ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES ON ACCOUNT OF LAND VALUE DUTIES. (Hansard, 28 September 1909)

§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
I was not aware that this Resolution was going to come up on Report now. I wish to raise a point of Order upon it. Part of the development money and the moneys to be raised by these Land Taxes dealt with under these Resolutions are to be divided between England, Scotland, and Ireland. Those are not definite objects and they are not persons to whom the money can be paid. The speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday 1095 shows that this money is not, during the present Session, going to be appropriated to any particular object, and my point of Order is that it is contrary to the ancient Rules of this House to levy a tax at all which is not to be appropriated to a specific object within the existing Session of Parliament. My authority on this point is the ruling of Mr. Speaker Peel in the year 1890, when he ruled, on practically a similar point, that unless Parliament within the same Session as a Budget were passed distinctly appropriated the money supposed to be raised by the Budget taxes to some specific purpose, it would render the tax itself illegal. No doubt you, Mr. Speaker, remember the occasion, and I am sorry I did not give you notice of this matter.
The occasion was in that particular year the Budget had imposed an extra duty on spirits, and the object which was in the original Budget was that the money should go to compensating licensees who lost their licences under the scheme of the late Mr. Goschen. Mr. Speaker Peel decided that unless the Government of that day were prepared to introduce and pass in the shape of an Act of Parliament a proposal laying down some distinct purpose to which that money could be appropriated and used, the tax itself would be illegal. The Government, acting upon the decision of Mr. Speaker Peel, proceeded to deal with the money, and, under a specific scheme, they divided the money amongst the different municipalities and authorities of the Kingdom to be devoted to the police and to technical education. Here we have practically the same point raised. We are engaged in this Budget in imposing similar taxes, which are to come into immediate operation as soon as the Budget is passed. Now we are told that that money is not going to be dealt with during the current year of Parliament, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday that next Session he proposed to bring in a scheme to show what he was going to do with this money. It is not sufficient to say that you are going to give this money to England, Scotland, or Ireland, because those are not objects to which money can be given. I am submitting either that this Resolution is in itself out of Order or else that the tax to which it refers will not have been legally made if passed in this form.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I understand the hon. and learned Member raises two points. 1096 First of all, he says that this Resolution is out of order. I do not quite see on what ground. How can I prevent the House of Commons passing any Resolution it pleases? The House of Commons might levy a very heavy tax upon everybody, and store up the proceeds in order to form a nucleus fund to be devoted to some purpose to be settled at some future time. I could not prevent that. It is a matter for the House of Commons to determine whether it wishes to deal in that way or not with the money of the people of this country. Therefore no point of order arises in regard to that. The other point was that this was similar to the case which arose in the year 1890. I think that is not so. If I remember rightly, in the year 1890 the Finance Bill was through. It levied certain taxes which were to be appropriated in a certain way during that Session. Subsequently a Bill was introduced which proposed not to allocate the money during the Session, and Mr. Speaker Peel was asked what would be the effect of that. As far as I recollect, on that occasion Mr. Speaker Peel declined to give any ruling at all, and said that that was a matter for the House to determine. He further stated that if he were asked his advice as to what course should be pursued he would suggest that the money should be applied in some way by an Act of Parliament passed through that Session. That is a very different question to this. This Bill is not through yet, and therefore the question does not arise in the same way.

§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
My point is that unless the Government propose during the present Session of Parliament, in the words of Mr. Speaker Peel, to allocate that money, the raising of half of the tax referred to will be illegal.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
That is not a question for me to determine; it is a question for the courts. If this tax is illegally levied an application to the courts will determine that point. I would point out, however, that this Resolution does not limit the time (during which Parliament may determine) to this Session of Parliament. The Resolution says "for the benefit of such local authorities as Parliament may determine." It therefore leaves it indeterminate.

§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
I should not have raised this point at all if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not said "we are not going to allocate the money this Session."

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I am not dealing with the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but with the words of the Resolution.

§ Mr. A. J. BALFOUR
I was not aware that this point was going to be raised. I suppose it will be quite proper to raise this point of Order at a subsequent stage when the Clause comes up fog discussion. Supposing further investigation into this matter shows that there is a real analogy between the present state of things and that which arose in 1890, would it be too late then to raise the point?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
If the right hon. Gentleman can show that, of course he will be entitled to raise it. I do not think he can show that. I think this matter really stands on very different ground. In the case alluded to the Finance Bill was passed, and it was through. It became law, and then the question arose as to what was to be done with the money raised by the taxes about to be levied. My recollection, however, is not very fresh upon that matter. In this case no similar question arises, because the House is now asked to decide whether or not it shall allocate this fund.