |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Haddock, George B. |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Courthope, G. Loyd | Hamilton, Marquess of |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Craik, Sir Henry | Hardy, Laurence (Ashford, Kent) |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Dalrymple, Viscount | Harris, Frederick Leverton |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Doughty, Sir George | Hay, Hon. Claude George |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Helmsley, Viscount |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Du Cros, Arthur | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Faber, George Denison (York) | Hill, Sir Clement |
| Hills, J. W. | Morrison-Bell, Captain | Stanier, Seville |
| Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Newdegate, F. A. | Starkey, John R. |
| Hunt, Rowland | Oddy, John James | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Kimber, Sir Henry | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Pretyman, E. G. | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Lambton, Hon. Frederick William | Ratcliff, Major R. F. | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Lane-Fox, G. R. | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.) |
| Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Renwick, George | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham) | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Ronaldshay, Earl of | Winterton, Earl |
| Lowe, Sir Francis William | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Magnus, Sir Philip | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) | Younger, George |
| Marks, H. H. (Kent) | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) | |
| Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Sandys, Col. Thos. Myles | |
| Meysey-Thompson, E. C | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir |
| Middlemere, John Throgmorton | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) | A. Acland-Hood and Viscount |
| Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) | Valentia |
| Morpeth, Viscount | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
§ Question put accordingly, "That the words be there inserted."
1760§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 109; Noes, 251.
1761| Division No. 269.] | AYES. | [10.16 p.m. |
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Forster, Henry William | Oddy, John James |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Foster, P. S. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Gardner, Ernest | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Ashley, W. W. | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gretton, John | Ratcliff, Major R. F. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds.) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Haddock, George B. | Renwick, George |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Hamilton, Marquess of | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Hardy, Laurence (Ashford, Kent) | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert |
| Beauchamp, E. | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Kay, Hon. Claude George | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Helmsley, Viscount | Sandys, Col. Thos. Myles |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Hill, Sir Clement | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Hills, J. W. | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Hunt, Rowland | Stanier, Beville |
| Cave, George | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Starkey, John R. |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Kerry, Earl of | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Kimber, Sir Henry | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Lambton, Hon. Frederick William | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Whitbread, S. Howard |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Magnus, Sir Philip | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | Markham, Arthur Basil | Winterton, Earl |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Doughty, Sir George | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | Younger, George |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Middlemore, John Throgmorton | |
| Du Cros, Arthur | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Morpeth, Viscount | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Viscount |
| Fardell, Sir T. George | Morrison-Bell, Captain | Castlereagh and Mr. J. F. Mason. |
| Fell, Arthur | Newdegate, F. A. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Bowerman, C. W. |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Barnes, G. N. | Brace, William |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Bramsdon, Sir T. A. |
| Agnew, George William | Beale, W. P. | Brigg, John |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Beck, A. Cecil | Brocklehurst, W. B. |
| Alden, Percy | Bell, Richard | Brodie, H. C. |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. | Brooke, Stopford |
| Astbury, John Meir | Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Bennett, E. N. | Bryce, J. Annan |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Berridge, T. H. D. | Buckmaster, Stanley O. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Burns, Rt. Hon. John |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Burnyeat, W. J. D. |
| Barker, Sir John | Black, Arthur W. | Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) | Boulton, A. C. F. | Byles, William Pollard |
| Cameron, Robert | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Hudson, Walter | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Hyde, Clarendon G. | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Idris, T. H. W. | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Robinson, S. |
| Clough, William | Jenkins, J. | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Cooper, G. J. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Jowett, F. W. | Rowlands, J. |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Kekewich, Sir George | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Laidlaw, Robert | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. |
| Cross, Alexander | Lambert, George | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Crossley, William J. | Lamont, Norman | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) |
| Curran, Peter Francis | Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Lehmann, R. C. | Seddon, J. |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford) |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Lewis, John Herbert | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Lyell, Charles Henry | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.) | Lynch, H. B. | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Steadman, W. C. |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | Maclean, Donald | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Oxley) | Macpherson, J. T. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) | Summerbell, T. |
| Elibank, Master of | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Essex, R. W. | Mallet, Charles E. | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Massie, J. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Masterman, C. F. G. | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Ferens, T. R. | Menzies, Sir Walter | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Micklem, Nathaniel | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Molteno, Percy Alport | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Fullerton, Hugh | Mond, A. | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.) |
| Furness, Sir Christopher | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Tomkinson, James |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Gill, A. H. | Morrell, Philip | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Morse, L. L. | Verney, F. W. |
| Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Walsh, Stephen |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Walters, John Tudor |
| Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Myer, Horatio | Walton, Joseph |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Napier, T. B. | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Grove, Archibald | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Wardle, George J. |
| Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Norman, Sir Henry | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Nussey, Sir Willans | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Nuttall, Harry | Wason, John Carthcart (Orkney) |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | O'Grady, J. | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Parker, James (Halifax) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithuess-sh.) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Hart-Davies, T. | Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester) | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | Whitley John Henry (Halifax) |
| Hedges, A. Paget | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Wiles, Thomas |
| Helme, Norval Watson | Pollard, Dr. G. H. | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Hemmerde, Edward George | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcester, N.) |
| Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Higham, John Sharp | Radford, G. H. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Hobart, Sir Robert | Rainy, A. Rolland | Winfrey, R. |
| Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Hodge, John | Rees, J. D. | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Holland, Sir William Henry | Rendall, Athelstan | |
| Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.) | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) | TELLER FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Horniman, Emslie John | Ridsdale, E. A. | |
| Horridge, Thomas Gardner | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
§ Mr. JAMES HOPE moved at the end of section (3) to insert the words: "Provided that in making such apportionment an allowance shall be made for any part of the value of the land on or in respect of which Increment Value Duty is payable which is attributable to the severance of such land from the other lands included in 1762 the original valuation of the site value, or to the severance of such other lands from it." To illustrate the effect of my proposal I will take a small residential estate where you have a lot of poor land, a fine view, and uneven ground. There the value of the whole is its value as a whole, and it is not divisible into any number of parts. 1763 The value is inseparable from the fact of its being a unit. I do not know whether the House will tolerate Latin, but it is a case of Totus, teres atque rotudus. In another case it may be entirely different. If you have a flat space of exactly similar building land the combined value of the parts may be greater than the whole, because the whole may not find a purchaser, but the parts separately will find purchasers, and therefore the aggregate of the value of those parts will often come to more than the value of the whole. When you come to this extremely difficult task of apportioning the original site value you must bear these things in mind, and the original site value should be put higher on one plot than over the whole of the value. There are cases where if one bit be got rid of it makes the rest more likely to go off. The effect of one bit being got off appreciates the value of the rest and should be allowed for in apportioning the original site value. We all know of cases where decoy houses are run up in order to get rid of the rest; and that must be taken into account in determining the original site value. I think these principles ought to be in the minds of the Commissioners when carrying out their extremely difficult task of going back years to apportion the original site value.
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ Sir W. ROBSONThe clause to which the hon. Member proposes to add these words is one which deals with the apportionment of the original site value. The hon. Member, so far as I understand his Amendment from his observations, proposes not really to apportion the original site value, but to alter it, and to alter it by an arrangement which takes place subsequent to fixing that value. Severance
§ has been invariably regarded as a detriment to the land, and it is a somewhat novel proposition to hear of severance as a cause of an increase in value. If an owner has anything to gain by severance, then severance is in his own power, and he can effect it when he pleases. Having first of all laid down the curious hypothesis that severance causes an increase in value, the hon. Member next proposes to have severance treated as an allowance. Allowance means deduction, so that he proposes to make a deduction in respect of that severance which he says has caused an increase in value.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEIn most cases it will decrease the value, I admit; but in other cases it might increase it, and the allowance would cover both cases.
§ Sir W. ROBSONI am dealing simply with what the Amendment says and not with what the hon. Member says. I am certainly not dealing with the meaning of the hon. Member, because that is wholly different from what the Amendment says. The Amendment says that in making such apportionment an allowance shall be made for any part of the value of the land on or in respect of which Increment Value Duty is payable which is attributable to severance; in other words a deduction is to be made.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPENo.
§ Sir W. ROBSONThe hon. Member says no, but the Amendment says yes. You will make a deduction from the original site value of this very remarkable and hypothetical increase which has arisen by reason of severance.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 104; Noes. 255.
1767| Division No. 270.] | AYES. | [10.35 p.m. |
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Fardell, Sir T. George |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Castlereagh, Viscount | Fell, Arthur |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Cave, George | Forster, Henry William |
| Ashley, W. W. | Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Foster, P. S. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Gardner, Ernest |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Clive, Percy Arthur | Gretton, John |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Clyde, J. Avon | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (By St. Edm'ds) |
| Baring, Captain Hon. G. (Winchester) | Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Haddock, George B. |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Courthope, G. Lloyd | Hamilton, Marquess of |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Craik, Sir Henry | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Dalrymple, Viscount | Harris, Frederick Leverton |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Doughty, Sir George | Hay, Hon. Claude George |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Helmsley, Viscount |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Du Cros, Arthur | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Faber, George Denison (York) | Hill, Sir Clement |
| Hills, J. W. | Newdegate, F. A. | Smith, H. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Hunt, Rowland | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Fetersfield) | Stanier, Beville |
| Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Oddy, John James | Starkey, John R. |
| Kerry, Earl of | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Lambton, Hon, Frederick William | Pretyman, E. G. | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Lane-Fox, G. R. | Ratcliff, Major R. F. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Law, Anderw Bonar (Dulwich) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham) | Ronton, Leslie | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) | Renwick, George | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.) |
| Lowe, Sir Francis William | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Ronaldsbay, Earl of | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Magnus, Sir Philip | Royner, Colonel Sir Robert | Winterton, Earl |
| Marks, H. H. (Kent) | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) | Younger, George |
| Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | Sandys, Col. Thomas Myles | |
| Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. J. F. Hope and Sir H. Kimber. |
| Morpeth, Viscount | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. | |
| Morrison-Bell, Captain | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Idris, T. H. W. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Davies, David (Montgomery, Co.) | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Jenkins, J. |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Davies. Timothy (Fulham) | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) |
| Agnew, George William | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Alden, Percy | Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.) | Jewett, F. W. |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Kekewich, Sir George |
| Astbury, John Meir | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Dobson, Thomas W. | Laidlaw, Robert |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) | Lambert, George |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Lament, Norman |
| Barker, Sir John | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Elibank, Master of | Lehmann, R. C. |
| Barnes, G. N. | Essex, R. W. | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Evans, Sir S. T. | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Beale, W. P. | Everett, R. Lacey | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David |
| Beauchamp, E. | Fenwick, Charles | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Ferens, T. R. | Lynch, H. B. |
| Bell, Richard | Fuller, John Michael F. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. | Fullerton, Hugh | Maclean, Donald |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Furness, Sir Christopher | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Bennett, E. N. | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Macpherson, J. T. |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | GUI, A. H. | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.) | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | M'Micking, Major G. |
| Black, Arthur W. | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Mallelt, Charles E. |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Grove, Archibald | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) |
| Brace, William | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill, | Massie, J. |
| Bramsdon, Sir T. A. | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Brigg, John | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Menzies, Sir Walter |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Brodie, H. C. | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Brooke, Stopford | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Mond, A. |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.) | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Merrell, Philip |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Hedges, A. Paget | Morse, L. L. |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Helme, Norval Watson | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) |
| Curt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Hemmerde, Edward George | Myer, Horatio |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Napier, T. B. |
| Cameron, Robert | Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Nussey, Sir Willans |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Higham, John Sharp | Nuttall, Harry |
| Clough, William | Hobart, Sir Robert | O'Grady, J. |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Hodge, John | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Cooper, G. J. | Hogan, Michael | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Holland, Sir William Henry | Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester) |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Hooper, A. G | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) |
| Cox, Harold | Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.) | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Horniman, Emslie John | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Horridge, Thomas Gardner | Pollard, Dr. G. H. |
| Cross, Alexander | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Crossley, William J. | Hudson, Walter | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Curran, Peter Francis | Hyde, Clarendon G. | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) |
| Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford) | Walsh, Stephen |
| Radford, G. H. | Silcock, Thomas Ball | Walters, John Tudor |
| Rainy, A. Rolland | Simon, John Allsebrook | Ward, W, Dudley (Southampton) |
| Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Wardle, George J. |
| Rees, J. D. | Soares, Ernest J. | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Rendall, Athelstan | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth) | Steadman, W. C. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Ridsdale, E. A. | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Strachey, Sir Edward | Whitbread, S. Howard |
| Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) | Summerbell, T. | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Sutherland, J. E. | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Robinson, S. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Rogers, F. E. Newman | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Rose, Sir Charles Day | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Rowlands, J. | Thomasson, Franklin | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | Winfrey, R. |
| Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. | Tomkinson, James | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | |
| Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Seddon, J. | Verney, F. W. |
The CHAIRMANThe manuscript Amendment handed in by the Noble Lord the Member for Marylebone appears to me to create a charge and so to be outside the Resolution.
