- (1) Where a Resolution is passed by the Committee of Ways and Means of the House of Commons providing for the imposition of any new tax, or for the variation of any existing tax, or for the renewal for a further period of any temporary tax, whether at the same or a different rate, and whether with or without modifications, and the Resolution contains a declaration that it is expedient, in order to safeguard the interests of the public revenue, that the Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of this Act, the Resolution shall, for the period limited by this Section, and subject to the provisions of this Act, have statutory effect as if contained in an Act of Parliament, and where the Resolution provides for the renewal of a temporary tax all enactments which were in force with reference to that tax as last imposed by Act of Parliament shall, during the said period, and subject to the provisions of this Act, have full force and effect with respect to the tax as renewed by the Resolution.
Provided that—
- (a) The Resolution shall cease to have statutory effect if during the said period Parliament is dissolved or
1830 prorogued, or an Act comes into operation imposing, varying, or renewing the tax under the authority of the Resolution, or the Resolution is rejected by the House when considered on Report; and - (b) Where the Resolution so ceases to have statutory effect, or the said period terminates, before an Act comes into operation imposing, varying, or renewing the tax under the authority of the Resolution, any money paid in pursuance of the Resolution shall be repaid or made, good, and any deduction made in pursuance of the Resolution shall be deemed to be an unauthorised deduction; and
- (c) Where the tax as imposed, varied, or renewed by the Resolution is modified, either when considered by the House on the report of the Resolution, or by the Act imposing, varying or renewing the tax under the authority of the Resolution, any money which has been paid in pursuance of the Resolution, which would not have been payable under the new conditions affecting the tax shall be repaid or made good, and any deduction made in pursuance of the Resolution shall, so far as it would not have been authorised under the new conditions affecting the tax, be deemed to be an unauthorised deduction; and
- (d) When during any Session a Resolution has had statutory effect under this Act, statutory effect shall not be again given under this Act in the same Session to the same Resolution or to a Resolution having the same effect; and
- (e) This Act shall apply only to duties of Customs and Excise and to Income Tax.
1831 - (a) The Resolution shall cease to have statutory effect if during the said period Parliament is dissolved or
- (2) The period for which a Resolution shall have statutory force under this Section shall be a period expiring at the end of four months after the date on which the Resolution is expressed to take effect, or, if no such date is expressed, after the date on which the Resolution is passed by the Committee:
§ In this Act the expression "temporary tax" means a tax which has been imposed or renewed for a limited period not exceeding eighteen months.
§ Amendment proposed [14th April]: In Sub-section (1), after the word "shall" ["shall for the period limited by this Section"], to insert the words "within the same financial year and."—[Mr. James Hope.]
§ Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted." Debate resumed.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI have discovered, rather to my chagrin, that there is in the proposal I made last night a serious flaw, which, if greater consideration had been given to the subject, might have been avoided. I will very briefly recall to the Committee the nature of my proposal. The object of my Amendment was that the Resolution contemplated in the Bill should not have effect beyond the limit of the financial year, namely, 31st March. I gave reasons, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer quite handsomely acknowledged, why that should be so. He pointed out that in the same year there might be a necessity, as there was thirteen or fourteen years ago, to get new taxes levied before the end of the financial year, and he asked how I would meet that case. I said I would allow the Resolution to be renewed from the beginning of the next financial year, or within three days before its commencement. But, on looking into the matter, I quite see that that leaves a gap. If it has to be renewed in the next financial year, there would be at least one day in which the collection would lapse. If it 1832 is possible, I should like to make a fresh proposal. I know that my Amendment has been moved, but I would suggest that it might read thus:—
by consent within the said financial year or fourteen days from the expiration thereof.In regard to the second, or what is in a sense a consequential, Amendment, it would not be necessary to put in the words,or within three days of the beginning of the next financial year,because the former Amendment would have covered that. My proposal now would be that the Resolution shall run, subject, of course, to the four months' period, to the end of the financial year and fourteen days afterwards, so as to admit of renewal. I submit that the renewal of the Resolution might be done within fourteen days after the beginning of the financial year. My great object in making this proposal is that a Chancellor of the Exchequer shall not divide the Budget and make proposals for fresh taxation until he is able to disclose the financial situation at the end of the financial year, and disclose also the proposals for the next year. I therefore ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider this proposal.
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)I will deal with the proposal as if it had been moved in the form now proposed by the hon. Gentleman, and therefore I will raise no point such as he indicated with respect to the Amendment he moved last night. When the hon. Gentleman made his statement last night I certainly thought there was something that required consideration. I have given the matter very careful consideration, and in my position as Chancellor of the Exchequer I have had the advice of all those concerned. The Amendment, if moved in this form, does not put serious obstacles in the way of an emergency Budget brought in under extraordinary pressure—the pressure, for example, of a great war, when you have to introduce a Budget before the end of the financial year in order to get taxation as soon as possible. The latest case cited by the hon. Gentleman was one of that kind when Sir Michael Hicks-Beach (now Lord St. Aldwyn) introduced his Budget some time in the month of March. If this Amendment had been in operation then, what would have happened would have 1833 been that Lord St. Aldwyn, within fourteen days after the end of the financial year, would have had to renew the Resolution, inasmuch as he had to get his Budget through. I think he got it through in a short time, but if he had had taxes like the Corn Tax, the Sugar Tax, or the Coal Tax, he would not have had it through so speedily.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEHe would have had the Resolution.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEHe would have had to get a second Resolution renewing it. That seems to me rather a waste of Parliamentary time, because if he had had second Budget proposals in 1900, that would have added, I think, six Parliamentary days to the discussion of the taxing proposals, because these were quite novel proposals. The Coal Tax was imposed in 1901, and the Corn Tax in 1902. Suppose these taxes had been proposed in 1900, Lord St. Aldwyn would have had to renew his Resolution, and the House of Commons would have had Debates on the Report stage. From my recollection of that time I very much doubt whether he could have had the Resolution through in four or five days of Parliamentary time. What is the hon. Gentleman afraid of? He is afraid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will, before he really knows what his position is, before he can possibly know, will come down to the House of Commons and say, "I think I shall be confronted with a great deficit; I shall be short of £5,000,000 or £10,000,000, and I shall require to propose new taxes."
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEOr get some new principle established.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI do not see that it is easier to establish it before 31st March than after that date. This conspiracy is so deep that I cannot quite fathom what the hon. Member is thinking. I cannot see what possible gain would be derived from bringing in a Resolution before 31st March, which could not be got in another way. The hon. Gentleman seems to be afraid of Land Taxes, but these are outside the scope of the proposal. Tariff Reform is, I believe, the other danger of conspiracy, but the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) pointed out yesterday that it was not proposed that taxes under a new fiscal system should come into operation on a Resolution. Will the hon. Gentleman unfold the conspiracy?
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEVery often in the month of March—it is not so this year, but in other years—there is rather a slack time, because the Government have not had time to get their legislation ready, and on the other hand, there may be a throng time after the beginning of the financial year. Therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might like to get the controversial parts of his proposals through in February or March with a view of clearing the ground for legislation afterwards.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI thought that the complaint was that Radical Governments postponed their Budgets until too late in the year. This proposal is for a guarantee that they shall not be introduced too early. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman need have any fear on that score. I have never seen Governments so slack before the 31st of March that they would bring in a Budget in order to occupy time. Quite the reverse is the fact. Just as much as any Government which I can recall ever could do was to get their financial business through by the 31st of March. The pressure has always been before that date. So I do not see how a Government is likely to have so much time on its hands that it will introduce a Budget involving great fiscal novelties merely in order to occupy time before the 31st of March. The danger which the hon. Gentleman is guarding against is rather an imaginary one, and while he is guarding against an imaginary danger he is creating a real one. No Budget has ever been introduced before the 31st of March, except when there was some urgent need for money and all ordinary business was suspended, and in such an emergency it would be a great mistake if we were to have introduced artificial obstacles in the way of getting through the business in the most expeditious manner possible. Therefore I have come to the conclusion, after the most careful consideration which it was possible to give, that we cannot possibly accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.
§ 4.0 P.M.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI thank the right hon. Gentleman for his attention and in view of what he says I will not put the Committee to the trouble of a Division. The case which I contemplate is not a very likely case, but I think it possible that a Chancellor of the Exchequer with some new proposal in his mind, seeing in 1835 front of him the whole time for legislation rather congested, might think it expedient to get part of his Budget through before the end of the financial year. If he did I think it would be wrong and inexpedient, and in view of the possible inconvenience on the one hand and the possible slight danger on the other I think that my proposal does hold good. But as there is no strong feeling on the subject, and I admit that I am only dealing with a supposition, I will not trouble the Committee with a Division.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON had given notice of the following Amendment—To leave out the words, "and where the Resolution provides for the renewal of a temporary tax all enactments which were in force with reference to that tax as last imposed by Act of Parliament shall, during the said period, and subject to the provisions of this Act, have full force and effect with respect to the tax as renewed by the Resolution."
