HC Deb 05 December 1912 vol 44 cc2631-42
Mr. PRETYMAN

Two nights ago there was a short debate upon the question of the suggested inquiry into the valuations under Part I. of the Finance Act, 1909–10. That Debate was interrupted at an unfortunate moment, and I desire now to resume the subject and very shortly to ask the House and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider whether we cannot arrive at some agreement so that this very desirable inquiry may be held, I think in any case it is not desirable to leave the matter where it is, I do not propose, nor do I think it necessary—because both sides of the House are agreed that if a satisfactory reference can be found an inquiry should be held—to go into any of the matters in dispute as to why an inquiry should be held, to make any complaint, or to refer to any of the complaints made against the Valuation Department, I desire merely to recite what has passed in regard to the inquiry and the suggestions and offers made from the Front Bench opposite. The first suggestion of this inquiry was made by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), who is unfortunately obliged to be absent now. But what I am going to say has his full consent and approval. He first referred to this on 25th July, 1911, when in Debate he used these wordss— I think the Government ought, in the interests of the Department itself, to give an enquiry into the working of the Act, and allow a Committee of this House to examine the men engaged in carrying it out. Let us have an opportunity of finding out what are the methods, and let us cross-examine them upon, them. He afterwards added: We certainly ought to have an enquiry into the action of the Department, and into such things as are not only alleged but as are proved to be true. Then, at a later date, the matter was again referred to by my right hon. Friend. He then no longer suggested a Committee of this House, but an Expert Committee, to inquire into valuation, and on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill of 1911, on 13th December, the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted the suggestion that an inquiry might be desirable, but was rather of opinion that the time for it had not then actually arrived. Then, on 20th June, the question was again raised, and an important Debate took place upon it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then made a definite suggestion, and used these words:— I am quite willing that there should he an enquiry into the administration of the Act. The House of Commons or a Royal Commission is the only Committee which could enquire into a question of policy, but an inquiry of experts, while not being the best Committee for the purpose of examining a question of policy, would undoubtedly be the best Committee for the purpose of examining into the actual administration of an Act of Parliament. I suggest as the terms of reference, 'To enquire into the working of the valuations under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Finance Act, and to report whether any modifications of the methods of carrying out valuations are necessary and if so, what modifications.' A few sentences later he added:— They can consider all cases such as those raised by the hon. Member for Sleaford, the hon. Member for Chelmsford, and others. The next occasion when it was referred to by the Attorney-General in a very important Debate on the subject was on the 19th July. The Attorney-General used these words:— If, on the other hand, what von desire to enquire into is whether the methods of valuation of land are being properly carried out, and whether the methods employed and the instructions given are generally satisfactory: if that is to be the subject matter of this inquiry, you want, in order to get a proper inquiry, a committee composed of experts in valuation, a totally different committee from the one you would appoint if you were going into a political matter. Those are two definite suggestions made out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the other by the Attorney-General. After considering the question carefully we have come to the conclusion that a blend of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney-General would make a very good vintage, and that we may by putting these two references together arrive at a satisfactory reference to the Committee, and I would suggest the following:— To inquire into the working of the land valuations prescribed by Part I. of the Finance Act of 1909–10, and report whether the methods employed and the instructions given to the valuers are generally satisfactory. The House will see that the first half of that is composed of the words suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the second half of the actual words used by the Attorney-General, with one exception, and the exception is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's original proposal was limited to Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Act; in other words, to the original valuation only, whereas this proposal covers both valuations under the Act which are not limited. The proposal covers the valuation under Part I. and does not limit it to only a single valuation, prescribed by Section 26, Sub-section (1). The point has never been really debated, but I am under the impression the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather hinted that if both these valuations were inquire into questions of policy would be raised. I do not think he would really wish to press that point, nor do I really think it could be made good. I press the point that an inquiry should be made as to both valuations. I do not wish to press this point unduly, but if the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not hold that view, I have no more to say. I am rather under the impression, however, that he suggested that an inquiry into both these valuations necessarily involved a discussion of policy. If he thinks that, perhaps he will tell the House why he thinks so. I myself can only suppose the only condition under which that danger could arise would be if it could be shown the Department in carrying out these valuations had been acting ultra vires and had been departing from their plain duty as administrators of the Act, and had been placing their own interpretation on the Section, thereby introducing matters of policy into the valuations. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchellor will not suggest that they have done anything of the kind; and if they have not, then the Committee should inquire into the question of valuations. No question of policy arises, and it is not our desire that the question of policy should be discussed before the Committee. The words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which I have already quoted, were that he should consider all cases such as those mentioned by the hon. Member, and I want to point out to him that unless the Committee are enabled to consider the valuations, both under Section 2 and Section 26, it will be absolutely impossible for them to consider those cases which he has promised they should consider, because both valuations are concerned in the cases which the Committee will have to consider. I have merely recited the course of the negotiations which have hitherto taken place, and I think it very desirable that an inquiry should be held. I have only put these points into the Chancellor of the Exchequer's hands, and I quite understand that he may require time to consider them. Perhaps he will tell us his view, and if necessary we can resume this Debate next week.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

