§ Increment Value Duty shall not be collected on any periodical occasion in respect of the fee simple of or any interest in any land which is held by any body corporate or unincorporate, without any view to the payment of any dividend or profit out of the revenue thereof, bonâ fide for the purpose of games or other recreation, if the Commissioners are satisfied that the land is so used under some agreement with the owner which as originally made could not be determined for a period of at least five years or under other circumstances which render it probable that the land will continue to be so used, without prejudice, however, to the collection of the duty on any other occasion.
§ Mr. EVELYN CECILmoved, after the words "collected on," to insert the words "death or." I desire later to move to leave out the words "held by any body corporate or unincorporate without any view to the payment of any dividend or profit out of the revenue thereof" and to insert instead thereof the word "used."
The effect of these Amendments will be that the Clause will read as follows: "Increment Value Duty shall not be collected on death or any periodical occasion in respect of the fee simple of or any interest in any land which is used bonâ fide for the purpose of games or other recreation," etc. The object of this Amendment is to put the individual, as regards Increment Value Duty on football and cricket grounds in the same position as the Government propose to put any body, corporate or unincorporate. I represent a football constituency, and therefore have a special interest in this question. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government should wish to make any difference between the individual and a body corporate or unincorporate. After all, the playing of football and cricket is a public purpose, and if the Government propose that a company without any view to the payment of any dividend or profit out of the revenue thereof, should be exempt from Increment Value Duty when it supplies a football or cricket ground, I cannot understand why an individual who equally helps a public purpose by supplying such a ground should not also be exempt in a similar way from paying Increment Value Duty. I cannot help commenting in this relation on the 354 extremely limited nature of the exceptions which the Government are here making. If it is a good thing to make an exception at all in favour of football or cricket, for which there is a good deal to be said, I do not think they ought to curtail it and cut it down in this excessively careful fashion. If a body, corporate or unincorporate, is to be given this exemption, certainly the individual ought also to have it. I very, much regret that to a great extent what the Government appear to be giving on the one hand in favour of the playing of these and similar games they are taking away with the other hand. I do not at all follow the justice or reason of making an exception as regards bodies, corporate or unincorporate, and refusing to make an exception in favour of the individual who serves an equally useful public purpose. I earnestly ask the Government to put such an individual in the same position as the bodies corporate or unincorporate are put in this Clause.
§ Mr. BURDETT-COUTTSseconded the Amendment.
§ Mr. MASTERMANThis is an Amendment which was very fully debated in Committee, and which goes far beyond the appeal which was made to us in the name of the sporting clubs of this country, with whom I am in negotiation on this matter of exemption. They never asked, and they do not ask, in the case of an individual that at the time of his death his successors should be exempted from Increment Duty because the land happens to be used for the time being for games. What they did ask for was that where there were corporations, especially corporations for the purpose of promoting recreation, passing from the one end of the scale to the other, from such an institution as the Marylebone Cricket Club to the London Playing Fields—that where those existed they should be exempted from the ordinary corporation tax until the land is sold. I am asked why there is this distinction between the individual and the corporation. The corporation never dies, and corporations, for the most part, connected with games are holding land for the purpose of continuing games, and, indeed, we were told that there are in Scotland some corporations who hold land under trust deeds, and this land must be used for games so long as anyone wants it for that purpose, so great is the devotion to the sport in Scotland. I would point out that there are Amendments on the Paper which exempt the individual from the Undeveloped Land Duty 355 entirely if he can fulfil these conditions, either that he makes a lease of more than five years in duration or that he satisfies the Commissioners that the land will continue to be so used for games. As far as the individual is concerned, however, I would point out that there is no security that the son will carry out the desires of his father in connection with games, and that land, if we give this exemption, may escape Increment Duty altogether for a very large number of years. I think that we should not go any further than we have in meeting the demand which is made.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI really cannot follow the hon. Gentleman. No doubt the special representatives who waited on him had in their minds such cases as the Marylebone Cricket Club and similar great institutions, and I am very glad that the Government see their way to do something to meet them, but my interest is greater in the hundreds and thousands of little cricket and football clubs throughout the country. You may inflict a great hardship on a body like the Marylebone Cricket Club by your taxation, but I do not think you would prevent their having their ground or playing cricket and having the kind of matches which some of us are accustomed to see. But you may do a great injury, and you are doing a great injury under your Bill as it stands, to thousands of little football and cricket clubs, not merely in our villages, but in the neighbourhood of our great towns, and who have to play upon land which will be subject to your taxation. It is not all required for building now, but undoubtedly you put upon the owner of the land the strongest possible temptation, and, indeed, you say it is his duty to give notice to these clubs at the earliest moment that he is going to build over his land as soon as possible.