§ The CHAIRMANThe Amendment of the hon. Member for North Down I think is consequential on an Amendment disposed of yesterday. If that is not the case what would be the effect of leaving out these words? We cannot take an Amendment which would make absurd the earlier words with which the Committee have dealt already.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONI doubt very much whether these words are necessary at all in view of the provisions of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act. The reason I put down the Amendment was to get from the Chancellor of the Exchequer the reason for the insertion of these words. If they do confer any additional power over and above existing provisions they confer on a Committee of the House power to interfere with legislation already on the Statute Book.
§ Mr. CASSELThe same Amendment stands in my name. I want to find out the reason for the insertion of these words: they appear to me to be surplusage.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is quite entitled to move in order to draw any explanation from the Government in that way, but not to argue on the merits as to whether it is or is not necessary to insert these words.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONI beg to move the Amendment. As far as I understand the Clause it is drawn as follows: that the Committee of Ways and Means may have power to renew a temporary tax at the same or a different rate with or without modification, and if they renew a tax at the same rate and in exactly the same form in which it was proposed the year before there can be no question of the meaning or effect of these subsequent words. If, on the other hand, the Committee of Ways and Means decides to renew a tax at a different rate with modifications, for instance, if it decides to reduce the Income Tax or extend the limit of exemption, I would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman what effect have these words on the Clause? As far as I can understand the effect would be, if any modification were necessary, in consequence of that Resolution of the Committee of Ways and Means, in previous Acts of Parliament, that it would automatically be made by the Resolution of the Committee of Ways and Means. If that be so, I would also like to know whether this power does or does not extend to the Irish Parliament which it is proposed to set up under the Government of Ireland Bill. This is a very important and a very difficult point. I confess that I do not know whether the provisions of this Bill would extend, and this point would very materially affect the view which I take of this Clause. Clause 12 of the Government of Ireland Bill extends all the powers, privileges, and immunities of Committees of this House, including Committees of Ways and Means, to Committees of the Irish Parliament. If these powers are not to be extended to the Irish Parliament the very difficulty of forestalment which will occur in this country will occur there, but if they are to be extended, then all your provisions as to the power of Veto by this House over Acts of the Irish Parliament are entirely illusory, because by mere Resolution the Irish Parliament could alter a British Statute.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI think that the hon. Gentleman has given a much wider application to these words than they possibly would bear. They have been introduced in order to enable us to utilise the machinery of the Income Tax Act to carry out the collection of the tax until the Finance Act has received the Royal Assent. Without this there would be no machinery at all for collection. It does not affect the Irish Parliament. I do not see 1837 where the Irish Parliament comes in at all, even in the smallest degree. Without this we would have no method of collection which we could utilise by any Statute, and to provide for a method is the only object of these words.
§ Mr. CASSELI think the explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is unnecessary, because, even without these words, he gets all the machinery under Section 30 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of 1890, which has also been decided to extend the Super-tax. It provides that, in order to ensure the collection in due time of any duties of Income Tax which may be granted in any year commencing on 6th April, all such provisions in any Act which was in force on the preceding day shall have full force and effect and so on, so that, as far as Income Tax is concerned, the Section gives all the machinery which the right hon. Gentleman requires. The right hon. Gentleman does not dispute that it applies to Super-tax.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI have taken the legal advice at the disposal of the Government, and I am informed that in the very decision to which the hon. Gentleman has referred there were some words which left a loophole which render it absolutely necessary to have these words. If all that the hon. Member says is that they are unnecessary, I think he will agree with me that if there is any doubt about it it is much more desirable that the words should be inserted.
§ Mr. CASSELI am very much afraid of general words in a Statute, because when they come to be construed they are often given a meaning which nobody ever intended them to have. I would like to know what the necessity is for inserting them here. The explanation of the right hon. Gentleman does not apply so far as Customs are concerned, so I need not trouble about Customs. So far as Income Tax is concerned, he said that this will preserve all the machinery. All that it did not do was that it did not continue any rate, and although you could get all the machinery and your collection return, which you could enforce at once, you could not really collect money and make deductions until the rate had been imposed. The rate would be imposed by Resolution, and the machinery then would all be in force under Section 30 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act. Although somebody else may have arrived at a different opinion as to the interpretation of these words, I 1838 should like a little snore explanation before committing myself to such wide terms, which seem to me so far beyond the necessities of the case.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI have the words of Lord Justice Parker here, and they were to the effect that he was led to the conclusion that the proper interpretation of the Act was that, although it kept alive the machinery of the Income Tax Act for the purpose of the preliminary work necessary for the collection of the Income Tax which might be imposed for any financial year, it should not authorise any assessment or collection of a tax not yet imposed by Parliament. Inasmuch as this Bill is for the collection of Income Tax, it cannot take advantage of machinery for assessment, and I am advised that it is necessary that these words, which it is proposed to omit, should be retained.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI do not think the right hon. Gentleman quite appreciates the point of my hon. Friend. The point is this: Take a tax imposed by the Irish Parliament, and which tax is expiring. It is found to be very burdensome to a certain section of the taxpayers in…
§ The CHAIRMANI was very doubtful about that point when it was first raised, but I have come to the conclusion that I could not permit a debate upon it.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEOn the point of Order. This is a Bill which will become an Imperial Statute, and will apply to Ireland, both under present conditions and under possible future conditions.
§ The CHAIRMANYou must take things as they are; we are dealing with the Bill here and now, and with the law as it now stands.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI take your opinion to be that it is a very remote hypothesis.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member may take it as he pleases.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI should really like the Government to give us some more information on this point. I do not quite follow the argument of the right hon. Gentleman as to the decision which was given. It is very delicate ground for a layman to tread, especially as I have no legal adviser sitting beside me, as the right hon. Gentleman has. There is a Law Officer beside me at the present moment. Surely the distinction 1839 that Lord Justice Parker drew was that the authority for the preparatory steps was a continuing authority; that you had not any authority to levy a tax, and therefore no authority for collection; but that, if you had authority for assessment, you at once have authority for collection, and the absence of authority for assessment carried with it the absence of authority for collection. The words of the Clause will in future give you authority for the collection of the Income Tax, and it is these words that it is proposed to omit under the present Amendment.
§ Sir FREDERICK BANBURYMight I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, as it is entirely a new question, it would be as well to put in as few words as possible, so that we do not create difficulties? Words may be put into the Bill which, when it becomes law, might convey a meaning and confer a power which was never intended by the House. In this case it would matter very much indeed, and I would rather that the words should be left out, even if it necessitated further legislation to attain the objects of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, than that they should be inserted while not well understood by the Committee. I myself do not quite follow either the argument of my right hon. Friend or the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ Sir F. BANBURYAnd I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman has followed them either.
§ Mr. BOOTHI have listened very patiently to what has been said, but I do not profess to have the capacity to convey information to the hon. Baronet.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI do not want to run the risk of having words put into the Clause which, when the Bill becomes an Act, will do something which it is not intended at the present moment should be done. It would be very much better if the words were left out when we are not perfectly certain of what we are doing.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONI see the Attorney-General now in his place, and I shall try to summarise for him the point which I wish to make. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not really deal with it. To put it as shortly as I possibly can, the point is this: Either these words confer some additional authority over what is 1840 enjoyed at the present moment as regards collecting or they do not. If they confer no additional authority, then they are merely surplusage. If they do confer additional authority, while I should be quite ready to grant that additional authority to the Committee of this House, I am not ready to accept blindfold and beforehand the grant of that additional authority to the Committee of the Irish Parliament. Therefore I wanted to ask the learned Attorney-General whether the provisions of this particular Clause of the Bill would extend to the Irish Parliament or not?