The hon. and gallant Gentleman has stated very fairly the course of the negotiations, and I have nothing to add and nothing to criticise. The point I would make is that the hon. Gentleman in quoting from the OFFICIAL REPORT, quoted—it was the first time there was mention of an inquiry—the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), and it showed clearly that the inquiry was wanted in order to challenge the administration of valuation. A number of cases were brought forward, cases in which systematic under-valuation was charged, in some instances of agricultural land. The hon. Member for Sleaford said that the valuers under-valued one kind of property and over-valued another. Then in other cases against the valuers it was said that the methods adopted in one county were different from those of another county.

These were the charges which were constantly made. Then I suggest, if you say that the methods of the valuers are bad, I am perfectly willing that an inquiry should be set on foot for the purpose of investigating those charges, because, after all, such charges tend to depreciate, to a large extent, the value of the valuation, and probably from another point of view—that of the Government—that is not desirable. There is a valuation, and it is better that it should be a valuation that, on the whole, commands general confidence. Therefore, I suggest that there should be an inquiry into all these charges when they bear on questions of administration. Then, after a good deal of negotiation the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire proposed an inquiry which would certainly have involved large questions of policy. I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford will admit that. For instance, this is what he proposed. [Here the right hon. Gentleman quoted the proposal of the right hen. Member for East Worcestershire.] I always said I did not object to an inquiry into the principles of the valuation, but I do want the Opposition to make up their minds which of the two they want because the first must necessarily be referred to experts, but the second is not a question for experts at all. If you are going to have an inquiry into the second question that ought to be determined by a Royal Commission or a Committee which is not a Committee of experts, because when a question of policy comes in experts have no better opportunity, or are no better qualified to judge than other persons. I understand from the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the Opposition have definitely decided to confine the inquiry at the present moment into the question of administration, I certainly would not object to the other at all. I think there is a great deal to be said for it. As I understand, the hon. and gallant Gentleman has come to the conclusion that he certainly does not want an inquiry of that kind.

Mr. PRETYMAN

I never said anything of the kind.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I put that question repeatedly, and those two propositions to the Opposition, and I have never had a definite answer yet. One thing I would certainly ask the Government to resist, and I would resist, and that is an in- quiry which involves policy being submitted purely to experts and surveyors. These could pronounce undoubtedly the best opinion upon whether the Government valuers are doing their duty in accordance with the instructions, and upon the question of whether the instructions are in accordance with the Schedule; but if anything that involved policy is concerned, I should then have to consider the question of appointing a totally different Committee. If the hon. Gentleman says he prefers the first point, I still say that we are quite willing that should be done. He has given me a form of words only a few moment ago, and I should like time before pronouncing upon them to consider them with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who conducted the whole of the negotiations. I should like to consult him upon them and to see exactly what they mean. I have got the actual words of the Attorney-General which he submitted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain):— To inquire into the working of land valuation prescribed by Clause 26, Sub-section (1), of the Finance Act, 1910, in order to ascertain whether the instructions given and the methods employed to arrive at the valuations prescribed by that Clause are generally satisfactory, and, if not, to recommend what modifications or alterations in such instructions or methods should be adopted. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire very frankly admitted that that was carrying out completely the pledge which I originally gave, and I do not think anyone can challenge that. The pledge which I gave, and which the, hon. and gallant Gentleman read out, is fully carried out by these words.