§ Mr. MASTERMANYou are referring to the Undeveloped Land Duty.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThis applies equally to the Increment Duty, but what I am referring to is that the Government say it would be unjust to impose the Undeveloped Land Duty but it is not unjust to impose the Increment Duty. Surely the two things stand together. They ought to exempt them from both or from neither. The Government defend their Bill in sections. They say here, "We will not and it would be absurd to do so," and they pass to another Clause and they say 356 there, "We will and it would be absurd not to," but they give no reasons for the distinction which they draw, and I say it is imposisble to find a reason for the distinction in this case. You cannot find a reason for refusing to do here what you do in the case of the Undeveloped Land Duty or for refusing to do for the private individual what you are doing for these corporations and companies. Why on earth the individual is to be less favourably treated than great corporations the hon. Member has not attempted to explain. I think it is impossible to justify it, and I do urge the Government, for the sake of all these playing fields, which it is difficult enough to get now, which it becomes increasingly difficult to get in the neighbourhood of our great towns, and which are so important to the youth of those towns, to the healthy life and the physique of the population, and I may say to the good conduct of the towns—I do urge the Government to reconsider their determination.
§ Sir W. ROBSONI think the right hon. Gentleman began his speech under the impression that land devoted to games and other forms of recreation would be subject in all cases to the Undeveloped Land Duty?
§ Sir W. ROBSONI think that was the case till an interruption was made, but I accept his assurance, of course.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThat would be inexcusable if I had done so, because we had just been specifically reminded that that was not so.
§ Sir W. ROBSONNow the right hon. Gentleman has chosen a much less defensible line of attack, and says, why, if in the case of undeveloped land you exempt it from the tax even in the case of individual persons, have you not done it in the case of the Increment Duty? What we have done in the case of the Increment Duty is that we have really provided that which is a bonus, if not a bonus a benefit, in the case of land which is given up to games. He speaks as if we had put some disadvantage upon owners of land in respect to so much of their land which they have devoted to games, but Increment Duty is only chargeable in the case of sales. Increment Duty is charged when you part with the land or on death, but if it is held by a body corporate it is subject to a payment of an equivalent of the Increment Duty on 357 periodical occasions. It is pointed out to us that you may have a company devoting land to games and yet be required to pay periodical duties, and we exempt it from that periodical duty; but, of course, that does not extend to the occasion when they are selling. It is very desirable in the interest of sport, I may point out, that you should charge Increment Value Duty when the land comes to be sold. I say we have done sport extremely well in this case. First, in the case of the Undeveloped Land Duty, which would fall upon the owners and would be a burden upon them, we have relieved those corporations when the land is being used for games. Then in regard to the Increment Duty, it would be a detriment or a disadvantage to the clubs which used the ground if the corporate body were compelled to pay this periodical duty. What reason is there for carrying it any further, and for exempting at death any more than we have exempted it. It would be absurd to make an exemption from this particular form of Death Duty in favour of sport or anything else.
