§ Mr. STUART-WORTLEYasked whether the £901,000 given as the total sum paid to the Exchequer in respect of Land Values Duties up to the 14th February, 1912, includes any and what sums paid as Mineral Rights Duty; whether, in the case of Mineral Rights Duty, any valuation or other consideration of capital or site value or any valuation of ungotten minerals is necessary or resorted to; whether the cost of collecting the Mineral Rights Duty is lessened by the fact that Income Tax was, before the passing of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, and still is, levied and paid on mineral royalties and rents; and whether any reason exists for describing the Mineral Rights Duty as a Land Values Duty beyond the accident that the general heading Duties on Land Values was retained at the head of Part I., Clauses 1 to 42, of the Finance Act, notwithstanding that the valuation and taxation of ungotten minerals were omitted from that Part of the Act during its passage through this House?
§ Mr. MASTERMANMineral Rights Duty is included in the total given, but I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's financial statement as to the yield of particular taxes. The answers to the second and third parts of the question are in the negative. With regard to the fourth part, inasmuch as Mineral Rights Duty is a charge on a monopoly value arising out of land, it is appropriately classed as a Land Values Duty.
§ Mr. STUART-WORTLEYCould the hon. Gentleman give the total where he cannot give the parts?
§ Mr. MASTERMANI am afraid it is the invariable custom not to give the parts until the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes his financial statement.
§ Mr. PRETYMANWhere does the hon. Gentleman draw the line between the part and the whole? I understand he made the statement that the Land Duties produce £901,000. That is only a partial statement of the revenue. Surely it is reasonable to ask that he should carry that a little further.
§ Mr. MASTERMANI am following the invariable precedent. General statements are made, but the division as to particular taxes is invariably left to the statement for the year of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ Mr. PRETYMANAre not the general statements which are made confined to those which appear to be in favour of the arguments put forward by the right hon. Gentleman?
§ Mr. MASTERMANIt has nothing to do with arguments at all. It is the practice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.