§ (1) On each occasion on which Increment Value Duty is collected on the increment value of any land, such an amount of duty shall be deemed to be due as the Commissioners determine, having regard to the amount of duty paid on previous occasions.
§ (2) Where Increment Value Duty is collected on the occasion of the transfer or passing on death of the fee simply in possession of any land, or on any periodical occasion in the case of land held in fee simple in possession by a body corporate or unincorporate, the whole amount of the duty which is determined to be due shall be collected.
§ (3) When Increment Value Duty is collected on the occasion of the grant of a lease, or on the transfer or passing on death of any interest in land, or on any periodical occasion in the case of an interest in land held by a body corporate or unincorporate, such proportionate part of the amount of the duty which is due shall be collected as may be determined by the Commissioners to be payable in respect of the interest in land created, transferred, passing on death, or held, in accordance with rules made by them for the purpose.
§ (4) Increment Value Duty shall be a Stamp Duty collected and recovered in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
The CHAIRMANThe Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for West 1930 Edinburgh (Mr. Clyde) is similar to an Amendment already negatived.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEIs it not in order to move the omission of section (1)? The point I should urge is that the ground is already covered.
The CHAIRMANI think it would be in order to move its omission on the ground that the section is unnecessary. As I understand it, to take out section (1) would make nonsense of the clause; but if the hon. Member wishes seriously to urge that it is not required that will be in order.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEmoved to leave out section (1).
It seems to me that these words come in rather strangely in view of what has been done on Clauses 1 and 2. For instance, Clause 1 says,"…there shall be charged, levied, and paid on the increment value of any land a duty, called Increment Value Duty…"; it proceeds to say when the duty shall become due, and then says, "and on each of those occasions the duty, or proportionate part of the duty, due, so far as it has not been paid on any previous occasion, shall be collected in accordance with the provisions of this Act." Then Clause 2 defines increment value in explanation of Clause 1. Reading the last lines of Clause 1 and the exegesis of increment value in Clause 2, one would think the matter had been sufficiently defined; but when you come to Clause 3, it states, "On each occasion on which Increment Value 1931 Duty is collected on the increment value of any land, such an amount of duty shall be deemed to be due as the Commissioners determine, having regard to the amount of duty paid on previous occasions." Those last words occur also at the end of Clause 1, and would appear to cover the point. Now, after we have laboriously gone through Clauses 1 and 2, section (1) of Clause 3 would seem to give the Commissioners an overriding authority to alter and perhaps reverse what the Legislature has already decided by Clauses 1 and 2 shall be done. I suppose that these words are not mere surplusage; they must have been put in for some definite reason, but it is not apparent on the face of it what that reason is, and in order to get an explanation I beg to move the omission of the section.
The CHAIRMANI really do not quite understand the proposal of the hon. Member. If he wishes to amend the section he should move to amend it.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI wish to move to reject it as unnecessary, and, pending an explanation from the Government, I beg to do so.
§ Sir W. ROBSONIt does seem quite clear that the hon. Member's Amendment would reduce this clause to nonsense. By the observations which have just been made he shows that he does not understand——
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEThat is exactly my point. I want to understand.
§ Sir W. ROBSONClause 1 says that Increment Value Duty shall become due on certain occasions. Clause 2 defines Increment Value Duty. Clause 3, which is a clause that the hon. Member says is surplusage, says that the Commissioners are to fix that value. That is not provided for in Clause 1 nor Clause 2. It is only provided for in this sub-section to Clause 3. Unless that direction be given somewhere in the Bill—and this is the place to give it —you cannot get anyone to fix your Increment Value Duty. This is an essential subsection, and, being essential, it is out of order for its deletion to be moved.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEOn that point of order, may I call attention to the fact that the first clause says "there shall be charged, levied, and paid."
§ Viscount HELMSLEYFor the general guidance of the Committee, may I in- 1932 quire whether we are to understand that an Amendment is in or out of order according to the sense in which it is argued?
The CHAIRMANIf I were always to rule on what I understand to be the strict meaning of the words, I should vlery often have to rule Amendments out of order that I allow to be argued in a certain way. In my opinion this is convenient to the Committee. It is absolutely indispensable in regard to matters of this kind that there should be some discretion left in the hands of the Chairman. I certainly cannot lend myself to allow discussions on these subsections simply to ask what they mean. It is a habit which I think is very detrimental to our work. I therefore cannot take this Amendment.
The CHAIRMANruled out of order the Amendments standing in the names of the hon. Members for Brighton (Mr. Rids-dale) and Barkston Ash (Mr. Lane-Fox).
§ Mr. PRETYMANOn a point of order, the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed in principle to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Brighton. It was withdrawn on that understanding.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI appealed to the hon. Member to withdraw it, on the ground- that it was trenching upon later ground, and that it would be quite impossible to raise the same issue again if the Committee decided it. He wished to withdraw it, but hon. Members on the opposite side of the House refused to give him leave and divided upon it.
The CHAIRMANI find that in Clause 8—that is the reversion part of the Bill—there is a retrospective statement dealing with the effect of increment value, and the Reversion Duty being paid. That being the case, it was quite evident that an Amendment on the lines of the hon. Member for Barkston Ash can be moved when we come to the Reversion and Un developed Duty, and so on. In Clause 8 there are provisions for dealing with the interaction of the Increment Value and Reversion Duties. When we come to the Undeveloped Land Duty part of the Bill, then we can have Amendments dealing with the interaction of the Undeveloped Land Duty and Increment Value Duty. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Brighton raises the same point as the Attorney-General, and is in order.
§ Sir W. ROBSON moved to leave out the words "having regard to" ["having regard to the amount of duty paid on previous occasions"], and to insert "after giving credit for." This is a verbal change. The words as they now stand are somewhat vague. They are not explicit or categorical enough.
§ Question put, "That the words 'after giving credit' stand part of the clause."
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI should like to point out that the words already in the clause are better words than those proposed, because, if you give credit for the whole amount of the duties that have been already paid, it is quite obvious you will get into a serious difficulty at once. There may have been duties paid upon all kinds of occasions, and on altogether different pieces of land. I have given some study to these particular words, and I thought they were uncommonly well chosen.
§ Sir W. ROBSONThe hon. Member rather anticipates difficulties that are not likely strictly to arise out of these words. If any question arises on the question of apportionment of the amounts, I think it can be raised by subsequent Amendment. I intended to deal with it myself when I came to it.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEYou did not say so.
§ Sir W. ROBSONI propose to insert words dealing with this very question of apportionment. I think when we come to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. James Mason) that will be the proper place for some such words to be inserted.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDThe explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman is all very well as far as it goes, but I am perfectly certain of this, that if you put in further words here about apportionment, having already passed a set of words with regard to apportionment, and discuss the merits of these words on the basis of a manuscript Amendment, which we have not seen, but which is going to be proposed three or four lines further down, it is leading us to a very difficult position, out of which I can scarcely see my way. With considerable trouble I took this section, and tried to make some reasonable provision in the English language for words which adequately met the different kinds of apportionment, which it would be required to 1934 have some regard to. I gave it up as a bad job. But the Attorney-General has advantages of draftmanship and advice, and, I have no doubt, a great deal more leisure than I have got. He has designed the set of words which he has told us he is going to move at the end of section (4). I can only follow with very great difficulty. I appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman to leave the words alone that are in this section, and to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEWill the Attorney-General tell us why, in view of the concluding words of Clause 1, these new words are necessary at all? Those concluding words are: "On each of these occasions the duty, or proportionate part of the duty due, so far as it has not been paid on any previous occasion, shall be collected in accordance with the provisions of this Act."
And it being a quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being private business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.