§ (1) Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged in respect of any land where the site value of the land does not exceed fifty pounds per acre.
§ (2) In the case of agricultural land of which the site value exceeds fifty pounds per acre, Undeveloped Land Duty shall only be charged on the amount by which the site value of the land exceeds the value of the land for agricultural purposes.
§ (3) Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged—
- (a) On the site value of any parks, gardens, or open spaces which are open to the public as of right; or
- (b) On the site value of any woodlands, parks, gardens, or open spaces, reasonable access to which is enjoyed by the public or by the inhabitants of the locality where in the opinion of the Commissioners that access is of benefit to the public as contributing to the amenity of the locality; or
- (c) On the site value of any land where it is shown to the Commissioners that the land is being kept free of buildings in pursuance of any definite scheme, whether framed before or after the passing of this Act, for the development of the area of which the land forms part, and that it is reasonably necessary in the interests of the public, or in view of the character of the surroundings or neighbourhood, that the land should be so kept free from buildings; or
- (d) On the site value of any land which is used for the purpose of games or other recreation where the Commissioners are satisfied that the use of the land is for the benefit of the public or of the inhabitants of the locality, and that the land is so used under some agreement with the owner which, as originally made, could not be determined for a period of at least five years.
§ The opinion of the Commissioners as to matters arising under this Sub-section shall be final and not subject to any appeal.
§ (4) Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged on any land not exceeding an acre in extent valued together with a dwelling-house for the purpose of Inhabited House Duty, or on the site value of any land being gardens or pleasure grounds occupied with a dwelling-house 516 which do not exceed five acres in extent when the site value of the gardens and pleasure grounds together with the site value of the dwelling-house does not exceed twenty times the annual value of the gardens, pleasure grounds, and dwelling-house as adopted for the purpose of Income Tax under Schedule A.
§ (5) Where agricultural land is at the time of the passing of this Act held under a tenancy originally created by a lease or agreement made or entered into before the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged on the land during the original term of that lease or agreement while the tenancy continues thereunder, but the exemption under this provision shall not apply after the period at which the tenancy of the land can be discontinued at the option of the landlord.
§ Mr. R. L. EVERETT moved, in Subsection (1), to leave out "fifty" ["Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged in respect of any land where the site value of the land does not exceed fifty pounds per acre"], in order to insert instead thereof the words "one hundred."
§ This Undeveloped Land Duty is a very remarkable one; it is the greatest innovation of all the Land Taxes proposed, and it excites a great deal of apprehension in the minds of many. It is quite exceptional and unprecedented in its character. It is a tax not upon annual value, as all other rates and taxes to which we are accustomed are, but it is a tax upon capital value, and it differs from all the other Land Taxes in that it is an annual charge. It is not a charge once and for all as the Increment Taxes, but an annual charge upon capital value. It is a tax laid on without there being any money in hand out of which to pay it. The Increment Tax merely takes a portion of the amount that comes to the owner of the land upon which the tax is charged, and so with the Reversion Tax, but in this case the tax is to be laid on annually on individuals who are receiving nothing and have not the wherewithal to find the money unless they sell the land or draw it from some other source. A tax having these distinguishing peculiarities naturally excites a good deal of apprehension in the minds of those whose property is about to become subjected to it for the first time. I imagined on first looking at this tax, that the £50 exemption was intended to exempt agricultural land. But there is agricultural land 517 which runs up to the value of £100 and therefore I would prefer the figure £100 to £50; but when I come to look closely to Sub-section (2) one sees that under the provisions of that Sub-section the whole agricultural value of agricultural land is exempt even if it exceeds £50. Sub-section (2) says: "In the case of agricultural land of which the site value exceeds fifty pounds per acre Undeveloped Land Duty shall only be charged on the amount by which the site value of the land exceeds the value of the land for agricultural purposes." That which we tried to have introduced in regard to Increment Value Duty is actually introduced here. We thank the Government for that, and we are very glad to see it inserted here, but to the ordinary man the mysteries of this Bill are so intricate that he is trembling with apprehension in regard to his liability owing to this Undeveloped Land Duty, and in order to allay the fears of the agricultural community I hope the Chancellor will accept this Amendment. If he does so he will make it perfectly clear to the mind of the ordinary man that there is no fear he will be charged Undeveloped Land Duty upon his agricultural land. This concession will be gratifying and reassuring to those who are at present under some apprehension in regard to this new tax, and will represent to them in such a clear and plain way that a plain man can follow what the position really is, and as regards agricultural land it will not cost the Treasury a halfpenny.
§ Sir FRANCIS CHANNINGI beg to second the Amendment.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEMy hon. Friend is really one of the most insatiable men I ever had the pleasure to encounter. First of all, he agrees to an Amendment. It was discussed and agreed to, and now he dismisses it as insufficient. It was pointed out, when it was discussed, that there was agricultural land worth more than £100 an acre, and therefore the figure £100 would not exempt all agricultural land. An Amendment was agreed upon specifically exempting agricultural land from increment and exempting the whole of the agricultural land, even if it were worth more than £100 an acre, from the Undeveloped Land Tax. My hon. Friend agreed to that, but now he wants the whole thing. He wants the whole thing, and he wants this as well. What happens? He says this proposal is in the interest of agriculture. May I point out that agricultural value is completely exempted from taxation. We allowed an Amendment which satisfied the hon. Gentleman, 518 and he said it was something he could understand and comprehend. He laid down that agricultural land should not be taxed. We put in that Amendment, but now the hon. Member says, "Oh, we cannot understand £50, but £100 we can understand." What about the farmer who has land worth for agricultural purposes more than £100, and there is plenty of land of that kind? There are special properties in the East of Scotland for growing potatoes which are worth more than £100 an acre. I know my hon. Friend is not interested in that kind of land, but he is interested in land worth under £100 an acre. I think he is taking too narrow a view of his function as a protector of the farmer. We want to protect agriculture whatever the value is. The hon. Member says that if a farmer only makes the land worth £100 an acre we should protect him, but the moment by intensive culture the farmer makes the land worth more than £100 an acre my hon. Friend has no concern for him. The Government want to protect them all, and the more value a man puts into his land agriculturally the greater protection he deserves, and the greater protection he gets. This miserable expedient of £100 which the hon. Member has devised in the interests of agriculture does not protect agriculture at all, although it protects a certain value. I know of land which is not worth more than 1s. an acre or 2s. for agricultural purposes, but for building purposes it is worth £200 or £300 an acre. We want to protect the case of building land and not of agricultural land. Do not let the hon. Member pretend that this proposal is in the interest of agriculture, because it is nothing of the kind.
§ Amendment put, and negatived.
§ Amendment made in Sub-section (3), paragraph (b), after the word "locality" ["the inhabitants of the locality"], to insert the words "including access regularly enjoyed by any of the naval or military forces of the Crown for the purpose of training or exercise."
§ Drafting Amendments made.
§ Mr. WALTER GUINNESS moved, in Sub-section (3), paragraph (b), after the word "benefit" ["of benefit to the public"], to insert the words "or which, although the public have no access thereto, are of benefit to the health and well-being of the inhabitants of the locality, and should in the public interest remain unbuilt upon, or."
519§ There are about 400 open spaces in London, and only about 50 of them are included in the Act passed at the instance of the London County Council two or three years ago under which the owners of those open spaces gave up their rights to build. There are a number of squares which will not be exempt from the Undeveloped Land Tax.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEYes, they will.
§ Mr. WALTER GUINNESSI suppose they can only be exempted under Subsection (c), which exempts "any land where it is shown to the Commissioners that the land is being kept free of buildings in pursuance of any definite scheme, whether framed before or after the passing of this Act." It will be difficult in the case of London squares to show that they are being kept free of buildings in pursuance of any definite schemes. I do not think those conditions can be applied in the case of London squares. If they have been laid out in accordance with a definite scheme it will be impossible for the freeholder to show that, and even if he can show it he has only to be exempt from the Undeveloped Land Duty if he foregoes his right to build for all future time, except with the permission of the Local Government Board. Of course, that permission will never be given, and it simply means that he will have to take his choice between paying the Undeveloped Land Duty or giving up the right to build altogether. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree that squares will not be exempted except under those conditions, which I think are rather unreasonable.
These open spaces are of very great value for letting in light and air in crowded districts, and we should do all we can to keep them. I think it is too much to expect owners to give up the right of building for all futurity. It is a great advantage to the public that those squares should be kept open, and I think they should be exempted from this tax while they remain open to the public. The Secretary for War stated that this tax would encourage the freeholder to throw open squares to the children. I do not think the freeholder has any power to do so, because that power is generally left in the hands of the leaseholder. Consequently, the freeholder will have to go on paying this tax with no power to throw the square open to the public, and he will not be exempt from this tax. It is far 520 more likely that the effect of this proposal, instead of stimulating people to throw open squares to the children, will not have the effect anticipated by the Government. I think if landowners are willing to forego building on land by laying it out as a garden it is a matter for which we should be grateful. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accept this Amendment the matter will be quite safe, because the Clause provides that the Commissioners are to have the final decision as to whether it is for the benefit of the health and well-being of the locality that the land shall be kept as an open space and exempted. I think the Commissioners might well be entrusted not to exempt undeveloped land unless it is for the benefit of the nation.
§ Sir W. BULLI desire to second this Amendment. There are a number of fields round London which are neither squares nor undeveloped land. As London increases in size farms assume a sort of half-and-half character. The farmers find that they cannot deal effectively with the land for agricultural purposes because there are too many children about who run over the fields. A well-known gentleman in London has discovered a way of meeting the want of playgrounds for cricket and football, and he has made an arrangement with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners whereby a rent is paid which is something more than the agricultural rent, and something less than the building rent, for the use of certain fields round London for the convenience of various clubs. The scheme has worked well for a long number of years. The land is let for sport, subject to three, six, or nine months' notice, and now a vast number of these fields, the acreage of which runs into thousands all round the fringe of London, are held by this man and by various clubs and institutions for the purpose of games, and games alone. Often an acre is cut up into three or four football grounds, and they extend the whole distance around London, more particularly in the West and the North-West and in my own Constituency. I want to know if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give any encouragement to that state of things. It is clear that land, when it ceases to be occupied as a farm, is, so to speak, undeveloped land and nearly ripe for building; but there is a hiatus between it being agricultural and building land of two, three, and sometimes even four years. It is here where the land comes in very useful as playing fields for the London clubs. The owner fences it in so that the 521 children cannot damage it, and he lets it out to the clubs. He gets a rent, but it adds greatly to the amenities of the city, and encourages healthy exercise amongst the inhabitants. I, therefore, want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider whether he cannot give some encouragement to the very useful class of the community who are supplying these fields. It is a business which has grown in the last 10 or 15 years, and is very well recognised and acts very fairly. Now and again the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or some large landlord round London will give notice, and the result is the playing field manufacturer is driven further and further away. I am afraid this Undeveloped Land Tax will have a very deleterious effect upon this trade. This amount of tax will just prevent the playing field proprietor from letting his fields at anything like a price which some of the poorer clubs are able to pay. At the present moment he makes a reasonable profit, but I am afraid this tax will just make the difference between profit and loss, and hundreds of clubs round about London will suffer. Therefore, I earnestly ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider this case to see if he can meet it in any way.
§ Sir W. ROBSONThe hon. Member who moved the Amendment was apprehensive that the tax might have an adverse effect upon London squares. That is certainly not the intention of the framers of the Bill. The squares are, I venture to say, a peculiar and, perhaps, unique beauty of London, and there is no desire at all to place on spaces, which are so beneficial, any kind of burden which might interfere with the benefit they confer. There are certainly two, and I think it may be said three, guarantees against the taxation of London squares in the Bill as it now stands. There is, first of all, the provision as to a definite scheme in Clause 17, paragraph (c), which I think clearly protects them:—
Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged on the site value of any land where it is shown to the Commissioners that the land is being kept free of buildings in pursuance of any definite scheme, whether framed before or after the passing of this Act, for the development of the area of which the land forms part.No one can look at the London squares without seeing that their condition exactly conforms with what is laid down there, so 522 that that paragraph covers them. It also covers the other case mentioned by the hon. Member. He referred to something I said in Committee when I was dealing with garden cities. It no doubt also covers that case expressly as it covers the squares. In a garden city parcels of land are left under agricultural user, but they are part of a definite building scheme. The words cover that. It puts parcels of land of that kind under practically the same protective conditions as London squares, and I think I may also with some degree of confidence say that they would be protected by the provision as to five acres occupied with a house or attached to a house. I quite imagine that some argument may be raised on this point, but although it was not drafted with that intention, I think it has that effect. Hon. Members will bear in mind, with regard to any ambiguity which arises on the language in this Clause, that it will always be construed against the State if it is necessary to have recourse to the courts. If it is open to a construction favourable to the subject, the courts adopt it. The third guarantee is afforded by Clause 25, Sub-section (3), defining the total value of land. It says:—"The total value of land means the gross value, after deducting the amount by which the gross value would be diminished if the land were sold subject to any fixed charges," and so on, "and subject to any covenant or agreement restricting the use of the land entered into or made before the thirtieth day of April, 1909."
Now, of course, these squares are all subject to restrictive covenants.
And to any covenant or agreement restricting the use of the land entered into or made on or after that date if, in the opinion of the Commissioners, the restraint imposed by the covenant or agreement so entered into or made was, when imposed, desirable in the interests of the public, or in view of the character and surroundings of the neighbourhood.I do not think we need have any apprehension about the London squares; I do not think it is in the least degree likely, but if it were found they have not been sufficiently protected, it is the intention and desire of the Government, and they would do so immediately, but I think they are amply protected by the various clauses to which I have referred.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDThe Clause gives an exemption in the case of parks, open spaces, and so on, where the property is open to the public. Therefore, supposing there is an open space over which the public, as a public, have no right, it would not come within the exception. The open spaces particularised in the Amendment are clearly desirable in the interests of the public, although the public itself has no right to enter upon them and walk over them. London squares and very valuable pieces of land where our young people are able to go and enjoy such games as cricket or football ought not to have this duty imposed upon them. It would have the effect of immediately causing them to be built upon, so as to avoid this duty. Is it the most desirable thing that cottages and houses should be built upon every bit of land in the country? Is it not desirable, proper, and essential that plenty of pieces of land which to-day the public have no right to walk over, but which are valuable lungs of our cities, and valuable for a number of purposes in the interests of the community, should be left without buildings upon them? The Amendment is a very reasonable one, and the Attorney-General, in reply, referred us to three places in the Bill where, if we are sufficiently ingenious, we may perhaps be able to find that the case is covered. He says he will not put it in so many words, which will make it clear that the case is covered, but perhaps, if we look at these three places, we shall find it is covered. He refers us, first of all, to paragraph (c) of Sub-section (3) of this Clause, and he says the case of the London squares and of these very important pieces of land on the outskirts of London used for games is met by these words:—
"Where the land is being kept free of buildings in pursuance of any definite scheme for the development of the area of which the land forms part."