§ Lord R. CECILMay I submit that there is nothing which necessarily creates a charge about the Amendment, though it might well be that if it were passed the Government would afterwards think it necessary to repay to the Commissioners the costs to which they were put under the Amendment. The object of the Amendment is to enable the owner to recover from the Commissioners the expenses of valuation to which he has been put under the Bill. It does not propose to put a tax or burden upon the taxpayer in any way. No doubt it might well be that ultimately the Government of the day would see that the Commissioners did not suffer, but that would be the act of the Government and not of the Bill or of this Committee. I respectfully submit that this is a matter of very great importance, and it would be very disastrous to the proper consideration of the Bill if it could not be raised in one way or another.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI really do not see how the Noble Lord can say that the Amendment does not create a charge. It does create a charge.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe assumption that underlies the Amendment of my noble Friend is that the Commissioners have put on the taxpayers unnecessary expense. His proposal is not to impose a burden on the taxpayers, but to relieve the taxpayers of a charge which may fall upon them.
The CHAIRMANThe point raised by the Noble Lord, as I understand it, is that the Commissioners might have to pay out of their own pocket. That is the point on which I ask the Government to give me information. If it can be said that it is possible that the Commissioners may have to pay I shall have to allow the Noble Lord to move the Amendment. On the face of it, this is a public charge for which the Commissioners cannot be said to be personally liable. If that is so the Amendment would be out of order.
§ Lord R. CECILMay I suggest if that is a difficulty I will put in the word "personally."
§ Sir W. ROBSONI submit on the point of order that no direction of this kind should be put in an Act of Parliament. It is that the money should be paid out of public funds. It would be a most discreditable suggestion to say that the money is to be paid by the Commissioners out of their own pocket. The charge must be on public funds.
§ Mr. BALFOURMay I ask whether it is not a new departure to say that this Committee should be forbidden from relieving the taxpayer of a charge. This, I understand, is a Bill for imposing taxes. It raises all sorts of Constitutional points, but I presume that the Government must hold that it is a Bill for imposing taxes. I ask whether it is not a severe restriction of the liberties of the House of Commons to say that we may not relieve the taxpayer of some of the charges which will fall upon him.
The CHAIRMANIt would be quite out of order to relieve the taxpayers by throwing a charge on the shoulders of other people. The point here is whether a charge is being thrown on public servants. If it is not, then the Amendment is out of order. But if it is public money it is quite out of order, because it would be creating a charge which is quite outside the Resolution. Therefore, it depends on the point which I originally stated— whether these Commissioners if sued would be sued as private persons or as public servants.
§ Sir W. ROBSONOn the point of order I submit that the Noble Lord himself has settled the difficulty by saying that of course the Government would not see the Commissioners lose their money. All my observations really went to the meaning of the Noble Lord. I contend that the Noble Lord means that this charge is ultimately to fall on the taxpayer.
The CHAIRMANAs far as it is a question of the Commissioners personally paying, then I cannot see that it is out of order.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL moved to insert at the end of section (3):— "In any case in which it shall appear as the result of the valuation or apportionment under this section that no Increment Duty is due, the Commissioners shall personally pay the expenses to which the owner of the land has been put in respect of such valuation or apportionment."
§ Though this Amendment is one of enormous importance, it can be stated with great brevity. It is to meet the very obvious case of a man who has property which has in fact gone down in value. Under the machinery of this clause he has got to pay the second valuation which is provided for by this clause, and it may be the expense of apportionment. Anyone who has followed the Debate this afternoon will agree that the expense of apportionment in itself may be exceedingly heavy. It will be a complicated and very difficult inquiry, which may involve researches into the conditions of property 20 or 30 years before. Therefore, it will be a very heavy burden on the individual who has to pay it. It seems to me that is a case of injustice which should be met somehow. I quite agree that theoretically it would be more just to throw that expense on the taxpayers of the country. Owing to the rules of order that is not open to me. Therefore, I think 1770 it ought to be thrown on the officials who are the cause of this, though one hopes that ultimately they will not suffer in their pockets personally. But if that is not done we cannot help feeling that you are going in fact to throw a very heavy tax on a number of people who have not gained anything out of the property at all, and that in the name of an increment you are really going to tax people who have made no increment at all. You are going to put on them the cost of this valuation and apportionment, and they are not going to get the very purpose which the whole machinery is avowedly designed to tax. I think that that would be exceedingly unfair. It would mean you were going to force under the name of revenue a general valuation of the land of the country, not at the expense of the State, but at the expense of the individual.
§ I do not believe there is a single man in this House, not even the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), who would genuinely and in a private room advocate such a measure as that. I can conceive no defence of such a measure, except that there are some people, possibly the hon. Member for Leicester, who think that the private ownership of land is an undesirable thing. That is rational and open, though I think it would be destructive of the best interests of the State. I understand that position, and that those who wish to destroy private ownership in the land desire to put such a burden upon it that it will ultimately make it easier for the State to get it. That policy is intelligible. I think it is quite genuinely repudiated by the Government, and quite genuinely repudiated by many of their supporters. What is the pretence for putting this enormous burden on the land? I care not whether it is ten or forty millions. You are going to impose this gigantic burden on people, the great majority of whom have made nothing out of the land. They merely have to pay, not because they have made an increment, but because they are the owners of land. That is utterly indefensible unless you desire land nationalisation. As long as you have private property in land, any legislation which makes land more burdensome as property is utterly indefensible for the reason that there will be less capital in the land; it will be less easily dealt with; it will be a less desirable subject for holding and acquisition; and, therefore, smaller people, who cannot afford to hold it, will give up the holding of land and only the 1771 rich will be likely to continue to hold it as a luxury. Anything which interfered with the free interchange of land, and makes it a burdensome property, is against the sub-division of land, and in favour of its being held in large masses. Unless there is some mitigation of this very heavy burden of valuation and apportionment, I do not think it is possible to logically defend this measure.
§ Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI can hardly think that the Noble Lord will persist in this Amendment, which is really grotesque. What does the Noble Lord say? A man sells part of a hereditament which constitutes a unit of valuation. There is an apparent increase, and he appeals to the Commissioners on the point so as to get rid of that increment. He says, "This is the fag end of the land, and if you take the rest of the land there is no increment." The Commissioners go into the case, and they decide in his favour, and because they decide in his favour they have got personally to pay out of their own pockets.
§ Lord R. CECILThat is not my Amendment.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThey decide the case, but somebody else has got to pay for it. If they give a favourable decision they have to pay a penalty by paying the whole costs out of their own pockets. I know perfectly well the Commissioners would be above this, but if you inflict a penalty upon them every time they decide in the man's favour it is really convenient for them to decide against him. The Noble Lord cannot possibly mean that. It is simply a way of working round the rules of the House, because the rules of the House do not enable him to move that Amendment at this stage, and so he proposes something else. If the Government were prepared to accept this Amendment I believe the Noble Lord would be the first to raise his voice against a personal injustice to public servants who have to carry out this work. Therefore, I hope the Noble Lord will not persist with his Amendment.
§ Mr. BALFOURWe are stopped by a technical point in discussing the question in a form in which my Noble Friend would have preferred it. The point at which we are stopped is every bit as technical as the obstacle and objection which is thrown 1772 against my Noble Friend. We have here a Bill and this tax, and my Noble Friend proposes that the incidental burden of that taxation should be shifted from the shoulder which, in his opinion, and in my opinion, ought not to bear it. In this case, as in every other case, when you modify taxes, if the money has got to be raised other shoulders have got to bear it. Of course that is natural. Nobody complains when you lower the tea duty by a penny, although it is undoubtedly? a burden which is thrown on everybody who does not drink tea. Nobody complains that that is against the rules. It is a purely technical, though, no doubt, perfectly correct ruling of the Chairman, that we cannot discuss seriously in this House whether the cost of the valuation which the Government are deliberately putting on for the purposes of taxation, ought or ought not to be borne in addition to the taxation, or which is called taxation, on certain classes. I maintain my Noble Friend is absolutely justified if he is prevented, as he is, by a pure technicality from dealing with one of the most important questions raised by this Bill, and one of the questions which is most felt in every Constituency, in every community in the country as a consequence of this Bill, if he is prevented from discussing on whose shoulders the burden of these valuations and these revaluations, and these partitions, and these repartitions, should fall; then we are justified, and more than justified, in taking every technical means of getting round that ruling which is purely technical in its character. I say that the special duties which are thrown on this Committee of seeing that burdens are not thrown on certain members of the community, and which they ought not to bear, cannot be exercised unless we can meet technicality with technicality and get to the root-substance of what is one of the greatest objections to these first clauses, namely, that a most enormous and most unjust burden is thrown upon the owner and upon the lessee of land for the purpose of carrying out these numerous complicated valuations which are the preliminary for the Chancellor of the Exchequer extracting in a proportion, and a small proportion, of cases some small modicum of money for the Treasury. For these reasons, though I agree this is a technical statement of the case, and though my Noble Friend would have preferred to raise it on a broader issue, I do not see why we should not avail ourselves of any chance our rules give us of allowing this 1773 Committee to do its duty by its constituents, and which, I am certain every person interested in land, either as owner or as lessee, wishes to be done, namely, that the incidental burdens of this system, heavy in proportion to the revenue to be derived from it, should be thrown on the shoulders which ought to bear it—the shoulders of the general community.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYI wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer, instead of skulking behind points of order, would come out into the open and argue the point on its merits. The real substance of the Amendment is whether or not it is just that those who have to pay no Increment Duty should be put to the very great expense of valuation. Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer formed any estimate of what the cost of this valuation will be to the owners?
The CHAIRMANThis question does not arise on the Amendment, which is a specific, proposal that the cost of certain valuations shall be borne by certain shoulders.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYIs it not germane to consider what the cost will be?