§ Mr. CASSELI want to put to the right hon. Gentleman the point which I raised, that the words of the Clause are already covered as far as Income Tax is concerned, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer only requires them for Income Tax. I wish to ask the Attorney-General whether the case is not already covered by Section 30 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1890. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his reply, said that the Section only dealt with preliminary matters, for the purpose of assessment, and was quite distinct from collection. But the Section begins with the words, "In order to ensure the collection." It seems undesirable to have on the Statute Book two provisions which are identical. Either they are identical or they are not. If they are identical, we ought not to have the same provisions in two different Statutes.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs)I may explain that it is desirable to have the words proposed to be omitted in the Clause. The argument in the case before Lord Justice Parker was that Section 30 of the Act of 1890 was sufficient, because it did give the power both with regard to assessment and collection. That was the argument set up in the case raised by Mr. Gibson Bowles. It was admitted that there was no argument to be put forward by the Law Officers of the Crown in answer to the general proposition advanced by Mr. Gibson Bowles, that Section 30 of the Act of 1890 was sufficient for the purpose of giving the right of deduction of Income Tax by the Bank. Lord Justice Parker took the view, which certainly I accept, that this Section was merely machinery, and limited the meaning of the words to "assessment," which was contrary at any rate to the view which had been taken before as to the meaning of "assessment" in another Act 1841 of Parliament also relating to income Tax. I do not think it would be safe, therefore, to pass this Bill without putting those words in. Those words make the matter quite plain, and we do not want another action with reference to it. What we desire henceforth is that there should be no doubt, not only as to the machinery for the purpose of assessment, but also for the purpose of collecting the Income Tax, once the Resolution has been put in force. I should be very sorry indeed if the words were taken out.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONI am sorry the learned Attorney-General has not answered my question with regard to the Irish Parliament. Perhaps it is not convenient as this moment to do so. I wish to give notice that in order to raise this question I shall put down a new Clause.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI wish to direct the attention of the learned Attorney-General to another question, on which I do not wish to express an opinion, and in regard to which I hesitate in doubt. I happen to have the Budget of 1909–10, in which you find that Section 65 provides that the Income Tax for the year has to be charged at a certain rate. It goes on:
(2) All such enactments relating to Income Tax as were in force on the 5th April, 1909 … shall have full force and effect with respect to any duties of Income Tax hereby granted. (3) The annual value of any property which has been adopted for the purpose either of Income Tax under Schedules A and B … or of Inhabited House Duty during the year ending the 5th April, 1909, shall be taken as the annual value of such property, but (b) shall not apply to the Metropolis as defined by the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869.There is a kind of quinquennial valuation in the Metropolis, and whenever the quinquennial valuation takes place the new valuation is adopted in the place of the old one. The words we are now discussing as they stand in the Bill, therefore, causes you to collect your Income Tax on the wrong valuation, just when you are changing from one valuation to another—that is to say, that the words we are now discussing would cause you to collect under the Resolution on the expiring quinquennial valuation, and the words of the Act, as subsequently passed, would direct you to assess on the new quinquennial valuation which has just come into force. 1842 I do not wish to do more than direct the attention of the Attorney-General to the point and ask him to look into it.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThe provision as to the valuation of the Metropolis has reference to Schedule A of the Income Tax Act. I will look into the point however.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna)I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "temporary" ["renewal of a temporary tax"].
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINWhat is the meaning of this Amendment?
§ The CHAIRMANIt is consequential on a decision arrived at yesterday. The merits of the point were then argued, when the original word was left out, and therefore we treat this as consequential.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ The CHAIRMANThe next Amendment on the Paper, in the name of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil), appertains to Sub-section (2) and not at this point.
§ Lord HUGH CECILOn the point of Order. In my view, my drafting is very much better than the drafting of the Bill. I am speaking merely from the point of view of where the Amendment ought to be moved, and I think I put it in the right place. An Act of Parliament should convey an intelligible meaning, and when the public read an Act of Parliament it is much more convenient for them to have the essential points put early in the Clause. I submit that my Amendment, therefore, putting the period earlier in the Bill, makes it much more intelligible.
§ The CHAIRMANI am not sure that on the point of taste and convenience the Noble Lord is not right, but, according to our Rules, we must take the Clause as presented by the Government. In the other form, in which I understand the Noble Lord is prepared to move Ins Amendment, it does come in at this stage.
§ Lord HUGH CECILI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the words "Provided that…," to insert the following new paragraph:—
As I understand, the Government are prepared to accept this proposal, except that I do not quite agree with the periods which they suggest. I will only address myself to the point as to the period which should be allowed to elapse. In the form suggested by the Government the periods are given as twenty-one days in each case. The important change which they suggest, and which I think is a very reasonable one, is that the days should be reckoned as sitting days of Parliament instead of calendar days. That is reasonable, because at this time of year very often Easter intervenes and the House is not sitting. Ten sitting days are as long as fourteen calendar days, and twenty sitting days are as long as four calendar weeks. In a list of the days occupied by previous Budgets, supplied to me by the Government, except the great controversial Budget of 1909, which was a very exceptional case, I believe every single tax would fall easily within the periods I suggest of ten days and twenty sitting days. The only place where there is any doubt is in the case of 1905. The original Resolutions for tobacco, beer and spirits were agreed to on 10th April by the Commitee and on 3rd May by the House. The Tea Duty was agreed to on 11th April by the Committee and on 3rd May by the House. The Income Tax Resolution was agreed to on 12th April by the Committee and on 3rd May by the House. I believe those were so long delayed only because of the intervention of the Easter holidays. In that case I can see they would easily fall within the limits of ten sitting days—that is to say, fourteen calendar days' continuous sittings. I think it is very desirable to keep the first period as short as it can be kept without inconvenience.
- "(a). The Resolution shall cease to have statutory effect if during the said period it is not agreed to by the House
1843 when considered on Report within the next ten days on which the House sits after the Resolution is passed by the Committee of Ways and Means, and if a Bill varying or renewing the tax under the authority of the Resolution is not read a second time by the House within the next twenty days on which the House sits after the Resolution is agreed to, and." Many Members on this side feel, I am sure, and the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones), that to allow a single Resolution the force of law is a most abusive process. Even those who think it a convenient process and who desire the passage of this Bill do not deny 1844 that it is a very great and formidable innovation. Therefore it is desirable to keep that period of statutory effect of a single decision of this House in Committee of the Whole House as short as it can possibly be kept. I believe you can easily take the Report stage within seven sitting days. Even in the case of so long and so very controversial a Budget like that of 1909 nothing is easier than to pass the Customs and Excise Duty, which probably do not fall within the controversial ambit of the Budget, before the more controversial taxes had been completely disposed of. Even in 1909 it would have been perfectly easy to pass all the duties to which the Bill related within ten sitting days. Of course it would have been necessary to postpone the further discussion of the Land Taxes till the Report stage of the other taxes would have been agreed to, but there would have been no difficulty about that. I do think the trivial inconvenience of taking the Report stage of some of the Budget Resolutions before the Committee stage of others has been completed in the rare case of a very controversial Budget is not to be weighed against the general consideration, that the period in which a Resolution passed in Committee should have statutory powers should be made as short as possible. I hope the Government will endeavour to make their innovation fall within the existing usage. The list of Budgets shows that in every case, except 1909, these days were sufficient. I think it is unreasonable that we should assume that the usage of the House means the extreme case of a very controversial Budget. It is much better to modify the practice in respect of a controversial Budget by taking the Report stage after the Committee stage of some Resolutions, and then resume the Committee stage of other Resolutions, than to extend beyond necessity the period giving statutory effect to the Resolution.
Observe that once the Report stage has been agreed to there is this great security that the House of Commons cannot have been taken by surprise. Under our procedure in Ways and Means a Minister may come down, and habitually does come down, without disclosing what he is going to move, and in a few hours a decision is taken. That really is not deliberation, though no one is to blame for it. After six or seven days the Resolution comes up again on Report, and then there really is the deliberate judgment of the House, so that the short time for the operation of 1845 the Committee Resolution is a point of very great substance. It is of much more importance than the second part of the Amendment, which relates to the interval to the Second Reading of the Bill. I gather that the Government will adhere to their four months for the full term before the Royal Assent. The Amendment, I suggest, would be a period of ten sitting days after the Committee stage, and there would be twenty sitting days between the Report stage and the Second Reading, a very ample time really, because you ought easily to be able to dispose of the Second Reading of the Bill in a month. If holidays intervened there would then be about two and a half months to dispose of the remainder of the Bill. The only difficulty arises as to whether you could get through the Committee stage of a controversial Budget in two and a half Months, and it might necessitate dividing the Budget into two Bills. I do press the Government to consider whether the dates they suggest, which are double as long in the first instance as mine, and one longer in the second instance, are not unreasonably long. If you are dealing with sitting days it is better to deal in multiples of five as the House of Commons sits five days per week. Therefore twenty days is a more natural figure. I do not attach any importance to the question of twenty or twenty-one, but I do attach great importance to the earlier difference as between ten and twenty.
§ Mr. McKENNAThere can be no question as to the importance of the general argument put forward by the Noble Lord. It is admitted on all hands that it is undesirable under this Bill to go one inch beyond what is necessary, and beyond what has been the custom and practice for so many years. The Noble Lord has given figures which show that in practice no difficulty would in fact have arisen if such a limitation as he proposes by this Amendment were inserted in the Bill. The only question which arises is whether the figures which he proposes should be accepted. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already stated to the Noble Lord that he would be willing to accept the Amendment if twenty-one days were allowed between the Committee stage and the Report stage, and twenty-one clays between the Report stage and the Second Reading. My right hon. Friend and myself have both been struck by the fact mentioned by the Noble Lord 1846 that for a great many years past there never has been any such interval as twenty-one working days between the Committee stage and the Report stage, and never anything like as long between the Report stage and the Second Reading. Under those circumstances the Government are prepared to accept the Amendment of the Noble Lord in the form in which he has moved it, taking note of the fact that the days must be Parliamentary working days.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThis is the first time that I have ever known a speech by my Noble Friend to have such an extraordinary effect on the Treasury Bench, and I am very much afraid that there must have been some collusion beforehand. I hope my Noble Friend will take care that he is not ensnared by Members on the Treasury Bench. There is to the Amendment one objection which strikes me as being rather forcible. Are we not now, as a matter of fact, forging for ourselves a time-table? Is it not possible that when, say, nine days have expired, the Chancellor of the Exchequer may put down the Report stage of a Resolution, and then say to the House, "This is the tenth day; therefore, it is absolutely necessary in the interests of the country that the Resolution should be passed at once. We are very sorry; we should have liked it to be discussed; but we feel sure that Members on both sides will recognise the necessity of getting the Resolution through at once." We on this side, being patriotic people, would probably be convinced by this argument, and consequently the discussion and consideration which is the essence of financial arrangements, would be avoided. In the same way, if the Second Reading of the Bill has to take place within twenty days from the Report of the Resolution, I can imagine an astute Chancellor of the Exchequer who has to get the Second Reading of a Bill which he knows is very unpopular, not only on this side, but on his own side of the House, discussing the matter with the Law Officers of the Crown, or with the Prime Minister, and saying, "This Bill is very unpopular. How can I best get the Second Reading? I had better put it down for the twentieth day." He would then repeat the same argument as before, and we should find it very difficult to resist an appeal of that kind. There is a good deal to be said for this Amendment, inasmuch as it prevents long delays between the different stages, but it might possibly 1847 be made use of in the way I have suggested. This is not at all a party question, and I should be glad if the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones), who takes a very great interest in these matters, would tell us what he thinks upon this point.