7.0 P.M.
The hon. and learned Gentleman says that is a reply, but we look a little bit further down the Amendment Paper, and we find that if anybody avails himself of that privilege he forfeits the right for ever to build upon his land, unless the Local Government Board choose to give him permission. I venture to put it to the House, as a matter of common-sense, whether the owners of any open spaces in London would be prepared to give up for ever under any conditions, however the state of affairs may alter, the right to build upon their land simply to secure exemption from 524 a comparatively small, but to-day a very annoying, tax? It is obvious, therefore, that the exemption referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman is one which would not be effective and of which the owners of these spaces under no circumstances could possibly be induced to avail themselves. The hon. and learned Gentleman next referred us to Section 17, Sub-section (4), as printed on the White Paper. He said we should find the case would come in under that Clause where there is an exemption of dwelling-houses with five acres of land. I do not know how you can call a London square a piece of land round the house or how you can say it is occupied with a house. A London square, instead of being round the house, is a piece of land round which there are houses, I do not think it could be reasonably argued that a London square is land round a house, but, even if it could be so reasonably argued, is that any reason why this Amendment, in plain and unequivocal language, should not be accepted? Nothing of the kind. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman said if you are not satisfied with these explanations I must refer you to some Clause—Clause 25, I think—and you will find that if the land is subject to restrictive covenants the Commissioners may look to see whether they are benefical, and, if so, then it is to be free. I really think this is a case where we ought to protest. If it is desirable that London squares should be exempted from this duty—and everybody will agree that it is—indeed the Government itself have practically admitted it—and if it is desirable to increase the land to which thousands of young men may go out to play football and cricket, then these lands should be relieved from that duty while so occupied. I think every Member of this House will agree with that. Why not say so in so many words? Why not make it clear that these pieces of land are to be exempted? After the months we have spent on this matter in Committee to come up here now and see these further Amendments, and to be met with a refusal on the part of the Government to do something which they admit that they ought to do themselves, namely, to exempt these pieces of land from taxation—when we are met with their refusal, and when their only answer is to refer us to three complicated sections which, in my opinion, do not meet the case, I think it is time we complained. It is not the way in which the Government should deal with a matter of this kind.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI will not add anything to what has been said by my hon. Friend on the subject of London squares and places of that kind, but I should like to get some information from the Government as to the position of gardens. I have in mind a case with which I am familiar, where there is a very considerable garden attached to the residence of a gentleman in the neighbourhood of one of our big towns and which is, indeed, actually surrounded by small houses owing to the growth of the town. Now the public have no access to the place as of right, and the only exemption that could possibly be claimed is an exemption on the ground that they enjoy reasonable access. What has happened in this case is that the owner of the house has been in the habit, not of allowing anybody to come who chooses, but to freely give permission to anyone in the nature of a responsible party to enjoy the amenities of the ground and to spend an afternoon there during the summer months when he and his family are not in residence. Is that reasonable access within the meaning of the Sub-section? Such a case as that, I think, would be covered by the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I do not know quite what the Commissioners might determine. Commissioners sitting in London would not be acquainted with the locality, but I would undertake to say the local authority would claim that this was an open space to which the public had access, although not of right, and that it was a general access, although only an occasional access. It certainly would be desirable that that garden should be allowed to remain in its present condition as long as possible. It would possess a considerable building value, but I would urge that it would not be to the public interest to force the owner to build upon it as long as he can afford not to do so. Now such a case as that I think would be covered by the Amendment of my hon. Friend, but I fear that, if it were left to be dealt with on a strictly legal interpretation of the words contained in the Bill, it would not be dealt with in the interests of the locality.
§ Sir W. ROBSONAs the right hon. Gentleman has put a question which turns on interpretation, with the permission of the House, I may be allowed to answer. Although we have to consider what is reasonable access, I do not think we are called upon to define it. The point is whether it is possible to substitute any other phraseology. I think if the right hon. 526 Gentleman were faced with our task he would find, on the whole, that the words we have used are the most beneficial to the subject. I am not going to bind the Commissioners in any way as to the manner in which they shall construe the words. I can only suggest to them facts which must be taken into consideration when dealing with the word "reasonable." In itself it is a difficult and dangerous word to use in a Statute. But one of the facts which the Commissioners would take into account would be the financial benefit which is, so to speak, the equivalent of the Act. If hon. Members will consider they will see that the financial benefit is very small. Take, for instance, the case put forward by the right hon. Gentleman who last spoke—the case of a large garden surrounded by a town. Say the garden extends to ten acres. It is subject to a building value—a site value. That value, of course, is not by any means as great as the sum for which it may be finally sold. You have also to take into account the cost of development, and I have been told that for making roads and drains in developing land the cost works out at something like £500 per acre. Take the value of the land at £1,000 per acre. You have 10 acres. The duty is only £2 per acre on the capital value, and, therefore, it amounts to but £20. The Commissioners will obviously balance that £20 against the fact that the garden is open to the public, and I, therefore, think they would treat the case put forward by the right hon. Gentleman in a very favourable manner. They will always grant favourable consideration to that kind of access which is granted by the generous country proprietor to neighbours whose good opinion he desires to retain.
§ Lord BALCARRESWe might have drawn a little more comfort from the remarks of the Attorney-General if the decisions of the Commissioners were subject to appeal in the courts of law. But they are not, and when the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that this is not a matter on which any difficulty is likely to arise I think we are justified in doubting the assertion. He starts with the old story that the tax only amounts to £2 on an acre worth £1,000. But we have to bear in mind that the Lord Advocate has informed us that this is only the beginning, and that it may be very considerably increased. The particular point I wish to mention is one raised by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, which has received no attention whatever from the Attorney-General. The hon. and learned 527 Gentleman made a long defence of the exemption of London squares, but there he stopped. He gave us three Sub-sections in the Bill which might, by implication, save the London squares, and he also suggested that if the interpretation given to those Sub-sections did not prove satisfactory an amending Bill might be introduced later on. London squares and squares in Manchester and Liverpool are emphatically open spaces which ought to be preserved undeveloped for building purposes, in the interests of the whole community. Personally I have no right to walk through Berkeley-square or over the grass plots opposite the Members' entrance to this House, but, as a member of the public, I should be aggrieved, and justly aggrieved, if these places were built upon. Our playing fields, in that sense, are even more important than these squares. London possesses a great chain of central parks incomparable in Europe. The parks of Paris are fine, but you have to go 10 miles to reach them, but so far as London is concerned, even if all the squares were built over, you would still possess the lungs of four or five great central parks. But when you come to deal with suburban open spaces a different state of things arises. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Westminster are both very much interested in this question of recreation grounds for fluctuating clubs, and they have put forward a case to which the Government have attempted no reply. Lord's Cricket Ground and Kennington Oval, I admit, are protected. They are institutions which have funds at their disposal, together with an enormous potential income in the shape of gate-money. They are bodies corporate which are capable of entering into legal agreements by which they can secure exemption. But recreation grounds and open spaces on the fringes of our great towns, not merely near London, but in Lancashire and elsewhere, are not protected under the three Sub-sections to which reference has been made, and we ask, in plain and definite language, that they should be so protected. Our appeal has been refused. I want to point out to the Attorney-General what I am convinced will happen. At the present moment in London alone there are literally thousands of clubs which depend for their very existence upon the temporary use of land. I happen to know of the cases, and there are thousands of these clubs, and I was going to say nine out of ten of them, 528 but that would be an exaggeration, but in the large majority of cases they are what may be called fluctuating clubs—clubs depending upon the individual energy of the secretary or captain of the year, who organise the club, which is for that period a well-equipped and well-managed institution. These clubs enjoy the benefit of some of those open spaces organised by the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Burdett-Coutts) and mentioned by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Sir William Bull), and for a year or two years they exist. They may then dissolve and be re-formed in other names, and go to other parts of the suburbs. I know in central London a club that lasted for two or three years, and one year it played at Streatham, the next at Hampstead, and the next beyond the Great Western Railway terminus.
These clubs are now protected, but as soon as you put in the three Sub-sections in this Bill and pass the subsequent Amendment which governs those Sub-sections, I believe that the whole of the land devoted to this purpose is doomed. Nobody can afford in the case of land of this character to hold it up, so to speak, in order to be of service to these small clubs, which pay ridiculously small rents for the recreation they receive. There is no right of access; it is against the interests of the club that there should be, because as soon as there is the cricket pitch gets cut up. It is also against the interests of the proprietor that unrestricted access should be given, because that will create rights of way over what will ultimately be developed into building property. I suppose the learned Attorney-General will, as usual, find refuge in the reasonableness of the Commissioners. Personally, I do not trust to the reasonableness of officials whose business it is to collect the maximum amount of tax. I do not know if the learned Attorney-General in his official capacity has to assert the reasonableness of the Income Tax Commissioners, but by every post Members of this House are receiving the most embittered and envenomed complaints against the action of those gentlemen whom we may be told on another clause of the Bill are reasonable gentlemen. I do not at all trust anything short of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend to ensure that these lands will be exempt from the tax. The hon. and learned Member, speaking about a particular garden that was mentioned, said that a garden of 10 acres was a very big thing, and was rare. That may be true, but it must be remembered that the word 529 "garden" covers much more than the space occupied by flower-beds. It means what in Scotland we call the "policy" as well. I know case after case, and if any hon. Member cares to know the cases I will give him the names, where acres and acres of ground are open day by day to the public within the area of the municipal boundaries, which, if closed tomorrow, would no doubt under this clause be subject to the taxation.
This clause has to be read in conjunction with the Amendment following it. I am not going to deal with it except to point this out, that under the Amendment the next but two on the Paper, in the event of an owner giving reasonable access to the public to enjoy the amenities of his estate or of his garden, he will never be allowed to build upon it without the permission of the Local Government Board. That is to say, that these playing fields outside London to-day used for the enjoyment of the public and contributing greatly to the health, comfort, and amusement of the public, will be closed forthwith because the owners will never be able
§ to admit for one minute that their right of building over that ground in the future shall be subject to the goodwill of the Local Government Board. Everybody knows that it takes six months to get an answer out of the Local Government Board, and when you are developing an estate that you should have to wait not only for the reasonable opinion of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue but also for the reasonable opinion of the surveyors of the Local Government Board is so grotesque that people owning these estates will not submit themselves to the long delays, correspondence, worry and trouble which such a process would involve. I think myself that the proposal is very dangerous indeed. I have assured myself that dozens of these open spaces are doomed in consequence of the refusal of the Government to accept this Amendment, and if my hon. Friend proceeds to a division I shall support him with the very greatest satisfaction.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 76; Noes, 181.
531| Division No. 823.] | AYES. | [7.25 p.m. |
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Ratcliff, Major R. F. |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Balcarres, Lord | Hamilton, Marquess of | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Renwick, George |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Helmsley, Viscount | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Cave, George | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Kerry, Earl of | Stanier, Beville |
| Chance, Frederick William | Keswick, William | Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk) |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Starkey, John R. |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | M'Arthur, Charles | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Magnus, Sir Philip | Valentia, Viscount |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | Morpeth, Viscount | Verney, F. W. |
| Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan) | Morrison-Bell, Captain | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Newdegate, F. A. | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Fletcher, J. S. | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Forster, Henry William | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Younger, George |
| Foster, P. S. | Percy, Earl | |
| Gardner, Ernest | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir W. Bull and Mr. Burdett-Coutts. |
| Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Randles, Sir John Scurrah | |
| Gordon, J. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.) | Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport) | Bryce, J. Annan |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Buckmaster, Stanley O. |
| Agnew, George William | Bennett, E. N. | Burns, Rt. Hon. John |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Berridge, T. H. D. | Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Byles, William Pollard |
| Ambrose, Robert | Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Cameron, Robert |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight |
| Astbury, John Meir | Boulton, A. C. F. | Cawley, Sir Frederick |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Brace, William | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Brigg, John | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. |
| Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) | Bright, J. A. | Clough, William |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh) | Cobbold, Felix Thornley |
| Beale, W. P. | Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Jackson, R. S. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Jardine, Sir J. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Cowan, W. H. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Crossley, William J. | Kekewich, Sir George | Robinson, S. |
| Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster) | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Elibank, Master of | Lewis, John Herbert | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Erskine, David C. | Lupton, Arnold | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) |
| Essex, R. W. | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Sears, J. E. |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Seely, Colonel |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Falconer, James | Maclean, Donald | Snowden, P. |
| Fenwick, Charles | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Steadman, W. C. |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | M'Callum, John M. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Fullerton, Hugh | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Ginnell, L. | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Mallet, Charles E. | Tomkinson, James |
| Glendinning, R. G. | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Toulmin, George |
| Glover, Thomas | Marnham, F. J. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Massie, J. | Villiers, Ernest Amherst |
| Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Masterman, C. F. G. | Vivian, Henry |
| Grove, Archibald | Menzies, Sir Walter | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Micklem, Nathaniel | Walsh, Stephen |
| Guiland, John W. | Morse, L. L. | Walters, John Tudor |
| Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Myer, Horatio | Watt, Henry A. |
| Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Napier, T. B. | Weir, James Galloway |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Nolan, Joseph | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire) | Nuttall, Harry | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | O'Malley, William | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Hedges, A. Paget | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Helme, Norval Watson | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Higham, John Sharp | Rainy, A. Rolland | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Hobart, Sir Robert | Raphael, Herbert H. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Hodge, John | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Holt, Richard Durning | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | |
| Hyde, Clarendon G. | Rees, J. D. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Idris, T. H. W. | Richards, Thomas W. (Monmouth) | |
| Illingworth, Percy H. |
§ Amendments made: In paragraph (c), to leave out the word "that" ["and that it is reasonably necessary"] and to insert instead thereof the words "where in the opinion of the Commissioners."
§ In paragraph (d), after the word "is" ["On the site value of any land which is used"], to insert the words "bonâ fide."