The CHAIRMANWe cannot on every Amendment go over again the question of the whole cost of valuation.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYIt seems to me to be very germane to consider what the additional cost is that would be thrown upon the persons who it is provided should pay it. Although, according to your ruling, this question has been raised on previous occasions, we have had no answer to it. I am informed that from six to eight million houses will have to be valued as separate occupations for the purpose of this duty, and that they probably could not be done for less than £3 per house. Have the Government formed an estimate which in any way contradicts that? If not, it is a much more serious item than many people have hitherto calculated. Besides houses, there is the valuation of agricultural and building land, and it is especially with regard to the former that the unfairness of the Government's proposal comes in. Owners and lessees of agricultural land will be put to the expense of valuation, and in 99 cases out of 100 there will be no Increment Duty whatever. We have had no justification yet from the Government, and we ought not to pass this subsection without having from the Government an estimate of the cost and some ex- 1774 planation of why the cost should be thrown upon the owners.
§ Mr. GEORGE CAVEThis Amendment really has two parts. The first imposes the expense upon the shoulders of the Commissioners, which, I agree, is not a very convenient way of dealing with the matter. The other part of the Amendment takes the burden off the shoulder of the owner—a burden, as every one will see, that is, or may be, a very heavy one indeed. The burden is one of repeated valuations and repeated apportionments. What we want to know is this: Do the Government propose, in any part of this Bill, to deal with the question. They are in a position to ask the House to pass a further Amendment providing that in all cases where expenses are needlessly thrown upon the owner they shall be met from public funds in some way or other.
The CHAIRMANDoes not that open up the whole question of valuation? I think also that this question must necessarily arise on Clause 16.
§ Mr. BALFOURMay I very respectfully ask—not for ruling indeed, unless you are prepared to give it—would it be legitimate for us on Clause 16 to move that the Government bear the cost of valuation?
§ Mr. CAVEIt places us in the rather difficult position, for unless we get some assurance or indication we must support this Amendment. It is the only means open to us of recording our protest against the proposal of the Bill as it now stands.
§ Mr. E. H. CARLILEI think the House will realise that in all probability the Commissioners would be entirely above action in any arbitrary way against the owners of property. But at the same time I think the Amendment of my Noble Friend is admirably calculated to act as a preventative against abuse by the Commissioners. Undoubtedly there may be Commissioners and Commissioners. Subsequent experience of landowners in this country may be very various indeed under the provisions of this section. I think, therefore, it is only just that some sort of warning should be given to the Commissioners in the form of a clause, so that they may see the serious responsibility that devolves upon them that they should 1775 not arbitrarily put owners of property, from whom no Increment Duty is due, to the expense of making this valuation with out a prima facie case that some Increment Duty is due. If no step of this kind is taken the Commissioners may at any time expose the owners of property, small and large, to this kind of expenditure, and they will have no power to recoup themselves for the outlay. If the Amendment— which I think is a reasonable one—is adopted, then the Commissioners will feel that if they arbitrarily make an assessment upon property they take the individual responsibility. This may rebound upon themselves, and they may have to make good the cost.
§ Mr. E. C. MEYSEY-THOMPSONAll we ask is a statement from the Government that the taxpayers should be protected from having undue expenses thrown upon them for any valuation that the Commissioners determine to make, and which the Government empower them to make. I think if the Committee will throw its mind back to what occurred in Committee of Supply last Thursday they will see the necessity of having an absolutely definite agreement with the Government. In connection with the Vatersay Island, when the question of pecuniary loss arose, the Government showed they were not in a position to carry out what they had undertaken to do. What we ask now is that we should be given a definite assurance that if the taxpayers are called upon to bear pecuniary loss the Government should not take the same course.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThere are, of course, two questions put forward. One is whether, in the case where apportionment has taken place, and has been imposed by the Commissioners because they believe Increment Value accrued, and Increment Duty is due, the cost of their proceedings are to fall upon the man—I cannot call him the taxpayer because he has not paid the tax—who has been proved not to be liable. The other question is whether the Commissioners themselves are in the first instance, at any rate, to be liable for the cost in such case. I do not think anybody can pretend that the subject ought to be liable for expenses in such cases as that—expenses which may be heavy and burdensome, and which he has to pay if he is taxable. The Commissioners erroneously think he may be liable, and have forced him to produce documents for 1776 their inspection; then he has to go before the referee, and may be he has to take further proceedings before the High Court. It cannot be said the Commissioners will only do this in highly doubtful cases where there is a strong reason to suppose the tax is due. I am sure the Chancellor has not much time to read the morning papers. If he read "The Times" of this morning he would have seen a recital from a recent judgment in which these same Commissioners were concerned. Lord Macnaghten, in giving judgment in the House of Lords in this case, said:—
There is no foundation whatever for the claim put forward by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. The case is quite simple.And he further adds:—The claim, whether it be regarded as an ingenious experiment or an unhappy blunder, fails altogether, and must, I think, be dismissed with costs.Is the unhappy subject to bear the cost, or costs, to which the Commissioners may put him under, either by "an ingenious experiment" or "an unhappy blunder," in a case which the high courts of the realm may declare to be "quite simple," and where there may not be a shadow of foundation for the claim the Commissioners put forward. That is the attitude taken up by the Government. All that may happen, but it would be hateful to the Government to see the Commissioners immersed with the cost. They are perfectly willing to allow the subject, who is not liable to be immersed in these heavy costs. I say it is monstrous to leave the subject open to that injustice. Is it monstrous to say the Commissioners should not be liable? The Attorney-General believes that to be unthinkable, and almost unspeakable, but surely there are endless cases in which public servants are left liable by law for their actions in a public capacity with no indemnity promised them beforehand, no protection secured to them in advance, but, of course, with the power of the Government to indemnify them afterwards. Take the case of a captain in the Navy in command of a ship which collides with a merchant vessel. There is no guarantee that the captain, though acting in pursuance to orders, shall be held exempt from the consequences of any error or mistake he makes. Take the case of the Army Council being sued for having done something they were not authorised to do. There is no indemnity to them, and there is no guarantee by this House that whatever the Army Council or the Secretary of State for War claims to do in pursuance of his office the House of Commons will always pay his expenses if he happens to 1777 be mulcted in a court of law. All that remains to be decided afterwards. I could cite case after case of men acting in a public capacity who may remain and do remain ultimately liable for any mistake they might make. I submit that that is a proper precedent for the Amendment of my Noble Friend, even on the ground he has been forced by the rules of the House to put it; and as it disposes of the Government answer that the whole thing is unthinkable, it leaves us face to face with the serious grievance to which I have already alluded, and we ought to have a more definite answer as to how they mean to treat that serious argument.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDIn the course of the discussion of this clause we have elicited that it is the intention of the Government to allow an appeal with regard to this apportionment. I think this bears directly upon the point we have now before us. As the clause is printed there will be no appeal, because under section 22, which deals with appeals, it is quite clear that the question of apportionment of site values is not one of the matters subject to appeal. We have got it to-day from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he is going to allow an appeal from the apportionment of the site values. What is the effect of that? It is that the apportionment of site values is brought within the appeal provided for in Clause 22, and it is also provided on page 16 that it is possible to order costs to be paid. The result is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done to-day exactly what he is taking a technical objection to this Amendment for doing—namely, providing for the payment of costs. We are dealing with the laying of the tax upon the owner of the land, and, if
§ this Amendment is accepted in the form in which it is intended, and we should like to support it, the simple effect would be to relieve somebody from paying the tax, and the question whether that is going incidentally to impose some tax or burden upon the general community has really nothing whatever to do with the question.
§ Mr. H. CHAPLINMay I supplement what fell from my right hon. Friend (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) by another case which is also contained in the Law Reports of "The Times" to-day as regards the present Inland Revenue Commissioners. It is the case of Stevens v. Hudsons Bay Company. The Commissioners claim Income-tax on a sum of £177,857, and the Court of Appeal unanimously decided against the claims of the Commissioners. If, even with the Law Courts behind them, the present Inland Revenue Commissioners, who are to be the Court to decide all the enormous questions arising under this Bill, are liable to make such mistakes as these, then I am bound to say, seeing the only Court under the Bill is to be referees appointed by themselves, I think the Amendment is very desirable. It would doubtless have the probable effect of making the Inland Revenue Commissioners exceedingly careful in the future, and, if my Noble Friend (Lord Robert Cecil) goes to a division, I shall most heartily support him.
§ 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, 232; Noes, 111.
1781| Division No. 271.] | AYES. | [11.35 p.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Bennett, E. N. | Clough, William |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Berridge, T. H. D. | Cobbold, Felix Thornley |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) |
| Agnew, George William | Black, Arthur W. | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Boulton, A. C. F. | Cooper, G. J. |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Bowerman, C. W. | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Brace, William | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. |
| Astbury, John Meir | Bramsdon, Sir Thomas A. | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Brigg, John | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Brocklehurst, W. B. | Crooks, William |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Brodie, H. C. | Crosfield, A. H. |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Brooke, Stopford | Cross, Alexander |
| Barnard, E. B. | Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs, Leigh) | Crossley, William J. |
| Barnes, G. N. | Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Dalziel, Sir James Henry |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Davies David (Montgomery, Cs.) |
| Beale, W. P. | Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Davies, David (Montgomery Co-) |
| Beauchamp, E. | Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) |
| Bell, Richard | Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.) |
| Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport) | Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras. N.) |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Lyell, Charles Henry | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) | Lynch, H. B. | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Seddon, J. |
| Elibank, Master of | Maclean, Donald | Seely, Colonel |
| Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Macpherson, J, T. | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Ferens, T. R. | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Freeman-Thomas, Freeman | M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Fullerton, Hugh | Mallet, Charles E. | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | Markham, Arthur Basil | Steadman, W. C. |
| Gill, A. H. | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Mason, A. E. w. (Coventry) | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.) | Massie, J. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Masterman, C. F. G. | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Menzies, Sir Walter | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Micklem, Nathaniel | Summerbell, T. |
| Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Mond, A. | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Grove, Archibald | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Morrell, Philip | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury) |
| Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.) | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Myer, Horatio | Thomas, Abet (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Napier, T. B. | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Hedges, A. Paget | Norman, Sir Henry | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Helme, Norval Watson | Nussey, Sir Willans | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.) |
| Hemmerde, Edward George | Nuttall, Harry | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | O'Grady, J. | Tomkinson, James |
| Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Parker, James (Halifax) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Higham, John Sharp | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Verney, F. W. |
| Hobart, Sir Robert | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | Vivian, Henry |
| Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | Walsh, Stephen |
| Hodge, John | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Walters, John Tudor |
| Holland, Sir William Henry | Pollard, Dr. | Waring, Walter |
| Hooper, A. G. | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.) | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Horniman, Emslie John | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Hudson, Walter | Radford, G. H. | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Hyde, Clarendon | Rainy, A. Holland | Watt, Henry A. |
| Idris, T. H. W. | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro') | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Rendall, Athelstan | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Jenkins, J. | Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth) | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Williamson, Sir Archibald |
| Kekewich, Sir George | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.) | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Laidlaw, Robert | Robinson, S. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Winfrey, R. |
| Lambert, George | Rogers, F. E. Newman | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Lamont, Norman | Rose, Sir Charles Day | |
| Layland-Barrett. Sir Francis | Rowlands, J. | |
| Lehmann, R. C. | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Gretton, John |
| Arkwrignt, John Stanhope | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) |
| Ashley, W. W. | Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury St. Edm.) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Clive, Percy Archer | Haddock, George B. |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Clyde, James Avon | Hamilton, Marquess of |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. | Harris, Frederick Leverton |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Craik, Sir Henry | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Dalrymple, Viscount | Helmsley, Viscount |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott- | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Doughty, Sir George | Hill, Sir Clement |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Hills, J. W. |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Du Cros, Arthur Philip | hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Faber, George Denison (York) | Hunt, Rowland |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Fell, Arthur | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Forster, Henry William | Kerry, Earl of |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W.) | Keswick, William |
| Carrson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Gardner, Ernest | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. |
| Cave, George | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Lane-Fox, G. R. |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) |
| Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham) | Percy, Earl | Stanier, Beville |
| Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Ratcliffe, Major R. F. | Starkey, John |
| Lowe, Sir Francis William | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire), |
| Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Allied | Remnant, James Farquharson | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Magnus, Sir Philip | Renton, Leslie | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Marks, H. H. (Kent) | Renwick, George | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashore) |
| Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | Ronaldshay, Earl of | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Morpeth, Viscount | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Morrison-Bell, Captain | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) | Winterton, Earl |
| Newdegate, F. A. | Sandys, Col Thomas Myles | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert | Younger, George |
| Oddy, John James | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | |
| Parkes, Ebenezer | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir |
| Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) | Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia. |
| Peel, Hon. Wm. Robert Wellesley | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
§ Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
1782§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 122; Noes. 232.