§ Sir A. CRIPPSI agree rather with the Noble Lord (Lord H. Cecil) than with the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), but I should like to put this question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Would the right hon. Gentleman consider it an abuse of a procedure of this character if he used it so as to bring on the different stages at the last possible moment, and then said they must be passed on that particular day? Subject to that consideration, I think it is an admirable Amendment that we should lay down the time within which each successive stage should be taken.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE (who was very indistinctly heard)I quite agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. To do what he has described would be such an obvious abuse on the face of it that I do not think the House would stand it. When you have an arrangement fixing the time within which these different stages should be taken, for the Government to put a particular stage down for the last available day and then say to the House, "You must pass it to-night, otherwise the whole thing will fall through," would, on the face of it, be a gross abuse. There is only one conceivable occasion when such a thing might happen, and that would be in Committee, in regard to which I confess that I thought the suggested limits of time were a little severe. The Noble Lord has introduced a severe limitation upon the original practice, which might possibly be a little embarrassing to the Government of the day. The procedure will, however, insure that the Budget is debated during a period of the Session when Members are fresh. It will prevent the Government from putting off the Budget until a late period of the Session, and from subordinating the finance of the year to Parliamentary exigencies.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINMy hon. and learned Friend put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a form which admitted of only one reply. Of course, if you ask either a present or a possible Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he deliberately contemplated, when passing legislation of this kind, that 1848 he would use a limitation, to which he consented on the ground that it would give the House a better opportunity for discussion, in order to deprive the House of its usual opportunities for discussion he would repudiate any such an an intention. But does the question ever arise in that way? When the rights and liberties of Members are curtailed, does the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer ever say: "This is a proposition so distasteful to many of my own party that I do not think we can stand an ordinary full discussion upon it. I shall therefore postpone it to the last moment, when I cannot comply with the law unless it is passed in a single sitting?" That is not what happens, nor do I think that any Minister consciously adopts that method. What he comes and says is: "We have been very busy with very important matters; the business has taken up more time than we expected it would, and, in order to comply with the law, we are hound to ask the House to pass this particular business to-night or to-morrow." That is the way it is done, and that is the way it would be done. The hon. Baronet is perfectly right as to what will happen. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that action of that kind would be an abuse so great that no House of Commons would stand it. May I say that five years ago, if he or any of his predecessors had been asked whether he did not think that to postpone the Budget until the month of December would be a gross abuse of Parliamentary procedure such as no Chancellor of the Exchequer would contemplate, he would have replied at once in the affirmative, and he would have given my hon. and learned Friend all the satisfaction that he has got to-day. I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer says now that it was not an abuse. He takes the line that it was forced upon him by the exigencies of other business, which prevented him from dealing with the matter at the usual date. We, on this side, thought that the other business was not as urgent as the financial business, and that the Budget ought to have come first. There will always be that division between the two sides of the House. The Opposition will say: "You ought to have made time for the proper consideration of the business"; while the Government of the day will say, "We had no opportunity. We could not multiply the days in the week. We made the best use of our time, and we are now obliged to ask the House to curtail its liberties."
1849 5.0 P.M.
I rather wash my hands of the effect which this Bill is going to have on our Parliamentary procedure. I think it is quite probable that if you pass this Bill you will not be able to rest here. I do not know whether, in discussing such an Amendment as this, Members try to cast their minds forward to what will be the position of a Chancellor of the Exchequer or of the House itself, if it is necessary to deal with such a situation as that with which Lord St. Aldwyn had to deal in three successive years. Under this limiting Amendment he must get through the Committee stage of a Budget dealing with the temporary taxes by a certain time. Ex hypothesi he has got to impose certain new taxes, as Sir Michael Hicks-Beach did in those three years. He will not have the advantage which Sir Michael Hicks-Beach had, of collecting money derived from his new taxes on the strength of the new Resolution. Of that the House deprived him yesterday. But that makes it only more urgent that the Bill in which the taxes are embodied should be hurried through the House as rapidly as possible. What is going to happen? He is going to take one Bill for the two. In that case are you really by this limiting Amendment securing full consideration for the renewed old taxes? I think they will be crowded out, because urgency will have arisen, and will force the Chancellor of the Exchequer into the position foreshadowed by my hon. Friend behind me and deprecated by my hon. and learned Friend. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will be forced to give first place to the new taxes as being most contentious, and that will crowd out the old taxes, and the newer temporary taxes, into the last moment allowed by this Amendment. Then the right hon. Gentleman will come down—will be forced to come down—under any such circumstances with a Guillotine Resolution, apportioning the time within this Amendment regardless of whether the Resolutions are properly discussed or not. If he tries to get over his difficulty by dividing his proposals between two Bills, still the most urgent of these would be the Bill containing the new taxes, because they do not have the benefit of this Bill. Again, therefore, if there are two Bills, the Bill which continues the old taxes will be driven off by the urgency of getting early authority for collecting the new taxes, and so you come up against the time-table of my Noble Friend. Even then, that busi- 1850 ness will be carried on satisfactorily from the point of view of the public I do not believe! That the real interests of the country in a time of emergency can be served by any proposal of the sort I do not believe! But what I do urge upon the House at the present time is the effect that their decision of yesterday has upon the proposals to-day: there is good foundation for the apprehension expressed by my hon. Friend behind me. This time-table will in effect, in grave emergency, when there are what the Chancellor of the Exchequer calls large Budgets, with many or contentious proposals in them, be at once a measure of coercion for the Government, and through the Government a coercion of the House of Commons, and will limit discussion. I am quite convinced that that will be so. I think it is unavoidable after the decision the House has given, and I confess I am very much afraid of the time-table that the right hon. Gentleman has accepted.
§ Lord HUGH CECILJust one word of reply to my right hon. Friend and the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. I do not at all dispute that the Government, any Government, are likely to abuse the provisions of this Amendment when the time comes. I think it is probable they will abuse it. But I do not think it is possible to pass this Bill in any form which would not make it liable to abuse, for it gives the Government an increased power for treating the House of Commons with indifference and neglect. The choice really is a choice of evils. If you do not have some provision of this kind you certainly will have a Budget at the end of the Session. I confess that I think that the greater danger. The Budget will be taken in the last days of the Session, and it will come, in process of time, to be regarded as a matter of course. It is no exaggeration to say that the control of the ordinary finances would be but little. Of course it would not happen with a measure—with a great controversial Budget—but the ordinary Budget of the year would be passed very much as the Appropriation Bill or the Indian Budget passes, as a matter of form, during the days when we are winding up the business of the Session, and when the less industrious Members have gone away to various health or pleasure resorts. I believe, therefore, that unless you have an Amendment of the kind, you are exposed to that great danger. What is the counter-balancing consideration? I quite agree, 1851 I think it is very likely, that the Bill, as suggested, will be crowded unduly towards the day appointed by Statute, but if anyone will look at the record of the past he will see that the margin is really a very ample one. Take, for example, the controversial Budget of 1902. It came to the Committee on 14th April, and was reported on 22nd April—that is eight calendar days.
The Government have in any case great control over these early stages by the ordinary Closure, as, of course, there is only a single question in Committee. Report and Second Reading are not the stages in which it is possible for the Opposition to prolong the discussion beyond what the majority think reasonable, because the ordinary Closure operates. Therefore the Government, having control, are less likely to abuse the matter by any exceptional procedure. They will always be able to propound the proposition that they must get on with the business. The true opportunity for dissection of the Budget is in the Committee stage, and I think the speeches directed to that point to-day are much more likely to cause alarm in the minds of students of Parliamentary procedure in respect of less devotion of time than any responsibility which arises in the Bill itself, which fixes four months for the general operation of the Resolution. I do not think that it is very likely to be the case that when the Committee stage of the Budget is being entered upon that the Government will say, "What a position we will be in if at the end of the four months we cannot get the Royal Assent!" and that they will on that ground make a strong appeal for curtailing Debates in the Committee stages of the Bill. At any rate, that is not an evil that arises out of this Amendment. It is an evil inherent in the Bill. Before I sit down I just want to try and clear my Parliamentary character from the imputations that the hon. Baronet the Member for the City has thrown upon it. He appears in the character as a sort of Parliamentary King's Proctor protesting against connivance in the same way as the King's Proctor protests against certain divorces. I can only say that in this case that it is I who have seduced the Government; the Government have not seduced me. My proposition has been agreed to, but the hon. Baronet the Member for the City is really in these matters a hypocrite. He is down upon illicit negotiations with the Government. 1852 The difference between us is that he practises his vices in secret behind the Speaker's Chair, whereas I declare the whole truth of the matter across the floor of the House. I express my gratitude to the Government for accepting the Amendment.