§ In same paragraph, to leave out the words "that the use of the land is for the benefit of the public or of the inhabitants of the locality and."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, at the end of paragraph (d), to insert the words "or where, in the opinion of the Commissioners, other circumstances render it probable that the land will continue to be so used.
§ "Where any land kept free from buildings in pursuance of any definite scheme has received the benefit of an exemption from Undeveloped Land Duty by virtue of this Section, that land shall not be built upon unless the Local Government Board 532 give their consent, on being satisfied that it is desirable in the interests of the public that the restriction on building should be removed; and any such consent may be given subject to such conditions as to the mode in which the land is to be built upon as the Local Government Board think desirable under the circumstances."
§ Mr. BURDETT-COUTTSThe first words in this Amendment—"or where, in the opinion of the Commissioners other circumstances render it probable that the land will continue to be so used"—are in no sense a protection, as the Under-Secretary for the Home Department last night argued they were, to that large class of clubs on whose behalf I spoke. The Under-Secretary represented last night that these words with regard to future use are a sufficient protection to all clubs, including the large class of clubs which cannot make a five years' agreement, and which have not a sufficient corporate existence, continuity, or authority to 533 enable an agreement to be made with them, but which at the same time represent and include a vast number of the youth and growing manhood of the poor of London and other great towns. My point is that with the condition of a five-years' agreement, which secures the exemption without any doubt, all the owners of the land, in order to secure the exemption, will let their land to the clubs that can enter into a five-years' agreement. They will not be willing to rely upon the uncertain exemption granted by the first words of this Amendment referring to the future and leaving it to the opinion of the Commissioners whether the future use will be the same. That is a very doubtful quantity, and it is a method of securing the exemption which is very much less certain, so to speak, than the method of the five-years' agreement. Therefore, it is quite obvious that all owners of land, if they wish to secure this exemption, will let their land to clubs which can sign a five-years' agreement. Then what becomes of all the other clubs which cannot sign such an agreement? If the land is, as it certainly will be, monopolised, to secure this exemption, by the clubs which can sign a five-years' agreement, what becomes of all the other clubs which cannot sign? I see a real difficulty which may not have presented itself to the Under-Secretary's mind, in the much greater value and certainty that is embodied in the five-years' agreement condition than in the condition affecting the future.
§ Mr. MASTERMANI quite agree that the hon. Gentleman and myself are both working in this matter in perfect unison so far as the end we desire, and he, of all Members, has a right to speak for these particular clubs. The question was discussed last night in connection with the increment value exemption, and I pointed out that we had tried to meet the case of the poorer sporting public, with which he and I are most concerned, by an Amendment which was framed in connection with those who claimed to represent those particular interests. The original Bill, as it stood, limited the exemption to leases which at the beginning were not less than five years in length. That does not mean that the exemption would not be enjoyed, even though the lease had only two years or one year to run, but it had to be a five-years' lease. The hon. Gentleman very rightly states that a five years' lease is absurd to talk about in connection with large numbers of the poorer boys and work- 534 ing people in the neighbourhood of big towns, therefore we tried to devise some alternative for those who could not take these leases, and the alternative we devised was, in our opinion, in about as wide words as we could possibly give: "Where in the opinion of the Commissioners other circumstances render it probable that the land will continue to be so used." That means, for example, this: There is a considerable amount of land in the neighbourhood of London which is not going to be used as building land for the next five or ten years, but which is being held up for ripening—land such as you can see from the London and South-Western Railway on the journey to Portsmouth, where you pass through a whole stratum of football field grounds which are in that condition. The owners do not design to build for a considerable time, and many of them are philanthropists enough to allow, almost at nominal rents, poor boys and working men to play on their ground. We wish to recognise that public service. They would pay a substantial allowance as Undeveloped Land Duty under the Bill without this exemption, but they can show, and they have no difficulty in showing, to the satisfaction of the Commissioners, in the words of our Amendment, that "circumstances render it probable that the land will continue to be so used."
On the other hand we have to consider the difficulty from another point of view. There is some land which is on the verge of building land, which will be built upon in six months or a year. That land is often let or given over to working class clubs, but it is really land which is ripe for building, and the fact that it had to pay this tax would not make very much difference whether the land was going to be built upon or not. I do not think, under these circumstances, that the working class clubs and the boys' clubs which now use it would gain any more by the land being exempt from taxation. But there is a very serious danger that land in that condition might escape the Undeveloped Land Tax through clubs being created just to occupy the land during that time, and to be turned out within a very few months. That is not the intention of the exemption. Practically, if we made the exemption very much wider, it would not be difficult for a very considerable amount of the most valuable building land, which the owners intend to build upon in a very short time, to escape the tax while allowing working class clubs to play upon it. I 535 offered the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Burdett-Coutts) a suggestion yesterday as to finding any wider form of words which we could adopt within the margin that we desire and free from the danger which we fear. The hon. Gentleman has not repeated the Amendment which he made last night. He realises that it would be no use. The fact that ground was played on five years before would be no guarantee that it would be played on for the next five years. We are not concerned with the past. We are concerned with the future. We have been in communication with the representatives of those clubs which are particularly interested, and they think that we have gone as far as possible in the circumstances.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINNo one will question the desire of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Masterman) to protect the class of clubs for which my hon. Friend (Mr. Burdett-Coutts) has pleaded, but I am bound to say that I think it is impossible to defend the wording of the Clause if you are going to impose this tax and at the same time protect those clubs. The hon. Member in dealing with the point raised by my hon. Friend used an argument which struck me as one of considerable force. Supposing the owner of land makes up his mind that he is not going to build upon the land for at least five years, he is then able to find a club with whom he can make a five years' agreement. That will not be one of those poor boys' clubs. It may be a club of comparatively well-to-do people. You put every temptation in the way of the landlord to seek out the well-to-do club, and to refuse the poor boys' club, because if he takes the well-to-do club he can sign a five years' agreement and snap his fingers at the Commissioners. But if he takes a poor boys' club he cannot sign a five years' agreement. What is his position then? He goes to the Commissioners and he has to prove to them that it is likely that the land will continue to be used for the purpose of games or other recreation. Do these words give any protection to such a case as my hon. Friend has spoken of, or even in such a case as the Under-Secretary for the Home Department referred to? Take those lands he spoke of on the London and South-Western Railway. He described them as lands with considerable site value at this moment, but not ripe for building. I did not know that the Government recognised that there was such a thing as land 536 with considerable site value not ripe for building. I understood that their view was that where you had building site value you ought to put a building on the site. That was the argument hitherto. Now the hon. Gentleman recognises that there is land with building site value which is not ripe for building, and which may not be built upon for five or 10 years.
§ Mr. MASTERMANI said appreciable site value.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI think the adjective used by the hon. Gentleman was considerable. Clearly there is such land, and the tax would be considerable if levied. According to the hon. Gentleman's statement, which is in accordance with our knowledge of that class of land throughout the country—I have no knowledge of the particular land to which he referred—that land is intended to be built upon. It will not continue indefinitely in this position. Are not the Commissioners entitled and bound to see that it is probable that it will continue indefinitely to be so used? The hon. Gentleman, speaking, not with the responsibility of the Commissioners, and not binding the Commissioners, says, "If you can show that the land is likely to be so used for five or ten years it will be exempt from duty under this Bill." I see no words in the Bill to support that view, and I think he must put in some words if he is going to protect at all the class of clubs which we on both sides of the House desire to protect. I naturally go to Birmingham for my illustrations. I see on every bit of land flat enough for the purpose of games, sometimes within and sometimes without the city boundaries, football clubs, cricket clubs, or lawn tennis clubs. The better-to-do ones which can afford to spend a good deal of money on levelling do not do that without an agreement for five years at least, and probably for more. But there is a great deal of land which is not let in that way. It is let from year to year to a club which exists only for a year, because the Member for the division or—[An HON. MEMBER: "A candidate for election"]—a candidate does not find money in sufficient quantity to keep it in existence. That is really the class of clubs with which we are familiar, and which probably expect from most of us 5s., 10s., and sometimes £1, a year. These clubs are very seldom in a flourishing condition. At the best they can only make ends meet. They are not in a position to enter into a five years' agreement or to take any responsibility. They 537 could not give any guarantee. They are not people of substance whose signature would be worth having. These are the people we wish to protect, and I submit that they are not protected at all. Not only have you not protected them, but you will compel the owner of the land, if he is mindful of his interest, or if the amount of the tax is a matter of moment to him at all, where he can get a five years' agreement, to choose the other kind of club in preference. The hon. Gentleman says, "Will you find words?" I will find words at once, but I do not expect that he will accept them. What I really think is that we have a right to ask the Government to make some effort to find words. I can find words so far as the clubs are concerned, but my words might not meet the ease so far as the revenue is concerned. I beg to move, after the word "used," at the end of the first paragraph of the Amendment, to insert the words "for the year of the assessment." The Amendment would then read, "or where, in the opinion of the Commissioners, other circumstances render it possible that the land will continue to be so used for the year of the assessment." That will protect the clubs, and I leave it to the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity to put in any other words which may be necessary to protect the revenue.
§ Amendment to Amendment proposed, "That the words for the year of the assessment' be inserted at the end of the first paragraph."
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. Robson)I confess that this Amendment, and indeed the whole Clause as now proposed by the Government, might very well fill those solicitous about the Revenue with considerable apprehension. I cannot help expressing my surprise that the Clause, as now Amended by the Government, should not be found satisfactory by those who are solicitous about other things than the Revenue in connection with this tax. The Clause provides that Undeveloped Land Duty shall not be charged upon any land which in the opinion of the Commissioners, is likely to be used for the purpose of games or other recreation. Think of the immense opening that gives—I will not say for evasion, because it will not be evasion—but what an opening it gives for the adoption of means by which the tax shall not attach. How easy it will be for a landowner to put his land under conditions to which the tax shall not apply. It might be called evasion by those who would consider it wrong to try to escape the tax, 538 but it would be a perfectly legitimate device to adopt. How is he to adopt it? The right hon. Gentleman says that the proposal of the Government will favour the club that can make an agreement, and not the club that cannot. As the Amendment stands, it will very likely give rise to this operation. The owner of undeveloped land may say, "I would rather not sell this land for building purposes at present. I desire to hold it up a little longer. It will not cost me very much to hold it up, for I see that the framers of the Finance Act of 1909 have kindly provided me with a means by which I can hold it up. All I have to do is to allow the use of the land for sporting purposes to people who may not be good enough to enter into an agreement, but who can play cricket and other games, and who can disport themselves on my undeveloped land." The Government desire to make this tax as light as possible, and to ensure that it shall not fall upon land used by the class of clubs which have been referred to. That is what is done by this Amendment. It is one of the Amendments in which, I think, we have gone too far. If we really desire to collect our tax, we really ought not to go further. I am not sure that his words are necessary, but if they add anything to the width of this exemption I shall oppose them. I hope the Commissioners will not be restricted by the words, "the year of the assessment." I think that would admit the danger of evasion to a greater extent than at presents exists. It is well that the courts will not have to construe this Clause. I say the land is not to continue for ever to be used for games. It is to be so used for some considerable period.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDWhy not put that in the Bill?
§ Sir W. ROBSONThe hon. Member has a faculty for definition. He would make an Act of Parliament, to his own great misfortune, consist entirely of a series of paragraphs and sections dealing with individual cases. That is not by any means the way in which Acts of Parliament are framed.
8.0 P.M.
Where no time is imposed, and where time is important for the purposes of construction, a reasonable time is generally inferred. In cases of this kind, where discretion plays a large part, there must be considerable latitude allowed. There was another point raised—How are you to judge what is probable? This again is as to the facility with which the tax may be 539 escaped. In our construction there may he no agreement. Maybe the landowner cannot find any person with whom he could make the agreement. But if he convinces the Commissioners of the probability that the land would continue to be used in this way it will suffice. How is he to bring about that opinion in the minds of the Commissioners? It seems to me quite sufficient that he should write submitting to the Commissioners that he has every bonâ fide intention of allowing this land to be so used. If he writes saying "I am an honest man, a gentleman, a landowner, and I intend that the boys shall play their games of cricket on my land, and do it freely, and continue to do it for a considerable length of time," that will be quite sufficient to raise the probability on which the Commissioners would be justified in acting. Whichever way you look at this Clause you have got a Clause here of a dangerous latitude for the purpose of the Act. I am in favour of allowing as much discretion as possible when you are dealing with exemptions from fiscal burden. I think when you come to define clearly the scope of the exemption you will end by narrowing it. Therefore I am in favour of giving as much discretion as possible. Here we are giving quite enough, and certainly I shall not ask for the House to give more by one single syllable.
§ Sir S. SCOTTI quite agree that the practice of the present day is to make Acts of Parliament as obscure as possible, and I quite assent to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman on this.
§ Sir W. ROBSONI hope my hon. Friend is not suggesting that I said that. My remarks must be more obscure than I thought they were if I gave rise to that impression.
§ Sir S. SCOTTMy Noble Friend the Member for Chorley (Lord Balcarres) raised a very important point on the last Amendment which has not yet been touched upon. The Under-Secretary a few minutes ago referred to the case of a certain amount of land which was held by various owners—I think it was on the London and South Western Railway—and that in view of the public spirit of those owners in allowing boys' clubs to play their games there for nominal rents, the Government desired to recognise that. My question is this: If those owners of the land, when the time came for developing 540 that land, have to go to the Local Government Board to get their consent to build on that land, would such consent be given, and would they have to submit to such conditions as to the mode in which the land was to be built on?
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI think it would be for the convenience of the House that the Amendments should be got out of the way first. If I may, with the permission of the House, say so, I think that the Attorney-General has given a construction to the words of the Government Amendment which is more equitable than I anticipated, though it does not give all my Amendment asks for, and, therefore, I would ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. LAURENCE HARDYThe discussion has hitherto ranged upon one portion of the Amendment. Perhaps it is rather unfortunate that the two questions should have been put together as they deal with entirely different points. As they have gone past the question of the first two lines, which no doubt more materially affect the question that has been raised by previous figures, I am rather surprised that the Government have not yet given us a single explanation of the long Amendment which follows. The restriction which is applied to a concession which was given in the Committee stage is a very serious one, and it follows the somewhat bureaucratic lines which we have noticed accompany a great many of the Acts and Bills of the present Government. I think if these words are added as they appear in the Bill in connection with the two lines above it they will be a very good instance of the class of rule under which the Government desire this country to be. In one line the Local Government Board are to be the entire arbiters in connection with the matter. Two lines later we are told that the opinion of the Commissioners as to the same matter shall be final, and not subject to any appeal. So you have practically the Local Government Board and the Commissioners given the absolute power. There is no right of appeal whatsoever in connection with the matter which will come before both. Undoubtedly this puts the subject under very great disadvantages. It is a rather strong measure to put this restriction in at this stage when the concessions have been argued in the House.