1783| Division No. 272.] | AYES. | [11.45 p.m. |
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W.) | Oddy, John James |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Gardner, Ernest | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Peel, Hon. Wm. Robert Wellesley |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Percy, Earl |
| Ashley, W. W. | Gretton, John | Ratcliffe, Major R. F. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury St. Edm.) | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Haddock, George B. | Renton. Leslie |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Hamilton, Marquess of | Renwick, George |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Beck, E. Cecil | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Helmsley, Viscount | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. | Sandys, Col. Thomas Myles |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hill, Sir Clement | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Hills, J. W. | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Hunt, Rowland | Smith. Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Kennedy, Viscount Paul | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Kerry, Earl of | Stanier, Beville |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Keswick, William | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Cave, George | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Starkey, John R. |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Talbot, Lord F. (Chichester) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury) |
| Clyde, James Avon | Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham) | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Cox, Harold | M'Micking, Major G. | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Magnus, Sir Philip | Whitbread, Howard |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Winterton, Earl |
| Doughty, Sir George | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Younger, George |
| Du Cros, Arthur Philip | Morpeth, Viscount | |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Morrison-Bell, Captain | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord |
| Fell, Arthur | Newdegate, F. A. | Robert Cecil and Mr. Watson |
| Forster, Henry William | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | Rutherford. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Barnard, E. B. | Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Barnes, G. N. | Black, Arthur W. |
| Agnew, George Wilson | Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Boulton, A. C. F. |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Beale, W. P. | Bowerman, C. W. |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Bell, Richard | Brace, William |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Bellairs, Carlyon | Bramsdon, Sir T. A. |
| Astbury, John Meir | Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. | Brigg, John |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport) | Brocklehurst, W. B. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. George) | Brodie, H. C. |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Bennett, E. N. | Brooke, Stopford |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Berridge, T. H. D. | Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Horniman, Emslie John | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbigh.) |
| Buck master, Stanley O. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Hudson, Walter | Robinson, S. |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Hyde, Clarendon G. | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Idris, T. H. W. | Roch, Walter F. Pembroke) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Jenkins, J. | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) | Rowlands, J. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Clough, William | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Laidlaw, Robert | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Lambert, George | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) |
| Cooper, G. J. | Lamont, Norman | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis | Seddon, J. |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin J. | Lehmann, R. C. | Seely, Colonel |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Levy, Sir Maurice | Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford) |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Lewis, John Herbert | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Crooks, William | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Lyell, Charles Henry | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Cross, Alexander | Lynch, H. B. | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Crossley, William J. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Steadman, W. C. |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Macpherson, J. T. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.) | M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Summerbell, T. |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Mullet, Charles E. | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Debson, Thomas W. | Markham, Arthur Basil | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (York, (Otley) | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Massie, J. | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Masterman, C. F. G. | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Elibank, Master of | Menzies, Sir Walter | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Micklem, Nathaniel | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Mond, A. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Ferens, T. R. | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Tomkinson, James |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Fullerton, Hugh | Morrell, Philip | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Furness, Sir Christopher | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Verney, F. W. |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | Myer, Horatio | Vivian, Henry |
| Gill, A. H. | Napier, T. B. | Walsh, Stephen |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Norman, Sir Henry | Walters, John Tudor |
| Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.) | Nussey, Sir Willans | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton ) |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Nuttall, Harry | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | O'Grady, J. | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Parker, James (Halifax) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Pointer, J. | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Pollard, Dr. | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Hedges, A. Paget | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Wiles, Thomas |
| Helme, Nerval Watson | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Williamson, Sir Archibald |
| Hemmerde, Edward George | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire. N.) |
| Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Radford, G. H. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Higham, John Sharp | Rainy, A. Rolland | Winfrey, R. |
| Hobart, Sir Robert | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro') | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Rendall, Athelstan | |
| Hodge, John | Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Holland, Sir William Henry | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) | |
| Hooper, A. G. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | |
| Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
§ Earl WINTERTONI desire to move the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Craig) to leave out section (4). I do so, not because I disagree with the intention of the section, but because I think the period mentioned is grossly inadequate. I think the period should be forty or fifty years instead of twenty. I 1784 move the Amendment in order to get a general discussion and to hear what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to say in favour of the clause as a whole. I do not think that the concession which the Government give to the owners of land is a very large one.
§ Mr. BALFOURI hope my Noble Friend will not press this Amendment to 1785 a division. I agree with him that the proposal in the section is inadequate, but the inadequacy can be cured by specific Amendments afterwards.
§ Earl WINTERTONI ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI beg leave to move after the word "owner" ["Where the owner of any land proves"] to insert the words "or lessee." It will save the time of the Committee if I mention that there are six other Amendments standing in my name which practically all refer to the same matter, and, of course, I have no desire to waste time by moving them separately. Therefore, I should like to state shortly the effect of the whole set. This clause which we are now considering is a most valuable concession on the part of the Government, and I am very glad that my noble Friend did not press his Amendment about leaving it out. The effect is that, notwithstanding any valuation put upon a site value, if the owner of that land has actually purchased that particular property within 20 years before the 30th of April, 1909, and the amount then paid by him for the purchase exceeds the total value he is able to avail himself of the other figure. All I desire to do with this Amendment is to extend the benefit of this state of affairs not merely to the owner of the fee simple of a piece of land, but to the lessee. In the district with which I am more particularly acquainted we have a very large number of leases from Lord Sefton, Lord Derby, and the Corporation, which are all over 50 years; and being leases for a period of over 14 years, under parts of the Bill already dealt with each of these transferences would create an increment where that transaction has happened within 20 years. All I suggest by this set of Amendments is that the benefit should be given not merely to the man who has bought the fee simple out and out, but also to the man who has taken a lease, who is just as entitled to be considered, and also the man who has acquired an interest. I understand that one of my friends desires to bring in the man who has inherited, with paid death duties upon it. You have the same principle then. Such a person is in exactly the same position as if he had bought the property; and taking all these Amendments, I am bound to think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see the justice of doing something in this direc- 1786 tion, either by adopting these proposals, or in some other way by which these interests should have the same advantage as is given by this particular clause to the purchasers of land for value.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI propose to consider whether the hon. Gentleman has made out a case for consideration. It is rather difficult to defend the distinction between a lease of over 15 years and less than 46 years, where you are giving a concession of this kind. Therefore, subject to reconsideration of the actual words on Report, I shall be prepared, if the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment, to move the insertion of the following:— "After the words' where the owner,' to insert' of the fee simple,' and then after 'land' to insert 'or any person entitled to an interest in the land.'" That would cover the case of the hon. Member as to the fee simple, and it will cover several Amendments. I have several consequential Amendments, which I shall move later.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has proposed what will, at all events, carry out the effect of my Amendment. There would, of course, have to be consequential Amendments in order to make the clause read properly.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEYes.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDAs long as it is understood that the right hon. Gentleman will carry out what is intended by my Amendment I am satisfied.
§ Sir E. CARSONI do not know how the insertion of the words would operate. Where you talk of both, you talk of a person who is either the owner of a freehold or of a 50 years' lease. When you say the "owner of an interest in land," are you not, with regard to definition, repeating the same thing, merely saying the owner of the fee simple or the owner of the 50 years' lease. What we want to cover is the intermediate lease.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI am perfectly willing to accept any Amendments which will carry out the intention.
§ Sir E. CARSONIt is to have the same-meaning in regard to the lease as if the man was the owner.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEYes.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1787§ Amendment made after "owner," to insert the words "of the fee simple."
§ Further Amendment made after "land," to insert the words "or any person entitled to an interest in the land."
§ Mr. STEWART BOWLES (for Lord Robert Cecil) moved, in section (4), to leave out the words, "to the satisfaction of the Commissioners."
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
§ Mr. G. ROBERTS moved, in section (4), to leave out the words, "or any of his predecessors in title." I cannot see the justice of this concession being made to persons who have bought, say, a plot of land originally valued at a thousand pounds ten or twelve years since, and which another purchaser bought within the last two or three years for £800. I cannot see how any injustice would be done to the second purchaser if the actual amount paid for the land is taken, because increment may accrue when this Bill comes into operation, and this man would come in for a considerable windfall for which no return is made to the State. I am inclined to the opinion that this land tax is not really a land tax. Personally I associate myself with the interpretation made by the Prime Minister that it is a tax upon future values that will accrue to land. Such being the case I feel it is unnecessary to argue at any great length. Whilst granting that there might be injustice in taxing the man who had held the land for the whole twenty years, I do not see why the concession should be made to his predecessors in title as stated in the clause. There may be some other arguments to be adduced by the Government, but if the matter proves to be the way I have stated, then I think it is unnecessary, and would seriously militate against the value of the tax.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDThe hon. Member's Amendment would take away from the taxpayer one of the obvious reliefs which the Government propose to give him. The hon. Member's Amendment is to strike out that relief and to impose a more harsh burden on the taxpayer. I submit that does not come within the Resolution and that no ordinary Member of this House is in order in proposing to increase the burden upon any person who has to pay the tax and that, therefore, the Amendment is out of order.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI was relying on the general principle that with the exception of the Government no Member of this House has the right either by way of original Motion or by Amendment to introduce anything which would impose a severer burden upon the taxpayer. I have always understood that that was the basis of our discussions in these matters.
The CHAIRMANThe basis is that we are tied by the terms of the Resolution. If we go beyond the terms of the Resolution, it is out of order for the Government or anybody else.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI admit that this particular point is not referred to in the Resolution at all.
The CHAIRMANIf the Resolution covers the omission of these words—and I think it does—it is clearly in order to move the Amendment.
