§ In this Part of this Act—
§ The expression "land" does not include any incorporeal hereditament or tithe, or any rent charge as defined by this Act:
§ The expression "rentcharge" includes tithe or tithe rentcharge, or other periodical payment or rendering in lieu of or in the nature of tithe, or any fee 373 farm rent, rent seek, chief rent, rent of assize, or any other perpetual rent or annuity granted out of land:
§ The expression "rent" has the same meaning as in the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, and does not include a rentcharge:
§ The expression "lease" includes an agreement for a lease, but does not include a term of years created solely for the purpose of securing money:
§ The term of a lease shall, where the lease contains a covenant to renew the lease, be deemed to be the period for which the lease may be renewed, and in the case of a lease for life or lives, shall be deemed to be a number of years equal to the mean expectation of life of the person for whose life the lease is granted, or in the case of a lease granted for lives, of the youngest of the persons for whose lives the lease is granted:
§ The expression "interest" in relation to land includes a reversion expectant on the determination of a lease, but does not include any other interest in expectancy or an incumbrance as denned by paragraph (vii.) of Section two of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, or a lease for a term of years less than seven years:
§ The expression "owner" means the person entitled to the freehold of the land, except that where land is let on lease (not being a mining lease within the meaning of paragraph (xi.) of Section two of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881) for a term of which more than fifty years are unexpired, the lessee under the lease shall be deemed to be the owner instead of the person entitled to the freehold:
§ The expression "agriculture" includes the use of land as meadow or pasture land or woodland, or for market gardens, nursery grounds, or allotments, and the expression "agricultural land" shall be construed accordingly.
§ Amendment proposed [18th August]: In the sixth paragraph, to leave out "paragraph (vii.) of Section two of the Conveyancing and Law Property Act, 1881, or," and to insert the words "this Act or any fixed charge as defined by this Act or any purely incorporeal hereditament (other than a profit a prendre not annexed to any other land) or any leasehold interest under."—[The Attorney-General.]
374§ Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Robson)It might be convenient that I should state, before we discuss this Amendment, the further alteration that we propose to make, which will very much simplify it. It is to omit the words "other than a profit a prendre not annexed to any other land." I think the House will part with the words without regret. The Amendment is one relating to that paragraph in the definition clause, which defines "interest in land." The words "interest in land" are, of course, important, because they give us the occasion upon which the increment value is collected. It is collected on the transfer of an interest in land, so that in defining "interest in land" and in excluding particular kinds of interests, we are lessening the occasions on which the tax is collected, though not lessening the amount of the tax itself. We propose to lessen the occasions on which the tax is collected by limiting the meaning of the words "interest in land." For instance, we do not collect the tax on the transfer of an encumbrance. It was pointed out by the hon. Member for Aston Manor (Mr. Evelyn Cecil) that the transfer of sporting rights might be treated as an occasion on which to collect the tax. Therefore, we exclude sporting rights in general, and include them in incorporeal hereditaments. They might be included under the Bill as drawn in certain cases, and that would be very inconvenient. We promised to give the matter full consideration, and we have come to the conclusion that it would be very inconvenient to treat the transfer of the leases referred to as an occasion on which we should ascertain the whole value of the land. Therefore, we propose to drop those words.
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause" put, and negatived.
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'this Act or any fixed charge as defined by this Act or any purely incorporeal hereditament (other than a profit a prendre not annexed to any other land), or any leasehold interest under' be there inserted."
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment made: To leave out the words. "other than a profit a prendre not annexed to any other land."—[Sir W. Robson.]
375§ Mr. GEORGE CAVEI understand the intention is not to levy duty on the transfer of sporting rights. I feel a little doubtful whether in exempting purely incorporeal hereditaments you are keeping sporting rights out, and I would suggest to the Attorney-General that he might put in express words to cover sporting rights.
§ Sir W. ROBSONI am informed that sporting rights are a purely incorporeal hereditament. They do not involve actual possession of land. The Amendment seems to cover the case of sporting rights, but if it should turn out that our advisers are wrong we shall make sure that sporting rights are excluded.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSWhat is the difference between an incorporeal hereditament and a purely incorporeal hereditaments?
§ Sir W. ROBSONThere are three classes: Incorporeal hereditaments, purely incorporeal hereditaments, and mixed incorporeal hereditaments.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThis is a highly technical matter, in which we must have frequent recourse to the learned Attorney-General. I do not know whether the Amendment which the Attorney-General has now moved to his own Amendment stands by itself, or whether it is to be followed by the moving of the Amendment which stands in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to insert at the end of the paragraph the words: "Where an interest in land consists of a profit a prendre not appendant or appurtenant to any other land the interest shall, for the purpose of the charge of Increment Value Duty, be treated as a separate piece of land."
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThat will not be moved.
§ Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
§ Other Amendment made:
§ To leave out the words "less than seven," and to insert the words "not exceeding fourteen."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
§ The next Amendment on the Paper was in the name of Mr. LAURENCE HARDY—"to insert after the word 'years' ['less than seven years'] the words 'or minerals gotten or severed from the freehold.' "
376§ Mr. PRETYMANI think these words are required to govern the Increment Value Duty leviable on minerals.
The CHAIRMANI think that it is a taxing, and not a definition, Amendment. The point can be raised on the postponed clause—Clause 15.
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George)had given notice of an Amendment to add at the end of the sixth paragraph:—
"Where an interest in land consists of a profit a prendre not appendant or appurtenant to any other land the interest shall, for the purpose of the charge of Increment Value Duty, be treated as a separate piece of land.
"Where a building is used for the purpose of separate tenements, flats, or dwellings, the grant of a lease, other than an original lease, of any such separate tenement, flat, or dwelling, and the transfer on sale or passing on death of any lease, whether original or derivative, of any such separate tenement, flat, or dwelling, shall not be an occasion on which Increment Value Duty is to be collected under this Act, nor shall duty be collected on any periodical occasion where the interest held by the body corporate or un-incorporate is only a leasehold interest in any such separate tenement, flat, or dwelling.
"The expression 'incumbrance' includes a mortgage in fee or for a less estate, and a trust for securing money, and a lien, and a charge of a portion, annuity, or any capital or annual sum, but does not include a fixed charge as defined by this Act.
"The expression 'fixed charge' means any rent-charge as defined by this Act, and any burden or charge arising by operation of law or imposed by any Act of Parliament, or imposed in pursuance of the exercise of any powers or the performance of any duties under any such Act, otherwise than by a person interested in the land or in consideration of any advance to any person interested in the land.
"The expression 'fee simple' means the fee simple in possession not subject to any lease, but does not include an undivided share in a fee simple in possession."
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI will not move the first paragraph of my Amendment, but will move the rest of the Amendment.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINPerhaps the right hon. Gentleman would tell us why he is not moving the first paragraph?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIt is a very highly technical point, but my recollection is that it was an Amendment which I promised to the hon. Member for Aston Manor (Mr. Evelyn Cecil). He moved an Amendment that the letting of sporting rights should not be an occasion upon which you would ascertain the increment of the whole of the land. He said that as the Bill stands you might have to consider the increased value of the whole of the land because you were leasing a sporting interest in the land. We promised to make it absolutely clear that a lease of sporting rights should not be an occasion upon which you should get a valuation of the whole of the land. It was not the intention that this should happen, and these words were rather intended to safeguard the case in which there might be a separate lease of sporting rights in a grouse moor. But I am told that in the vast majority of these cases the land as a whole is let. Take the case of a deer forest. It is not a lease of the sporting rights in a deer forest. It is a lease of the deer forest. Therefore, these words are necessary only in very exceptional cases. There might be a few cases in which they would apply, but they are so few as to be absolutely insignificant, and we thought it unnecessary to complicate matters by introducing these words which really were not required.
Coming to the other parts of the Amendment, the first portion was promised in reply to a question put by the hon. Member for Wandsworth (Sir Henry Kimber), and also in reply, I think, to the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson), and the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Mr. G. Younger). The case of Scotland, I quite agree, is quite a different one, and will be dealt with in the next Clause, Clause 28, which I am very pleased to say will be in the hands of the Lord Advocate (Mr. Ure), and the Amendments in Clause 28 will be brought into conformity with whatever Amendments are made to this Clause. The hon. Member for Wandsworth put the case of the grant of a lease of a set of chambers, and undoubtedly chat would involve very considerable difficulty in ascertaining the increment value with reference to the whole site; and the Government agree that there should be no increment site value charged in respect of the lease of a separate set of chambers. I understand that those who are interested in flats and chambers were not altogether satisfied with the Amendment as it has been drawn, and 378 I have been in communication with them. They object very strongly to the words "other than an original lease." There is very little money in this, because there would be hardly very much increment at the date of the granting of the original lease of a flat. The buildings are put up in the course of a year or two. The first leases are granted probably a few months after the lease of the whole site, and there would be very little increment value between the date of the first original lease of a flat and the date the last increment would be charged upon either a sale or a lease of the whole of the site. Therefore, in that case, I promised to meet the views submitted to me by leaving out the words "other than an original lease," and I shall move the Amendment in that form, leaving out these words, and also the words, "whether original or derivative," some lines further down. The paragraph which follows gives a more complete and elaborate definition of "incumbrance"; and the paragraph in reference to "fixed charge" is in redemption of a pledge given the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman). I beg to-move the Amendment, with the changes which I have indicated.