§ Mr. W. PEELReally after listening to the Attorney-General I do not feel any wiser as to the reasons in regard to this exemption. The larger portion of the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman was directed to an Amendment which did not exist, and it is only in the last part of his speech that he dealt with an Amendment which did exist. When I listened to the speech of the Under-Secretary who opposed this first I thought the best answer to his speech was made in an ejaculatory interruption of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he said there was no exemption now to those corporations where the land was sold, and it passed away from the purpose for which it was used. The whole purpose of the hon. Gentleman's speech was that they should not exempt it in the case of death, because they did not know what the successors or heir would do with it, and that is an exact answer to that argument, because if it passes away from that purpose the exemption no long applies, and in that case what possible ground can be left for making this distinction between individuals and bodies corporate? I think it is absurd to give the exemption to the Marylebone Cricket Club, and not give it to the ordinary clubs, and if the Attorney-General thinks this Amendment goes a little too far he might, I suggest, introduce 358 another Amendment in another place which might effectually deal with it.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILI only wish to say one word about the Attorney-General's speech, and, speaking very respectfully, I really do not think he realised what the Amendment was he was dealing with. It only deals with death; therefore the whole part of his speech which dealt with the question of sale was quite beside the point. The only question is whether it is desirable or not desirable to exempt recreation land from the Increment Duty. That is the only point raised by this Amendment. Why do you exempt recreation land at all? Because you want to get recreation land, and you are afraid that your tax will induce corporations to say that they will turn their land into money. Is that not precisely the same effect produced by your Increment Death Duty? A man has land near a town, and from the motive of charitable feeling or some enlightened self-interest, he devotes a certain portion of it to a recreation ground. If his heir has got to pay 20 per cent. on that land the immediate consequence will be that he will sell the land, and he will say, "I do not see why, instead of keeping this land free and foregoing any rent, I should not turn it into money, and relieve myself from the payment of 20 per cent. Increment Duty." Evidently the result will be that there will be fewer recreation grounds. I understand the view, though I do not agree with it, that these recreation grounds are not entitled to special exemption. That is not the view of the Bill. Then the Attorney-General said if we make no exemption of this kind in the case of Increment Death Duties we ought to make it in the case of ordinary Death Duty. You do not make it in the case of ordinary duty under the Death Duties Act. Here you do in the case of land held by corporations, and you do not in the case of land held by a private individual. I thought it was common ground that the Corporation Duty was for corporations the same as the Death Duty for individuals. I thought the period of 15 years was specially selected with a view to conform to the ordinary duration of a life. It is ridiculous to say if a man takes the trouble to register a company under the Companies Act, and to transfer the recreation ground to the company so registered there shall be no duty, while if he keeps it in his own hands and it descends to his son then there shall be 20 per cent. duty on the increment value. 359 The thing appears absolutely ridiculous, and I cannot understand why the Government have not accepted the Amendment.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 59; Noes, 196.
361| Division No. 815.] | AYES. | [7.45 p.m. |
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Foster, P. S. | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gardner, Ernest | Renwick, George |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Gordon, J. | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Gretton, John | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hamilton, Marquess of | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hodge, John | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Kerry, Earl of | Stanier, Beville |
| Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- | Keswick, William | Starkey, John R. |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Kimber, Sir Henry | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r) | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Doughty, Sir George | Morpeth, Viscount | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Morrison-Bell, Captain | Younger, George |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Oddy, John James | |
| Fell, Arthur | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Burdett-Coutts and Mr. Evelyn Cecil. |
| Fletcher, J. S. | Randles, Sir John Scurrah | |
| Forster, Henry William | Ratcliff, Major R. F. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.) | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Kelley, George D. |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Elibank, Master of | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) |
| Allen, A Acland (Christchurch) | Erskine, David C. | Laidlaw, Robert |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Essex, R. W. | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Evans, Sir S. T. | Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis |
| Astbury, John Meir | Everett, R. Lacey | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Falconer, J. | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Fenwick, Charles | Lupton, Arnold |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Ferens, T. R. | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) |
| Barker, Sir John | Fullerton, Hugh | Maclean, Donald |
| Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Macpherson, J. T. |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Ginnell, L. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) |
| Beale, W. P. | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | M'Callum, John M. |
| Bell, Richard | Glendinning, R. G. | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport) | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) |
| Bennett, E. N. | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Menzies, Sir Walter |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Gulland, John W. | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Black, Arthur W. | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Montagu, Hon. E. S. |
| Brace, William | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) |
| Brigg, John | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) |
| Bright, J. A. | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Morse, L. L. |
| Brodie, H. C. | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Brooke, Stopford | Hart-Davies, T. | Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Napier, T. B. |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Nolan, Joseph |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Nussey, Sir Willans |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Haworth, Arthur A. | Nuttall, Harry |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) |
| Byles, William Pollard | Hedges, A. Paget | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Cameron, Robert | Helme, Norval Watson | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Henry, Charles S. | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Cleland, J. W. | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Radford, G. H. |
| Clough, William | Higham, John Sharp | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Hobart, Sir Robert | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Holland, Sir William Henry | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Holt, Richard Durning | Rees, J. D. |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Horniman, Emslie John | Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Hyde, Clarendon G. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Idris, T. H. W. | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Cox, Harold | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Jardine, Sir J. | Robinson, S. |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Jenkins, J. | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Duckworth, Sir James | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Sears, J. E. | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Seely, Colonel | Thomasson, Franklin | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Shackleton, David James | Tomkinson, James | Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford) | Toulmin, George | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Sherwell, Arthur James | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Shipman, Dr. John G. | Verney, F. W. | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Silcock, Thomas Ball | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Soares, Ernest J. | Walters, John Tudor | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Steadman, W. C. | Waterlow, D. S. | |
| Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) | Watt, Henry A. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Strachey, Sir Edward | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
Question, "That the word 'is' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. BURDETT-COUTTSmoved to leave out the word "is" ["if the Commissioners are satisfied that the land is so used"], and to insert instead thereof the words "has been."