§ Mr. CASSELBefore this Amendment is passed—I certainly am not going to oppose it—I should like to urge what is happening now in support of a new Clause which I am going to move later, that this should be a temporary measure. Look at the way in which you are dealing with this particular measure. How unsatisfactory it is when we have to deal with this Amendment, a manuscript Amendment, the words of which I myself have not been able to get down! We are settling the whole procedure of Budgets, and I think it is unsatisfactory to settle this whole procedure on a manuscript Amendment, some words of which I caught which appear to me to be most dangerous words. It does seem to me most unsatisfactory to permanently settle the whole future procedure of the Budget on a manuscript Amendment, the effect of which, I think, the majority of Members of the Committee have not apprehended. We do not even know what consequential Amendments are going to be made as a result of this. We ought to have had some explanation; for instance, whether the Government still maintain the four months' provision. I did not catch any statement to that effect. In support of what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire said, I should just like to draw attention to those years when there were statutory periods fixed for the date of the Budget, and the Supply Vote had to be got by 31st March. What happened? We had a Guillotine Resolution. The Prime Minister came down and told us that we could only allow so many days for discussion as, by law, he could not give us more. That was a most excellent illustration of what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire said. It is important, no doubt, if you have a Statute of this kind, that the period should be reduced to as narrow a limit as possible, for this reason: If you once begin to collect these duties when they ultimately pass, you can never repay them to the right person so far as the Customs Duties are concerned. There are a number of Members on both sides who think we are dealing with this matter in a burry, and in a very unsatisfactory manner, and while I am not going 1853 to oppose this Amendment at all—I would rather give it my support—I do submit this i3 a reason for treating this Bill as a temporary measure.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONI want to make an appeal to the Government to consider the mere matter of verbiage in this Amendment before the Report stage is finally disposed of. If the Committee will notice, the words in the Amendment read:
The Resolution shall cease to have statutory effect if during the said period it is not agreed to by the House when considered on Report within the next ten days.I cannot really help feeling that the words "when considered on Report"—which appear also in the Bill—are unnecessary, and I want to ask the Government whether they will consider before the Report stage whether these words are really necessary and whether it is not merely enough to say, "if the Resolution is not agreed to by the House"? My reason for the appeal is simply this, that I have a very strong objection to including any of the internal procedure of this House in an Act of Parliament. I believe there are precedents for including it. I do not know that there is any precedent for including the Report stage. I rather think not. If there is, I do not think it ought to be extended; if not, I do not think it ought to be begun.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEWe will consider the matter.
§ Amendment put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDI beg to move, at the beginning of paragraph (a), to insert the words, "Provided that no such Resolution shall have statutory effect unless passed not later than four weeks after the close of the financial year."
§ The CHAIRMANThe Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Steel-Maitland) seems to me to cover a good deal, if not the whole, of the points settled yesterday by the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell), and subsequently amended by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Bucks. He doubtless remembers it.
§ Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDI do not want to press the Amendment or to take up time if the real point is covered. I remember the Amendment of yesterday, and although I have not got it before me 1854 at this moment, I do not think it had the effect which I wish to convey in this Amendment, which is to ensure that the Budget should be brought in within the period mentioned in my Amendment. My Amendment is that such Resolutions shall not have statutory effect unless passed not less than four weeks after the close of the financial year. I may be wrong in my conclusion, but I think no such effect would be obtained by the Amendment moved yesterday. If I am wrong I am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment, but I am under the impression that that point was not covered by the Amendment yesterday.
§ The CHAIRMANI think there is a different point in effect, although the Debate covered a good deal of the terms and form of this Amendment. I think, under the circumstances, the hon. Gentleman is entitled to place his views before the Committee.
§ Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDThen I shall be exceedingly brief. The whole point of my Amendment is really to do what the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University has been trying to do, but which from my point of view he was not successful in, in regard to the period when the Resolution is brought in, and that is to prevent the Government from lapsing from their own easy financial virtue. His Amendment is merely to ensure that the Budget shall be brought in earlier; it does not safeguard any other provision. To my mind, my Amendment is an infinitely safer provision, in order to secure that there shall be a proper consideration, than the Amendment just now accepted by the Government. I think this would really ensure the same object by methods which are less open to objection and which are not really secured by the second Section of this Bill. To anyone who reads the Bill hurriedly it may appear that the early introduction of the Budget is secured by the second Section of the Bill. That, of course, is not the case; it merely provides that the old taxes, Tea and Income Tax, shall continue to have effect for a certain period. Of course the Tea Duty only runs from the beginning of July, and it would be quite conceivable, and probably very desirable, that the Income Tax from that point of view should be assimilated to the Tea Duty, and should have effect to 1st July or 1st August even if the Income Tax year be not actually altered, so in any case there is really no safeguard for the introduction of the 1855 Budget within the proper time. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or in his absence the Home Secretary or Attorney-General, will consider this Amendment favourably, it will not really hamper the freedom of the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is ordinarily acting within reasonable financial limits. All during the ten years from 1896 to 1905 the Budget was really brought in within the limits which I propose in this Amendment, and consequently, under the ordinary normal proper financial procedure, this Amendment would really have no restrictive effect upon the Government. It is only if the Government should be loose in their financial operations and their times and periods that this Amendment would come into operation. I ask the Home Secretary if he will not agree that from that point of view it is on the whole a desirable Amendment? It cannot normally hamper the Chancellor of the Exchequer in any way whatever. It will only really ensure that he should be bound to bring in his next Budget within the proper season. I do not wish to take up further time, except to emphasise the point that Budgets properly introduced have been carried through within four weeks. There is no other provision in the Bill which will ensure that being the case, and therefore I think this is a perfectly reasonable Amendment, which I hope the Government will accept.
§ Mr. McKENNAI am not quite sure that the hon. Gentleman fully appreciates the effect of his Amendment, and what the effect would be in the case of a second Finance Bill. If the hon. Gentleman looks back to the period of the war, when Sir Michael Hicks-Beach introduced more than one Finance Bill, I think he will find that his Amendment would exclude taxes introduced in a second Finance Bill from the operations of this Bill. I do not think he desires to do that. I fully recognise that the object of the hon. Gentleman is simply to enforce upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer what I venture to call the duty of introducing his Budget earlier in the year. It is quite right, as he points out, that every Chancellor of the Exchequer has invariably introduced his Budget, I think with a single exception, early in the year. But the Amendment goes much beyond that. His Amendment has the same vice as that moved yesterday by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Yarmouth, which it was 1856 sought to amend by the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Bucks. As that Amendment stood it would operate very harmfully in the case of a second Finance Bill. I do not think in view of that point, that the hon. Member who, I recognise, is most anxious to facilitate the work of the Treasury, would wish to press his Amendment.
§ Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDI should like to offer a word of explanation. This Amendment was put down originally at an early period of Clause 1, and it was at that time intended entirely to meet the point which the right hon. Gentleman has in his mind, and it was said to me that possible objection would not be taken, because it could be so easily got over, and in order to meet any objection I had an extension of the Amendment which would make it acceptable, and which was:—
Provided always, that this limitation shall not apply where the House of Commons decides that such taxation is for the purposes of war or for any other expenditure which the House of Commons declares to be war expenditure or to be extraordinary expenditure for the defence of the Realm.If that is the only objection of the Home Secretary it would be perfectly easy to meet it, and I can only give as my authority for these words that they were the actual words introduced for similar purposes in a Section of the Home Rule Bill of 1893. If that is his only objection, it could easily be met.
§ Mr. McKENNAThat is not the only objection; it is the first objection. It is not the experience of any Member of this House that any Chancellor of the Exchequer has so forgotten his duty to the House as not to introduce the Budget early. The introduction of the Budget has always been early. I quite admit that there have been one or two occasions upon which the business of the Finance Bill has been somewhat retarded, but retardation of the Finance Bill will not be touched by this Amendment. It simply proposes to touch an alleged evil for which no case has been shown or has ever occurred. That is the fundamental objection. I simply instanced the other objection, but this second objection is vital. That objection the hon. Member proposes to meet now by a long addition to his Amendment, but I do not think it would be possible to accept the proposal.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI do not think the right hon. Gentleman's answer will really do. His second objection, or the one he had not previously made to my hon. Friend's Amendment, is that as no Budget had ever been delayed beyond the proper period there was really no case for this proposal. Until the present Chancellor of the Exchequer came into office the Budget had never been delayed until the month of December, and because that was done we must now take precautions against it being done again. We are not really taking precautions in this Bill. No Chancellor has ever had any temptation to delay the introduction of the Budget. If a Chancellor had the temptation to delay the passage of the Budget, a strong temptation, I will not say that as soon as he had he would fall, but the present. Chancellor fell and yielded to the temptation. The effect of the Amendment of my Noble Friend (Lord Hugh Cecil) which the Government have accepted depends upon the moment the Chancellor introduces the Budget. An Amendment on the lines of my hon. Friend is much more important than anything we have yet done. If you want to ensure that the Budget should be considered earlier, if you take the Amendment of my hon. Friend with the Amendment just accepted, you would secure that it should be introduced earlier and should be considered. But if you take the Amendment of my Noble Friend without further support, all that happens is that when the Budget is introduced its consideration shall be more or less continued. But you do not tie the Chancellor down to introduce it earlier. The Home Secretary's further objection is that it would be most inconvenient in an emergency if a great war broke out. That would be all very well if the Home Secretary had not resisted yesterday the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Falkirk, but if yon do not need your new taxes and can do without them in an emergency, if delay is of no consequence, or of so little consequence that you can provide for it, there is no reason for providing specially for the raising of the old taxes.