Amendment moved: To add at the end of the sixth paragraph:—
"Where a building is used for the purpose of separate tenements, flats, or dwellings, the grant of a lease of any such separate tenement, flat, or dwelling, and the transfer on sale or passing on death of any lease of any such separate tenement, flat, or dwelling, shall not be an occasion on which Increment Value Duty is to be collected under this Act, nor shall duty be collected on any periodical occasion where the interest held by the body corporate or unincorporate is only a leasehold interest in any such separate tenement, flat, or dwelling.
"The expression 'incumbrance' includes a mortgage in fee or for a less estate, and a trust for securing money, and a lien, and a charge of a portion, annuity, or any capital or annual sum, but does not include a fixed charge as defined by this Act.
"The expression 'fixed charge' means any rent-charge as defined by this Act, and any burden or charge arising by operation of law or imposed by any Act of Parliament, or imposed in pursuance of the exercise of any powers or the performance of any duties under any such Act, other- 379 wise than by a person interested in the land or in consideration of any advance to any person interested in the land.
"The expression 'fee simple' means the fee simple in possession not subject to any lease, but does not include an undivided share in a fee simple in possession."
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThis Amendment embodies two distinct propositions. It first of all deals with the case of buildings used for the purpose of tenements, flats or dwellings. Then it defines an incumbrance for the purpose of this Act, which, of course, has nothing to do with the preceding paragraph. Then it proceeds to define a fixed charge, which again is quite different from an incumbrance, and has nothing to do with the first paragraph; and finally it defines the expression "fee simple," which is different from both the other definitions, and only agrees with them in having nothing to do with the first paragraph. I submit that this is, in fact, four separate Amendments. The only link between them is that they are all definitions. Therefore it is a definition Clause. I am not sure whether it is absolutely out of order to move all four together, but I venture to submit that the subjects with which they deal are so dissimilar, and it would be so inconvenient to the House to be discussing all these four separate points together instead of taking the separate issues separately, that it would be, if not absolutely necessary for the purposes of order, at any rate a great convenience to the Committee that the different paragraphs should be put separately.
§ Mr. LAURENCE HARDYThe first paragraph is not a definition of any word at all which would come in with any application to this Clause. The Clause says that the expression so and so means so and so, and the rest of the Amendment carries out the same principle; but this first paragraph is only a description of a certain occasion on which Increment Duty is not to be paid, and it seems to me that it should not form part of the Amendment to this Clause at all.
§ 4.0 P.M.
The CHAIRMANWith regard to the question put by the hon. Member for East Worcestershire, the Amendment has been moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in its entirety, because in Committee Amendments to it can be moved at any point. If Amendments are proposed the early ones are taken first, so as not to exclude the 380 later ones, and I do not, therefore, see the necessity for my putting the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in separate questions. The whole procedure in Committee is entirely different from that of the House, where an hon. Member can only speak once, and where, in regard to some Motions at any rate, perhaps one Amendment may strike out any other Amendment to the whole Motion. In Committee any number of Amendments can be moved, and they are taken in their order. Therefore, the four paragraphs can be put together as one Amendment, and it really will not cause inconvenience to the Committee in their discussion. Therefore, I propose to put them together.
The CHAIRMANOh, yes, and that is why I do not put them separately. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Laurence Hardy), it is the first time my attention has been drawn to it. I must say the proposal is in an unusual form for a definition clause, but I imagine the words can he very easily altered later to make it a definition, instead of being put as it is. Perhaps there is some reason for it.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI submit it ought clearly to be put in the definition Clause, because there we are dealing with the definition of land and interest in land, and the whole question was the transfer of a flat, without a transfer of an interest in land or the land itself. I submit, therefore, that it ought to be dealt with in the definition Clause as the proper place to insert it. I do not see where else I could have put it.
Mr. BALFOURI wish to ask, on a point of Order, a question with regard to an Amendment on page 5430 of the Blue Paper, standing in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is a new Clause, the title of which is, "Exemption of small houses and property in owners' occupation." If you look at that Clause you will see there is an exemption of a certain class of property from Increment Duty, and I wish to ask you, Sir, whether the actual Amendment you are about to put is not really neither more nor less— the first paragraph of it at least—than exemption from the Increment Duty of a certain class of property? I would respectfully suggest that the proper place for 381 at all events the first paragraph of the Amendment you have put is really in connection with the new Clause which appears on page 5430 of the Blue Paper, providing for exemptions in favour of a certain small class of house property in London and elsewhere. I should have thought that if we have to deal with the exemption of certain classes of house property, we should deal with them altogether, and within the scope of a single clause, rather than a separate clause dealing with one kind of exemption, and the other exemption coming within the terms of the definition Clause.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI submit that the new Clause quoted by the right hon. Gentleman is an illustration of what I have already put to the Chair. That Clause provides for the exemption of a class of property which certainly would be either an interest in land, or land, and that could not have been put in the definition Clause. This Amendment is simply to say that a separate chamber or simply a flat shall not be regarded as an interest in land. That is purely a question of definition, and not a question of exemption.
§ Mr. GEORGE CAVEThe proposed Amendment does not say an interest in land shall not include a flat. Notwithstanding this Amendment, a freehold plot would be an interest in land in the case of a sale, and the first paragraph of the Amendment only says that on certain occasions in dealing with that kind of property no Increment Value Duty should be levied.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThis part of the Amendment is merely proposed in fulfilment of a pledge which I gave to the hon. Member on the other side, and it really does not matter to the Government whether the first paragraph is taken at this stage or later on—I will not say whether it is to be taken at all, because I think it ought to be taken. If it is really for the convenience of the Oppositon that this first paragraph should be postponed, it makes no difference at all to the Government whether it is taken at this or a later stage.
The CHAIRMANI must say that the paragraph does seem to me to be drawn in a way in which the other paragraphs of this definition Clause are not drawn. It does seem to me to be similar to exemptions which we have put in the taxing or exemption Clauses, and, therefore, I think 382 it would be better to postpone this paragraph and that it should not be dealt with now. That being the case, I have now to put the other paragraphs of the Amendment.
§ Amendment proposed:
§ "The expression 'incumbrance' includes a mortgage in fee or for a less estate, and a trust for securing money, and a lien, and a charge of a portion, annuity, or any capital or annual sum, but does not include a fixed charge as defined by this Act.
§ "The expression 'fixed charge' means any rent-charge as defined by this Act, and any burden or charge arising by operation of law or imposed by any Act of Parliament, or imposed in pursuance of the exercise of any powers or the performance of any duties under any such Act, otherwise than by a person interested in the land or in consideration of any advance to any person interested in the land.
§ "The expression 'fee simple' means the fee simple in possession not subject to any lease, but does not include an undivided share in a fee simple in possession."
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEIn order to confine the discussion to one point, I move to leave out the lines of the Amendment, from the words, "The expression 'incumbrance,'" to the words "as defined by this Act." I simply move that formally in order to prevent the two questions being mixed up, and with the view to confining the discussion to one point.
§ Question, "That the words from 'The expression "incumbrance" 'to the words' as defined by this Act' stand part of the proposed Amendment, "put, and agreed to.
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
Sir SEYMOUR KINGmoved, to leave out paragraph seven of the Clause ["The expression 'owner' means the person," etc.].
I think that paragraph by which the provisions are extended to leases of over 50 years is one which requires a good deal more explanation than we have received at present. In the first place, why should the lessee of over 50 years be treated as an owner? It seems to me an absurd make-believe. He is a man who takes a lease of a small tract of land, paying rack-rent for it, the full market value, and during the first 20 or 30 years of the lease, 383 when the value of the land has certainly varied a little during that period, he is to have all the taxes, the Unimproved Land Tax, and the Increment Tax, and the Re-version Tax, piled upon him at the very time he is doing his best, as a good citizen, to develop the land and to improve the amenities of the town or district in which he lives. It really does seem to me an absolutely illogical position to take up. A man may have a lease of 59 years. For nine years it is said that he is the owner, although he knows painfully that he is nothing of the sort, because he pays a very high rent to the landlord. I understand the reason for this Clause being brought in is to stir up the gentleman who owns the land, and it is to prevent his holding it back from the public who desire it, while he, at the same time, enjoys the advantages of the labour of the community. The land is being improved in value by the labour of the community, we are told, and therefore the landlord ought not to enjoy the whole increment value of the land; but the lessee, the man who holds the long lease, is the man who gives the full value; he is the man who builds suburbs; he is the man who creates watering-places; he is the man who brings new industries to places; he is the man who risks his money, and risks it much more than hon. Members seem to think is the case. Some Members apparently are under the idea that if a man only takes a building lease and spends money upon it he at once makes a fortune; but those who know something about these things recollect such instances as Frinton, which ruined an unfortunate man who tried to develop it as a watering-place. There is the Piccadilly Hotel, where the Government, who are the landlords, forced the unfortunate tenants to spend a great deal of money to carry out a preposterous scheme, and in doing so they absolutely ruined the people who invested their money in that undertaking. If you go down Cromwell-road you will see there seven or eight houses which for 10 years, in consequence of the action of the community, have been perfectly valueless. I want to understand on what possible principle a leaseholder is going to be dragged in. I understood these taxes were to be confined to realty, and not to personal property. Now we are getting in the thin end of the wedge, and we are getting personal property in the form of a lone lease.