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI hope the hon. Member will not press this Amendment. The words are undoubtedly intended to be a concession in cases where land has increased in value during the last 15 or 20 years, but where what may appear to be an increment is not a real bond fide increment at all. They cover the case where a man's father bought a property 20 years ago, perhaps paying a high price for it, and then the value of property in the neighbourhood has gone down, but soon after the valuation there has been a little rise. Although at the time there is an apparent increment, on the price of 20 years ago there is really a heavy fall. I do not think it is altogether fair that that should be treated as an increment.
§ Earl WINTERTONI think it is right that a protest should be made against the exceedingly unfair assumption underlying the Amendment. The mover said not a single word in support of his case. Hon. Members below the Gangway seldom take part in these Debates, but they make wild statements in the country with regard to the ownership of land: and I should like to ask on what principle of justice and equity they support this proposal. The hon. Member seems to forget that the son would pay Death Duties and have to stand 1789 all the racket in connection with the matter. I challenge the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts) or the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyne (Mr. Wedgwood) to contend before a meeting of their supporters that, in a case where a man has bought a piece of land which eventually passes to his son, it is just and fair that that son should be excluded from the benefits which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes in this sub-clause. He knows perfectly well they dare not do it. He knows that they take the case of the bloated millionaire, but not that of an average person. In deference to the wishes of the Government he will withdraw this, or anything else that the Government wishes him to withdraw.
§ Mr. J. C. WEDGWOODI think this Amendment is perfectly justified. I can-
§ not conceive anything more in accordance with the principle of this part of the Budget or the Finance Bill. If unearned increment is to be taxed at all, surely the hon. Member for Norwich has a perfectly good case. Here the £2,000 is due simply and solely to the community as a whole. Suppose the population increases and the land rises in value due to the increase of population—that the town grows out in the hon. Member's direction and increases the value of his land from £8,000 to £10,000. On what ground does he differentiate between that and any other increment?
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 245; Noes, 38.
1791| Division No. 273.] | AYES. | [12.20 a.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. |
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) |
| Agnew, George William | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Hay, Hon. Claude George |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Hedges, A. Paget |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Cory, Sir Clifford John | Helme, Nerval Watson |
| Ashley, W. W. | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Helmsley, Viscount |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Craik, Sir Henry | Hemmerde, Edward George |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond.) | Crosfield, A. H. | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Crossley, William J. | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Dalrymple, Viscount | Higham, John Sharp |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Hill, Sir Clement |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Davies, David (Montgomery, Co.) | Hills, J. W. |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Hobart, Sir Robert |
| Barnard, E. B. | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, E.) | Holland, Sir William Henry |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-shire) | Hooper, A. G. |
| Beale, W. P. | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.) |
| Beauchamp, E. | Dobson, Thomas W. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Doughty, Sir George | Hyde, Clarendon |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) | Kerry, Earl of |
| Bennett, E. N. | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Laidlaw, Robert |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Elibank, Master of | Lambert, George |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Lament, Norman |
| Black, Arthur W. | Everett, R. Lacey | Lane-Fex, G. R. |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Faber, George Denison (York) | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) |
| Bramsdon, Sir Thomas A. | Fell, Arthur | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Ferens, T. R. | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Forster, Henry William | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David |
| Brodie, H. C. | Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W.) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Fuller, John Michael F. | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Brunner, J. F. L (Lancs., Leigh) | Fullerton, Hugh | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Gardner, Ernest | Mackarness, Frederic C. |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Maclean, Donald |
| Bull, Sir William James | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.) | M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | M'Micking, Major G. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Greenwood, G. Peterborough | Marks, H. H. (Kent) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Mason, James F. (Windsor) |
| Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Massie, J. |
| Cave, George | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury St. Edm.) | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Haddock, George B. | Menzies, Sir Walter |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Hamilton, Marquess of | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Clough, William | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Morrison-Bell, Captain |
| Clyde, James Avon | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.) | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Harris, Frederick Leverten | Newdegate, F. A. |
| Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | Ronaldshay, Earl of | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Norman, Sir Henry | Ropner, Col. Sir Robert | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.) |
| Nussey, Sir Willans | Rose, Sir Charles Day | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Oddy, John James | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Tomkinson, James |
| Parkes, Ebenezer | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) | Verney, F. W. |
| Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Vivian, Henry |
| Peel, Hon. W. R. W. | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Percy, Earl | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Seely, Colonel | Waring, Walter |
| Pollard, Dr. | Shaw, Sir Charles Edward | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | Silcock, Thomas Ball | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Priestley, Sir W. E. D. (Bradford, E.) | Simon, John Allsebrook | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Radford, G. H. | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Rainy, A. Rutland | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) | Whitbread, Howard |
| Ratcliff, Major R. F. | Soares, Ernest J. | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | Stanier, Seville | White. J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Starkey, John R. | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Remnant, James Farquharson | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Renton, Leslie | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth) | Strachey, Sir Edward | Williamson, Sir Archibald |
| Ridsdale, E. A. | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.) | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Younger, George |
| Robinson, S. | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury) | |
| Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) | |
| Rogers, F. E. Newman | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Richard, T. F. (Wolverhampton) |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Hodge, John | Rowlands, J. |
| Barnes, G. N. | Horniman, Emslie John | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Hudson, Walter | Seddon, J. |
| Brace, William | Jenkins, J. | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Summerbell, T. |
| Cooper, G. J. | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Macpherson, J. T. | Walsh, Stephen |
| Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Gill, A. H. | O'Grady, J. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Parker, James (Halifax) | |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Pointer, Joseph | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. George Roberts and Mr. Charles Duncan. |
| Gill, A. H. | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Rendall, Athelstan |
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to leave out the word "purchased" in order to insert the words "acquired for consideration, being either money or money's worth, the fee simple, or interest in."
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDWill those words include property acquired by inheritance? In such cases Death Duties must have been paid?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGENo.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. FELL moved after "purchased" ["where the owner of any land proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that he or any of his predecessors in title, has purchased"] to insert the words "or inherited." If this Amendment is not made, a very large part of the land of the country will not receive the benefit which it is intended to confer by the insertion of this 1792 section. Land is, upon inheritance, valued for Estate Duty, and a very heavy duty is paid upon it, and I think the value then placed upon the land by methods quite as just as those which would obtain under this Clause would well form a basis upon which Increment Value Duty could be assessed. This would prevent the owner who had inherited being placed in a worse position than the owner who had bought. I do not know whether the words I propose would come in exactly as well after the word "purchased" as after the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but they should be inserted somewhere to carry out the wishes of both the Government and ourselves.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEOn a point of order. Will the discussion of this Amendment prejudice the discussion of my Amendment in regard to Estate Duty?
§ Sir W. ROBSONThe concession announced by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lloyd-George) carries us very much further than anything the hon. Member has indicated, because the case of inheritance would not meet the case where the predecessor in title has given a greater price for the land than that put upon it at the original site value. There is another difficulty which would prevent us accepting the Amendment. The value we are trying to substitute for the original site value is to be a money value, and we are ascertaining that money value by the consideration which were given for the land. We can only deal with a monetary consideration. We cannot deal with considerations by way of marriage or any consideration of that kind which does not form a basis upon which we can ascertain the value which is to be substituted for the original site value. May I also remind hon. Members that the point is really academic. It would only apply so far as valuations for Death Duties are concerned since 1894, and they have been systematically low and are not likely to be useful as a substitute for original site value.
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
§ Lord BALCARRES moved to omit the words "within 20 years" ["purchased the land within 20 years"]. This removes the restriction which limits the operation of the provision to cases of purchase within 20 years. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take an opportunity in dealing with this Amendment to make a declaration of the intentions of the Government on this matter. This return absolutely upsets the argument put forward with regard to the recovery of agicultual land. It is well known that agricultural land begun to diminish in value 30 years ago, and although I do not suggest that we should take 1879 as the initial date, I think it is a matter of vital importance on which we should have a declaration from the Government.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDThis is an important Amendment, but I should have suggested to strike out "twenty" and put in "thirty." There are a number of Amendments on the Paper, and some of my hon. Friends desire 30, some 35, and some 40; but the Amendment we have got before us is to strike out the limit altogether and leave the whole thing unlimited. May I point out that 30 years is a very 1794 common or ordinary inside limit of title which those who know anything about land are all accustomed to. In support of the Amendment I would submit that 20 years is too short, and I do think that anything over 30 years would be too long.
§ Mr. LAURENCE HARDYMay I ask you, Sir, whether we have to take the discussion upon the whole point now? The proposed Amendment takes out the limit altogether, and I thought possibly it would have to be argued on that ground, and that we should be able to deal with the actual number of years by another Amendment.
The CHAIRMANI think the whole discussion ought to be taken now; but I consider it would be better to withdraw this Amendment and to move the omission of "twenty" and the insertion of "thirty" or any figure hon. Members like to suggest.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINWe all desire to act as far as we can upon any hint from the chair, but I really rose for the purpose of associating myself on this occasion with what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Watson Rutherford) has said, but it does not appear to me that the justice of the case would be met by the figure of 30 years. Thirty, however, is an obvious figure to take, whereas there is no obvious reason for taking 20. The obvious reason for taking 30 is because the great fall in agricultural values began as far back as 30 years ago, but for my part I should like to see the limit omitted altogether, and I cannot understand on what ground the Government, having regard to their case on the other question, insist on putting the limit in in this case. Where the sale or transfer takes place at a higher value, it franks the price of the land of all transactions which come within it, until some still higher value is obtained. That was agreed to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at an earlier stage of our discussion. If you frank all transactions below the watermark, why should not high watermark have the same effect and be treated in the same way? You do not say after the Act a transfer at what is a record value shall frank the land for 20 or 30 years. You say it shall frank it for ever. Why do you not apply the same principle retrospectively that you are prepared to apply prospectively. It seems to me chronologically and justly that you should do so, and I propose to support the Amendment in the form in which it has been moved, to leave out the time limit alto- 1795 gether, and I could not support an Amendment to insert another time limit, though I should prefer 30 to 20 and 50 to 30. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must not take it that my hon. Friend speaks for others than himself.
§ Mr LLOYD-GEORGEThis is in the nature of a boon. It is an exception from the general rule laid down by the Act, and it is a departure from the principle of the Bill. In Frankfort they go back, not merely for decrement but for increment, to transactions 30 or 40 years ago, and compare the price then with the present price to arrive at the increment. We have chosen to start with to-day and take the prospective increment, 60 that really this is a departure from the principle of the Bill in order to confer a boon upon owners. If we took 40 years the right hon. Gentleman would say why not 50. There is no principle as between 20, 30 and 40. It is purely a question of practical difficulty. Every year you go back adds to the practical difficulty of ascertaining the conditions which enable you to discover what has happened.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe onus lies on the owner to produce proof.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEUp to a certain point, but if he produces primâ facie evidence that he has paid so much, the onus is shifted from him on to the Government. That is exactly where the Commissioners would break down. It would be rather difficult to work it up to 20 years, but after 40 years it would be absolutely impracticable. There would be so many conditions which could not be discovered. With regard to agricultural land 30 would not be a substantial improvement on 20. If you go back on agricultural land you would have to go back much further. This boon, therefore, is not one which is intended to cover the case of agricultural land. If we were to make the period forty years it would only cover an infinitesimal portion in the case of agricultural land. It would cover cases where there has been a change of title. Although I do not want to go back on the point now, I would remind the Committee that I made a proposal on Wednesday last with the view of meeting the case of agricultural land, but the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Mr. Pretyman), who is entitled to speak on behalf of those interested in agricultural land, assured the 1796 Committee, the Government, and myself that that would not meet the case. I state again that I am sincerely desirous of meeting the case of agricultural land, and that I am doing my best to meet it. Several suggestions have been put before me. I fully recognise that the case has to be met, and I want to meet it in a way that will satisfy agriculturists that in the whole of the valuations purely agricultural values are exempted from the Increment Duty.