I am afraid my position in this matter is a very lonely one. I heard my right hon. Friend say yesterday I was taking up the position of Athanasius contra mundum. I do not like the Bill; I think it is thoroughly bad. I do not care whether it is a little bit better or a little bit worse, but those who do care about these restrictions must support my hon. Friend's 1858 Amendment and such other Amendment as he has foreshadowed if they are to get securities. I think the illustration by my hon. Friend from one of the Home Rule Bills dealing with emergency is one that has a wider application to this very Amendment and that it might be well considered by the Government at a later stage, both in respect to this Amendment and to the whole question of emergency taxation everywhere. I do not pin myself to his precise form of words. There are other occasions, such as the Reserve being called out, which, of course, would mean a crisis, and I should like very much to see some financial provision put in for emergency of that kind, and even if the House would give that authority to a Minister in any other sense. In the meantime, I would prefer my hon. Friend's Amendment with such words added. I am bound to say that, on the lines on which the Government are defending this Bill, they are putting forward no answer to the claims of my hon. Friend for the security of the taxpayer.
§ Sir A. CRIPPSReally this Amendment is very remotely connected with the first Amendment which was discussed when the House was in Committee upon this Bill. I recollect the discussion on that Amendment, but I do not think it had any reference to the present Amendment. I was very much struck with what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire upon the last Amendment, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that his virtue is sufficient to resist a temptation of that kind. All I can say is that I hope all future Chancellors of the Exchequer will have sufficient virtue. I am going to assume, however, that their virtue is weak, and surely we ought to make certain that the Budget is introduced within a reasonable time after the close of the financial year. Unless you introduce some provision of this kind the first step may be taken in good time, and it may be abused by taking your Budget too late, and pleading that you have not sufficient time for discussion as regards the subsequent stages. I hope this Amendment will be pressed to a Division, because it is very important to secure that the Budget shall be introduced within a reasonable time.
It has often been put forward that we shall have a difficulty under this Bill as regards emergency legislation. I am not a supporter of this Bill, and I am doing my best to moderate its evil. That is the 1859 most I can do, but I should like to point out that, if any such emergency protection is necessary, it certainly ought to be introduced into the Bill. But is it necessary? Are we not all cognisant that, if an emergency arose such as is suggested, this House would rise to the occasion and provide readily the necessary funds in case of war or in a national crisis? I do not believe any difficulty arises in these extremely exceptional cases, and they could be easily dealt with by this House. I am sure we should have sufficient patriotism to deal with a national crisis when it arises. We have to consider here the procedure in the case of a normal Budget introduced in the ordinary way, in order to ensure that it will be introduced sufficiently early and give us sufficient time to consider the subsequent stages. The Home Secretary has in his mind the question of the introduction of a supplemental Resolution. I think myself it would be perfectly easy to meet that difficulty if the Home Secretary would consider the principle of it, and if the principle is not going to be considered I shall support the proviso, and we shall have to go to a Division. If the Home Secretary will admit the principle of making certain that the Budget will be introduced by a certain date, it can easily be altered, drafted, or modified to meet the difficulty in case a supplemental Resolution is required.
§ Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDI wish to ask the Home Secretary if he cannot see his way to accept something of the kind which we have proposed. Really no conclusive reasons against accepting such an Amendment as this have been advanced. Apart from the question of an emergency, which it has been pointed out could be met in more than one way, the only other reason
§ given was entirely inconsistent, with the reason given from the Treasury Bench for accepting the Amendment of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University. One of the statements made was that, as a matter of normal procedure, the days and the time limit which the Noble Lord proposed would really correspond with the normal practice, and that consequently there was no difficulty from that point of view in accepting the Noble Lord's Amendment. The Home Secretary now says that the time limit you propose in this Amendment is that which every Chancellor of the Exchequer observes, and therefore it is not necessary. Surely that argument holds perfectly good in both cases.
§ Mr. McKENNAThe Noble Lord asks that the Resolution passed by the Committee should receive the sanction of the House within a limited time. The hon. Member opposite now asks us to put a condition upon the time during which the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall introduce his Budget, and that is an entirely different matter.
§ Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDThe Home Secretary has not answered my point at all. Everyone knows that these are two different Amendments, and I am sure the Noble Lord realises that my Amendment is needed to supplement his. The point I put is that it is perfectly inconsistent to accept one Amendment, because it harmonises with the usual practice, and then say that you will not accept the other Amendment because it harmonises with the other.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 130; Noes, 262.
1863| Division No. 47.] | AYES. | [5.40 p.m. |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Campion, W. R. | Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) |
| Amery, L. C. M. S. | Castlereagh, Viscount | Falle, Bertram Godfray |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major William | Cator, John | Fell, Arthur |
| Ashley, Wilfrid W. | Cautley. Henry Strother | Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Cave, George | Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Gardner, Ernest |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) | Gastrell, Major W. Houghton |
| Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) | Cecil, Lord R, (Herts, Hitchin) | Gibbs, George Abraham |
| Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r) | Gilmour, Captain John |
| Barnston, Harry | Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Glazebrook, Captain Philip K. |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Clive, Captain Percy Archer | Goldman, C. S. |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) | Goldsmith, Frank |
| Bigland, Alfred | Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) |
| Blair, Reginald | Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian | Goulding, Edward Alfred |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- | Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred | Grant, J. A. |
| Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) | Dalrymple, Viscount | Greene, Waler Raymond |
| Boyton, James | Denniss. E. R. B. | Cretton, John |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Duke, Henry Edward | Haddock, George Bahr |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Harris, Henry Percy |
| Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Mackinder, Halford J. | Spear, Sir John Ward |
| Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire) | Macmaster, Donald | Stanier, Beville |
| Hewins, William Albert Samuel | M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A. | Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk) |
| Hibbert, Sir Henry F. | M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Staveley-Hill, Henry |
| Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) | Steel-Maitland, A. D. |
| Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) | Newdegate, F. A. | Stewart, Gershom |
| Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford) | Newton, Harry Kottingham | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) |
| Houston, Robert Paterson | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | Talbot, Lord E. |
| Hume-Williams, W. E. | O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid) | Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.) |
| Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. | Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North) |
| Ingleby, Holcombe | Paget, Almeric Hugh | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North) |
| Jessel, Captain H. M. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Thynne, Lord A. |
| Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. | Pollock, Ernest Murray | Valentia, Viscount |
| Kerry, Earl of | Pretyman, Ernest George | Weigall, Captain A. G. |
| Keswick, Henry | Randles, Sir John S. | Wills, Sir Gilbert |
| Kimber, Sir Henry | Remnant, James Farquharson | Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.) |
| Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) | Rolleston, Sir John | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Lewisham, Viscount | Royds, Edmund | Yate, Colonel C. E. |
| Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) | Younger, Sir George |
| Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Colonel A. R. | Sanders, Robert Arthur | |
| Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) | Sandys, G. J. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Cassel and Mr. James Mason. |
| MacCaw, Wm, J. MacGeagh | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Donelan, Captain A. | Johnson, W. |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Doris, William | Jones, Edgar (Merthyr (Tydvil) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Duffy, William J. | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Alden, Percy | Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) | Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A. | Elverston, Sir Harold | Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney) |
| Baker, H. T. (Accrington) | Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Jowett, F. W. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Essex, Sir Richard Walter | Joyce, Michael |
| Balker, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Esslemont, George Birnie | Keating, Matthew |
| Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) | Falconer, James | Kellaway, Frederick George |
| Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs) | Farrell, James Patrick | Kelly, Edward |
| Beale, Sir William Phipson | Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | Kennedy, Vincent Paul |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Kilbride, Denis |
| Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) | Ffrench, Peter | King, J. |
| Bentham, G. J. | Field, William | Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Fitzgibbon, John | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Lardner, James C. R. |
| Boland, John Pius | Gelder, Sir W. A. | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd | Leach, Charles |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Gill, A. H. | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Ginnell, Laurence | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Gladstone, W. G. C. | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Glanville, H. J. | Lundon, Thomas |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Goldstone, Frank | Lynch, A. A. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) | Macdonald. J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Grelg, Col. J. W. | McGhee, Richard |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar) | Griffith, Ellis J. | MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) |
| Bytes, Sir William Pollard | Guest, Han. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | M'Callum, Sir John M. |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood) | Hackett, J. | M'Micking, Major Gilbert |
| Chancellor, H. G. | Hall, Frederick (Normanton) | Manfield, Harry |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) | Marshall, Arthur Harold |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Mason, David M. (Coventry) |
| Clough, William | Hardie, J. Keir | Meagher, Michael |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) |
| Collins, G. P. (Greenock) | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Middlebrook, William |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Havelock-Alan, Sir Henry | Molloy, Michael |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Hazleton, Richard | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Cotton, William Francis | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Montagu, Hon. E. S. |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Mooney, John J. |
| Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Henry, Sir Charles | Morgan, George Hay |
| Crooks, William | Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | Morison, Hector |
| Crumley, Patrick | Higham, John Sharp | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Cullinan, John | Hinds, John | Muldoon, John |
| Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) | Hodge, John | Munro, R. |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | Hogge, James Myles | Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Holmes, Daniel Turner | Murphy, Martin J. |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Holt, Richard Darning | Needham, Christopher T. |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Hope, John Deans (Haddington) | Neilson, Francis |
| Delany, William | Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) | Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) |
| Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Devlin, Joseph | Hudson, Walter | Norton, Captain Cecil W. |
| Dickinson, W. H. | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Nuttall, Harry |
| Dillon, John | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | O'Brlen, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Toulmin, Sir George |
| O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| O'Doherty, Philip | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| O'Donnell, Thomas | Robinson, Sidney | Verney, Sir Harry |
| O'Dowd, John | Roche, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| O'Grady, James | Roche, Augustine (Louth) | Wardle, George J. |
| O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | Rowlands, James | Waring, Walter |
| O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) | Rowntree, Arnold | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| O'Malley, William | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Watt, Henry Anderson |
| O'Shee, James John | Samuel, J. (Stockton) | Webb, H. |
| Outhwaite, R. L. | Scanlan, Thomas | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| Palmer, Godfrey Mark | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) | White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.) |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B. | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Parry, Thomas | Sheehy, David | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Sherwell, Arthur James | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Shortt, Edward | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| Pointer, Joseph | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook | Wiles, Thomas |
| Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton) | Williamson, Sir Archibald |
| Price, Sir R. J. (Norfolk, E.) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford, E.) | Snowden, Philip | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| Pringle, William M. R. | Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Radford, G. H. | Sutherland, J. E. | Winfrey, Richard |
| Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Sutton, John E. | Wing, Thomas |
| Reddy, M. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.) |
| Rodmond, John E. (Waterford) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Young, W. (Perthshire, E.) |
| Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) | Tennant, Harold John | |
| Rendall, Athelstan | Thomas, J. H. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (a), to leave out the words "dissolved or."