For a certain number of years the man is to be the owner; then you come to 50 years, and at the end of his lease he is 384 converted into a tenant, and the landlord has to begin to pay the Unimproved Land Tax. In spite of Clause 13, where we have decided that the landlord is to pay the Unimproved Land Tax, we are now told that by a make-believe and a fiction the man who has the lease is to be created into an owner and to pay the Unimproved Land Tax. Then as to the Increment Tax, whatever increment there is is due to the man's own effort and to the man's own work. He contributes probably largely to the rates of the place, and therefore he cannot be said to derive any benefit to which he has not fully contributed from the labours of the community.
I do think that this extension of this Clause, bringing in the leaseholder, requires the serious consideration of the Committee. You are going to hamper the men, at the very moment when they are entering on an onerous responsibility and a big speculation, with all these taxes, and to worry them and burden them at the very time when the men are doing the greatest good to the community. With great respect to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I do not think he has quite considered what the effect of this will be on the building trade or on the development of building estates. It is entirely owing to gentlemen who take these long leases that these improvements are made and that the developments take effect round our coasts, developments which bring great value to the community and cause values to be created which have not existed before, and in every way they are the most useful and progressive members of the community. I earnestly beg, at any rate, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take into consideration the lengthening of the period in which a man is not considered an owner. I quite understand in the case of a lease for 999 years, as they exist in Scotland and parts of England, that there the man is practically in the same position as a freeholder, but for 80 or 90 years, which is about the period of Government leases, the leases begin to dwindle in value from the moment they start, and to meet that you have to set up a sinking fund if you are a prudent person. That being so, I personally have been unable to think out how logically there can be any increment to the site value of a lease when once it has been built over. Assuming that there is, I say it is a monstrous thing that it should not fall on the real person who gets the enjoyment, and to whom the ultimate benefit goes, namely, the owner of the freehold, the real owner, and not the 385 make-believe owner. It is because I object to this system as absurd and childish that I move this Amendment.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI do not want to indulge in any retort, but I really thought from the last words of the hon. Gentleman that he did not quite realise the purpose of his own Amendment, nor understand what it means. He wants to throw the whole burden of the Undeveloped Land Tax even in the case of long leases upon the reversioner, because that is what would be the effect of his Amendment. We have chosen 50 years, because we think over 50 years the substantial interest of the land is in the leaseholder, and the interest that is vested in the reversioner over 50 years is a trivial one. We think a man who has the real substantial value of the land ought to bear the burden of the tax. The hon. Gentleman says no, that it is the reversioner who ought to bear the burden. I see that by a subsequent Amendment he proposes 80 years, but does he think of the man who gets the real enjoyment of the value, because if he leaves this out it will fall entirely on the freeholder even in leases of 90 or 100 years, while the real interests and the real ownership is vested in the man who has got the long lease. The interests of the reversioner is merely a trifling one, yet, according to the hon. Gentleman, for 100 years he and his successors in title would have to pay the halfpenny tax, whilst another man is enjoying the full value of the land. Surely that is not what he means. I hardly thought that was his intention until I listened to the last few sentences of his speech, and I was amazed when I found that that was his meaning. I do not think anyone in the House will take that view. The whole point here is —how you are to apportion between the reversioner and the leaseholder. We think, looking at the table, that 50 years is a very fair point between the reversioner and the leaseholder. The leaseholder is the man who gets the substantial benefits of the interests, and we propose to tax him. The hon. Gentleman says no, the reversioner is the man who ought to pay, and not the leaseholder. I still think that our division between the leaseholder and the reversioner is a very equitable division. The reference to the Piccadilly Hotel is absolutely irrelevant, as there is no Undeveloped Land Tax to be charged on that, and substantially that is what this means.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINIt applies to increment.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIt would not apply to an increment in leases for 30 or 40 years, and substantially the effect of this would be really to apply the Undeveloped Land Tax. When you come to increment, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the leaseholder pays whatever the value of his interest is, even although the lease be 30 or 40 years. I think the dividing line between the reversioner and the person who has to pay is a perfectly equitable one, and I really trust that the hon. Gentleman, now that he has had this explanation, will withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. CAVEhad given notice of an Amendment in the seventh paragraph— after the word "owner" ["the expression 'owner' means"] to insert the words "does not include a mortgagee, but."
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI think the hon. and learned Gentleman will find that the point is met by the very next Amendment on the Paper.
§ Mr. CAVEThe next Amendment would not cover the point. I am quite prepared to limit the Amendment to the mortgagee in possession for I think that ought to be done to make it perfectly clear. It is a very important matter, and affects certain building societies and others. There are mortgagees throughout the country who are not in possession, and it should be made clear that they are not subject to the duties.
§ Question proposed, "After the word 'owner' to insert the words 'does not include a mortgagee out of possession.' "
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI agree that the Amendment as put by the hon. and learned Gentleman is better than the Amendment on the Paper, because the Amendment on the Paper might include the mortgagee who is in possession, which would mean that the land would be altogether exempted from these taxes. I do not like to enter into a contest with the hon. and learned Gentleman on a subject on which he is such a master, but I would submit to him that we really have met this point by the next Amendment, which deals with the mortgagee, who is only entitled when he is in possession. These are considered words, and I am informed that they would 387 cover the case. I trust, therefore, that the hon. and learned Gentleman will see that we have really met him.
§ Mr. CAVEI do not want to have a discussion, but I feel some doubt, and may I take it that the point will be further considered?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI would be quite ready, especially as we are agreed as to what we really want done.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEmoved to leave out the words "freehold of the land" ["entitled to the freehold of the land"], and to insert the words "rents and profits of the land in virtue of any estate of freehold."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEmoved, in the seventh paragraph, to omit the words "not being a mining lease within the meaning of paragraph (xi.) of Section 2 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881."
It was agreed that all mining questions should be postponed until we come to deal with all the mining clauses.