541 I happen to be connected as trustee with a charity in London which owns a considerable amount of land and which has at the present time a very large amount of open spaces in connection with its estate. Those open spaces are under the exemption originally given in Committee, and, as explained to-night, have the advantage of Sub-section (c) a secure remission from the Undeveloped Land Duty. We find now that the Government propose to put a new restriction upon the manner in which all those owners of charities can in future use their estates. The leases are falling in. It is an undoubted fact that any definite scheme framed after the passing of this Act for the development of the land will, in all probability, take a different shape from the scheme which was adopted say 50 or 60 or 70 years ago, and very likely some of these open spaces will have to be built upon, while other open spaces may be set apart for the advantage of the estate in order to bring it up to more modern ideas and to develop it in accordance with requirements. We have now the fact that for all future time, so far as the individual initiative of the estate is concerned, they are bound by the absolute autocratic decision of the Local Government Board, which can, if it likes, put a complete stop to any scheme that the trustees of the charity might put forward, even though, in their opinion, it would be greatly to the advantage of the estate. It does seem to me that the restrictions certainly require some defence on the part of the Government, of which we have not heard a single word up to the present, and that they are a distinct going back on the exemptions granted in Committee. Therefore I would ask for some explanation.
§ Mr. MASTERMANI think the hon. Member's recollection of what happened in the Debate in Committee is not quite correct. The privilege given under Clause 17, Sub-section (c), was the privilege which was definitely given with this restriction. It was part of the same system which was the result of representations made specially by those who are interested in the development of garden cities.
§ Mr. LAURENCE HARDYGarden cities are not London squares.
§ Mr. MASTERMANThis Amendment was on the Paper on the Committee stage of the Bill. The garden city people and all those who are trying to develop suburbs of cities with a larger amount of land than 542 is normally given with that development, submitted to us that they desired to build under a definite scheme, by which that larger amount of land was given, especially in the case of the first garden city, where a definite agricultural belt, which would have a considerable value, is left around the City, and is intended for all time to be left around the city and used for the purpose of agriculture and for the general amenities of the town, even though it may still increase in assessable value and Undeveloped Land Duty. Then my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that he was quite willing to meet cases of that sort if there was some guarantee that they were banâ fide, and that these land developers did not merely leave this land vacant because they did not care about building on it at the time, but that the moment it had acquired a considerable building value they should then start building on it. Those interested in the matter stated that they were quite willing to accept the decision of the Local Government Board if and when such question should arise. The Local Government Board was principally brought in because in a very few months it is going to be the authority for town planning, and the garden suburb schemes, which will have to be dealt with are schemes of town planning which deal with the permanence of open spaces. But the Amendment is only a consequential Amendment to the one now in the Bill, and that would never have been put in the Bill if the other one was not present.
§ Mr. LAURENCE HARDYThe hon. Gentleman was now dealing with the question of garden cities. This evening we were told that Sub-section (c)was being put in the Bill in order to protect London squares and open spaces. Therefore the Government are bound to see that this Amendment must apply to London squares and open spaces.
§ Mr. MASTERMANIncidentally, no doubt, my hon. Friend stated that there were three exemptions under which he thought the London squares could be exempted. But those who remember the discussion in the Committee will recollect that the question of London squares was not brought into this Clause, except with the recognition due under the Clause as a part of it, and the discussion was rather upon this permissive power of the Local Government Board.
§ Mr. H. W. FORSTERI was about to call attention, just as the hon. Member for Ashford spoke, to the fact that the Under-Secretary confined himself to the question of garden cities. The proviso he now seeks to incorporate into the Bill affects land which is used, destined to be used, or controlled by bodies quite different from those who are responsible for garden cities, and intended for different objects. I do not think that the defence he has made for the Amendment was really adequate to meet the case. Let me put before him a scheme which will be directly affected by the Amendment. I happen to know a property in the southeast of London where the owner was about to try an interesting experiment. In that part of the Metropolitan area it is becoming increasingly difficult for immense numbers of young and active men to find ground suitable for cricket, football, and other pursuits. The owner of the estate in question intended, after looking into the matter, if it was found financially feasible, to start a scheme by which there should be associated with a given number of houses a given area of land, which would be kept open for the recreation of the occupants of those houses. The Amendment you are now trying to put in the Bill will make that impossible. It is an experiment; it might succeed or it might not; but what owner is going to tie up five, six, seven, or eight acres of land in a neighbourhood which is rapidly developing if he is to be debarred at any future time, supposing his experiment failed, from building upon that land except with the sanction of and under the conditions imposed upon him by the Local Government Board? I am afraid that the scheme, which would have been an interesting experiment, would never be undertaken if a proposal of this nature be incorporated in the Bill, and in order that we may have an opportunity of expressing our opinion on it in the Division Lobby, I beg to move to omit the words of the second paragraph of the Amendment from "where" down to "circumstances." I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to give me some comfort or satisfaction with reference to the scheme to which I have alluded, because I frankly say I fail to see how it is possible for any scheme such as that even to be considered if words of this kind are to be included in the Bill.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI beg to second the Amendment.
§ Sir W. ROBSONThe words which are proposed to be left out have a very limited application. They in no way touch the exception with which we have just been dealing, that in regard to land which is used for games. This is an exception of a very wide and far-reaching character. These words which the hon. Gentleman moves to omit do not touch any case for which exemption is sought on the ground that under some definite scheme it is intended that land shall be left open. Of course, if the intention of the owner is not to leave the land open, but to treat it like other land, giving some user of it until the time he can get an adequate price for it as building land, then we do not by any means desire to give him exemption.
§ Mr. H. W. FORSTERThis was a definite scheme. The land will be kept, not for general purposes, but kept for the use of the occupants of the houses which would be built all round it. That was the scheme, and the land would have been kept open for the purpose of recreation as part of that definite scheme.
§ Sir W. ROBSONIn other words, the hon. Gentleman is really putting the case of the London squares. If the land is kept open for the amenity of the buildings then it would have exemption. I have already described no less than three grounds on which exemption can be obtained, two of them being independent of that relating to recreation. If, on the other hand, it is not intended to leave the land open for the amenity of adjacent houses, but is left open for some other reason for a time, being used for games—he might get exemption under games—but if the owner wishes to keep himself absolutely free to dispose of it, then he must take his chance, and I think he would take it very gladly. It is only to those who seek exemption that this provision applies. An owner may say that he did not want to claim exemption for his land, and that he wanted to build upon it, but if he seeks exemption with all the consequences, and if he does not want the consequences he must not seek the exemption. I should say in the case which the hon. Gentleman put the owner would not seek exemption. If he really desired that the land should be kept open for the amenity of adjacent buildings, then he would seek exemption, and would not object to the restriction imposed by the Local Government Board.
§ Mr. LAURENCE HARDYI think the hon. and learned Gentleman has not met 545 the point we desired to put. The difficulty is that a London square may be exempted because it is a part of a definite scheme. The Attorney-General said so in a previous speech.
§ Sir W. ROBSONNot necessarily.
§ Mr. LAURENCE HARDYThe case of which I am speaking is a definite scheme, under which an estate is laid out in squares and streets, and when that is taken to the Commissioners I do not think there will be any doubt that it will be dealt with as a definite scheme. It will not be dealt with under the 5-acres Clause.
§ Sir W. ROBSONThere is no need to appeal to the Commissioners.
§ Mr. LAURENCE HARDYI think it is pretty clear that these questions will be dealt with under a definite scheme. If they are, you are at once brought up by this Amendment which is now suggested by the Government, and, if it is a definite scheme, then the whole matter in all future dealings will have to go absolutely to the Local Government Board. The fact is that this Amendment has been brought up in connection with the special matter of garden cities and I hope that the Government will see their way to withdraw it.
§ Lord BALCARRESI wish to refer to one sentence in the speech of the Attorney-General which I think throws a good deal of light upon the attitude of the Government in this matter. My hon. Friend (Mr. H. W. Forster) has pointed out a particular case in which, according to his opinion, an experiment for making a playground for a particular group of houses may be destroyed. The Attorney-General again refers to the parts of the Bill which he thinks will protect that land from the contingency, but he said that under those conditions it will not be worth while making that ground a playground. I differ fundamentally from the Government upon that point, and from the view of the learned Attorney-General that it is not worth while doing so.
§ Sir W. ROBSONI do not think I said so. Why should I say so? I was dealing with the particular case, and I said the owner might not think it worth his while. I did not say it would not be worth his while.
§ Lord BALCARRESI gathered that the Attorney-General said that the owner would not think it worth his while to proceed with his scheme I think he is 546 right in thinking that the owner will probably think so.
§ Sir W. ROBSONI never said so.
§ Lord BALCARRESI gathered the Attorney-General said that the owner under those conditions might not think it worth his while to apply for exemption, and that he might think it might be better to develop it as building estate instead of as a playground. I say frankly that it is deplorable that any owner of ground in the neighbourhood of a great town should be dissuaded even by the smallest tax from devoting the amount of land he can afford to open spaces and to recreation, The whole tendency of this Clause is going to be to prevent the accretion on the outskirts of our great towns of more of those open spaces which, in my opinion, are far more important for the benefit of the community than nine out of ten of the objects sought to be attained by Parliament. This Amendment is purely a garden city Amendment. I remember perfectly well the circumstances of its adumbration in the Committee stage. It was brought forth on behalf of the garden cities. It is drafted to meet the case of six or nine or perhaps a dozen garden cities now existing in this country. I am perfectly ready to admit that if the garden city movement is satisfied in this Amendment, then they are entitled to have it. My hon. Friend (Mr. Laurence Hardy) doubts that they are satisfied with it, but I have no information on that point. But the Government ought not, in meeting the grievances of the garden cities, prejudice the case of thousands of persons who may be doing work analagous to that of the garden cities by trying to develop their urban property, and, incidentally, not securing 5 per cent. in doing so.
What is a definite scheme? That has not been defined in any way. The Attorney-General rallied my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Watson Rutherford) for asking for a definition. I do not think it lies in the mouth of the Attorney-General to attack my hon. Friend, considering that the Government have accepted his arguments in upwards of 40 causes by accepting the Amendments he has put on the Paper to the Finance Bill. Personally, I think a definition is, on the whole, a rather useful thing. About 15 or 20 of these Clauses are so nebulous and obscure that, in the absence of a definition, their true incidence can only be certified by the law courts years hence. A garden city has 547 got a so-called definite scheme, but there are hundreds of people who are developing their property without a definite cut-and-dry scheme which they could submit to the Commissioners, but who, none the less, are paying great attention to the amenity of the open space movement of the country, partly in their own interest, largely in the interest of the community who live in those neighbourhoods.
I know a particular case I will quote to the Attorney-General of a great town which leads to another urban area, and from that area to a third, a great long line of closely populated inhabitants, and at the end of one of these parts there happens to be three or four pasture fields. Those pasture fields could be built upon, and they could bring a very large sum if placed in the market, but they are kept as open grass fields in a great industrial district in the North, on a long road closely hedged in on either side with houses and factories. The very fact of those fields—open, fresh, green, and clear—is a benefit to the community at large; but I do not think those fields come in under the amended Clause. I do not think those fields could be said to be kept free from building in pursuance of any definite scheme. They are not. There is no definite scheme by which they are left unbuilt upon. I say it would be a grievance to a hundred thousand people if those fields were built upon, and incidentally it would put thousands of pounds into the pocket of the proprietors. What is going to be the effect of this Amendment on those fields? If the man claims exemption, he has got to show that there is a definite scheme, but he has not got a definite scheme, and, therefore, he cannot claim exemption. But it is quite possible there may be similar cases where there is a scheme, and where he could say he proposes ultimately to do this, that, or the other, and satisfy the Commissioners there is a scheme, and on those grounds he could perhaps certainly secure exemption. But having once secured exemption, should it become necessary in the interest of the community that the land should be built upon, or in the interest of his own finances that the land should be realised, he has got to go to the Local Government Board for permission.
I may point out to the Ministers in charge of the Bill that this is a question of the control of the central department. In the four speeches we have had this 548 point has not been referred to once, except in connection with the garden city. I state my view that the latter part of this Amendment is really an intolerable hardship. What happens? If a man has got his scheme he secures exemption, and very properly; but then when circumstances alter, and when this belt of land round the garden city is to be used for the purpose of factories or residences, or in analogous cases all over the country, he has got to go to the Local Government Board to get their consent to have the land built upon, and he has got to satisfy the Local Government Board that it is desirable, in the interest of the public, that the building should take place. Having gone through those two processes, the Local Government Board may settle what kind of building he is to put on it, and they may settle what direction the roads are to take, and how much can be exempted from the actual building. I hold that that is a proposal so drastic and so far-reaching that some explanation from the Government is imperative. I do not know the history of the later words in this Clause; probably they have something to do with a rejected Clause of the Housing Bill in Committee. In my opinion the proposal is indefensible, because a Government Department, however useful it may be when acting in co-operation with a municipal authority in determining housing and town planning questions, is not an authority competent or sufficiently experienced to deal with the development of private estates. I object altogether to the proposal that the Local Government Board should settle anything and everything connected with the building on these estates. That is the meaning of these words. They can make their consent subject to such conditions as to the method in which the land is to be built upon as they think necessary. They may say that a garden must be put here, houses there, extra roads somewhere else, and they may require the design of the houses to be submitted to them. I say that that is carrying the passion for bureaucracy too far. The proposal has not been defended or even mentioned by the Minister in charge, and I think it is a subject on which, if the Treasury officials refuse to deal with it, we ought to have the advice of the Local Government Board.