The effect of this would be that, though the Resolution ceased to have statutory effect if Parliament were prorogued, it would not cease to have statutory effect if Parliament were dissolved. I do not know whether the Attorney-General is prepared to accept the Amendment; if so, I will not take up the time of the Committee in giving reasons for it.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI should like to know the reasons.
§ Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDI should have thought that they were so obvious that I need not have troubled the Committee with them. If a Government prorogue Parliament they are responsible, and it is no doubt right and proper that the Resolution should cease to have statutory effect; but, on the other hand, if a Government dissolve Parliament, I think it is tolerably obvious that the Resolution ought then to continue to have effect, and, if necessary, its effect might be extended. Supposing a Government dissolved during the period of suspense, the incoming Government might be faced with the finances of the country in complete disorder. It would be in the power of an outgoing Government simply by dissolving to take away all effect from a Resolution and throw the finances of the country into disorder, thereby putting the incom- 1864 ing Government to extreme inconvenience. Any Government would have it in its power to turn round and say, precisely as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Masterman) said to the Opposition not so very long ago: "If you defeat the Government over a financial measure, you put the whole of the finances of the country into disorder; you are playing the part of a discredited Opposition." It would therefore be open to any Government by the lever of a Bill of this kind, unless these words are taken out, to try and prevent the Opposition from naturally putting an end to the term of their existence. I am quite sure that is not the object of the measure. The words are not in the least needed for any reasonable purpose, and I would ask the Attorney-General to agree to their deletion.
I can only bring forward one analogy. Formerly Parliament was dissolved ipso facto by the demise of the Crown. That came to be felt to be quite an unnecessary inconvenience. It put the whole of the public administration into disorder, and there was no compensating advantage whatsoever. This type of provision is simply another anachronism of a precisely similar character. It can have no good effect; it can only have the bad effect of enabling the Government in power to use the finances of the country as a lever against the political Opposition of the day. We have, if I may say so without offence, every reason at the present time 1865 to fear that the power of the Government may be so used. It is within the memory of everyone here that two or three years ago it was apprehended by many that the fact that there was insufficient money provided by the Vote on Account and by the first Consolidated Fund Bill in May was a scheme of the Government at the time to put the Opposition in a fix should there be a sudden Dissolution. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] Perhaps the hon. Member is one who really appreciates such action on the part of the Government. I do not know whether he will find many supporters on the opposite side of the House among those who are supporting the Government, because they believe this is a Bill to put the finances of the country in order. If the hon. Member does not think so, he can at least vote against the Government on their own hypothesis. These two words go entirely against the whole spirit of the rest of the Bill, which is intended to put the finances of the country in order. This might, if ever the Government of the day so willed, and we have already had reason to believe they might, be used as a means for putting the finances of the country in complete disorder. I would therefore ask the Attorney-General to agree to the deletion of the words.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThese words were inserted because it was thought that if we did not provide for the Dissolution of Parliament objection would be taken, and it would be said that what we had done was to give a Resolution statutory effect and make it continuous, notwithstanding that Parliament was not sitting and that no Resolution in the House or Bill could be introduced in the interval. We thought it was perfectly right that we should provide not only for the Prorogation of Parliament, but also for the Dissolution of Parliament. I have listened to the hon. Gentleman, and I must confess that his speech surprised me very much. He seemed to think that I should accept the deletion of these words. I conceive his ground for moving the Amendment to be a suspicion that a Government dissolve in order to put its opponents into some difficulty with regard to the finances of the country. I really do not think so ill of my opponents as to imagine that any Government to which I was opposed would do any such thing. Even if you do not credit the Government with decency in these matters, you might at least think that they would consult their own interests. The last thing 1866 in the world which a Government would be likely to do would be to throw the finances of the country into disorder in order apparently to meet some party spite against their political opponents. We have tried to meet every contingency and to make provision for either Dissolution or Prorogation, which ought properly to bring a Resolution to an end. That would not happen which the hon. Member says might happen. No Government would dream of dissolving until it had made provision for the finances of the country. It could not possibly do it. If hon. Gentlemen will not consider any other reason they might have regard to the fact that it would react so strongly upon the Government that I should have thought we might dismiss the notion altogether. We have introduced these words simply because we thought it was right to make provision, not merely for the Prorogation, but also for the Dissolution of Parliament. I am not particularly wedded to the words or to the provision. We only put them in because we thought they carried out that which we said was our intention, namely, not to extend the usage, but to take care to limit it as far as we possibly can. I hope no one will think that there is anything in the mind of the Government such as the hon. Member suggests.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONThe Attorney-General said he did not wish to extend the usage.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSWe want to limit it.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONI would remind him of what took place in 1909. We had then exactly the circumstances which my hon. Friend has imagined. A Dissolution was taking place, and every financial authority on that side of the House and a great many on this contended that the Resolution of the House of Commons according to practice ought to be continued during the period of Dissolution, and in point of fact it did continue. Everybody knows that with the exception of a very few cases—I think there was only one firm in the case of the Whisky Tax—practically the whole of the taxes were collected. If you appeal to usage at all, we are entitled to consider the precedent of 1909. I think that was a very convenient and a very proper precedent. I do not think the finances of the country ought to be subordinated to considerations of electoral advantages for either party.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSHear, hear.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONIf the Government were defeated and dissolved because of something obnoxious in their financial or fiscal proposals the Resolution would be of no effect, because it would have been defeated at some stage or other in its progress. But if the Government were defeated and had to go to the country on a matter of general policy in which their fiscal policy was not challenged, I think it would be excessively inconvenient to the country that its whole finances should be thrown into chaos. You are now saying for the first time under the authority of an Act of Parliament that if there is a Dissolution then in the period which takes place, it may be four months…
§ Mr. LEIF JONESNo.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONWell, a month, or a considerable time. You are raying that if a Dissolution takes place no man need pay any of the taxes contemplated in the Resolution, and you are saying that upon the authority of an Act of Parliament. That is a serious proposition to lay down. I do not know whether that point has occurred to the Government, or whether it has had serious consideration. I hope the Attorney-General will give consideration to it.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESThe Resolution must be passed on Report within ten Parliamentary days of its being agreed to in Committee.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONNo, it is ten days upon which the House sits.
§ 6.0 P.M.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESThat is so, and there would be four months in which the Resolution was run. But I cannot imagine that a Government would dissolve without dealing with such a situation created in their own interests. The whole object of the limitations put into this Bill by the hon. Member has been to secure that the Budget shall become law within four months after the passing of the Budget Resolution. That being so, it is no use going back to the procedure when the Budget was spun out to the end of December. We hope we shall never see that again. It is the desire of everyone to get it passed within the four months, and therefore, it does not seem to me that in regard to the Resolution there is any need for the anxiety displayed by the hon. Member.