§ Mr. L. HARDYThis will not prevent the question being raised on some subsequent occasion, as otherwise mining leases would come under this definition. There some explanation is necessary, and we should have an assurance that it is not intended to leave it in this condition.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGESeparate Clauses will be put on the Paper—I have already promised to do so—dealing with the whole mining question.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEmoved (in the definition of "owner"), after the word "ease" ["the lessee under the lease shall be deemed"], to insert the words, "or if there are two or more such leases the lessee under the last created under-lease.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI notice that lower on the Paper the Chancellor of the Exchequer has another Amendment defining "lessor" and "lessee" as including an under-lessor and under-lessee. If he moves that Amendment, why does he want the present one? If "lessee" includes under-lessee, it is unnecessary to say that "lease" shall include under-lease.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe point of the present Amendment is to make clear that the last under-lessee shall be treated as the owner.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEMay I ask how this would work in a concrete case? The case I will take is one with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is very familiar, namely, that of the sub-lease of Mr. Gorringe on the Westminster estate. I understand that Mr. Gorringe did not take a lease direct from the Duke of Westminster, but from another party, who had taken a very long lease in the first instance, and sublet to Mr. Gorringe. If this provision had been in operation 30 years ago, who would have paid the tax—the Duke of Westminster or the parties, who have not yet been disclosed, who took the original lease, or Mr. Gorringe? I think we ought to have it clear. I take that case because the right hon. Gentleman is familiar with it, and, perhaps, he will tell us how his proposal would work in this particular instance.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEEvidently the hon. Gentleman is familiar neither with the facts of the Gorringe case nor with the Clause of the Bill. He does not even understand what this means.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEThat is why I asked.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIn the first place, the property referred to would hardly be undeveloped land.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEBut this applies to Increment Duty.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI should not have thought that property upon which £80,000 had been spent on improvements as part of the grant of a new lease would be regarded as undeveloped land.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEDoes not this apply to Increment Value Duty?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe hon. Gentleman asked me a question, and I am answering him. This has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the Gorringe case. If the hon. Gentleman is anxious to discuss the Gorringe case, I shall be very glad to do so. He had an opportunity of discussing it on the Reversion Duty, but he did not do it. He will have an opportunity upon either the Report stage or the third reading, and whether upon the Report stage or upon the third reading I shall be perfectly willing to dis- 389 cuss the case with him or with any other Member. But I cannot discuss it on an Amendment to which it is absolutely irrelevant.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI think I must say a word in reply to the right hon. Gentleman. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has tried to turn the matter off as if it were a question only of Undeveloped land Duty. I know that Buckingham Palace-road is not undeveloped land, but surely there is Increment Value Duty upon it, and this applies to Increment Value Duty and the occasions on which Increment Value Duty is to be levied. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has brought this particular case into public notice, and I asked, for the elucidation of the Committee, what will be the effect of the Bill with these words in it on this particular case. Now it appears that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is quite unable to explain how they would apply.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI have already explained to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. A. Chamberlain) that in the case of Increment Value Duty it would fall on the transferor or vendor. The question whether it is 40 or 50 years has nothing to do with the Increment Value Duty. He pays upon his own interest, whatever it is, and would have nothing whatever to do with this definition.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINSurely this applies not merely to undeveloped land—I rather agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that to some small extent it applies to Increment Value Duty— but also to Reversion Duty. I am not quite certain, and I am not sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is quite certain, what particular effect this Amendment would have on the collection of Reversion Duty. If you have a series of subleases, each of which had more than 50 years to run, how many times are you going to collect Reversion Duty—each time one of the subleases reverts to one of the superior lessees?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIf the right hon. Gentleman looks at the Reversion Duty Clause he will see that the word "owner" is not used; the word there is "lessor." Therefore, the lessor, whoever he is at the time, will pay. This definition has nothing whatever to do with that; it is the definition of the word "owner," which is not used there.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINSurely what we are now doing is to turn the lessee into the owner for certain purposes. It is perfectly true that the word used in the Reversion Duty Clause is "lessor," but then you go on to say that the lessee shall be considered in certain circumstances as the owner, and not merely the lessee, but the sub-lessee. In these circumstances my hon. Friend (Mr. Hope) asks with a perplexity which is not unnatural, and which will be more and more shared by the Committee the more they consider the matter, what will be the position of any particular person under any particular condition. In order to elucidate that point, instead of spreading himself over the whole field, he took a particular case, which he said the Chancellor of the Exchequer had used as an illustration of the beneficent change which his proposals would work, and he asked who would be subject to the tax. I think that is not an unfair request, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will gratify our legitimate curiosity.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIt is very good of the right hon. Gentleman to back up his followers on the bench behind. I know how glad we on the Back Benches were when anybody on the Front Bench got up to support an Amendment of ours, however absurd it might be; the more absurd the Amendment the greater our gratification at getting a Front Bench man to support it. Therefore it is really very good of the right hon. Gentlemen. But, at the same time, he really knows perfectly well that the Amendment has nothing whatever to do with the Gorringe case. When the word "owner" is used—it is used in regard to undeveloped land—it has to be defined. We are defining the word "owner" is used—it is used in regard to undeveloped land—it has to be defined. We are defining the word "owner" here, here, and this definition will be applicable to that word wherever it appears. It does not appear in the Reversion Duty Clause; the word used there is "lessor." Therefore there will be no reference to this interpretation of the word "owner" when you deal with the question of the lessor. When you come to the question of the lessor we shall deal with it, but it has nothing whatever to do with the present matter.
§ Mr. CAVEMy right hon. Friend is always very good in backing us up, and I should like to return the compliment by saying a word in support of what he has said. The word "owner" does not occur in the Reversion Duty Clause, but my hon. 391 Friend's question referred to the Increment Value Duty, and in the Increment Value Duty Clause the word "owner" does occur.
§ Sir W. ROBSONOnly on valuation.
§ Mr. CAVENo; it occurs also in Clause 2, Sub-section 4. It is true the duty has to be paid primarily by the transferor or lessor; but the exemption under Sub-section 4 has to be claimed by the "owner," and when Clause 2 comes to be construed this definition of "owner" will give rise to difficulty, as the transferor or lessor claiming exemption may not be the owner within the meaning of the Clause.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEmoved, in the definition of "owner," to leave out the word "freehold" ["the person entitled to the freehold"] and to insert the words "rents and profits as aforesaid."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEmoved, after the words last inserted, to add the words: "The expressions 'lessor' and 'lessee' include an under-lessor and under-lessee and the heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns of a lessor and lessee respectively. The expressions 'transferor' and 'lessor' do not include any persons who join in the execution of the instrument by which the transfer or lease is effected or agreed to be effected for the purpose only of conveying any estate vested in them as trustees or incumbrancers, or of acknowledging the receipt of the consideration money, or of giving consent."
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI think the question put by my hon. Friend (Mr. James Hope) really arises on this Amendment. My hon. Friend on the last Amendment put a question with regard to the Gorringe case, the Duke of Westminster being the lessor, and certain other persons or parties being under-lessor—the intermediate lessor between the Duke and Mr. Gorringe. I think we are entitled to ask what exact effect this definition would have had upon the celebrated Gorringe case if this Bill had been in operation? Who would have had to pay the heavy duty which under the provisions of this Bill would have been payable? Would it have been the Duke or the under-lessor? And what effect would it have had in relieving Mr. Gorringe from the unpleasant position in which 392 he was stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech at Limehouse to have been?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI agree that the case is a little more relevant here than on the previous Amendment. The person who will pay is the person who receives the benefit. If he is an under-lessor at the expiration of the lease he will get some benefit, and he will pay 10 per cent. upon it But in the Gorringe case the whole benefit was absorbed by the Duke; therefore he would have to pay. Whoever enjoys the benefit will have to pay upon whatever the value may be.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer one question. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that in the earlier stages of our discussion the question was raised as to the right of people who might be affected by a valuation to be heard at this valuation. He said that there are cases where the owner will be affected where we call for returns from the lessee, and the owner ought to have the opportunity of being heard, or of making representations. Equally, there are cases where returns will come from the lessor and where the lessee will be affected, and the Chancellor agreed to put this right by some Amendments, which, I think, have been introduced already?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThey are in here.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINAm I right in supposing that in including under-lessor and under-lessee by the Amendment we shall equally include them with respect to their right to be heard and to appeal against a valuation which they think affects them?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEYes, that would be so. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Bill as amended he will find in Clause 17, Sub-section (4), printed in italics: "any person interested in the land, not being an owner … shall then have the same right of giving notice of objection and of appealing as the owner." So undoubtedly a person of that kind who had an interest in the land would have the right of applying and of appealing.
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. CAVEmoved to insert, at the end of the seventh paragraph, the words: "and sections fifty-nine, sixty, and sixty-two of 393 the Settled Land Act, 1882 (which relate to the exercise of powers on behalf of infants and lunatics) shall apply to the exercise of the powers of an owner under this Part of this Act in the same manner as they apply to the exercise of the powers of a tenant for life under that Act."
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI think the matter is covered, but I do not object.
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. STARKEYmoved, in the eighth paragraph, after the word "land," ["as meadow or pasture land"], to insert the words "or orchard or osier."
This paragraph defines what the expression "agriculture" means. As meadow, pasture land, and woodland, etc., are defined as being agricultural, I think that "orchard" and "osier" ought also to be so included. If they are not so included, it seems possible that they may be liable to Undeveloped Land Duty. Very often osiers and orchards exceed £50 in value, so that they would not thus have the benefit of the exemption in Sub-section (2) of Clause 11, so far as the site value of the land is due to the value of the land for agricultural purposes.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI think that these words are really included in the words already in the Bill. But I have no objection, if the hon. Member thinks it makes the thing clearer.
§ Mr. STARKEYI should like it.
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. LAURENCE HARDYI would like to ask a question in relation to this to the definition of the Agricultural Rates Act. That is whether "arable" is or should not be introduced as well as "meadow" and "pasture." Agricultural land is defined in other places. "Arable" ought to be introduced before the last words which have just been put in. I wished to ask the question at the beginning of this discussion, but I was out of my place for the moment. It seems to me as rather doubtful that "arable" is understood, and I should like to move that the words "or arable" should be inserted.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThis, after all, is not an exhaustive definition of agriculture. If we have "arable" introduced, I think it would be quite necessary to intro- 394 duce other Amendments in order to make the thing quite exhaustive.
The CHAIRMANThe Amendment of the hon. Member for North County Dublin (Mr. Clancy) is unnecessary. It is a. consequential Amendment.