§ Mr. REESI do not quite understand whether the scheme referred to in paragraph (e) of the Clause is the only definite scheme contemplated by the Amendment which the Government has placed before the House. 549 I do not see why it should be. Take, for instance, the extremely common case where inside a park there is a cricket ground to which people have reasonable, though perhaps not altogether unrestricted access. Suppose the owner of the park who uses a portion of it for this laudable purpose chose to make a scheme. Would it be competent for him to make a scheme for a limited period, and to say in consequence that that portion of his park should not be liable to Undeveloped Land Duty? I do not quite know how he could do it under paragraph (e), because it distinctly refers to a scheme "for the development of the area." Supposing he could do it—and it would certainly be advantageous that he should—if he made such a scheme for one, two, or three years, it is possible that subsequently he would not be able to vary that scheme without the Local Government Board being satisfied "that it is desirable in the interests of the public that the restriction on building should be removed." The Noble Lord opposite (Lord Balcarres) referred to the case of fields outside a town. I have frequently brought a particular case of that character before the House, but, having had no success, I will not reopen it; but I should like an answer from the Attorney-General as to the case I have mentioned.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Emmott)I do not see what this has to do with the Amendment. The Amendment is to leave
§ out certain words from the proposed Amendment, and so far as I have been able to follow the hon. Member he has not yet said anything which appears to apply to that.
§ Mr. REESI was dealing with the Government's Amendment: "Where any land kept free from buildings in pursuance of any definite scheme has received the benefit of an exemption," and so on.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe question put by the hon. Member does not seem to me to have any reference to what is proposed by this new paragraph, namely, that if an exemption has been granted the Local Government Board must give their consent to building operations in the future.
§ Mr. REESUpon that point I put the question as to what must be the character of the scheme; whether the scheme must be one for the building development of the area; if not, whether such a scheme as I have suggested could be made; and if it could, whether such a scheme could not be determined without the leave of the Local Government Board obtained in the manner provided.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 145; Noes, 39.
551| Division No. 824.] | AYES. | [8.45 p.m. |
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.) | Crossley, William J. | Higham, John Sharp |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Hobart, Sir Robert |
| Agnew, George William | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Hodge, John |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Holt, Richard Durning |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Elibank, Master of | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Essex, R. W. | Hyde, Clarendon G. |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Evans, Sir S. T. | Idris, T. H. W. |
| Bonn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Everett, R. Lacey | Illingworth, Percy H. |
| Bennett, E. N. | Falconer, J. | Jardine, Sir J. |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Fenwick, Charles | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Ferguson, R. C. Munro | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Fuller, John Michael F. | Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis |
| Brace, William | Fullerton, Hugh | Lehmann, R. C. |
| Brigg, John | Gibson, J. P. | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Bright, J. A. | Glendinning, R. G. | Luttrall, Hugh Fownes |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Glover, Thomas | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Guiland, John W. | M'Callum, John M. |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) |
| Byles, Wm. Pollard | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Mallet, Charles E. |
| Cameron, Robert | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) |
| Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Marnham, F. J. |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Menzies, Sir Walter |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Haworth, Arthur A. | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Morse, L. L. |
| Clough, William | Hazleton, Richard | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Hedges, A. Paget | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Helme, Norval Watson | Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) | Myer, Horatio |
| Cowan, W. H. | Herbert T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Napier, T. B. |
| Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Rose, Sir Charles Day | Weir, James Galloway |
| Nuttall, Harry | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Pollard, Dr. G. H. | Sears, J. E. | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Seely, Colonel | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) | Sherwell, Arthur James | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Soares, Ernest J. | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Rees, J. D. | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth) | Tomkinson, James | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Toulmin, George | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Ridsdale, E. A. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips. | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Verney, F. W. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Vivian, Henry | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) | |
| Robinson, S. | Walsh, Stephen | |
| Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Roe, Sir Thomas | Waterlow, D. S. | |
| Rogers, F. E. Newman | Watt, Henry A. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gretton, John | Renwick, George |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Hamilton, Marquess of | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Stanier, Beville |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Hunt, Rowland | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Cave, George | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Magnus, Sir Philip | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Morpeth, Viscount | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Newdegate, F. A. | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Fletcher, J. S. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | |
| Gardner, Ernest | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. H. W. Forster and Lord E. Talbot. |
| Gordon, J. | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDThis Amendment of the Government is dividable into two parts——
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Member is not entitled to speak again, but perhaps the House will give him permission?
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI shall feel obliged if the House will kindly allow me to say a word or two. I did not know I had lost my turn by seconding an Amendment on this Amendment. What I simply desire to say very very shortly is, that we do not complain at all of the manner in which the hon. and learned Gentleman, and also the hon. Gentleman beside him, have treated this subject. All that we do complain of is that our desires with regard to shaping the Bill have not been met. The hon. and learned Gentleman has explained to us very lucidly and with exceeding clearness what the Government idea is. Of course, some of us have a very good recollection of how this matter was dealt with in Committee. The whole of what is now complained of in this Amendment—now sought to be introduced—was before the Committee, and it was withdrawn at that time with the assurance that it would be carefully looked into and brought up again on Report. But the same thing has happened. What, however, I wish to point out with regard to 552 the first portion of this Amendment is this: That the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General has said that these words: "where in the opinion of the Commissioners other circumstances render it probable that the land will continue to be so used" from either a legal or an Act of Parliament point of view—which is rather different from a legal point of view—means something altogether different from what the words themselves say. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to go with me past a field where some boys are playing cricket. He might say to me: "Is that land going to continue to remain unbuilt upon?" As I might be aware that within the next two or three years it would be built upon I should say "No." We are asked now to believe that under the circumstances the answer should be "Yes." Because the land is not going to be built upon immediately, because bricks are not carted on to the site, or something of that sort takes place, therefore that land is to be continued to be unbuilt upon! I should have thought the Government would have been only too willing to have made it quite clear that, at all events for some years, land might remain unbuilt upon. The second part of this Amendment we object to very strongly, because it takes away the whole benefit of paragraph (c). Nobody in the future will say: "Here is a definite 553 scheme; I am doing something in the interest of the community by leaving my land unbuilt upon." Nobody will venture to say that. Why? Because no owner of land will ever allow himself to be put entirely under the heel of the Local Government Board in respect to whether or how that land shall be built upon. For these two reasons we object to the first part of the Amendment. We object to it because it says something absolutely different to what it is intended to mean. Upon that point may I be allowed to say this in reply to the observation of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that before I became a Member of this House I was engaged in drafting, not one Or two, but a good many Bills which have come before this House. I have been brought up as a conveyancer, a draftsman. It has been my business all my life to draft documents of different kinds. The object of draftsmen in doing so is always to avoid obscurity if it possibly can be done. That is the main object of the draftsman. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not always."] Well, it always was mine. When the hon. and learned Gentleman says to me "you have to construe these words 'continue to be so used' in a necessarily opposite sense from the words themselves," then I say it is unfortunate. And it is a great pity that, in the interest of lucidity and fairness, we cannot put in two or three words into this Amendment which would make it clear. We very strongly object to this Amendment, both as to its first and second part.
§ Amendment made.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD moved, at the end of Sub-section (1), to leave out the words, "The opinion of the Commissioners as to matters arising under this Sub-section shall be final and not subject to any appeal."
§ When this matter was reached in Committee we were promised that it would be considered. I do not say that a promise was made that an appeal should be given, but that something possibly might be done. The Clause relating to appeals is Clause 33, and that Clause starts by saying, "except as expressly provided in this part of the Act any person aggrieved may appeal within such time and in such manner," and so on. In this Clause there is an express provision that there is to be no appeal. There are several points relating to exemption from this Undeveloped Land Duty in regard to which the opinion of the Commissioners is to be 554 final. The first is in regard to parks, gardens, or open spaces open to the public; the second is that it is open to the Commissioners to decide whether the land is being kept free of building in pursuance of a definite scheme; the third is where the Commissioners come to the conclusion that it is in the interest of the public or in view of the character or surroundings of the neighbourhood that the land should be kept free from buildings; the next is where the land is being bonâ fide used for the benefit of the public, and the fifth is where other circumstances render it probable that land is used under some agreement. The opinion of the Commissioners on all these matters shall be final and not subject to any appeal. I do think, if the Commissioners are to be relied upon as reasonable men to do their work, they would not object to an appeal.
§ I have had a little experience in these matters and the Attorney-General has a great deal, and I think he will agree with me that courts where there is no appeal do not do their business any better than courts from whose jurisdiction an appeal does lie. When we are imposing a tax of this kind in the discretion of the Commissioners, I suggest it would be more satisfactory to the general community if there was even a reasonably restricted right of appeal. I do not want to suggest that the Commissioners are likely to be unreasonable people or to be vindictive, but we cannot disguise from ourselves the fact that the Commissioners are the people who will receive the tax, and to give them an unlimited and an uncontrolled discretion is, I think, carrying the thing a little too far. I think it is desirable, not merely in the interests of justice, but in order to allay any dissatisfaction, that an appeal should lie in these cases.
§ Mr. STANIERI beg to second the Amendment.
§ 9.0 P.M.
§ Sir W. ROBSONIt is never a very gracious task, especially on the part of one who more or less represents the Bar of England in this House, to refuse a request that there should be a right of appeal. At the same time no one knows better than those accustomed to the atmosphere of courts how unsuited they are in regard to certain subjects. Let us take the subjects excluded from the right of appeal. Here we are dealing with exemptions from a general tax, and naturally and necessarily there must be a certain amount of discretion in considering whether or not there 555 shall be exemptions. What is the kind of discretion that is given here? Take, for instance, the occasion as to the opinion of the Commissioners whether or not circumstances render it probable that land will continue to be used for games. That is a matter which a man of business will decide, or which an official will decide, very much more satisfactorily than if you have it decided by calling witnesses on both sides and by having the opinion of the judge, who really will not have as good an opportunity of forming such an opinion as a Commissioner. Remember the decision of courts are arrived at, and are necessarily arrived at, under certain necessary disabilities. A judge cannot form an opinion in the same way as a man of business can by making the rounds and hearing what other people have to say. He is restricted as to the material upon which he has to form his opinion. Does anyone, looking at the matter dispassionately, think the Commissioner is not better able to arrive at a conclusion as to whether land is likely to be used to the advantage of the public than a judge? Take, again, the case of a restrictive covenant, or whether by some definite scheme it is well that a certain land shall be left free from building. These are purely questions of belief, not law. This is a question of the kind of information and opinion on which a man of business has to make up his mind twenty times a day.
As to whether reasonable access is allowed, that again is a matter for the opinion of the Commissioners. I do not think it is a thing to which legal procedure lends itself happily or well, and therefore we have excluded these cases from the Bill. I am certain that in the working of the Act it is better for the subject that these matters should be left to the final determination of the Commissioners. As I am not permitted to speak again on this point, perhaps I may remind the House of the course this matter took in Committee. The point was discussed as to whether there should be an appeal or whether the opinion of the Commissioners or some other Board should be taken, and it was decided that this appeal should be excluded. Upon turning to the OFFICIAL REPORT, I find that the Secretary for War undertook that he would consider before the Report stage whether the Local Government Board should be the body for this work. Later in the Debate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Ex- 556 chequer said that the authority must be the same as was provided in Clause 11. A Division was taken as to whether or not there should be an appeal, with the result that the proposal for an appeal was negatived.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEDuring the Debate in Committee my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) moved the deletion of these words, and the Secretary for War, who was in charge of the Bill on that night, at first refused altogether to entertain the idea. The Debate went on, and it turned on two distinct points. The first was as to who was to decide, and the second was as to whether there should be an appeal. The Secretary for War was certainly convinced on the first point, because he undertook to consider whether the Local Government Board was a suitable body, and he stated that if that was found to be the case an Amendment could be inserted on Report to that effect. The Secretary for War admitted that it was awkward that the judicial authority should be the taxing authority. The right hon. Gentleman was further pressed on the matter of appeal, and he said:—
I should like to take time to consider this point, and if the Amendment is withdrawn I undertake to consider with an open mind whether it is not possible to substitute the Local Government Board. I am at present averse to an appeal, but I will consider it.There were two questions, namely, the tribunal and the appeal, and the Minister for War, who was in charge of the Bill at that time promised to consider both points. The hon. Member for Kingston later on got up and said that in view of what the Government had said he would withdraw his Amendment. The Amendment was withdrawn on the distinct understanding that the Government would give the matter full consideration, and they promised to do so with an open mind. They had not given the matter full consideration, and they had not approached it with an open mind. But, apart from the history of the question, and speaking strictly on its merits, I think some of these matters are not fit subjects for an appeal to a law court, but it does not follow that there should not be an appeal in regard to them. Upon such questions as whether "access is of benefit to the public as contributing to the amenity of the locality," or whether it is necessary in the interests of the public that the land should be kept free from buildings, I think neither the Commissioners nor the law court should decide, 557 but some other authority. Again upon such questions as to whether it would be an advantage to the locality that certain games should be played upon certain lands, I would much rather have the local authority as the tribunal in the first instance, and in case a dispute arose there might be an appeal to the Referees. I think on such matters a Referee appointed by the President of the Surveyors' Institute would be a better tribunal than a judge sitting in the court or the Commissioners. On these grounds I think an appeal should be allowed. If you are going to allow a taxing authority to be the judge in their own case I think you are setting up a bad and a dangerous precedent. I hope the Government will see their way to make some modification upon this point. If they do not I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThis is a difficult question upon which we can make up our minds as to what is in the best interests of the subject and justice and equity generally. I am very much disposed to agree that many of these questions are not suited for decision in a court of law according to the rules of evidence and all the other expensive paraphernalia attached to legal procedure. I suppose this is necessary when similar questions have to be decided by a court of law as between subject and subject, though not probably between the Crown and the subject. Such a question as whether reasonable access is given must frequently come before the courts. These questions are not quite as strange to the courts as might have been supposed from the way in which the Attorney-General treated the matter. Be that as it may, I quite agree with him that on the whole the questions with which we are now dealing are not questions of law, and, indeed some of them are scarcely questions of fact; they are matters of opinion, and I do not know that much good is ever obtained by taking a matter of opinion into a court of law. Certainly, as one of the subjects of the realm, I can honestly say that the last place in which I wish to find myself is a court of law in any capacity,
§ whether as a plaintiff or otherwise. Under those circumstances, I am certainly not inclined to press the Government to give an appeal to a court of law upon all these questions, but at the same time Members of the Government have themselves felt there is a great inconvenience in allowing the taxing authority to be also judge in its own cause—to be allowed to assess the subject and also to say what benefit the subject shall hay from the exemptions. I venture to make a suggestion which I think might reconcile my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Watson Rutherford) and the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General is aware that the appeal under Clause 33 is not an appeal direct to a court of law. It is an appeal to one of the Referees appointed in the manner determined by the Act. Thereafter, if the party feels aggrieved by the decision of the Referee, he may take his case to a court of law. What I suggest is that under the Sub-section with which we are now dealing there should be an appeal to the Referee, but no further. The Referee would give that kind of business decision which the Attorney-General and I wish to get. An appeal to him would not be subject to all the strict rules, the expense, and the unnecessary procedure of an appeal to a court of law, and at the same time it would meet the particular objection of my hon. Friend, that, as the Bill now stands, the Commissioners are judges in their own cause.