I have considered the various Amendments which have been put before me. I am not satisfied that this particular Amendment would meet the case. You might get half a dozen agriculturists who would say that this Amendment meets their case, and they would say that they accepted it. On the other hand, another agricultural Member would say: "It does not meet the case in my part of the country at all." In a speech delivered about three o'clock on Thursday morning the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite indulged in a vigorous denunciation of the Amendment then under consideration. He was surprised to hear that I agreed with a great deal of what he said. It was really an Amendment which, in my judgment, would meet the case of a good many of the Western counties, but it would probably not meet the case in some other parts of the country. After hearing the discussion I decided to withdraw the Amendment, not because I thought there would then be an end to the matter, but with the view of reconsidering the case of agricultural land. The mere insertion in this sub-section of 20, 30 or 40 years will not cover the case of agricultural land. Therefore this boon is one for the urban owner more than for the agricultural owner. The land of the agricultural owner has to be considered in the view of totally different circumstances. It is a general case. Agricultural land is about the only class of property of which it can be said that, as a whole, it has gone down in the course of the last 20 or 30 years. That cannot be said of urban property. In some cases it has gone down and in some cases it has gone up, but in agricultural property there has been a decrement since 1879. Therefore, some Amendment has got to be devised—and I do not despair of its being devised—which will cover the case of agricultural land. But I do not think it can be dealt with at all under this sub-section. The Government must adhere to the words in the sub-section. The concession we have made to-night is an addi- 1797 tional reason why we cannot go back from the proposal now before the Committee. I very much regret that I cannot see my way to accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. M. HICKS BEACHI would consider the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer perfectly sound if it were not possible to bring forward evidence of title. What is going to happen is this: A person who makes a claim under the sub-section will be a man who can bring forward evidence of title to the land dating back 30, 40, or 50 years; and who could prove that he or his predecessors had paid a greater sum for that particular piece of land than the price for which the Commissioners had assessed him.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEYou have got to ascertain the site value 20 years ago. To go back 50 years would be hopelessly impossible.
Mr. M. H. BEACHIf a man has a perfectly clear title to this land 50 or 60 years ago, and can prove conclusively the actual price paid and the actual kind of buildings on it, is it then fair that he should be liable to have this other value placed as a high water mark level of the price of the land? It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen to say that urban land has gone up very much in value. That is the theory of the Prime Minister, but the hon. Member for Preston could give many instances of where urban land has gone down in value during the last 20 years. If that is the case there are some grounds for giving consideration to this Amendment, and putting in a larger number than 20 years. I think it likely that putting in 30 instead of 20 would not meet the case of agricultural land. But I trust that before very long we shall see brought forward as a Government Amendment some wording that will meet the case of agricultural land. We have tried to get the right hon. Gentleman to say straightforwardly that he is going to exempt agricultural land, but so far we have failed to do so. I only hope that before very long there will be some straightforward Amendment on this point. But so far as I am concerned, this particular Amendment deals with the urban land, and I venture to impress on the right hon. Gentleman that if he accepts it he will be only doing justice to a great many owners of land in urban districts.
§ Mr. E. J. SOARESThe Chancellor of the Exchequer has just made an important 1798 statement. I understood him to say that a bonâ fide case of purely agricultural land shall be exempted from Increment Duty. If that be so, I think it will be satisfactory to all of us who represent agricultural constituencies and take an interest in the matter, because what it will mean will be this: That the agricultural value of all land is exempt from Increment Tax. If I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer aright I shall be very glad to hear him say so.
§ Mr. F. B. MILDMAYThe hon. Gentleman who has just spoken seemed to be anxious to express his satisfaction with a pledge which the Government, he presumed, were ready to give with regard to agricultural land. It is quite true the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that he wishes to meet the case of agricultural land in this connection. What he has done is to invite suggestions of an Amendment to give effect to his contention; but in the absence of any Amendment we, who represent agricultural constituencies, are bound to consider the effect of the provisions of the Bill as they stand at the present moment. It is true that I have an Amendment lower down on the Paper suggesting 40 instead of 20, but I prefer the Amendment we are now discussing. All who have to do with agricultural land will know the extent to which it has depreciated in value since the "seventies," and those who have bought land since that time have suffered considerable loss. The Government, by laying down that the value of land is to be taken at its lowest price, propose, so to speak, to stereotype it at its present price. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has, in effect, admitted that this would not be fair, and in his Budget statement he recognised how hard is the lot of those who have invested their money in agricultural land. It seems to me that on this Amendment the right hon. Gentleman is afforded an opportunity of translating those expressions of goodwill into action, and it is an opportunity which I should have hoped he would not have neglected. Many hon. Members seem to forget that the great bulk of agricultural land in this country has changed hands by sale and purchase within comparatively recent years. Is it not just that the owner of such land should be entitled to refer back to such transactions where he has definite proof of the same and should be able to save himself the great cost which the valuation would throw upon him?
1799 In this Bill the Chancellor of the Exchequer acts on this principle when it suits him and means the advantage of the State. He has told us he wishes to preserve to the owner the present value of the land, but in the case of reversion he departs from that principle and goes back to the time when the leasehold interest in the land last changed hands by purchase. If this is just in one case, we have a right to ask that in the case of Increment Duty the owner should be able to cite the price originally given for the land. Speaking on July 5th, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he could not follow a principle when it brought in money for the State and refuse to follow it when it did not bring in money. It is therefore incumbent on him to be consistent in the matter and to allow owners of land to refer back to the price given for the land where they have irrefutable proof of the same. It is obvious that the limit of twenty years is bound to operate very harshly, and doubtless many hon. Members will have concrete instances of this. I, myself, have certain property in Devonshire, bought in 1876, and since 1880, when decrement first began in connection with agricultural land in that district, there has been a fall of at least 30 per cent, in rental value, while the expense of keeping up estates has greatly increased. Rates are much higher than they used to be, and in consequence of all these things there has been an immense depreciation in the capital value of this land, as, indeed, in the case of most agricultural land in this country. I hold that it is most unfair to take the recent value of agricultural land as the basis of value for the future, and I regret very much that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not see his way to accept this Amendment.
§ Mr. R. L. EVERETTWhen I read this sub-section it was a part of the Bill which gave me unmitigated pleasure. Here was some attempt made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to fulfil the promise so emphatically made by him and the Prime Minister that the recovery value of agricultural land was not intended to be charged the Increment Duty, and, in so far as land has changed hands by sale in the last 50 years, if you turn 20 into 50, the object I am referring to would be thoroughly assured in regard to that land. Those of us who are acquainted with the history of agricultural land know that the time when it began distinctly to go up 1800 in value was in the "fifties," while through the "sixties" and the "seventies" it was of rising value. The high prices for land were obtained in the "sixties" and "seventies," when we thought the value would never go down again. We have been rudely undeceived in regard to that, and we have seen an enormous fall in value proceeding through a period of 30 years. To go back 20 years would be no assistance at all in regard to agricultural land. If the Government change 20 years into 50 years, however, and allow those who bought land in the "sixties" and "seventies" to have the value which was then given for it taken as a basis of the site value, it would thoroughly protect agricultural land from having its recovery assessed to Increment Tax. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now said has a good side to it, because if he made the 20 years into 50 it would protect those interested in agricultural land which had changed hands in the "sixties" and "seventies," but it would not protect the recovery of agricultural land which had not been sold in that period. I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say he is prepared to adopt a form of words which will ensure that agricultural land shall be protected from being assessed to Increment Tax on its recovery. I do not care very much what becomes of this Amendment so long as we emphasise the promise which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has distinctly made to us, and which is confirmatory of the promise made by the Prime Minister. I simply rise to express my satisfaction that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given us this emphatic promise, and to say that we hope that in the next few days words will be introduced to carry out his intention in a manner beyond all contradiction.
§ Mr. BURDETT-COUTTSI am somewhat jealous that the discussion of this Amendment should be monopolised by agricultural Members, particularly as the Chancellor of the Exchequer especially said that this concession was intended to apply to urban land. It is exactly in its application to urban land that I think that the limit of 20 years is entirely unsound and will lead to great and manifest injustice. I believe I am right in stating that a round 20 years ago—that is from 20 to 40 years and perhaps under 20 years— there were really more transactions in urban land than at any time since, and I do not know how the Government can 1801 justify a proposal which selects for the concession a certain man who bought his land 20 years ago and yet lays a penalty upon a man who bought his land 21, 22, 23 or 30 years ago. There seems to me to be no justice at all in such a provision, and there is no practical necessity or advantage in it. Considering the great number of transactions that took place from 40 to 20 years ago, I cannot possibly see what reason can be advanced for not exempting those transactions as well as those which took place under 20 years ago. The right hon. Gentleman stated one thing which I think must have struck us all as perfectly true; he said that this exemption does break down the principle of the Bill. In that aspect I welcome the exemption because it breaks down an absurd and, I believe, unworkable principle of the Bill, viz., setting up a purely hypothetical value, The state of things with regard to urban land during the last few years, say during the last eight, nine, or ten years, has been and now is such in the building trade, and in the market for building land, that it will be extremely difficult for any fair valuation to be arrived at. The building trade has been the trade which for the last few years has absolutely filled our streets with unemployed, and the reason is that people will not buy land for building. Certainly around London there is no demand for building land. If you consult, as I have consulted over and over again, men who are in every way experts, and who have a knowledge of the transactions in building land about London, they will tell you that you cannot find builders to build even if you were to give them the ground without any ground rent. I cannot see why the concession should be fixed at this particular period of 20 years. I have not heard the slightest justification for treating land bought 20 years ago differently from land bought 25 or 30 years ago. Therefore I support the Amendment.
§ Mr. LAURENCE HARDYI was very sorry to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer say he could not accept one of the numerous other Amendments on the paper, especially the one increasing the number of years to 40 years. I think he, himself, admitted that 40 years is the right limit, if you are to put any limit at all, in connection with agricultural land. It is impossible to fix it at any shorter period because it is just in the years between 1869 and 1879 that the fair 1802 recovery of rents can be placed. Looking at the Bill as it stands, and apart from whatever Amendment may be before us in the future, we cannot now admit that this section 4 is an attempt to deal with urban land. When the Bill was drafted it was no doubt intended to deal with agricultural land because there were no other means of dealing with agricultural land. Now a boon is given, it is very hard that that boon should be in a form which absolutely excludes agricultural land from any benefit at all. I maintain that in this particular boon agricultural land has a right to consideration, and, therefore, it is not just to fix the period so that it cannot do any good at all to agricultural land. I had an instance sent to me to-day which is a very remarkable one and goes beyond any figure that could possibly be devised. In the year 1874 there was a large estate in Kent passed for the sum of £262,000. Seven years ago that same estate was valued in probate at £36,000. That is, perhaps, an exaggerated decrement, but it is certainly rather hard upon the owner of that estate that he should be left out altogether from any advantage of that enormous fall, and should start at a period when the land had declined to a very low value indeed. This loan as drafted does not apply to agricultural land, and, therefore, I think, we have some reason to complain that the period should be stated at such a period as not to give the same advantage to agricultural land as is now stated to apply to urban land. For that reason I am very sorry to hear the decision of the Chancellor, and I hope he will reconsider it.