§ Mr. ABEL SMITHmoved, in the eighth paragraph, to leave out the words "or for market gardens, nursery grounds" ["as meadow or pasture land or woodland, or for market gardens, nursery gardens, or allotments."] I move this Amendment in order to draw attention to those who erect glass-houses for market garden purposes. This is a very important industry in some parts of the country. I think that by the Bill, as it at present stands, those engaged in this industry are very badly treated. I understand from the answers that have been given on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that land on which glasshouses are erected is considered developed. As the Bill at present stands, it is to be undeveloped land. Before putting down these words I had in my mind the words of Clause 10, that is the Undeveloped Land Clause. It says: "Land shall be deemed to be undeveloped land if it has not been developed by being built upon or being used bonâfidefor any business, trade, industry other than agriculture." As the definition of this present Clause now stands, the words include glass-houses under the head of agriculture. Therefore, land used for that purpose would be regarded as undeveloped land. I am quite prepared to be told that the words of the Bill will carry out the intention which I have in my mind but if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would kindly consent to consider this I shall be glad, and I will not press the Amendment. I beg to move.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI agree with what the hon. Member said about glasshouses, and I will consider the matter; but it cannot be done here. I think, as a whole, chat glass-houses ought to be treated as buildings developed.
§ 5 P.M.
§ Mr. E. G. PRETYMANThe opinion of those interested in this trade, so far as it has reached me, is that they will be greatly benefited by that trade being treated as a developed trade. For this reason, supposing these words are taken out and market gardens and nurseries are included among developed trades. There would be a nominal loss. What the Chancellor refers to as the privileges and exemptions which they obtain in the matter of the 395 Increment Value Duty would be extremely small. I cannot see myself how they are going to gain much by the difference, because nursery gardens are in any case pretty fully developed, and so is a market garden for agricultural purposes. They will have to pay, as the Bill is drawn, on any increase of value which is due to other than an agricultural reason. The only thing which they escape now by the Bill as drawn by being included as agriculturists is that part of the Increment Duty which is purely agricultural. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree with me there. What is lost by their being included here is the whole of the Undeveloped Land Duty for which they become liable. Land developed for any other purpose than agriculture, not necessarily being built upon, but land used for a rope walk, and not for the purpose of agriculture, is regarded as developed land, and is free from Undeveloped Land Duty. Another point I wish to make, particularly in regard to nursery land, is in respect of the Agricultural Holdings Act. Nurseries are expressly excluded from being treated as agriculture. Nursery grounds have none of the privileges of the Agricultural Holdings Act in regard to security of tenure, and they are excluded from the benefits of that Act because they are treated as a trade which is not agriculture. Now here, when to be treated as a trade which is not agriculture would be beneficial, they are to be treated as agriculture. That is the point the nurserymen make, they think there should be some consistency, and that if they are without the benefits of the Agricultural Holdings Act, and are treated as a trade, and not agriculture, equally they ought to be treated as a trade, and their land ought to be treated as developed land for the purpose of this Act. It is a great hardship. A market garden or a nursery is clearly a trade apart from any agricultural industry, and is, I may point out, a trade which must be by its nature most advantageously carried out in the immediate neighbourhood of a town— for the closer it is to a town the better it is for the trade. Whether this Amendment is accepted or not, they are going to be clearly liable to the heavy burden of Increment Value Duty—on that increment of their property which is not agricultural. Take the case of a great nursery garden near Slough or Chelsea. There you have land of great and growing building value. If that building value grows those con- 396 cerned are subject to Increment Value Duty in any case. I say that is quite sufficient burden for this House to put upon them. Now you propose, in addition to that, to treat them as agricultural land, and to burden them with Undeveloped Land Duty on the whole of that land— which might be £1,000 or £2,000 an acre. I think it is an extreme hardship, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will eccept this Amendment. It is a simple way of dealing with this matter, and of treating the nursery gardens and the market gardens as developed land. If he does that he will fairly meet the requirements of the trade, and I do not see how they are to be met in any other way. That will also cover the material point raised by my hon. Friend as to the building of glass-houses. The building of glass-houses is as important and expensive as the erecting of other buildings. I think this Amendment ought, therefore, to be accepted.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe hon. and gallant Member has treated this as if it is a question of putting a burden upon the nursery and the market gardener. The nursery or the market gardener is the man who holds his land from year to year, or on a very short lease. He will not pay as he would if he was a freeholder.
§ Mr. ABEL SMITHMany nursery men are freeholders.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEVery few. In the vast majority of cases they are men. holding from year to year or on very short leases. I do not mean to say there are not cases of market gardeners who are freeholders, but they are the exceptional cases. Did my hon. Friend follow the case at Evesham, where a market gardener was paying £20 an acre for his land? He would get under this exemption up to £500 an acre. Of course, that would be far more than any building land could possibly be assessed in respect of that particular piece of land. Most of the market gardeners pay very high rents. There are cases of men paying £5, £10, £15, and, in the case I have mentioned, £20 an acre for market gardens far removed from any town. Well, the market gardener will get exemption up to 25 years' purchase in respect of the whole rent, and he does not pay the Undeveloped Tax, it is paid by the owner of the land. I do not think it is too much to ask the owner who receives £20 an acre to pay½d. on the surplus over 397 and above the value he is getting from the market gardener. We have had all this before. I do not think, if I may so with great respect, it is really relevant now. If you leave out the words here, as proposed in the Amendment, you do not settle the question. It should have been settled on Clause 11. If you left out these words here I am not sure it would not exempt the market gardener from the protection that is given him, and whether you would not really rather damnify than improve his position. I promise the hon. Member for Herts (Mr. Abel Smith) that I will consider the ease of the glass-houses, but even that cannot be done here, and if I left out these words it would not protect the glass-houses at all. It is purely a question of definition which gives the market gardener such protection as he has got.
§ Mr. A. J. BALFOURThe right hon. Gentleman says the proper place to discuss this is on Clause 11.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIt was discussed.
§ Mr. BALFOURAnd that it was discussed, but it was not on Clause 11 that the right hon. Gentleman discovered that glass-houses ought to be exempt. That is a statement he only makes in consequence of my hon. Friend's Amendment and demand on this Clause. The Chancellor says it ought not to have been moved now, but on Clause 11, as it would have been most appropriate to that Clause.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIt was not raised there.
§ Mr. BALFOURThe right hon. Gentleman went further, and told us he was considering this point. I do not greatly envy him the process of consideration which be has promised to himself and the Committee, which is going to exempt land on which there are glass-houses. He is not going to exempt the other market gardens, but how on earth are you going to make a distinction? On what possible basis do you proceed? A man who has spent £50 on glass-houses is to be exempt, but he may have spent precisely the same amount in developing his land without glass-houses, and you will not exempt him. The right hon. Gentleman, in order to make his case better, quoted a particular example from Evesham market gardens. There, he said, the land is worth £20 an acre, and is far away from a city, having no building value at all. How wonderful 398 is the exemption given under this Bill. Evesham is absolutely a unique instance, there is certainly nothing like it, and it is absurd to take Evesham market gardens as an illustration as it would be to take land round Dunbar as a sample of what could be done in potato growing elsewhere. The soil is absolutely unique in these cases and no lesson can be drawn from them. The real point of my hon. Friend's criticism is that for a Government which talks of sending people back to the land and the necessity of developing agriculture, to define as undeveloped land land already devoted to agriculture, is so thoroughly grotesque that all the consideration which the Chancellor has promised in the House and in the country between this and the Report stage will hardly, I think, rescue him from the difficulties in which he is involved.
§ Sir HENRY KIMBERI have an Amendment upon the Paper in almost the same words. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he spoke of Clause 11, must mean rather Clause 10. Clause 10, Subsection (2) reads as follows: "For the purposes of this Part of this Act land shall be deemed to be undeveloped if it has not been developed by being built upon, or by being usedbonâfidefor any business, trade or industry other than that of agriculture." Certainly "business, trade or industry" would include the business of market gardening, and, therefore, a definition has already been given to it. Now, by this Sub-section in the definition Clause you give an interpretation to the word "agriculture" which excludes this particular industry—market gardens and nursery gardens. The proper way would have been for the Chancellor of the Exchequer when Clause 10 was under discussion to have inserted after the words "other than agriculture" the words "and other than the business of market gardening." It seems to me it is as much a business as any other trade or industry, and the reason I put down this Amendment was if the Clause is carried without the Amendment it would be in contradiction to Clause 10, Sub-section (2).