§ Sir W. ROBSONThe right hon. Gentleman has put his point so persuasively that I am almost sorry I cannot accept his suggestion. After all, it would be substituting one opinion for another, though I quite agree it may be a less objectionable alternative than an appeal to a court of law. The proposal is one which has its attraction, and, if it were made in Committee, it is one we should say should be considered before Report, but at the present stage I am afraid I am not in the position to accept it.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'arising,' stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 147; Noes, 42.
559| Division No. 825.] | AYES. | [9.20 p.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) |
| Agnew, George William | Bennett, E. N. | Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Berridge, T. W. D. | Bryce, J. Annan |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Boulton, A. C. F. | Cameron, Robert |
| Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) | Brace, William | Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Brigg, John | Cawley, Sir Frederick |
| Beale, W. P. | Bright, J. A. | Chevy, Rt. Hon. R. R. |
| Clough, William | Illingworth, Percy H. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Jardine, Sir J. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Cowan, W. H. | Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis | Robinson, S. |
| Crossley, William J. | Lehmann, R. C. | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Levy, Sir Maurice | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Lupton, Arnold | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Essex, R. W. | Lynch, H. B. | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Falconer, J. | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Sears, J. E. |
| Fenwick, Charles | Maclean, Donald | Seely, Colonel |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | M'Callum, John M. | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Fullerton, Hugh | M'Micking, Major G. | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Gibson, J. P. | Mallett, Charles E. | Tomkinson, James |
| Glendinning, R. G. | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Toulmin, George |
| Glover, Thomas | Marnham, F. J. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Massie, J. | Verney, F. W. |
| Grove, Archibald | Menzies, Sir Walter | Vivian, Henry |
| Guiland, John W. | Micklem, Nathaniel | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Molteno, Percy Alport | Walsh, Stephen |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Morse, L. L. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Myer, Horatio | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Napier, T. B. | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Nuttall, Harry | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | O'Malley, William | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Hedges, A. Paget | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Helme, Norval Watson | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Higham, John Sharp | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Hobart, Sir Robert | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Hodge, John | Pollard, Dr. G. H. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Holt, Richard Durning | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) | |
| Hyde, Clarendon G. | Rees, J. D. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Idris, T. H. W. | Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gretton, John | Randies, Sir John Scurrah |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Hamilton, Marquess of | Renwick, George |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Cave, George | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Hunt, Rowland | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Fletcher, J. S. | Magnus, Sir Philip | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Forster, Henry William | Morpeth, Viscount | |
| Gardner, Ernest | Newdegate, F. A. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Major Coates and Mr. Stanier. |
| Gordon, J. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
§ Drafting Amendments made.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (in the absence of Mr. Cox) moved in Sub-section (4), after the word "duty" ["Inhabited House Duty"] to insert the words "or where the tenants of two or more houses have joint user of a garden, on the site value of any land not exceeding one acre in extent for each such house."
§ I am moving this in order to obtain from the Attorney-General the view of the Government as to the law on this point. The hon. Member for Preston proposes that you should give exemption to the land occupied jointly by a number of houses. 560 That seems to be a fair and reasonable proposition, and I should have thought it absolutely unnecessary to move it but for something the Attorney-General said earlier in the day. If I rightly understood him, his answer would be that that is already covered where there are several houses having a joint user of the garden. The point we wish to get at is whether the exemption will be granted for the land in the case of one house or whether it will be allotted to each house as if they had plots separately attached to them. I will formally move this Amendment in order to get the view of the Attorney-General.
561§ Sir W. ROBSONI do not think there is anything in the Bill which will cover the object aimed at by the hon. Member who put down this Amendment, neither do I see how the object would be definitely achieved under any Clause of the Bill. We have a garden of five acres exempt under the Bill, except under very exceptional circumstances; we also have the exemption of all squares, which are really gardens. There may be some cases outside which would be only covered by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston, but is it really necessary that we should make further provision for these? We have to consider that by opening the door we are losing income; we have lost a great deal already, more in my opinion than we ought. We have made substantial concessions, and I do not think we can afford to give anything more away in the shape of concessions. The substantial object aimed at by the hon. Member for Preston is already secured, and to accept this Amendment would be to open the door to further evasions which might have serious results.
§ Mr. CAVEThis is a serious matter. The Attorney-General in effect has said that while one class of people who deserve to get off have got off, the Government cannot afford that other people who also deserve to get off should also get off. It very often happens that a number of houses originally on one estate have a common garden—it may be, 10 or 20 or more such houses have between them a garden of 10 or 20 acres. I do not see why houses in that position are not entitled to exemption on the same principle which exempts men with one acre of garden. Surely the case is similar. They have got an acre each of land, and they throw the gardens into one lot and use them together, and they are gardens of all the houses just the same, and no house has really more than the equivalent of one acre. It seems to me that the same principle which exempts the one acre to one house should exempt the 10 acres to 10 houses. I do not see any difference in principle, and I hope some more serious consideration will be given to the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. E. A. RIDSDALEThe hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Cox) is not here, but he told me that the case he had in view was Gray's Inn, where I understand there is a piece of ground which is used by the occupants of a number of houses. I think 562 the hon. Member anticipates considerable hardship there, because they would not like to take exemption in the future as they would be precluded from dealing with the land unless they could obtain the consent of the Local Government Board, and that would fetter their action. It really does seem to be a hardship that combinations for the common good—I do not wish to use the word Socialism—should be interfered with.
§ Mr. G. L. COURTHOPEIn reference to the argument that this Amendment was not necessary, as five acres were allowed, may I point out that, as I read the Bill, the house, stables, and so on all come into that five acres; and if there are 10, 15, or 20 houses using a common garden, there will be very little of that five acres left for garden. Therefore, I do not think that the argument which the learned Attorney-General used is of any value at all to those for whose benefit this Amendment has been moved. I think, therefore, we may wipe that out altogether where there are a number of houses. The space actually occupied by the houses and their yards, stables, outbuildings, and so on will be so great that there will be nothing left of the five acres, or, at all events, nothing appreciable for a garden. I do hope that as the learned Attorney-General brought forward that argument confidently thinking, that these joint users would have the whole of the five acres, and must now realise that they will not have it for a joint resort, he will reconsider the attitude he has taken up, and, if possible, accept the Amendment or something on the same lines.
§ Mr. H. MYERI know of one or two concrete cases in reference to this particular question, inasmuch as in my experience certain squares, with the houses attached to them, have fallen into the hands of the landlords, and the garden of five or six acres, part of which was taken over, was built over, and a large school or orphanage was erected. This ground originally belonged to the people of the houses, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Attorney-General will say that they will not allow these properties when they fall in to be built upon.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 47; Noes, 156.
563| Division No. 826.] | AYES. | [9.45 p.m. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Haddock, George B. | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Hamilton, Marquess of | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Renwick, George |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Cave, George | Hunt, Rowland | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Kerry, Earl of | Stanier, Beville |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Fletcher, J. S. | M'Arthur, Charles | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Forster, Henry William | Magnus, Sir Philip | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Foster, P. S. | Morpeth, Viscount | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Gardner, Ernest | Morrison-Bell, Captain | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Gordon, J. | Newdegate, F. A. | |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Lord Balcarres. |
| Gretton, John | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | |
| Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds) | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) |
| Agnew, George William | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Pollard, Dr. G. H. |
| Astbury, John Meir | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) | Haworth, Arthur A. | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Rees, J. D. |
| Beale, W. P. | Hedges, A. Paget | Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth) |
| Beauchamp, E. | Helme, Norval Watson | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Bennett, E. N. | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Higham, John Sharp | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Hobart, Sir Robert | Robinson, S. |
| Brace, William | Hodge, John | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Brigg, John | Holt, Richard Durning | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Bright, J. A. | Hyde, Clarendon G. | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Idris, T. H. W. | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Illingworth, Percy H. | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Jardine, Sir J. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Sears, J. E. |
| Cameron, Robert | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Seely, Colonel |
| Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Lehmann, R. C. | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Levy, Sir Maurice | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Lupton, Arnold | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Tomkinson, James |
| Clough, William | Lynch, H. B. | Toulmin, George |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Verney, F. W. |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Maclean, Donald | Villiers, Ernest Amherst |
| Cowan, W. H. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Vivian, Henry |
| Crossley, William J. | M'Callum, John M. | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Dalziel, Sir James Henry | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Walsh, Stephen |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | M'Micking, Major G. | Walters, John Tudor |
| Essex, R. W. | Mallet, Charles E. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Marnham, F. J. | Watt, Henry A. |
| Falconer, J. | Massie, J. | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Masterman, C. F. G. | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Micklem, Nathaniel | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Molteno, Percy Alport | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Morse, L. L. | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Fullerton, Hugh | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Gibson, J. P. | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Glendinning, R. G. | Myer, Horatio | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Glover, Thomas | Napier, T. B. | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Greenwood, Hamar (York) | Nuttall, Harry | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Grove, Archibald | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Guiland, John W. | O'Grady, J. | |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | O'Malley, William | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
§ Amendments made: In Sub-section (4), after the word "grounds" ["the site value of any land being gardens or pleasure grounds"], to insert the word "so."
564§ In the same Sub-section, to leave out the words "with a dwelling-house, which do not exceed five acres in extent."—[Sir W. Robson.]
565§ Sir W. ROBSON moved, at the end of the same Sub-section, to insert the words:
§ "Provided that the exemption under this provision shall not apply so as to exempt more than five acres, and where the land, gardens, or pleasure grounds occupied together with a dwelling-house exceed five acres in extent, those five acres shall be exempted which are determined by the Commissioners to be most adapted for use as gardens or pleasure grounds in connection with the dwelling-house.
§ "Where the dwelling-house, gardens, and pleasure grounds are valued for the purpose of Income Tax under Schedule A, together with other land, the total annual value shall be divided between the dwelling-house, gardens, and pleasure grounds, and the other land in such manner as the Commissioners may determine."
§ Mr. RENWICKI have read this Amendment with very great surprise, and I think the time has arrived when we ought to ask how the Commissioners are going to carry out the duties which are piled on them day after day. During the course of the Committee and Report stages all manner of duties have been imposed on them, but the height of absurdity is reached in regard to this Amendment. We find that where a garden or pleasure ground exceeds, together with the site of the house, five acres, the Commissioners are to be called in to go round the grounds and decide which five acres are to be exempt. I can imagine them going into the kitchen garden to examine the cabbages, leeks, and onions, and saying they are of opinion that instead of growing leeks and cabbages here they should be grown there. Could anything be more absurd? Then who are these Commissioners? The amount of work which is to be piled upon them will mean a great increase of their number. If they are to be increased are they to have the same status and the same salary? If not, to which county are the best Commissioners to be sent, and to which county are the inferior Commissioners to be sent? I cannot imagine anything more absurd than this proposal, and I am amazed that such an Amendment should be put down in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will give us some information in regard to how the Commissioners are going to carry out this extraordinary duty. I wish to treat it seriously, and not as a joke. Suppose I have a house and grounds of six acres, five acres have to be exempt according to the Bill. Have the Commissioners to come down to my place and personally 566 go round and tell me which portion of my garden is most suitable for cultivation? One can only learn after years of experience which portion of your grounds are most suitable for gardening. I do some gardening myself, and after years of experience I have discovered which portions of the ground are most suitable for vegetables and which for flowers, and so on. Here the Commissioners are simply to walk round and look at the grounds, without any experience, and say, "Grow your cabbages here and your roses there." The whole thing is absurd, and it shows that this Bill is piling up work for the Commissioners. It will mean such an enormous number of Commissioners and officials that we shall not be able to move about our own grounds.
§ Sir W. ROBSONIt is not often that we have the pleasure of hearing one Member of the Opposition upon an Amendment put forward by another Member of the Opposition. I am sure it will interest the hon. Member to learn that the Amendment which he is so amazed to find in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is one put down at the request of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman).
§ Mr. RENWICKThat does not make it the less ridiculous.
§ Sir W. ROBSONIf it is amazing it is still more amusing. The hon. Member was quite indignant that he should be laughed at when he said he was not speaking in a spirit of humour. That is exactly where his humour was most effective. We were much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford. The Clause as it originally stood was open to one, I will not say obvious, but very marked objection. The intention of the Clause was to give a more extensive exemption to garden land around houses, and it said that Undeveloped Land Duty should not be charged upon garden land connected with dwelling houses when it did not exceed five acres in extent. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford pointed out that you might have a garden ten acres in extent, and under those circumstances it would not be fair to refuse exemption to it. The wording of the Clause did cut out the exemption in cases of land of ten acres. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he would redraft the words in a form that would make it clear that the owner of a ten-acre garden should at least have the exemption which was given to the owner of a five-acre garden. No real difficulty will arise as to the part to be exempted. 567 It is left to the discretion of the Commissioners, as we said at the time when the Amendment was promised. No one objected then, because hon. Members happened to know what they were talking about. They were not subject to that excess of indignation which seems to be felt by the hon. Member for Newcastle. It is a very rare case in which a garden will have to be apportioned in any such way, but if it has to be apportioned it is better that the Commissioners should do it.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONThere are two points on which I wish to ask information from the hon. and learned Gentleman. I gather that the allocation of the garden land for this purpose is to be in the discretion of the Commissioners. Is there any appeal from that discretion?
§ Sir W. ROBSONThere is an appeal.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONAs to the other point, I notice that in the Amendment of the Government that where dwelling-houses are valued for the purpose of the Income Tax under Schedule A the total annual value shall be divided in certain proportions which the Amendment goes on to state. I want to know exactly what the Government mean by "total annual value." There are 13 or 14 descriptions of value in the Finance Bill, but among all these there is not one as to what is meant by total annual value. Before we accept this Amendment we ought to know what the Government mean by these words. I think it is an excellent Amendment provided there is an appeal from the determination of the Commissioners.
§ Sir W. ROBSONWhat is meant by the words total annual value is quite clear under Schedule A.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONThen the definition ought to be in the Definition Clause.