8.0 P.M.
The whole of this Clause deals with a matter which would appear from the present condition of the House to be one of minor interest, but which, in my opinion, is one of the most important matters dealt with in this Bill. It cannot be denied, speaking generally, with regard to the subject-matter of this Clause, that as regards land used for games and recreation by the youth and the young manhood of the poorer classes of London, the land taxation proposals in this Bill will greatly curtail their enjoyment of such grounds. I consider that that is a very serious result of the Bill. If it is true that the provisions of the Bill will have that result, I have further to say that the exemption embodied in this Clause will be of little or no use to these classes. My Amendments have for their object to get rid of the condition attached to the exemption of a five years' agreement, and I move these Amendments on behalf of the enormously large unorganised class of poorer clubs, which have nothing to do with Lord's Cricket Ground, which are not provided with grounds by the Playing Fields Association, and which, I believe, were unable to send any representatives to the Under-Secretary to make their case known to him. In my opinion it was incumbent upon those who framed this proposal to frame it with some knowledge of the conditions of the life of the young working classes in London, and my claim is that this Clause is drawn in complete ignorance of the conditions under which they live and the conditions under which they gain their recreation. To attach this condition of a five years' agreement to the exemption is really to nullify its use to these poorer clubs. With whom is such an agreement for five years to be made? Of course, there are plenty of old-established cricket and football clubs in existence 362 which might be supposed to have sufficient corporate existence and authority to make an agreement with, but for the most part those clubs which sent their representatives to the Under-Secretary are well provided for. Anyone who wants really to help those who have the most urgent need for help must look to the small clubs which are formed from year to year, which have little organisation, which have no constituted authority with whom to deal, and no certainty of a five years' life, but which, none the less, do represent a very large, continuous element and proportion of the poorer youth of the population of London. All these will be excluded from the enjoyment of ground, the user of which is dependent upon the exemption in this Clause with that condition of a five years' agreement attached, if you insist upon a five years' agreement, you make it impossible for the owner or the body who holds the ground to exercise just that discrimination which, if rightly used, will enable him to give opportunities to the most necessitous cases. That follows almost logically from what I previously said about these clubs not having a continuous or prolonged existence which would enable them to make agreements. I can assure the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Masterman) that that is a class which includes an enormous number of the poor of London, whose case has not been represented to him, or, if their case has been represented to him, he has deliberately left out any extension of the exemption to their urgent requirements. I beg to move my first Amendment. I will read the Clause as it would stand after this and the other Amendments have been made, "bonâ fide for the purpose of games or other recreation, if the Commissioners are satisfied that the land has been so used for a period of at least five years, or that it is probable that the land will continue to be so used," and so on.
§ Sir HENRY KIMBERI beg to second the Amendment.