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThere are a couple of misapprehensions which I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is labouring under and which I should like to contribute my mite towards clearing up. He assumes, in the first place, that it is very rare to find a market gardener who owns the freehold of his land. It is much rarer than I should like to see and than 399 it might have been if the Government had shown more sympathy with the idea of small ownership. But it has become more common in recent years. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer goes to another part of Worcestershire, in my own division, he will find very small owners carrying on market garden business. He will find some also in Lincolnshire, and I daresay in other parts of the country. I should like to see that system enormously spreading. It is the most hopeful way of getting people back to the land, and of giving them the full reward for their arduous labours. It is necessary to make small occupations of that character successful in this country. But whether the numbers become very much larger in future or whether they remain as they are, I am certain there are a considerable number of cases where there is no ground landlord for the market gardener to fall back upon and where this Undeveloped Duty will have to be paid by the occupying owner and worker, the market gardener himself. The right hon. Gentleman observed, "See what an exemption I gave. You heard of the case recently occurring in Lincolnshire where an individual pays £20 an acre for his land. That would mean," said the right hon. Gentleman, "a building value of £500 an acre." The right hon. Gentleman takes an exceptional case, of course, but I want to direct attention to what is a common case. If you establish a colony of small owners anywhere you at once give to the place a building value that it did not have before. There grows up a demand for labour to work these small holdings, and although it is probably true you could not sell the whole of the land in this district for building purposes, it is quite impossible to say you could not sell a particular place or almost any of the plots at a given moment for building purposes for something more than its agricultural value. The fact of your having this communion of small cottage holders, with all their needs for supplies of all kinds, creates a demand for cottages in this district, and gives a building value to any particular plot, not to the whole, in excess of its agricultural value, even to the enhanced agricultural value of the market garden. I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that the exemption for which he takes credit is of much less value to these people than he believes, and they will find that the Bill will in its operation be very different from what they have been led to suppose. The Leader of the Opposition 400 asked by what possible principle are you going to distinguish between glass-houses, for which undoubtedly you ought to give credit, and the expenditure on the land of an equal amount not involving the erection of glass-houses. My right hon. Friend asked how are you going to distinguish between the man who spends £50 per acre on land for the erection of glasshouses and the man who spends a similar amount developing his land for a market garden without putting up glass-houses. Take a new form of agriculture which is being introduced into this country, namely, the most intensive form of agriculture known to the Western world—I mean the French system of market gardening under bell-glasses. I saw the other day a paragraph giving an account of an experiment made by a gentleman who was anxious to work it in connection with unemployment. I cannot trust my memory as to the exact figures, but I think the expenditure was not £50 an acre, but more like £1,000 or £2,000 an acre. Are you going to charge Undeveloped Land Duty on land of that kind after an expenditure of that nature has been incurred? Surely the thing is absurd, and although this may be a very late stage of the proceedings to raise this particular point, it is a matter of great importance, to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer must devote his attention if he means to make his Bill workable—when I say workable I mean, of course, to make it work without the grossest injustice. The Chancellor of the Exchequer interjected a remark that this point of glass-houses had not been raised before. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have been conducting our discussion under considerable difficulties, and we have often sat for 15 hours at a stretch.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEEighteen hours.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINIt is not that we have had to do this once, but we have had these long sittings habitually, and that I think is sufficient excuse for not having foreseen all the consequences of a particular clause when it first came under discussion. Under these circumstances none of us were able to bring fresh minds to bear on a great many of these points, and it is not therefore surprising that, in spite of all the labours we have put into our work, we find this Bill is still a very bad piece of work.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI cannot allow the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to pass without one or two observations. In 401 the case of the market gardener who rents a piece of land he does not pay a penny, whatever the building value may be. If the building value is over and above the value as a market garden, the tax is borne by the owner of the land. Therefore it is no addition to the burden of the market gardener. I assume the market gardener has paid in rent the utmost farthing the owner of the land could get for it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINMay I remind the right hon. Gentleman of an explanation which was given by the Attorney-General earlier in the Debate to the effect that though a landlord could not make a contract with his tenant to pay this tax, it would be quite in the power of the landlord to go to the tenant and say. "I can no longer afford to continue you in occupation of the land at your present rent in consequence of this tax." Under these circumstances the Attorney-General agrees that it is quite a proper thing for the tenant to contribute an additional cheque to the landlord to induce him not to evict him.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGENo, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. I was present when the statement was made, and I listened to the whole explanation. That was purely a case where there was an action pending for ejectment, and it was a settlement of the question of ejectment. In that case a cheque would be paid to settle the action for ejectment in respect of either the Undeveloped Land Tax or the Income Tax; I do not remember which it was. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that there is going to be an annual action for ejectment to get 5s. an acre in respect of duty upon market gardening land? This tax will not add to the burden of the land in such a case. I think a man receiving £10 an acre from a market gardener can afford to pay his 5s. in respect of the building value of the land. Another case put forward is that of a man who owns the market garden. May I point out that we have exempted all owners of land under £500, and therefore all these small owners are exempted. How manybonâfidemarket gardeners are there the value of whose land is over £500 an acre. The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the case of land worth £1,000 an acre upon which glass bells are used for cultivation. May I point out that that is not the value that will be taken. How many cases are there of market gardens worth over £500 an acre without 402 any buildings on them, without any glasshouses, and without any expenditure of that kind at all? There are very few cases indeed, and I doubt whether there will be 100 cases in the whole kingdom which will come under it. At any rate all those cases will be excluded. In the case where the value is improved by intensive cultivation I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said in cases of that kind. The value given by intensive cultivation is completely exempted by the Bill. This was done by the Amendment moved on behalf of the hon. Baronet the Member for East Northamptonshire (Sir Francis Channing) by the hon. Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Everett). By that Amendment all these cases are exempted. It is, therefore, no use the Leader of the Opposition advancing his cogent arguments for exempting glasshouses. I think it can be done, but the right hon. Gentleman says it cannot be done. I do not think market gardeners will thank the Leader of the Opposition for using his great ingenuity in this direction.
§ Mr. BALFOURWhat I said was that I do not see how you can exempt glasshouses and not exempt other forms of expenditure on land.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe question is whether it is included in the word "structure." Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite on one Amendment raise the question of market gardeners, and we concede the point by exempting all land under the value of £500, and exempt structures, and immediately we have done that they say we ought not to do this because it is impracticable. Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot have it both ways.
§ Mr. BALFOURThe right hon. Gentleman says when we make any criticism, "You first ask the Government to meet you on one aspect, and when we do so you criticise us still further, and say it is not practicable," and the right hon. Gentleman says that is very hard treatment. Does it not occur to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the reason for what he calls hard treatment is that nothing he does can make sense of his Bill? It is one of those unfortunate attempts at legislation which cannot be put right, because directly you try to meet one class of criticism by a certain set of Amendments they immediately reveal the weakness of another part of the Bill. It is not use abusing us. It is not our business to sit silent and see these absurdities passed into law, whether they happen to be absurdities in the Bill 403 as originally introduced or as it is proposed to be amended. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is in the unhappy position of having introduced a measure which cannot be amended so as to avoid objection. The right hon. Gentleman should not abuse us, but the authorised geniuses who have made themselves responsible for this piece of constructive legislation.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI am very glad indeed to have from the Leader of the Opposition the admission that all the Amendments moved by him and by his hon. Friends behind him are simply an alternative form of nonsense.
§ Mr. ABEL SMITHI think if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would pay a visit to some of the districts in Hertfordshire he would be easily convinced that some of the land there used for growing fruit, flowers and vegetables for the London market is developed to a very high degree indeed. In regard to what he said about the exemption of land under a value of £500 per acre, I wish to point out that there are very large concerns in Hertfordshire where the value far exceeds that limit.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEMay I point out that glass-houses and other structures will be excluded before you arrive at the £500 value? The value of £500 applies to the land stripped of all those things.
§ Mr. ABEL SMITHI agree that the provision with regard to market gardens is of great importance, and as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised to consider the particular point I have raised in regard to glass-houses I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINWill the right hon. Gentleman point out where provision is made for exempting land with a value under £500?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI am afraid I cannot point it out now, but it is on the Blue Paper.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINDoes the right hon. Gentleman mean the new Clause on page 5200 of the Blue Paper, which mentions small houses and properties in the owners' occupation? That is the only new Clause we have been able to find dealing with a subject of this kind. So far as that Clause has any bearing on this subject, it is in Sub-section (2), which reads: "Increment Value Duty shall not 404 be charged on the increment value of any agricultural land where, immediately before the occasion on which the duty is to be collected, the land was, and had been for twelve months previously, occupied by the owner thereof, and the total amount of that land together with any other land belonging to the same owner does not exceed fifty acres, or, if it exceeds fifty acres, does not exceed fifty pounds in annual value as adopted for the purpose of Income Tax under Schedule A." Is that the Sub-section to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer refers? I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to answer across the Table unless that is convenient, but, on the other hand, I do not want to argue about something which he had not in his mind.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI can hardly discuss the whole question of small owners at the present moment. I promised to deal with the case of small owners where the total value was under £500. I have only just had the Amendments placed in my hand, and I shall be very glad to refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Amendment later on.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI do not think it is on the Paper at all. Neither my Friends nor I can find anything on the Paper which has anything to do with £500. The new Clause to which I have referred is confined entirely to Increment Value Duty, and does not touch the Undeveloped Land Duty, with which we are concerned in this Clause. If there is anything else on the Paper which does cover the point we have just been raising, we should be glad to have our attention drawn to it.