§ 10.0 P.M.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe learned Attorney-General has attributed the origin of this Amendment to my hon. and gallant Friend (Mr. Pretyman). Whether he would exactly recognise his ideas in the form in which the Government have embodied them I am not quite certain. He is not here to answer for himself, but perhaps he is more usefully engaged in explaining the Budget to people who have less opportunity of knowing what it contains than we have had in this House. On a previous Amendment the Attorney-General used some language 568 which led me to suppose that he regarded a square as being, so to speak, a multiple garden attached to the houses in the square. Having spoken of the square in that way, one of the protections which he alleged the square would have was that it would be regarded as a common garden, each house having its own acre.
§ Sir W. ROBSON indicated dissent.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI thought the hon. and learned Gentleman said so, but I take it he did not. I do not know what meaning his reference to the subject had if it was not that. When I moved the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Preston I understood that the case was covered, but because I was not certain I moved the Amendment, and I got an assurance that it was not.
§ Sir W. ROBSONThe case of the square of five acres would be covered, but I did not say that an acre should be allocated to each House.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThat is exactly what I want to do. I will give an example from my own Constituency on the boundaries of the borough of Birmingham, in the suburb of Moseley. There is a great deal of land which in the last few years has been developed for building. A large portion of pleasantly situated land has been developed for building villa houses, each having quite a, small garden attached. In front of these houses there is, belonging to the same owner, more land with a piece of water in it. The residents in these houses first of all wished to acquire that land from the owner in order to keep it as an open space for the benefit of the houses surrounding and abutting on it. They did not wish to be selfish, and they were willing that the occupiers of houses in the neighbourhood should have keys. The owner of the land would not give a 99 years' lease or sell the freehold, but he gave, I think, a 21 years' lease. The water was laid out as an ornamental sheet of water and the place was treated as a park. I was invited to speak there, and I remember dwelling on the advantage it was to Birmingham to have the amenities of its suburbs increased in this way. The tendency of many of our great towns is to lose their amenities for residence, and with the development of transit facilities those who can afford it go farther afield. Having returned home they do not care to take a second journey into the town to participate 569 in its public life. I think it is a great advantage to cities to have such suburbs as Edgbaston and Moseley, which we have in Birmingham, where people can find such amenities as they want in a situation that makes it practicable for them to give their services to the public work of the town, on its corporation and its other public bodies. If a man has to take a half-hour's railway journey to get to his home he will not take another journey to come back to a meeting. Therefore by going far afield half his usefulness to the town is lost; and for that reason it is a great advantage to the town to keep him there. That is the kind of argument with which I attempted to support the proposition that a piece of land like this, though
§ it was not, as in the case of the dedication of a public park, open to everyone, yet by increasing the amenities of residence did a real service to the town. I think that that claim was recognised by the Attorney-General as not unreasonable. It is very hard if, say, ten of those people were for a position to rent five acres that that land would be franked, but because 100 or more join in common, therefore they are to lose the benefit of the exemption. On that ground I support my hon. Friend if he goes to a Division in seeking to reject the words which it is now sought to introduce.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed be there inserted in the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 167; Noes, 60.
571| Division No. 827.] | AYES. | [10.10 p.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Guiland, John W. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rosendale) | Pollard, Dr. G. H. |
| Agnew, George William | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Astbury, John Meir | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale). | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) |
| Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Rees, J. D. |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Haworth, Arthur A. | Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth) |
| Beale, W. P. | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Beauchamp, E. | Hedges, A. Paget | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Beaumont, Hon. Hubert | Helme, Norval Watson | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Robinson, S. |
| Bennett, E. N. | Higham, John Sharp | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Hobart, Sir Robert | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Hodge, John | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Holt, Richard Darning | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Brace, William | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Brigg, John | Hyde, Clarendon G. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Bright, J. A. | Idris, T. H. W. | Seely, Colonel |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Illingworth, Percy H. | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Jardine, Sir J. | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Cameron, Robert | Keating, M. | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis | Tomkinson, James |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Lehmann, R. C. | Toulmin, George |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Levy, Sir Maurice | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Verney, F. W. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Lupton, Arnold | Villiers, Ernest Amherst |
| Clough, William | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Vivian, Henry |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Lynch, H. B. | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Walsh, Stephen |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Walters, John Tudor |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John | Maclean, Donald | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Cowan, W. H. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Crossley, William J. | M'Callum, John M. | Watt, Henry A. |
| Dalziel, Sir James Henry | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Whitbread, S. Howard |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Essex, R. W. | M'Micking, Major G. | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Marnham, F. J. | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Falconer, J. | Massie, J. | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Masterman, C. F. G. | Wiles, Thomas |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Micklem, Nathaniel | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Molteno, Percy Alport | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Fullerton, Hugh | Morse, L. L. | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Gibson, J. P. | Myer, Horatio | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) |
| Glendinning, R. G. | Napier, T. B. | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Glover, Thomas | Nuttall, Harry | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | O'Grady, J. | |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Greenwood, Hamar (York) | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | |
| Grove, Archibald | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Gordon, J. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Gretton, John | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Haddock, George B. | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hamilton, Marquess of | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Helmsley, Viscount | Stanier, Beville |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hunt, Rowland | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r) | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Kerry, Earl of | Valentia, Viscount |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Walker, Col. W. H. Lancashire) |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Craik, Sir Henry | M'Arthur, Charles | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Fletcher, J. S. | Magnus, Sir Philip | younger, George |
| Forster, Henry William | Morpeth, Viscount | |
| Foster, P. S. | Morrison-Bell, Captain | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Renwick and Mr. Cave. |
| Gardner, Ernest | Newdegate, F. A. |
§ Mr. J. M. HENDERSON moved to add, at the end of Sub-section (4), the words, "Where any land in respect of which Undeveloped Land Duty has been paid thereafter becomes subject to payment of Increment Value Duty the Commissioners shall allow the amount of the Undeveloped Land Duty so paid to be deducted from the amount claimed for Increment Value Duty."
§
The object of this Amendment is to bring into line with this Undeveloped Land Tax the provisions with regard to the Reversion Duty. All these three taxes—the Undeveloped Land Tax, the Reversion Duty, and the Increment Duty—bang together to a certain degree; and where you have made provision for the Reversion Duty to be deducted from the increment in certain cases, I think that the Government would do well to accept this Amendment, so that when the land becomes developed and the Increment Duty becomes payable upon it, the Commissioners should be allowed to deduct the tax which the owner has paid in the meantime. It is well known that I am not a great admirer of this Undeveloped Land Tax at all. I spoke against it on second reading, and I gave there certain arguments against the tax, not one of which has been replied to—not successfully, at all events. With all the desire, and it is a very sincere desire, to fall into line with the Government on this particular tax, I have not been able to do so. I cited the condemnation that John Stuart Mill made of this kind of tax. Nobody answered John Stuart Mill on that. The Attorney-General brushed me aside, and said that this was not the tax he meant; but he did not tell us what tax he did mean. John Stuart Mill's condemna-
572
tion was of a peculiar tax on realised property, such as land, public funds, mortgages, stocks, and shares. Suppose that the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down and said, "I am going to put a halfpenny capital tax on Consols," would not that have been a tax John Stuart Mill condemned? I do not think it was very nice of him to make it appear that I was rather misleading the House. I was not misleading the House, because that was really what was meant. Whether John Stuart Mill may have been right or may have been wrong, most certainly he condemned this tax. The point I wish to raise is that this is a double tax taken in connection with the Increment Tax. I entirely approve of the Increment Tax. It is a good tax, and it is a tax worth having, but the Undeveloped Land Tax is not a tax worth having at all, as I shall be able to show you in a very short time. What was John Stuart Mill's condition precedent to the Increment Tax, and he was the first to propose that tax? The condition precedent was this, and I will read his words:
The present market price of their land should be secured to them, held sacred from any peculiar taxation
§
That is exactly what the Prime Minister said at Bletchley.
We do not go back on the past.
§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, said that the past increment does not count, and even to-day my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the Home Department said that the past does not concern us. The meaning of that, if it has any meaning at all, is that when the value of a man's land is taken at the datum time, say, at a thousand pounds, 573 the Prime Minister says that we do not go back on the past, on that thousand pounds. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that "we do not count the increment up to the thousand pounds, that is secured to you." How can you go back on that thousand pounds, how is it possible to go back on it but by taxation? Suppose you do wish to go back on it you can only do so by taxation. While they say they do not, straightway they go to the past and tax it. I hope I have made that clear. If you are going back on the past, for goodness' sake say so; but do not say that you are not, and go. What is supposed to be the object of the tax? That you will compel or prevail upon a man to develop his land. Take the case of a man whose land is worth £1,000. You say to him: "Your land is worth £1,000. You may do one of two things—either sell or build upon it now, or wait until there is a fuller market." If he takes you at your word and builds upon it now, away goes both your Undeveloped Land Tax and your Increment Value Tax. If he holds it up, from that moment you, the State, becomes a one-fifth partner in the land—a partner who takes only profit and no loss. But why do you say to your partner, "During the time you are maturing a profit for me you shall pay this tax?" Is that right? It does not commend itself to me as at all right. Objecting to the tax one might naturally approve of the exceptions and exemptions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made. He has made a great many; he has so cut the tax down that I challenge anyone on the Front Bench to produce figures showing that the proceeds can for the next three years, at all events, exceed £60,000 a year. He has exempted the whole of agricultural land, all small houses, all land belonging to local authorities, and, what he ought not to have exempted, all land on which the owner has built roads. That means that the Government are actually going to exclude the ripe land, and that all they are going to tax is the unripe land. As to the Royal Commission on Local Taxation. I would like to refer to the evidence of Mr. Harper, a well-known official of the London County Council. Mr. Harper is entirely in favour of this taxation. He entirely disclaims any intention of rating land only ripening for building. He says that until land becomes ripe for building it would inflict hardship to assess it upon any greater value than the annual revenue. He was one of the best witnesses 574 before the Commission. He goes on further to say that "any charge upon the assessment could only fall by anticipation upon the same revenue, which would thus be taxed twice over." I would like the Attorney-General to answer that. It is a thing perhaps not easy to follow, but as a matter of fact that is exactly what you do if you do not accept the Amendment that I have put down. You may say to the owners of the land, "You may keep it; if it improves I claim a fifth." As I said before, I do not care if you claim a fourth. Make your claim what you choose. It will give you more money than by your present methods. But when you say, "I am going to take a share of the increment," I say you are bound to take from that increment the amount of the tax which during that intermediate time you have extracted from the man. There can hardly be any answer to that.
§ There is only one other point. There is a popular fallacy, which seems with a great many men in this House to have been elevated to an economic principle, that land which is not immediately built upon is therefore being "held up." My hon. Friend the Secretary admitted that there was land—well known to me—on the South-Western line, which, although it was building land, was not ripe for building. There was an equally large number of fields at Raynes Park where 10 years ago young men by the hundred every Saturday enjoyed cricket. To-day that is built upon, but is not occupied. But if anyone had built upon that estate 10 years ago he would not have got tenants for the houses. The same applies to the fields near Earlsfield. It is a mistake to suppose that because land is ripening that it therefore has ripened! There is a time when it will be ripe. It may be five, 10, or 20 years. You cannot tell. It all depends. I could give an instance of an estate near to where I live. I could show hon. Member a prospectus where the estate is going to be covered in six years and a great profit made. That was 12 years ago. It is not half covered, and £60,000 has been sunk. Do not let us forget that builders, speculative builders, are always optimists. After all, man is a building animal; he always wherever he can puts his money into bricks and mortar, so there is not much danger of the land in the big towns being left unbuilt upon. There is, I admit, holding up of land, but it is not in the large towns. Holding up is done by rich people, who buy estates near small towns and who will not sell. If anyone believes 575 that this halfpenny in the £ is a cure for that he is greatly mistaken. What use is it to say to a rich man near a town 70 miles from London, who has sacrificed £300 or £400 capital simply because he does not wish the public to come near him, "You must pay this halfpenny in the £? Axe you going to frighten him by £5 or £10 a year? The only possible cure in such a case is to give the local communities absolute power of purchase, and to force purchase. That is the only way you can cure that evil. A ½d. tax here is absolutely futile The result of all these exemptions must be to reduce the amount of your tax to something that certainly is not worth all the excitement and trouble it is causing in this country. You will remove the last vestige of injustice, or feeling of injustice, if you would only say to a, man when his increment comes to be paid, in the case, say, of land that was worth £1,000 and is now worth £2,000, "We claim 20 per cent., but from that you may deduct the small amount of the Undeveloped Land Duty which you have paid to us."
§ Mr. A. CECIL BECKI beg to second the Amendment.
§ Sir W. ROBSONMy hon. Friend concluded his speech, which he admitted he was not making altogether for the first time, with the observation that if we accepted this Amendment we should remove the last vestige of injustice. Well, injustice is a phrase that sometimes requires a little explanation, and in this case what my hon. Friend meant was that if we accepted his Amendment we should remove the last remnant of the tax, because he said, and I think with some force, we made so many concessions that he believed—I do not quite know upon what basis—the tax as it now stood was not worth more than £60,000 a year. That does not look like a very gigantic injustice. In fact the hon. Member reproaches us not so much with having imposed the tax, but rather with, the concessions we have made in connection with the tax. He did not appear to have quite made up his mind as to which was the greater sin. The hon. Member made an observation reflecting upon a speech which I made upon a former occasion, and he complained that nobody had answered an argument he adduced from John Stuart Mill. On that occasion my hon. Friend did that which I do not think was quite fair. He read some very strong language from John Stuart Mill, and he said that it ap- 576 plied to this tax, I said it did not, and having respectfully contradicted my hon. Friend on that point I looked round hoping my hon. Friend was going to give the context to justify his statement. But Mill referred to a tax very different. What he condemned was an outrageous proposal to collect revenue by a tax on all realised property. By realised property was meant not the property which is engaged in business, or property used by way of capital in industrial or commercial concerns, but land and savings, and there were some fiscal reformers at that time sufficiently bold to suggest that the whole revenue of the country could be raised by that tax. John Stuart Mill pointed out that it would exonerate merchants, manufacturers, and men making large incomes, and would throw the burden of the national expenditure upon thrift. That was the proposal which Mill condemned in strong language.
§ Mr. J. M. HENDERSONWill the Attorney-General read the passage?