Mr. PRETYMAN

May I say, by leave of the House, that I was quoting the words used by the Attorney-General on 18th July last, when he said:— What you desire to inquire into is whether the methods of the valuation of land are being properly carried out, and whether the methods employed and the instructions given are generally satisfactory.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

We accept those words.

Mr. PRETYMAN

That is all I want. I do not wish to prolong the Debate, but I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider these words, and I will put down a question for Tuesday asking whether he accepts the reference. If he does not do so, it will be possible on the Motion for Adjournment on Tuesday further to discuss the matter.

Mr. ROYDS

What we are really anxious to ascertain is whether a true value of the site value, the total value, and the value on the occasion, is being arrived at under the valuations as made by the Valuation Department at the present time. Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that these are questions which can be answered only by a Committee of experts such as he proposes to set up, and that they are not questions of policy at all? I have addressed one or two questions to him on that subject, and we have become involved in regard to questions of policy and administration. If we had a plain answer to the question whether he considers the Committee of surveyors and experts which he proposes to appoint are competent to decide that point it would settle the business at once, and we should know what we are about.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

That seems to be a totally different proposition, and that is exactly where the difficulty comes in. That is where the negotiations broke down between the Attorney-General and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire.

Mr. ROYDS

Will you answer the question?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

If that is to be done at all, it must be done by another Committee.

Mr. ROYDS

Is it not the object of the Government, just as it is our object, to ensure that the valuation at present proceeding at enormous expense shall be a true valuation of the land of the country? Is that the object of the right hon. Gentleman or is it not? If it is not, I can understand that he is not ready to answer my question. I thought we were all desirous that the true value of the land should be ascertained. I merely ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that is his intention, and, if so, who can decide that point except experts?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I do not think the hon. and gallant Member (Mr. Pretyman) will thank the hon. Member who has just spoken for what he has said. We were near an agreement, and now the hon. Member has thrown the thing back to exactly where it was before. He wants to know whether it is a true valuation. That is partly a question of policy which would involve an Amendment of the Act. I have already told him and the hon. and gallant Gentleman quite plainly, if that is the object of the Opposition, I am quite willing it should be promoted, but by a totally different Committee. Therefore the hon. Member had better consult his colleagues, so that they may make up their minds what it is they want.

Mr. ROYDS

I really do not quite understand—

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is not entitled to speak again.

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

I think the two things are entirely different. One point which the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman) has put is simply as to practice and instructions. That, of course, we understand from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he is quite willing to allow an inquiry into. That is an entirely different subject from the question as to whether the valuations are right in fact, or as to the policy of the Act, or the benefit of it. Of course that is a very important subject, and interests the Government as well as we on this side. There will have to be an inquiry into that subject a little later on, but it must be perfectly obvious that each of these inquiries is entirely different. The right kind of Committee would be different in both cases. It is a pity that the hon. Member has mixed those two things up. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree to an inquiry into the practice, methods, and instructions, which is what he has been asked for, it would be going as far as we can ask him at present. We can leave the other subject to be dealt with later on.

Mr. BOOTH

I am sure we are all obliged to the hon. Member (Mr. Watson Rutherford) for putting the matter so explicitly. So far as I understand the request of the hon. Member (Mr. Pretyman), I think he will admit that it has been met in a proper spirit by this side of the House. I do not always agree with my Front Bench, but I think on this occasion there has been a desire to meet the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and to appoint a serviceable Committee. The hon. Member (Mr. Royds) has been very frank about this question. I know quite well what he wants. He wants to prove to the world that the Radical party are a landless party, coveting the domains of his own class and friends.