§ Mr. RYLAND ADKINSThis Amendment has been supported on two distinct lines of argument—an argument referring to urban land and an argument referring to rural land. I cannot say I am convinced by any of the arguments addressed to the Committee that there is any great case for urban land. The concession seriously affects this part of the Bill, and I think even such an instance as that mentioned by the hon. Member who has just spoken would be afforded a very considerable concession. I only regret that the concession is not received with more extensive gratitude than appears. With regard to the other line of argument, I think it would be a great mistake if those who are anxious to see purely agricultural land entirely exempt to lay stress upon this Amendment, or to imagine that by any modification of this Amendment they 1803 are going to secure that desirable end. We have had from the Chancellor to-night an extremely valuable statement that bara cases of purely agricultural land shall be exempt. That surely means that no Increment Duty shall be charged so far as the site value of the land is due to the value of the land for agricultural purposes.
§ Mr. PRETYMANThat is exactly the form of the Amendment which was rejected.
§ Mr. ADKINSWith great respect to the hon. and gallant Member I think it is not precisely the Amendment which was rejected. My recollection differs from his, and I have some ground for thinking that this does differ substantially, because this is dealing not with agricultural land, but with agricultural value. I know the hon. and gallant Member used the phrase "agricultural value" in one of his Amendments and in several of his interesting and instructive speeches, but I do retain my opinion that this is not the same as the Amendment rejected. At any rate, it does not affect the argument I am addressing to the Committee, that you must deal with agricultural value as an entirely different matter, and not try to get what a large number of Members desire by means of an Amendment like this. The only other excuse which appears to be made to try and enlarge this Amendment in the interests of agricultural land is the suggestion that there is no place near this part of the Bill in which an Amendment in favour of agricultural value is possible. I should have thought room would have been made so as to carry out the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman a few minutes ago by means of a fifth section to this clause. That, I believe, is the proper place and the proper way, and although I fully share in the praise on both sides for the special treatment of purely agricultural land when used for agricultural purposes, and with regard to pure agricultural value, I think that will not be helped but hindered by attempts to enlarge this Amendment so as to make it at once unworkable in practice and far too extensive in its scope.
§ Mr. W. PEELI cannot go into any hypothetical fifth section, but, of course, the difficulty that arises no doubt is that all kinds of rent are lumped together in this so-called concession. I have, later on, an Amendment giving 40 years' exemption 1804 to agricultural land, because I entirely agree with what has been already said that 20 years is no concession at all, but is an absolute mockery. I put down 40 years, because the great fall took place in the "seventies," and 40 years just carries us over the "seventies," and gives some sort of protection or exemption to agricultural land. Hon. Members opposite seem to be thoroughly satisfied with the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but to my mind these concessions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are rather like ghosts, about which you hear a great deal, but which you never see. Another objection the Chancellor of the Exchequer made to the 40 years was that it would be rather difficult to find the site value, but there is such an immense amount of guesswork and speculation about the whole of this Bill that I do not think it would put a greater strain upon the imaginative faculties of the valuers than would many other portions of the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that urban land rose and fell. That is the first statement I have heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer deliberately throwing over the statement of the Prime Minister that the rise in the price of land was continuous and progressive. He has already thrown it over in the case of agricultural land, and now he has thrown it over in the case of urban land, so that the whole case of this clause has been entirely disposed of by the admission of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The EARL of KERRYLike other hon. Members on this side, I was very much surprised when I heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer say just now that this section was intended to apply to urban land. We all thought that it was originally intended to apply to agricultural land, but, as my hon. Friend who has just sat down has said, we have been told by the Prime Minister that the increment on urban land was continuous and progressive, so that, if that is so, there cannot be any object whatever from the point of view of hon. Members who sit opposite in giving this boon to urban land. I should like to urge the necessity of this boon in the case of agricultural land, for we have been told by the Government that it is their intention to exempt agricultural land from the recovery value, and if that is really so surely it is the simplest way of exempting land to give a time limit beyond which the recovery value will not be recoverable, and if the limit were put at 35 years, or, better still, 40 years, that would include 1805 the time during which agricultural land has fallen so heavily in value. That would very largely meet the case of those who object to the increment value from the agricultural point of view. It is common knowledge that agricultural land began to fall in the early "seventies," and that the great fall in the land was from about the year 1874 to the year 1880. I thought, from the point of view of the Government themselves, that it would have been good policy to give us this statutory limitation, that it would have very largely disarmed the Opposition to the tax from the agricultural interest, and would have more or less covered the ground of the exemptions which the Government have proposed to give us. For those reasons I shall support this Amendment if it is pressed.
Mr. STANLEY WILSONI understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that urban land nearly always goes up in value. I can give him an instance in which urban land has not gone up in value. It happened in the case of a near relative of mine who 26 years ago purchased land at £200 per acre; but if at the present moment that land were put into the market it certainly would not fetch more
§ than £100 per acre. It will be a very great hardship if the original site value is to be placed at £100 per acre. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give his attention to this particular point, because this is an instance I can vouch for—an instance where urban land has decreased and not increased in price.
§ Mr. ROWLAND HUNTI should like to give a case that I happen to know pretty well. It is the case of property that was bought for £44,000 in 1882. The owner died about ten years afterwards, and Death Duties were paid, and a few years afterwards the then owner wanted to sell the property, and he could not even get £32,000. As we have no part of the Bill that helps us, with regard to agricultural land in this matter, we certainly ought to press this Amendment to a division, as this is at present, at all events, the only part of the Bill which is likely to help us in the matter of agricultural land.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out ['within twenty years'] stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 168; Noes, 60.
1807| Division No. 274.] | AYES. | [1.35 a.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Crossley, William J. | Hyde, Clarendon G. |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Jenkins, J. |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Agnew, George William | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.) | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Laidlaw, Robert |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Dobson, Thomas W. | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Lambert, George |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Lamont, Norman |
| Barnard, E. B. | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Lehmann, R. C. |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Elibank, Master of | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Beauchamp, E. | Evans, Sir S. T. | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Ferens, T. R. | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David |
| Bennett, E. N. | Fuller, John Michael F. | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.) | Mackarness, Frederic C. |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Maclean, Donald |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Geech, George Peabody (Bath) | Macnmara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Brace, William | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Macpherson, J. T. |
| Bramsdon, Sir T. A. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) |
| Brodie, H. C. | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Brooke, Stopford | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.) | Mond, A. |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Morrell, Philip |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Hedges, A. Paget | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Helme, Norval Watson | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Hemmerde, Edward George | Nussey, Sir Willans |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | O'Grady, J. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Clough, William | Higham, John Sharp | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Habart, Sir Robert | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Cooper, G. J. | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Pointer, J. |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Hodge, John | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Hooper, A. G. | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Horniman, Emslie John | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Hudson, Walter | Radford, G. H. |
| Rainy, A. Rolland | Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford) | Walsh, Stephen |
| Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Silcock, Thomas Ball | Walters, John Tudor |
| Rendall, Athelstan | Soares, Ernest J. | Waring, Walter |
| Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth) | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Ridsdale, E. A. | Strachey, Sir Edward | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Robinson, S. | Summerbell, T. | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Rogers, F. E. Newman | Thomasson, Franklin | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Rose, Sir Charles Day | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. | Tomkinson, James | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | |
| Seddon, J. | Verney, F. W. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Seely, Colonel | Vivian, Henry | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y S. Edm'ds) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Haddock, George B. | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. |
| Ashley, W. W. | Hamilton, Marquess of | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Ratcliff, Major R. F. |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Renton, Leslie |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Helmsley, Viscount | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.) |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Hunt, Rowland | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Kerry, Earl of | Stanier, Beville |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Lambton, Hon. Frederick William | Starkey, John R. |
| Cave, George | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | Walrond Hon. Lionel |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Morpeth, Viscount | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Morrison-Bell, Captain | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers | Newdegate, F. A. | Younger, George |
| Foster, Philip S. | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | |
| Gardner, Ernest | Oddy, John James | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. H. W. Forster and Lord Balcarres. |
| Guinness, H. R. (Haggerston) | Parkes, Ebenezer |
Question, "That the words proposed be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI move to omit the words "amount then paid by him for the purchase of the land," and to insert the words "total value of the fee simple of the land, as calculated upon the basis of the value of the consideration then given." This is purely consequential, to meet the case of the interest in land.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDMay I take it that this Amendment puts, in proper words, the Amendment I have lower down on the Amendment paper?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThat is so.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD moved to insert after the word "land" ["paid by him for the purchase of the land"] the words "or in case the land was on such purchase included in a larger area so purchased when the proportion reasonably fixed by the Commissioners as applicable to the land in question." I suggest that this is an Amendment which the Government clearly ought to accept 1808 for this reason: that the whole basis of the clause as that if a piece of land has been bought and a certain sum paid for it, and the land has then gone down, where the land in question was included in a larger area, then a proportion should be taken to be applicable to the piece in question. I will not labour the point, because it is a simple one.
§ Sir W. ROBSONI think the hon. Member will find that the higher proportion covers whatever is necessary in cases of this kind; that is, the higher proportion in section (3), which extends to the original site value. All that is being done by section (4) is to substitute for the original site value this other sum which is paid.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDIf it is clear that the power of apportionment which is in the clause to which the learned Attorney-General refers has reference to the original site value, and will also apply to the supposed site value taken from the purchase date of 18 or 19 years before, then, of course, there is nothing in my Amendment.
§ Sir W. ROBSONPerhaps it will be safer for me to say that the matter shall be considered. I am not quite certain upon it.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI accept the suggestion that the matter should be considered, and ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. YOUNGER moved to insert after the word "land" ["paid by him for the purchase of the land"] the words "together with the value of works of a permanent character executed since such purchase or acquisition." It is not necessary to argue this Amendment at all because it is very obvious that these words or some such words ought to be added here, in order to make certain that works of a permanent character shall be taken into consideration, as well as the original purchase price. It is a common thing in buying land or buildings, urban or otherwise, to buy at a price which includes dilapidations. In the Frankfort instance the right hon. Gentleman will remember that there they have added the permanent improvements, and I think they ought to be added here.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIf the hon. Member is willing to move the words later down, in another form, I shall be prepared to accept them. I think substantially it is an Amendment which might be accepted. We do not want to charge in respect of any permanent works. It should come in after the word "Act" ["adopted for the purpose of this part of the Act"], by inserting the words "after deducting any part of that value which is attributable to works of a permanent character executed by the purchaser."
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINWill the right hon. Gentleman read the words of the section down to the word "Act" as they stand after his last Amendment. We do not know what are the words of the section.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE"Where the owner of the fee simple of any land, or any person entitled to an interest in the land, proves to the Commissioners that he, or any of his predecessors in title, has acquired for a consideration, being money or money's worth, the fee simple of or interest in the land within 20 years before the 30th day of April, 1909, and the total value of the fee simple of the land as calculated on the basis of the consideration then 1810 given exceeds the total value of the land as first adopted for the purposes of this part of this Act."
§ Mr. YOUNGERThat is not a deduction. It would be an addition, would it not? I do not think these are quite the right words.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI think the hon. Member is quite wrong. This is a deduction from the original site value.