§ Sir W. ROBSONI have already read it to the House. My hon. Friend applied the language which John Stuart Mill had used in reference to that tax on realised property to this Undeveloped Land Duty, and I said that was a wholly unjustifiable way of using a quotation. I should have thought that my hon. Friend would have given us an illustration of the tax that Mill condemned, and it certainly was not the Undeveloped Land Duty, which was not thought of in Mill's time. What was the tax which Mill proposed? It was a much stronger tax than any Undeveloped Land Duty, and it was not so much a tax as a policy in relation to land. My hon. Friend also read a further passage from Mill in which he said that you should protect existing values. That is a very fine phrase, and it is something like what we do under the Increment Value Duty. I wish, however, that the hon. Member had gone on to say in relation to what proposal John Stuart Mill was using that language. Although there are now those who seek to detract from the merits of this great economist, I think he was one of the greatest intellects that ever lived, and certainly he was the greatest intellect that ever devoted himself to a systematic study of economic science. His proposal was that you should exempt existing value and take not 20 per cent. but the whole of the increment, and that proposal was in the programme of the Land Tenure Reform Association, which 577 Mr. Mill founded in the year 1874. Let me say in justice to Mill that although he proposed to exempt existing values, and suggested taking the whole of the increment, he would not do that without giving the owner the option of selling to the State. I do not seek to bring in John Stuart Mill as an authority on this tax, because his proposals were different. They were in some respects more extreme, and in other respects they were very carefully safeguarded, I do not think he can fairly be appealed to either for or against this tax with any great degree of exactitude.
§ Mr. J. M. HENDERSONMay I be allowed to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman, because he makes a very serious charge against me? The language John Stuart Mill used was this:—
From the present date or any subsequent time at which the Legislature may think fit to assert the principle. I see no objection to declaring that the future increment in land shall be liable to special taxation.That is exactly what this Increment Tax is.
§ Sir W. ROBSONI do not think that controverts anything I have said. It is not that proposal to which John Stuart Mill applied the language of condemnation which the hon. Gentleman attached to this Undeveloped Land Duty. John Stuart Mill said, rightly enough, that it is a fit subject for taxation, but he was in favour of an option of sale, which undoubtedly makes a radical difference. The greater part of the hon. Gentleman's speech was devoted rather to an attack upon the tax as a whole than to a justification of his particular Amendment. Speaking of the tax as a whole, it is intended to be a tax on undevelopment. I do not suppose anybody will say it will cure all cases of undevelopment. You may tax drink without curing all the evils of drinking. It is a tax upon land which is being held back. The hon. Gentleman says that if you want to cure undevelopment you must go further. I do not doubt it. He suggests that the municipalities should be given the power of compulsory purchase. Do hon. Members opposite approve of that? If any hon. Member opposite wishes to test the question at any election in the near future he will not find his own party supporting him. He will get the cheers of his opponents.
§ Mr. G. YOUNGERIn Select Committee on the Scottish Land Values Bill I proposed a Clause to recommend compulsory purchase by municipalities in the 578 interests of anyone immediately prepared to develop the land, but I had no support except from my Unionist colleagues and the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire.
§ Sir W. ROBSONI have no doubt the hon. Member is stating the matter accurately, but I confess I should like to see the exact circumstances.
§ Mr. J. M. HENDERSONYou will find the proposal in the Report.
§ Sir W. ROBSONNo doubt; and I daresay I shall get an opportunity of looking at the Report as soon as I find time. I do not think, however, the forced purchase of land which is being held back is altogether favoured by hon. Gentlemen opposite. If it is, I should like to ask upon what terms the land is to be valued. They are sure to obtain assent from this side of the House if they would only say forced purchase upon a fair valuation. I do not find those in favour of forced purchase on the other side of the House going to that extreme. The hon. Member proposes that when the Increment Value Duty comes to be assessed there should be a deduction from it of whatever has been paid for Undeveloped Land Duty. The effect of that would be that there would be no sort of Undeveloped Land Tax. The owner would know he was merely playing with the State. He has paid his Undeveloped Land Duty, but he knows the time will come when he must sell, and then he will comfortably deduct the whole of it. That is what the hon. Member desires to do, but it is not what we desire to do; and it is scarcely an Amendment which we could accept. He puts forward the argument that the State has made itself in some sort of way a partner with the landlord, because it taxes him. That is a somewhat singular contention. We do not make ourselves partners with dealers in tea, sugar, cocoa, and other things which we taxed. The State simply goes to the trade and puts its hand upon so much profit as it thinks it can tax and applies it to its own purposes. That is not exactly partnership. The State is a very awkward partner. I should not like a partner animated by the principles which animates the State upon a fiscal question. I am afraid I have occupied the attention of the House rather a long time. The Amendment is one which we certainly cannot accept.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI had no intention of speaking on this Amendment but for the interesting, contentious, 579 and rather discursive speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He was tempted to inquire into the views of the Opposition, or, rather, he was not so much tempted to inquire into the views of the Opposition as to state the views of the Opposition on the subject of compulsory purchase of land for public purposes by public authorities. Let me say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that I think he entirely misconceives our position. No doubt, speaking generally, we do not like compulsory purchase, but, so far as I know, I may say for all my colleagues that where you can prove a public necessity which cannot otherwise be achieved we are prepared to assent to compulsory purchase. I will not enter into a discussion of the Lands Clauses Act at this stage, but I will make the hon. and learned Gentleman a present of the admission, if he cares to have it, that although in theory it is perfectly fair, in practice it results in frequently giving to the individual, when a public authority is buying from him, more than the fair value. After listening to the observations which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has made from this box, I do not think that any views I am now expressing go beyond what he has more than once said in the course of our discussions. Certainly I was brought up under an enterprising municipality, but at the same time a prudent one, and one that desired always to act fairly by those whose interests were affected. I think compulsory powers for public purposes may be used when these purposes cannot otherwise be gained. I agree that under the Lands Clauses Acts an exorbitant price is obtained. I must not be taken to discuss that question now, and I will say it is a very complicated and difficult matter. Certainly if the Attorney-General's challenge extended to the point of saying that we are prepared across the Table to say on what terms we would be prepared to sanction this compuslory purchase, I am not prepared to define those terms better than by saying, fairly. It was because of the introduction of this subject that I described the Attorney-General's speech as rather discursive, and mine has gone round an equally large circle, and now, like the Attorney-General, I come to the immediate Amendment. The hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. J. M. Henderson) I think quite clearly established his case that 580 unless you accept his Amendment you are taxing the same thing twice over. By your Increment Tax you take, as you state, one-fifth of any growing profit that he has realised when the occasion for the collection of Increment Tax comes. In the meantime you are taxing the same subject and the same value in this tax. You are taxing, therefore, the thing twice over. The Attorney-General admits that if you do not tax it twice over you get no money from this tax at all, and although he has not committed himself to figures I think he is as convinced as the hon. Member that there is not much money in the tax now under any circumstances.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen dwelt upon a great many important exceptions that had been made by the Government, but he omitted what I think is the most important of all, for, after all, this tax has ceased to be a fiscal measure in the least. £60,000 a year is not a sum a Government really cares about in order to pay for "Dreadnoughts" or provide old age pensions. It is imposed, as the right hon. Gentleman said, in order that you may tax undevelopment, and in that you penalise undevelopment in the sense that you put a burden upon the man who does not develop the land, because he does not develop it in the hope that you will force him to develop. Just consider the exception which the hon. Member for Aberdeen did not make in that case—the exception which allows that all land shall be free from the Undeveloped Land Duty, which is let on agreement for not less than five years to sportsmen. If a man has made up his mind not to develop his land for five years, and is willing to wait, he can hang it up for that period by making that agreement with a cricket or hockey or any other club, and he is exempt from duty. No man who really wants to hold up land need pay Undeveloped Land Duty. The only man who will have to pay Undeveloped Land Duty is the man who finds his land not absolutely ripe for building, but hopes it will be ripe at the end of next year or the beginning of the year after. When you have done that not only have you destroyed the fiscal object of the tax, but also the penal or social object, which is now the sole reason for the existence of the tax.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the "Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 73; Noes, 163.
583| Division No. 828.] | AYES. | [11.0 p.m. |
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. P. | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Gordon, J. | Ratcliff, Major R. F. |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gretton, John | Renwick, George |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds) | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Haddock, George B. | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hamilton, Marquess of | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Heimsley, Viscount | Stanier, Beville |
| Cave, George | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Starkey, John R. |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hunt, Rowland | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r) | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Kerry, Earl of | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John | M'Arthur, Charles | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Magnus, Sir Philip | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Morpeth, Viscount | Whitbread, S. Howard |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Morrison-Bell, Captain | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Fletcher, J. S. | Newdegate, F. A. | Younger, George |
| Forster, Henry William | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | |
| Foster, P. S. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. J. M. Henderson and Mr. Beck. |
| Gardner, Ernest | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | |
| Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Guiland, John W. | Nolan, Joseph |
| Agnew, George William | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Nuttall, Harry |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Astbury, John Meir | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Haworth, Arthur A. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Beale, W. P. | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Pollard, Dr. G. H. |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Hedges, A. Paget | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Bennett, E. N. | Helme, Norval Watson | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Radford, G. H. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Higham, John Sharp | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Brace, William | Hobart, Sir Robert | Rees, J. D. |
| Brigg, John | Hodge, John | Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth) |
| Bright, J. A. | Holt, Richard Durning | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Hyde, Clarendon G. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Idris, T. H. W. | Robinson, S. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Illingworth, Percy H. | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Cameron, Robert | Jardine, Sir J. | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Clough, William | Lambert, George | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Lehmann, R. C. | Seely, Colonel |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Shackleton, David James |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Lupton, Arnold | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Cowan, W. H. | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Scares, Ernest J. |
| Crossley, William J. | Lynch, H. B. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Essex, R. W. | Macpherson, J. T. | Tomkinson, James |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Toulmin, George |
| Falconer, J. | M'Callum, John M. | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Verney, F. W. |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Villiers, Ernest Amherst |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | M'Mickling, Major G. | Vivian, Henry |
| Fullerton, Hugh | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | Marnham, F. J. | Walsh, Stephen |
| Gibson, J. P. | Massie, J. | Walters, John Tudor |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Masterman, C. F. G. | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Glover, Thomas | Micklem, Nathaniel | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Molteno, Percy Alport | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Morse, L. L. | Watt, Henry A. |
| Greenwood, Hamar (York) | Murray Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Grove, Archibald | Myer, Horatio | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Whitehead, Rowland | Wills, Arthur Walters | Wilson W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Whiteley, John Henry (Halifax) | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) | |
| Wiles, Thomas | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Wilkie, Alexander | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) | |
| Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
§ Amendment proposed: In Sub-section (5), to leave out the word "a" ["held under a tenancy originally created"], and to insert instead thereof the words "an agricultural."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
§ Mr. J. FALCONERI should like to ask what is the effect of this alteration? It has been brought to my notice that there is a considerable amount of land which, prior to 30th April, 1909, has been let on lease which might fall within the definition of agricultural land, because that under the Definition Clause includes a great deal which is not regarded as agricultural land—woodland and such like—but which is not let on agricultural tenancy. Supposing the words "an agricultural" were included as now proposed the result would be that the owner of such land as I have described, who has let it on lease long before this Bill was introduced, and where there might still be some years of the lease to run, would have to pay Undeveloped Land Duty in respect of land which he was unable, by reason of the lease, to develop. I do not understand that that is the object of the Government at all. I understand that the purpose of the Government is not to levy Undeveloped Land Duty upon land which the owner could not develop by reason of a lease entered into prior to 30th April. I am aware that in the Valuation Clause there is express provision made that in valuing land for the purposes of the duty the valuator is to take into account covenants in leases. That leads me to assume that I am right in what I regard as the intention of the Government. The point I desire to get information on is this: A valuator valuing such land would take the capital value of the land; and if there were three or four years of lease still to run he would make some small allowance with respect of the period of the lease still to run, and the owner of the land would be compelled to pay the Undeveloped Land Duty upon the whole value of the land, less that slight deduction for postponement. It does seem to me that there is really here a case where an owner having land which by reason of a lease he could not develop will have to pay the Undeveloped Land Duty according to the value of the Crown. It might be considerably more than the rental he was getting for the whole of the land. I would 584 therefore like the opinion of the Government as to the effect of the words introduced. If the word "agricultural" is not introduced with regard to the tenancy a great part of the evil would be obviated; but if you do introduce the word "agricultural" all the land held under agricultural tenancies will be exposed, subject only to the question of the five acres.
§ Mr. MASTERMANWe thought that we had completely covered the case referred to by the hon. Member for Forfar (Mr. Falconer). The object of this Clause was to stop the levying of Undeveloped Land Duty on land in the neighbourhood of towns which the landlord could not develop even if he wished. Subsequently we got a series of drafting Amendments which provided, in a different form from the Amendment which we accepted from the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave), that where the landlord has power to break the lease if he has not exercised that power he shall not enjoy the exemption. That, I understand, the hon. Member does not object to. But the hon. Member thinks that there may be leases of woodlands with similar conditions as agricultural lands which may not be strict agricultural tenancies in the strict description of the meaning. In that case we are quite prepared to leave the Clause as it stood, and to omit the word "agricultural" before "tenancy."
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Drafting Amendment made.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved in Subsection (5) to omit from the word "thereunder" to the end of the Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words:
§ "Provided that where the landlord has power to determine the tenancy of the whole or any part of the land, the tenancy of the land or that part of the land shall not be deemed for the purposes of this provision to continue after the earliest date after the commencement of this Act at which it is possible to determine the tenancy under that power."
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDThis is a case where it is clear that the charge would be increased, because in the Bill as it stands the provision for the exemptions is applicable until the tenancy can be discontinued. But when we come to look 585 at the new words which the Government propose to substitute there is the express provision that the exemption is to expire at the earliest date after the commencement of this Act at which the tenancy could be made to expire by the landlord. When I recall the Debate on this point in Committee, it certainly does seem to me hard that now, on the Report stage, the Government should tighten up the Clause and make it as inelastic and as onerous upon the taxpayers as possible, because there could not possibly be anything severer than that which it is now proposed to introduce—that at the earliest possible date at which the tenancy could forcibly be put an end to it is supposed to be terminated for the purpose of this exemption. It is for that reason I think the words very objectionable.
§ Mr. MASTERMANAs to the increase of charge, we are doing nothing of the kind. If we are doing anything we are making it clear that part of the land shall be treated separately from the whole of the land. As the Clause stands it is exceedingly probable that if only part of the land could be taken out, and therefore be subject to Undeveloped Land Duty, then the whole of the land would have to pay Undeveloped Land Duty. We are making it clear that that shall not be the case.
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. FALCONERAs the concession made by the Government in regard to agricultural land practically meets my point, I do not propose to move my Amendment.