The hon. Member said in one of his speeches that about 170, or something like that, of Liberal Members had signed the Land Values Memorial, and only one of them owned land. I wrote to the "Yorkshire Post," and asked the hon. Member, as I had signed the memorial, was I the individual who he said owned some land.

Mr. ROYDS

Why did not you write to me?

Mr. BOOTH

I thought that the hon. Member, at any rate, read the papers that reported his speeches best. Most of us do that. The hon. Member perhaps thinks that I made no reply. If he did not see it I beg to repeat it across the floor of the House. The suggestion in his speech shows clearly what his attitude is. That is to say, he wishes to prove that we are the people who are wishful for his or his friend's property. If the hon. Member wants an inquiry of that kind he had better have it and pay for it himself. Why does he want it at the public expense? If the hon. Member wants to know how many of the Liberals who are in favour of the taxation of land values are interested in land, why does he not ask some of us? Why did he make the statement in public that there is only one? I challenge him to name the individual he had in his mind.

Mr. ROYDS

The statement I made I believe to be perfectly true. I do not understand that the hon. Member questions the statement at all. I do not know that it is necessary to give the name of the only one of the 170 Members of the Radical party in the House who happens to own land.

Mr. BOOTH

I challenge it.

Mr. ROYDS

I will send it to you.

Mr. BOOTH

As I signed the memorial, I am entitled to know from the hon. Member whether he was meaning me. I think the hon. Member should be perfectly straight. If I brought a charge against a number of Conservatives that over a hundred of them signed a memorial and that one was guilty of the crime of owning land I would be prepared to name him.

Mr. ROYDS

I am prepared to tell the hon. Member straight away what I said, that out of these 170 Members, only one was the owner of land. What I meant by that was—as I think the hon. Member understood—that only about one lived by land. I do not mean to say that the other Members did not own an acre of land. When I said there were 170 Members and only one owned land, what I meant was that there was only one, or about one, who lived by land. I did not mean to say that other Members did not own an acre of land. I believe that only one out of the 170 is dependent on land for his living. Is the hon. Member dependent on the land for his living? Will he answer me that?

Mr. BOOTH

I suppose the hon. Member knows we live by bread, and that is why he wants to tax our food.

Mr. ROYDS

Will the hon. Member answer my question?

Mr. BOOTH

The hon. Member made a speech in public—reported in an organ of great repute—and he said that only one Member who signed the memorial possessed any land. I ask him: Who? And he has not the courage to tell us or to deny the statement. I say that more than one of us owned some land, and therefore we are entitled to ask for a withdrawal of the statement by the hon. Member.

Mr. ROYDS

If the hon. Member wants an answer, I decline to withdraw my statement because I believe it to be absolutely true. I gave an explanation of what I meant, and my audience understood it. I was addressing them, and not the House of Commons. What I said was that there was only about one Member of the 170 who lived by the land. The hon. Member asks me if I referred to him because he owns an acre or two of land. I say straight away that I did not.

Mr. BOOTH

I am very much obliged. I wish the hon. Member had the courage to say to whom he referred. I challenge him to bring the report of his speech here and let us see the phrase he used. I congratulate the hon. Member on the fact that he is much more careful of his statements here than when he is addressing a public audience. I think that is an excellent trait in his character, and if he reflects upon that I think he will in due time make speeches before public audiences which he will be prepared to defend here. The phrase is nonsense that a man lives by land. What kind of country yokels was he addressing when he suggested that we were people interested against the landlords, and that only one out of the 170 who signed the memorial could be considered to be interested in land! I say the hon. Member does not know what he is talking about. He has not the slightest idea of the position of the Members who signed the memorial any more than he has of the speech he actually made. I invite the hon. Member to pursue this subject with a little more gravity. This way of talking about people living by land is absurd. There were 170 Members signed a memorial asking that land should be taxed, and the hon. Member insinuated in public that they are not interested in land and the tax will not fall upon them—

And it being half an hour after the conclusion of Government business, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put.

Adjourned at Twenty-six minutes before Twelve o'clock.