§ Mr. MASTERMANThe hon. Member had a perfect right to plead the case of the particular class of people whom he has been dealing with in his speech, but he has no right to say that they were not fully recognised by me. I have for ten years of my life been engaged in connection with these clubs. He has no right to say that we have not considered the representation which was specially made to us as to the condition of these clubs in the neighbourhood of big cities. The provision which finally resulted with regard to these clubs was made specifically and directly, not in favour of the rich clubs which could look after themselves, but in favour of the particular class of clubs which the hon. Member has described, and whose circumstances necessitate some such exemption. I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension as to the meaning of the Clause. The whole question is important, not only on account of its bearing in regard to the Increment Value Duty, but also in regard to the duty on undeveloped land. We do not say that the land which is to be exempted is to be under lease for a period of five years, or even under lease which at the commencement was for a period of five years. We offer two alternatives. The first is that there is exemption if a lease exists of which one, two, or three years are still to run at the time Increment Value Duty is collected. We recognise that the great majority of these clubs have nothing to do with a lease of that sort. They change from year to year, and very often the owner of the land is compelled to change them from year to year, and therefore we have put in the words "or under other circumstances which render it probable that the land will continue to be so used." That has nothing to do with five years at all. The Commissioners have only to be satisfied that this land will bonâ fide be used for games or other recreation. If they are satisfied, the land will be exempted from the Increment Value Duty.
§ Mr. BURDETT-COUTTSHow do the Commissioners propose to satisfy themselves that the land will be used by the clubs I have referred to if there is no agreement?
§ Mr. MASTERMANI do not see that that is helped by the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. I agree that it is a difficult point. I believe that in an overwhelming majority of cases it will not be hard 364 to satisfy the Commissioners on the point. The Commissioners will give the clubs the benefit of a favourable decision on the point when that is possible. No one can suggest any better form of words than those in the Bill. The clubs change from year to year, and the land is gradually increasing in building value. The only possible way of dealing with this matter is to leave the Commissioners to be satisfied by the landlord that it is his bonâ fide intention that the land will be so used. I cannot in the least see how the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman helps. It would be absurd to say that land that is rapidly developing as building land should be altogether exempted from Increment Value Duty because five years before Increment Value Duty has to be collected it had been used for the purpose of recreation.
§ Mr. BURDETT-COUTTSThat is what the Clause says.
§ Mr. MASTERMANNo, that is not so. The fact that it has been used for recreation five years before might just give the exemption at the moment when, in 1914, the tax has to be paid, and, immediately after that, the Corporation might build on the land or render it unfit for being used for recreation purposes.
§ Mr. BURDETT-COUTTSMay I point out this? The fact of an agreement existing and having, we will say, one year or six months to run, would exempt a body corporate from the duty. I say that would not apply to the vast number of clubs which could not enter into agreements.
§ Mr. MASTERMANIt is exactly cases of that kind this Clause will apply to. If the owner of the land will say that circumstances render it probable that the land will continue to be used for such clubs, then we give the exemption. If any hon. Gentleman opposite can suggest better words to safeguard the interest of those clubs, I think we would be prepared to accept them, but we know of no other form of words which would better meet the case.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Masterman) say that the Amendment does not put these clubs in a better position. My hon. Friend suggests that any ground used for the purpose of games or recreation for a period of five years should be exempt from Increment Value Duty. In his reply the hon. Gentleman also dealt with the case of the duty on undeveloped land. We are discussing the two duties together, for the 365 same difficulty arises in both cases. I could give instance after instance to which my hon. Friend's Amendment would apply. A city company granted the other day ground which cost them £10,000 to a certain society for the purpose of being used for football grounds for the poorer classes. It was granted, not as freehold, but at 5s. a year rent. The society are tenants from year to year, and at any time the City company, without assigning any reason, can turn out the present occupants. Assuming that that land is laid out and used for five years for football grounds, this Clause, as it stands, would give no exemption at all, but the Amendment of my hon. Friend would give an exemption.