§ Sir H. KIMBERI am not so willing as my hon. Friend to withdraw this Amendment. We have already, by Clause 10, exempted land which is used for any business, trade, or industry other than agriculture. There can be no doubt as to-market and nursery gardening being a trade and an industry, but we are now proposing to deliberately except them from those words. Is it competent for us to pass a clause which is a distinct contradiction of a clause already passed?
The CHAIRMANIt is not for me to interpret the meaning of these words. If I did my decisions might become subject to the decision of the Law Courts.
§ Sir H. KIMBERMay I ask whether it is the opinion of the Chancellor of the 405 Exchequer or not that market and nursery gardening is included in the expression, "business, trade, or industry."
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThat is the very question we are discussing now. We think it ought to be included in the definition of agriculture.
§ Sir H. KIMBERClause 10 decides that it shall not be included as agriculture.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIn our judgment it ought to be included as agriculture. I presume the promise we gave is perfectly satisfactory to the hon. Member who moved the Amendment (Mr. Abel Smith).
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINBefore the Amendment is withdrawn, I do ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give me an answer to the question I have put to him. I quite realise it might not be fair to ask him to interject an answer, but he has referred us to a specific Amendment. I cannot find it anywhere on the Paper. The only Amendment I have been able to discover is the one I have read, and that does not meet the case we have put in the least. Where is the Amendment which does meet the case and to which the right; hon. Gentleman has referred us?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. I referred to the promise I made to this House when we were discussing the question of market gardening before, to exclude small owners who own land worth £500. It is well known to the Opposition I promised that. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin (Mr. Walter Long) actually referred to it in his controversial speech at Mountain Ash on Friday last. If it is not on the Paper, it will be long before we come to the new clauses. It is a promise which I shall certainly redeem before we come to anywhere near the new clauses.
§ Mr. BALFOURI think it will be agreed we have considerable cause to complain of the manner in which the Government treat the Amendments they propose to put before the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says he made a promise, and that we knew it. We were perfectly well aware he had made a statement about small owners. We look at the Bill and among the Amendments to find out how that general statement is being carried out by the Government. We find there is a new Clause put down, entitled "Exemption of small houses and properties in 406 owners' occupation." Is there any human being in the Committee who does not think we were justified in supposing that that is the new Clause which was to carry out the pledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Of course, we supposed it, and we were right in supposing it. Now, it turns out the Chancellor of the Exchequer is speaking of another new Clause, of a different character, exempting small owners from another tax. Is that either courteous or credible? I believe that, owing to some blunder or some other reason, this is the Clause which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government intended to carry out the pledge to which my right hon. Friend alluded on Friday. Why should we have a Clause dealing with: one class of small owners and there be another Clause still in the minds of the Government which they are going to put down dealing with the same subject? That is not the proper way to treat the Committee, and I cannot see why it is done. If they had time to work out this elaborate Clause exempting small houses and properties in owner's occupation from the Increment Value Duty, why have they mot had time to devise this other Clause which is to relieve the same, or nearly the same, class from another tax? I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will feel he is really not treating us fairly.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIf the right hon. Gentleman will look at the whole circumstances he will see he is treated fairly. The Clause on the Paper is one dealing purely with Increment Value Duty. We were only discussing Increment Value Duty at the time I promised this Clause. The Undeveloped Land Tax is quite a different thing. It came afterwards. My recollection is that this Clause has been down for weeks, and was down before, I believe, we came near to the Undeveloped Land Tax. I am perfectly certain it has been upon the Paper for a long time. The Instruction for drafting it was given at the time the promise was made, and that seems like years ago. I believe it is months ago.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSIt was at the time of the High Peak election.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe hon. Member is perfectly wrong. It was long before there was any idea of that election. My own recollection is that it was while we were discussing Clause 1 or 2 of the Bill. We had not got beyond the second Clause before we made the promise. If I 407 made a mistake at all, it was in putting it down too promptly, instead of waiting till we had got the whole of the taxes. I made another promise with regard to the Undeveloped Land Tax, and that promise I propose to redeem.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI still maintain that it was during the High Peak election. I perfectly well remember making a speech about it in the High Peak Division. I cannot help thinking the right hon. Gentleman made a rather unworthy taunt when I suggested he had just awoke to the fact that we had been discussing agriculture. I had been here 1½hours, and had followed the arguments closely, and was wondering when the time would come when he would admit that market gardening was a business, and as such was under Clause 10, Sub-section (2), exempted from the Increment Value Duty. The House has there decided that the duty is not to be charged if the land is being built upon, or if it is being usedbonâ fide for any business, trade, or industry other than agriculture. Market gardening of an intensive character is a business. If you use a piece of land for any purpose other than agriculture, say, for a rope-walk, you take it out of the tax; but, if you use it for what is more valuable to the community, and develop it as a market garden, spending £500 or £1,000 per acre upon it, that, the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us, is not a business, but is merely agriculture, and Undeveloped Land Duty is to be charged. I sincerely hope we shall go to a Division in order that the country may realise that, in the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, market gardening
§ of an intensive character is not a business and is not a development of land.
§ Mr. R. L. EVERETTI hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to accept the exemption of market gardens. Market gardening is decidedly a trade and a very skilled industry. If you exclude market gardening from the definition of agriculture in Clause 10, Sub-section (2), for the purposes of the Increment Value Duty you ought also to treat it as a trade and exempt it from the Undeveloped Land Duty. I do not see that there is any possible answer to that. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer is with us in spirit, and I hope he will not in the definition Clause of agriculture include market gardening, which will prevent it being considered the trade and industry it really is.
§ Sir FRANCIS CHANNINGI do not know that it is necessary, but I would remind the Committee that the definition of agricultural land in the Agricultural Holdings Act is perfectly clear. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire (Mr. Abel Smith) legitimately raised certain questions by putting down these words, but he has offered to withdraw his Amendment. I hope he will be allowed to do so, as it is obvious the omission of these words will merely stultify our definition of agricultural land. If we want anything, it is some Amendment of Clauses 10 and 11, and I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer to promise that on the Report stage.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 218; Noes, 94.
411| Division No. 576.] | AYES. | [5.47 p.m. |
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.) | Brooke, Stopford | Crooks, William |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Cullinan, J. |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Bryce, J. Annan | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Burke, E. Haviland- | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) |
| Ambrose, Robert | Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Devlin, Joseph |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Duckworth, Sir James |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Byles, William Pollard | Duffy, William J. |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Elibank, Master of |
| Barran, Sir John Nicholson | Cleland, J. W. | Evans, Sir S. T. |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Clough, William | Falconer, James |
| Beale, W. P. | Clynes, J. R. | Fenwick, Charles |
| Beauchamp, E. | Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Ferguson, R. C. Munro |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Flynn, James Christopher |
| Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport) | Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | Freeman-Thomas, Freeman |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Fullerton, Hugh |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John |
| Boland, John | Corbett, C H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Glendinning, R. G. |
| Brace, William | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Glover, Thomas |
| Branch, James | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford |
| Bright, J. A. | Crean, Eugene | Greenwood, Hamar (York) |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | M'Micking, Major G. | Roche, John (Galway, East) |
| Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Markham, Arthur Basil | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Gulland, John W. | Massie, J. | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | Masterman, C. F. G. | Rowlands, J. |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Micklem, Nathaniel | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Molteno, Percy Alport | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Hart-Davies, T. | Mond, A. | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Muldoon, John | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Murphy, John (Kerry, East) | Seely, Colonel |
| Hedges, A. Paget | Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) | Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford) |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Myer, Horatio | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Henry, Charles S. | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Sheehy, David |
| Higham, John Sharp | Napier, T. R | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Hogan, Michael | Nolan, Joseph | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Holland, Sir William Henry | Nussey, Sir Willans | Snowden, P. |
| Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) | O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyuiph (Cheshire) |
| Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Hudson, Walter | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Idris, T. H. W. | O'Connor. John (Kildare, N.) | Summerbell, T. |
| Illingworth, Percy H. | O'Grady, J. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Jardine, Sir J. | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Johnson, John (Gateshead) | O'Mailey, William | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Jones, Leif (Appleby) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Parker, James (Halifax) | Tomkinson, James |
| Jowett, F. W. | Paul, Herbert | Toulmin, George |
| Joyce, Michael | Paulton, James Mellor | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Keating, M. | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Walters, John Tudor |
| Laidlaw, Robert | Philips, John (Longford, S.) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Lambert, George | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Wardle, George J. |
| Lamont, Norman | Pointer, J. | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | Pollard, Dr. G. H. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Lehmann, R. C. | Power, Patrick Joseph | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) | Radford. G. H. | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | Raphael, Herbert H. | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Reddy, M. | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Lundon, T. | Rees, J. D. | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Lupton, Arnold | Rendall, Athelstan | Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Lyell, Charles Henry | Richards, Thomas W. (Monmouth) | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Mackarness, Frederic C. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Winfrey, R. |
| MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Young, Samuel |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Robinson, S. | |
| MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. |
| M'Callum, John M. | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Roche, Augustine (Cork) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Everett, R. Lacey | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Faber, George Denison (York) | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Fell, Arthur | Lonsdale, John Brownlee |
| Banbury Sir Frederick George | Fletcher, J. S. | Lowe, Sir Francis William |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Forster, Henry William | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Foster, P. S. | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
| Barnard, E. B. | Gardner, Ernest | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Morrison-Bell, Captain |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Newdegate, F. A. |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Gretton, John | Oddy, John James |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edm'ds.) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Hamilton, Marquess of | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. |
| Cave, George | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Percy, Earl |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Hill, Sir Clement | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Hills, J. W. | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Hunt, Rowland | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Dairymple, Viscount | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Doughty, Sir George | Lambton, Hon. Frederick William | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan) | Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham) | Stanier, Beville |
| Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk) | Tuke, Sir John Batty | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Starkey, John R. | Valentia, Viscount | Younger, George |
| Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) | |
| Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir |
| Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) | Whitbread, S. Howard | H. Kimber and Mr. Joynson-Hicks. |
| Thornton, Percy M. |
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell)The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Clancy) is consequential on something which is not in the Bill; and that in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Glasgow (Mr. Scott Dickson) should be taken on the Minerals Clause.