§ Mr. YOUNGERI want to add the permanent improvements to the purchase price in order to get a proper basis to start with. You want to deduct them, for some reason which I cannot understand, and you make things worse instead of better.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYI have pointed out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if he deducts the value of permanent improvements from the original site value he will increase the Increment Duty which would become payable.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIn one case you would add them and in the other case you would deduct them. It clearly comes to the same thing whether you deduct them from the original site value or add them to the purchase price.
§ Mr. YOUNGERIt may or may not be so, because the original site value to start with is a subtraction. If you take these improvements as they stand, and deduct them from the original site value, I do not see how you are to get a proper basis.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe original site value is the figure of which you have to make a comparison. So long as liberty is reserved to the Government to alter the position of the words, if required, I do not care whether they come in after the word "land" or "Act." I am advised by the draughtsman, however, that the only way to make them read is by putting them after "Act."
§ Mr. PRETYMANIt is extraordinarily difficult to have to discuss the effect of words added after an Amendment which is not on the Paper, and which completely alters the verbiage of the clause down to the point at which the Committee have arrived. If the Government make it perfectly clear, however, that words in the sense of the Amendment of my hon. Friend will be added in favour of the subject, I think we had better leave the matter for the moment, and deal with it later.
§ Mr. YOUNGERI think that is the only possible way of getting out of the difficulty, and I am quite prepared to accept the right hon. Gentleman's promise.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINOn a point of order. I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer's suggestion was that my hon. Friend (Mr. Younger) should withdraw his Amendment from the place where he originally intended to insert it and move it after "Act," the right hon. Gentleman undertaking to put the matter right if it was proved on further consideration that this was not the proper place for it. I think we had better have the words in.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI think the right hon. Gentleman is right, and that the hon. Member for Ayr should move now.
§ Mr. YOUNGERI move after "Act" ["total value of the land as first adopted for the purposes of this part of this Act"] to insert "after deducting any part of that value which is attributable to works of a permanent character executed after purchase or acquisition." Of course, I do not believe in these words at all. I should much prefer to say "after the addition of any part of that value which is attributable to works of a permanent character executed after purchase or acquisition."
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI have simply accepted the Amendment.
§ Viscount HELMSLEY moved, after the word "Act" ["for the purposes of this part of this (Act)"] to insert the words "or where the mortgagee of any land proves that he or any of his predecessors in title has advanced upon the mortgage of the land an amount which exceeds the total value."
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDThis is the first time in the Bill we have met with the question of the mortgagee, and it is quite clear that nowhere in the Bill is a mortgagee distinctly made liable for any duty. If, by the insertion of these words, a beneficiary, or anyone else, could bring about a case where a mortgagee might be called upon to pay Increment Duty simply because he has lent money upon mortgage upon property at some anterior period, then it appears to me that it is time for 1812 the whole commercial interests in this country to object very strongly. For the first time in the taxation of this country we have got a tax upon a thing and not upon a person. In the case of the Death Duty the duty is only paid by the beneficiary who actually gets the property, and if there should be a charge upon it the beneficiary gets the benefit of the charge, and only pays upon the exact amount that comes to him. If it is real estate he pays upon it after deducting the amount of the mortgage; he pays upon what he really gets. But the mortgagee is in an altogether different position. My attention was very forcibly called to this last week by a case in point——
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEDoes the hon. Gentleman know that I am accepting the Amendment?
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDYes, and I know it is a very serious thing to accept this Amendment. I am opposing it if the effect is going to be that, through the beneficiary, or in any other way, the mortgagee can be made liable for the duty that may have accrued through the death, for instance, of the mortgagor.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI submit that this is an Amendment which exempts the mortgagee in the event of the amount which he has advanced exceeding the amount of the original value.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI take it the Chancellor says that this is an Amendment to exempt a mortgagee from having to pay under certain circumstances. I contend that the effect of putting in that exemption in favour of a mortgagee so that he should not have to pay under certain circumstances would in-ferentially cause it to be taken that the mortgagee would become liable under other circumstances.
§ Sir W. ROBSONOn a point of order. All that this Amendment proposes to do is to substitute the amount of the mortgage from the original site value in cases where a greater sum has been advanced by a mortgagee than was the amount of the original site value. It does not impose, or exempt from, taxes on the mortgagee. It simply says that where there has been, many years before, a larger sum advanced than that advanced by way of original site value, the larger sum shall be substituted. The hon. Member is arguing on a point which is wholly foreign to the Amendment.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDIf we are to insert an Amendment which gives the mortgagee power to go and prove certain things in order to get relief, inferentially that would mean that the mortgagee is under other circumstances liable to pay the duty. I mention a case where property bought 50 years ago for £15,000 was, at the date of the man's death six months' ago, worth £20,000, and the property was equitably mortgaged to the bank. The man left no estate, but £600 of debts and £500 worth of furniture to pay them with. He has to pay £1,000 duty under this Bill because of the increment of £5,000. That duty is payable, and the man cannot pay it because he is dead and has not left £1,000. Under the circumstances has the mortgagee got to pay it? I ask the Attorney-General, between now and when this point will be properly discussed, to take it into his consideration. He will find there is a great deal more in it than he at present thinks.
§ Mr. PRETYMANMay I ask this plain and simple question: Are there any circumstances under this Bill in which the mortgagee can become liable for Increment Duty?
§ Sir W. ROBSONI should say none.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINIt is rather difficult to follow this complicated matter, but if, as I suppose, the Attorney-General is right, and the mortgagee cannot be called upon to pay any Increment Duty, then surely the mortgagee has no locus standi and is not concerned in the matter. When the mortgagee has foreclosed and become the owner, then it would affect the mortgagee; but, in the meantime, whether the mortgagee has foreclosed or not you are taking the amount of the mortgage in those circumstances as being the original site value. Where the mortgagee has not foreclosed and become the owner, then it is the owner—that is to say, the mortgagor-who has the interest in the matter and not the mortgagee. I think the Attorney-General agrees with me, though the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not, and I fancy my Noble Friend does not. It is rather difficult to carry the matter further at this stage. So far as I am concerned, I am quite content if the Government will undertake, as I am sure they will, having accepted the Amendment of my Noble Friend, to look at the point which I have raised 1814 when they are fresh in the morning, and amend the Amendment if necessary.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEAs I understand it, this is where you protect the interests of the mortgagee who has-advanced a considerable sum of money on land which has depreciated. It is true that it goes up afterwards. If it had not been for this protection you might lose money and a considerable part of the purchase money might be taken in the form of Increment Duty. This is a protection where the Increment Duty should not be taken out of the purchase money to that extent. It is a protection really to the mortgagee.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINIt is also a protection to the mortgagor. It must necessarily be. If the amount of the mortgage is higher than the value that be otherwise taken, it is quite truly a protection to the mortgagee, but it is also a protection for the mortgagor. If the mortgagor dies and his interest passes without any change in the mortgage, I think the wording will have to be altered, though I quite agree that we cannot do it now.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI will undertake on Report to consider whether it is necessary to alter the words in order to cover that case.
§ Mr. CAVEThis point about the mortgage is rather important, because, as I read the Bill, the mortgagee will have to pay in every case. I may be wrong, but until the hon. and learned Gentleman said the opposite, I thought the mortgagee would have to pay, because he is the owner of the land, subject to a right of redemption, and under the Bill the duty is made a first charge on the land, and therefore it comes upon the mortgagee. If the contrary is intended the Bill should be altered to make it clear in that respect. I agree that if you put in words exempting the mortgagee in one case, you may by implication show that he is liable in another case. Therefore, it is extremely dangerous to my mind to put in this Amendment unless you make it absolutely clear that in every case he is not liable. The whole thing is getting into such a tangle that I certainly think the Government should reconsider this clause. I have another observation of substance to make. In dealing with purchase, you have specially exempted the case of improvements made by the 1815 purchaser since his purchase. Then you ought to make the same provision in dealing with the mortgagee, and I think you ought to add words intended to provide that in the case of the mortgagee the duty shall not come upon improvements made since the mortgage was effected. The Bill ought not to pass in this shape.
§ Sir SAMUEL SCOTTWill the right hon. Gentleman also consider the question of the smaller builder who buys a site and has to borrow on mortgage. He has great difficulty in raising the interest, and cannot get rid of his land. I have an Amendment dealing with that question, and I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in considering this matter he will bear in mind the case of the small builders who borrow their money on mortgage, otherwise this Bill will have a very serious deterrent effect and stop a large amount of land purchase.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI will consider that point.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to omit the words "amount so paid for the purchase of the land" ["having regard to the amount so paid for the purchase of the land, was at the time of the purchase the site value of the land"] and to insert the words "total value so calculated for fee simple of the amount advanced on mortgage, as the case requires."
§ Mr. LAMBTON had given notice of a new section (5)—"For the purposes of Increment Value Duty, land does not include the minerals underneath the surface of the land.
The CHAIRMANI am of opinion that that subject could be introduced on Clause 15 ["Application of provisions as to total and site value to minerals"].
§ Mr. LAMBTONAm I to understand that the Government will introduce the Amendment on Clause 15? Otherwise, is this Amendment now out of order?
§ Mr. LAMBTONThere was a distinct understanding that unless this Amend- 1816 ment could be introduced on Clause 14 or Clause 15 it would be taken to-night. I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI could not support my hon. Friend's Motion to report Progress now. But surely the Government could give an undertaking that the Amendment will be taken at a reasonable hour on Clause 15. The Prime Minister recognised the importance of the subject, and was willing that an opportunity should be given to discuss the matter at a reasonable hour.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI agree that this is a question which certainly ought to be discussed. There was some difficulty about discussing it on Clause 1, and it was put off till Clause 2. Then there was a long discussion as to whether it should not come on Clause 14, and now the Chairman rules that it can be taken on Clause 15. I assume that what the right hon. Gentleman wants is to have it come on at a reasonable hour?
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINWe could not at this late hour proceed with it.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGENo; I do not think it would be fair. As far as the Government can arrange matters, we shall certainly do our best to see that the matter comes on at a reasonable hour.
§ Mr. LAURENCE HARDYIf the Government drops Clause 12, it practically means the dropping of Clause 15, on which this Amendment can be raised. According to advice we get from outside, the clause on which we might raise this question may be removed from the Bill. It is necessary for us to get a strong pledge from the Government that this question can be raised, or we may find ourselves in the difficulty of having no opportunity to raise it.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEMay I submit to the hon. Member that it will be quite impossible to lose that opportunity? The Government cannot get rid of Clause 12 or Clause 15 without having a Motion before the House, which will enable hon. Gentlemen to debate the whole question.
The CHAIRMANPerhaps I may point out in regard to this matter that the clause cannot be cut out of the Bill until there has been a chance of moving Amendments. In regard to this particular matter, on Clause 27, the definition 1817 clause, a similar Amendment could be moved if there were any difficulty about Clause 15.
§ Mr. LAMBTONI ask leave to withdraw the Motion to report Progress. My object was to give the Government facilities, because we were ready at any time.
§ Motion to report Progress, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Question proposed, "That the Clause as amended stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to again sit."
§ Motion agreed to; Committee to sit again this day.
§ And, it being after half-past Eleven of the clock on Monday evening, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put in pursuance of the Standing Order.
§ Adjourned at Seventeen minutes before Three a.m. (Tuesday, l3th July).