§ The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna)indicated dissent.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI understand the First Lord of the Admiralty to suggest that that is not the case. He is no doubt going upon the words in the Clause—"other circumstances which render it probable that the land will continue to be so used." If the owner of the land some years hence intends to use it as building ground, the previous user of the land will be of no use. My hon. Friend proposes to say that where there is land honestly used for the recreation of the poorer classes for a period of five years, then that land shall be ipso facto free from Increment Land Duty, and also from Undeveloped Land Duty, until it ceases to be used in that way. It is because I think this matter, in its relation to the Undeveloped Land Duty, is important that I interpose for the purpose of pointing out that in many cases the Bill will hit those football clubs. When the Under-Secretary comes to look at this he will see that this Amendment of my hon. Friend will exempt a very much larger number of football grounds than are exempt at present.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI would ask the Under-Secretary whether this determination of the Commissioners as to probability is subject to appeal? From what I have read of Section 33, I take it that it is subject to appeal to referees, and I would like an express assurance on that point. The question here is rather difficult where it arises on the Undeveloped Land Tax. Under that tax any exemption will cost the Government a certain sum of money for the time that the exemption lasts. But under the Increment Duty it is only a postponement of the collection of the tax. Therefore, I 366 submit that there is no need for this reservation at all. If the land is sold by the corporation the whole of the Increment Duty will be collected on the occasion of sale. I understand the fear that the Government have in mind is that this user of the land for the purpose of games would be taken advantage of by the owners collusively, and that they would try to get rid of paying the tax. That may be true of Undeveloped Land Duty, but in the case of Increment Duty it is only a question of postponement. If they do put forward this plea elusively they will pay in the end. Because when they do sell they will have to pay, and therefore the only question is the date of the collection of the Increment Tax. It is not a recurrent but a cumulative tax, and the occasion, therefore, does not very much matter. Therefore, I cannot see that any exemption as to probability is needed. If they do sell and realise then they will have the tax so wide that there will be no necessity of putting in this very ambiguous Section about probability at all. If they realise they will have to pay, and if they do not realise and the ground is used for games, then so long as it is used for games they will not pay. Therefore, the fears of the Government are perfectly groundless, because any quasi fraudulent action will be defeated without any need of these words at all.
§ Mr. PRETYMANIt is a pity to put in all these extraordinarily minute provisions and counter provisions which make it so impossible to anybody really to interpret what is meant. My hon. Friend behind me has pointed out that this exemption itself is so limited that these subsequent sub-counter limitations are really unnecessary. In itself the tax is cumulative, so that the tax is only deferred in any case. The duty which would be taken on a periodical occasion or on death is not lost to the State; it is only deferred. How many cases are covered by this? They do not touch the private individuals at all. All they exempt is property owned by a body corporate. The point is so small that I may ask what is the necessity for all these restrictions on a concession? Here you have a concession which only operates in favour of a few clubs which happen to own their own land, or of a company, but not in favour of a private individual. Why a company should be treated differently from a private individual I cannot understand, but under 367 this Clause a company conducting any business whatever, which happens to allow games to be played on its land, is going to be exempted in in respect of that land, but it is not going to be exempted when it sells the land. The exemption itself is so limited that there is no advantage to the Government in inserting this further provision as to the circumstances in which it is probable that the land will continue to be so used. If you simply say that no periodical duty will be charged when the land is being bonâ fide used, and has been used for the last five years or for some considerable period for that purpose, it will be sufficient. The complications in this Bill are so extensive as to be puzzling. Surely simplicity is worth something.
§ Sir W. ROBSONI think the hon. Gentleman has chosen not a very happy occasion for complaining of the narrowness of the restrictions put into the Bill.
§ Mr. PRETYMANIt is their complication.
§ Sir W. ROBSONHere you have both breadth and simplicity. I could scarcely imagine restrictions put in wider terms than those which prevail under this Clause—in fact, I might otherwise feel somewhat alarmed at the challenge of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary (Mr. Masterman) when he invited his hon. Friend to supply any words more effective for the purpose in view. No one who speaks in favour of these clubs would desire to substitute Law Courts for Commissioners. The right of appeal is given in the cases specified in Clause 33. At the end of the Clause there is an appeal against any determination of the Commissioners.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONWe are only discussing the question of increment value, but this is again a question of agricultural land. At the end of Clause 17 are the words: "The opinion of the Commissioners a? to matters arising under this Sub-section shall be final, and not subject to any appeal."
§ Sir W. ROBSONI think it is far better that the Commissioners should determine these matters in their own discretion. I only wish to draw attention to the meaning of the words, namely, that the Commissioners, if they think it probable that the land will continue to be used for the purpose of recreation, then they may apply the Subjection. The hon. and gallant 368 Gentleman says the Sub-section does not cover a great number of cases. That may be right enough, but it is a different point, so far as the case is covered by this Subsection. I say that certainly you could not have a restriction more generously expressed than we have it here, namely, that whenever the Commissioners think fit and proper, the land may be continued to be used for recreation purposes.