§ 6.0 P.M.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILmoved to add at the end of the Clause the words: "The expression 'reasonable public access,' in connection with parks, gardens, or open spaces, shall include reasonable access by any of the military forces of the Crown for the purpose of military training or the like." This deals with a small point, and, perhaps, the Government will be able to meet me. Under Clause 11 exemption is given in respect of certain parks and open spaces to which the public are admitted. It seems to be doubtful, in regard to the construction of the word "public," whether it includes the military forces of the Crown and Volunteer battalions. I am anxious that the Commissioners should have an opportunity of considering the military forces of the Crown admitted for the purposes of drill as part of the public. I do not want to make it an absolute condition that the military should be admitted, but I desire that they should be deemed to be members of the public for purposes of exemption. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will allow me to call his attention to what I understand to be the theory of exemption adopted by the Government. It is this, that a tax is put on undeveloped land, but if it is dedicated to the public, or used for a purpose which is of great public benefit, then it is right that it should be exempted, because otherwise there would be a tendency for such land to be taken away from its public use, and not to be made available for public purposes. It does appear to me, if that is the theory of exemption, then at least it is as important that landlords should be encouraged to allow military forces of the Crown to come in and drill and take their exercises in the open space as it is to allow people of the locality or the general public to come in and have picnics and enjoy themselves 412 upon the land. I think, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider it for a moment, he will see that there really is a much stronger case for the military than for those who are called outside this House "picnickers," because it is really essential, for military training, that you should have a considerable open space. You cannot do without it indeed, and it is very difficult to secure open spaces of that kind in the neighbourhood of large towns, where you want them for the purpose of training such forces as the Volunteers from great centres. Therefore, it is of great importance that nothing shall be done by the Finance Bill to discourage, those owners, and there are large numbers of them, who do allow military training to go on in their parks and open spaces. I quite understand that there may be difficulties about the drafting, but I do not want to interfere with that. What I am anxious to secure is an opinion from the Government as to whether they are favourable to this exemption or not.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI quite sympathise with the object which the Noble Lord has in view, but I think if he looks at the Bill and his Amendment he will see that he does not attain that object, but he rather limits the exemption which will be already conferred by Sub-section (3) of Clause 11. If these words are placed here the effect will be that unless the landowner granted reasonable access to the military forces of the Crown he would not get the benefit that is given him by that Sub-section, because he gives reasonable access to the public. I am assured that that would be the effect. All that the Noble Lord wants to do is that any benefit of this kind which is conferred on the owner by Parliament should be considered as an element. I do not think he would go so far as to say that purely because the owner of a park had thrown his park open for a week's training he should be exempt altogether, even although he denied access to the public all the year round. I do not think he would go so far as that.
§ Lord R. CECILI want to leave it open, that that case, amongst others, should be taken into consideration.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThere I agree with the Noble Lord. I think that ought 413 to be taken as an element into consideration, but I do not think it ought to be taken as a sufficient reason for the owner to deny access to the public. It ought, however, to be considered as an element. I think it would be open to the Noble Lord to say, perhaps, that at present it would not be considered as an element, but I am not quite sure about that. I am perfectly clear, however, that this is not the proper place for the Amendment, which would have a limiting effect in this position. If he withdraws this Amendment, however, I will make it absolutely clear, later on,
§ on an Amendment which will give the Commissioners power to consider this as an element on the question of reasonable access.
§ Lord R. CECILI am quite satisfied with that assurance, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 229; Noes, 96.
415| Division No. 577.] | AYES. | [6.8 p.m |
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.) | Fenwick, Charles | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Flynn, James Christopher | Mackarness, Frederic C. |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Freeman-Thomas, Freeman | Maclean, Donald |
| Ambrose, Robert | Fullerton, Hugh | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Glendinning, R. G. | M'Callum, John M. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Glover, Thomas | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | M'Micking, Major G. |
| Barnard, E. B. | Greenwood, Hamar (York) | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Barnes, G. N. | Griffith, Ellis J. | Massie, J. |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Barran, Sir John Nicholson | Gulland, John W. | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Beale, W. P. | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Beauchamp, E. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Mond, A. |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Harcourt, Robert V, (Montrose) | Money, L. G. Chlozza |
| Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport) | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Mooney, J. J. |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Hart-Davies, T. | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Muldoon, John |
| Boland, John | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) |
| Brace, William | Hayden, John Patrick | Myer, Horatio |
| Branch, James | Hazleton, Richard | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
| Bright, J. A. | Hedges, A. Paget | Napier, T. B. |
| Brooke, Stopford | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) | Nolan, Joseph |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Henry, Charles S. | Nussey, Sir Willans |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Higham, John Sharp | Nuttall, Harry |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Hogan, Michael | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Holland, Sir William Henry | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Byles, William Pollard | Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.) | O'Grady, J. |
| Charnning, Sir Francis Allston | Hudson, Walter | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Idris, T. H. W. | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) |
| Cleland, J. W. | Illingworth, Percy H. | O'Malley, William |
| Clough, William | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Clynes, J. R. | Jackson, R. S. | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Jardine, Sir J. | Paul, Herbert |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Philips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Jowett, F. W. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Corbett, C H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Joyce, Michael | Pointer, J. |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Keating, M. | Pollard, Dr. G. H. |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Kekewich, Sir George | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Crean, Eugene | Laidlaw, Robert | Radford, G. H. |
| Crooks, William | Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster) | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Cullinan, J. | Lambert, George | Reddy, M. |
| Davies, Ellis William (Elfion) | Lamont, Norman | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | Rees, J. D. |
| Devlin, Joseph | Lehmann, R. C. | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth) |
| Duckworth, Sir James | Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Duffy, William J. | Levy, Sir Maurice | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Duncan, C (Barrow-in-Furness) | Lewis, John Herbert | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Elibank, Master of | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Lundon, T. | Robinson, S. |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Lupton, Arnold | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Falconer, J. | Lyell, Charles Henry | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Roche, Augustine (Cork) | Snowden, P. | Whitbread, S. Howard |
| Roche, John (Galway, East) | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Roe, Sir Thomas | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Rose, Sir Charles Day | Strachey, Sir Edward | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Rowlands, J. | Summerbell, T. | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Williams, Sir Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Scanlan, Thomas | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.) |
| Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) | Tomkinson, James | Wilson, W. T. (Wcsthoughton) |
| Seely, Colonel | Toulmin, George | Winfrey, R. |
| Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford) | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander | Young, Samuel |
| Sheehan, Daniel Daniel | Walters, John Tudor | |
| Sheehy, David | Wardle, George J. | |
| Sherwell, Arthur James | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. |
| Shipman, Dr. John G. | Waterlow, D. S. | Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Silcock, Thomas Ball | Watt, Henry, A. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Nicholson, Wm. G (Petersfield) |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Oddy, John James |
| Balcarres, Lord | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Gretton, John | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Percy, Earl |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edm'ds.) | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester) | Hamilton, Marquess of | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Hill, Sir Clement | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Hills, J. W. | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Hunt, Rowland | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. |
| Cave, George | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Kimber, Sir Henry | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Stanier, Beville |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Lambton, Hon. Frederick William | Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk) |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Starkey, John R. |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham) | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Dairymple, Viscount | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.) | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Doughty, Sir George | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Valentia, Viscount |
| Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan) | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Fell, Arthur | Magnus, Sir Philip | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Fletcher, J. S. | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Younger, George |
| Forster, Henry William | Morpeth, viscount | |
| Foster, P. S. | Morrison-Bell, Captain | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Gardner, Ernest | Newdegate, F. A. | Peel and Mr. Joynson-Hicks. |
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.