§ Sir A. CRIPPSI hope that this Amendment will not be pressed. It would be too bad to give statutory effect to a Resolution under such circumstances. It would not be right that a Resolution passed in Committee should have effect beyond the period during which the House is itself existing. That appears to me a most unthinkable aggravation of the evils of this Bill.
§ Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDIf I may have permission, I shall be quite willing to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment made: "In Sub-section (a), leave out the word 'imposing.'"
§ Mr. CASSELI beg to move, in Sub-section (a), after the word "Resolution" ["of the Resolution"], to insert the words "with or without modification."
I am not sure whether or not this Amendment is necessary, and I should like to have the view of the Attorney-General with regard to it. The difficulty I felt was this: You say, under the Act, "Imposing, varying, or renewing taxation under the authority of the Resolution." The Government take the view that that would include the case where a tax was levied in the Bill if a Bill was founded on the authority of the Resolution, and for that reason I suppose they do not consider these words necessary. May I further ask whether the words "under the authority of the Resolution" would not make it necessary to have proof that the Bill really was under the authority of the Resolution? It might be suggested that the Bill was not founded on the authority of the Resolution. Subject to an explanation on these points, I shall not desire to press my Amendment.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThe Bill will have to be founded on the Resolution.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. CASSELI now propose to move the words which the Government have intimated their willingness to accept. I wish to move to insert, in Sub-section (a), after the word "Report," the words "or the provisions giving effect to the Resolution are rejected during the passage of the Bill containing those provisions through the House."
Although the Resolution may have been agreed to on Report, the Bills founded on 1869 that Resolution might be rejected on the Second Reading, but the Resolution as originally framed in Committee will still have effect. These words are, therefore, I think necessary.
§ Mr. CASSELI beg to move, after the words last inserted, to insert the words:—
When the Resolution is modified on Report it shall during the remainder of the period limited by this Section have effect as so modified.'The object is that when a modification is made in the Resolution on Report the Resolution shall not continue to have effect for four months in its original form, lout that it shall have effect in the modified form. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman in the words he has accepted has gone quite far enough, because they do not deal with the case of the Resolution being modified during the passage of the Bill through the House. Assume that in Committee the original Resolution is that the Income Tax shall be 1s. 2d. in the £. In Committee of the House it may be reduced to 1s. I am afraid such a contingency is not likely to happen, but I put it forward for the sake of argument. In that event, under the Resolution, it would still continue for the four months at 1s. 2d., and the banks would, by Statute, be bound to deduct it at that figure. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for having expressed his willingness to accept my Amendment, but I do urge that the words do not go far enough.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSIt is quite true that the provision, as drafted, does not meet the last point raised by the hon. and learned Member. It would be very difficult indeed to meet it in drafting, but it is quite unnecessary, and there would certainly be no difficulty, once the Bill has passed through the House, in dealing with a matter of that kind. The point has been considered with very great care.
§ Further Amendment made: In paragraph (b), leave out the word "imposing."
§ Sir A. CRIPPSI beg to move, in paragraph (b), after the word "resolution," to insert the words "and any expenses or costs incurred in connection with such payment."
1870 I should like to have the learned Attorney-General's view on this Amendment. Suppose a tax is deducted under a Resolution, and some portion of it has to be repaid. There may have been certain expenses incurred, and the bankers, when making the repayment, will not have power to provide for repayment of those expenses. Might it not be well to include a provision for making such payment?
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThis particular provision is a familiar one in Taxing Acts, and I know of no instance where the words suggested have been included. If, in consequence of litigation, costs have been incurred, of course it will be open to the Court to make such order, as it thinks right for payment of those costs, while if there has not been litigation, the expenses will probably have been nominal. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will not, under the circumstances, press this Amendment.
§ Sir A. CRIPPSHaving regard to what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, I think it is a sufficient answer on the point, and I do not propose to press the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Further Amendments made: In paragraph (b), leave out the words "impose" and "imposing."
§ Mr. POLLOCKI beg to move, in paragraph (c), to leave out the words "under the authority of the Resolution."
I desire to ask the Attorney-General what is the effect of these words. We are now dealing with paragraph (c), which is a provision of the Bill intended to relate to cases where there is a modification or alteration of the Resolution, either on Report or in the Act. I am only asking for information. We are dealing with the paragraph which deals with the modification of a tax either on Report of the Resolution or by the Act which is actually carried and takes the place of the Resolution. What is the meaning of these words:—
Where the tax as imposed, varied, or renewed by the Resolution is modified, either when considered by the House on the Report of the Resolution, or by the Act imposing, varying, or renewing the tax"—1871 The Act which imposes or varies must so far authorise or renew it. Why do we want the words—under the authority of the Resolution"?I ask the question because I think they are surplusage. If the Attorney-General explains that there is some good reason for them I do not desire to say more.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI say quite frankly that I am not quite certain that I think the words are necessary, but there are those who take a different view and who think it is necessary to insert them because the tax which is to be renewed must be under the authority of the particular Resolution and not under the authority of any other Resolution. They are put in simply out of abundant caution. If my hon. and learned Friend is satisfied, I will certainly consider them again in the light of his criticism, and if they are not necessary I will certainly take them out.
§ Mr. POLLOCKIn these circumstances I do not desire to press the Amendment, but I am quite satisfied with the observations the Attorney-General has made.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. POLLOCKI beg to move, in paragraph (c), to leave out the words "under the new conditions affecting the tax" ["payable under the new conditions affecting the tax"], and to insert instead thereof the words "if the said Resolution so modified or the said Act had been in force at the time of such payment."
We have now dealt with the case of the tax being modified upon Report of the Resolution or by the Act which is actually carried into force. The words that are chosen are very unhappy because they go on—
any money which has been paid in pursuance of the Resolution"—that is the Resolution as it originally stood—which would not have been payable under the new conditons affecting the tax shall be repaid or made good.There are no new conditions affecting the tax. You have either the tax imposed by the statutory effect given to it under the Bill, or you have a tax imposed by the Act itself. I suppose that in using the words "under the new conditions affecting the tax," what the draftsman 1872 means is that where you have a tax imposed by a Resolution, and you subsequently get either on Report a Resolution or an Act which is in some respects different from the original Resolution that they are new conditions affecting the tax. They are not. The position is that the tax originally imposed by the original Resolution has now become modified and altered by reason of the Resolution having been altered, or by the Act not being consonant with the original Resolution. In order to get over that difficulty I suggest much better words. The Clause would then read as follows:—Any money which has been paid in pursuance of the Resolution which would not have been payable if the said Resolution so modified or the said Act had been in force at the time of such payment shall be repaid.It makes the difference between our once more asserting that the tax is a tax which ought to be imposed by Act of Parliament or imposed by a Resolution which, under this Bill, is to have statutory effect, or by our declaring that there may be a sort of tax arising neither under a Resolution nor under an Act, but in some new conditions which affect it although they do not impose it. I hope I have made my point clear to the Attorney-General.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThere is nothing in substance between the hon. and learned Gentleman and myself. It is only a question of drafting. On the whole, although his words are in some respects better, I think we make better provision by the words we use. With the subsequent words which the hon. and learned Member proposes to introduce in line 23 the whole result of this Amendment would not provide as we do for the deductions which have to be made. On the whole, the view is taken that our words do provide for everything that is necessary, and that we had better leave them as they are. It is merely a question of words.
§ Mr. CAVEI agree that it is a question of drafting, but I think the words of my hon. and learned Friend are better than those in the Bill. There are no new conditions affecting a tax. There was a proposal to impose a tax which had statutory effect for a short period, but that has been modified, and there is a new proposal altogether. The words of the Amendment are plain to me, and are easily 1873 understood and construed. The words in the Bill are very likely to give rise to questions, and even to litigation. I press the Attorney-General to reconsider his observations. I do not think he holds his view very strongly. I assure him that it does appear to me that the words recommended by my hon. and learned Friend are much better.
§ Mr. BUTCHERI should like to strongly endorse what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend. I cannot for the life of me understand the words "the new conditions affecting the tax." There are no new conditions affecting the tax. If the Resolution is modified and the Act that comes into effect confirms that modifying Resolution, a different sum will be payable from what has been paid. What we want to provide is that the proper sum shall be repaid, in other words, the difference between the sum actually paid and the sum which would have been payable if the modified Resolution and the Act had been in force at the time the payment was exacted. The introduction of these words, "under the new conditions affecting the tax," can only give rise to confusion. Anyone who comes to interpret the Bill will ask what are the new conditions, and will try to find some meaning which obviously the Attorney-General does not intend to put into the Clause. One must remember that when words of this sort are used and a judge comes to construe them, he would naturally ask what are these new conditions. The only possible result would be to lead to litigation, and, in the case of possible litigation, to confuse the mind of any tribunal which has to interpret the Act. The words of my hon. and learned Friend are absolutely apt. Personally, I should advise him, if they are not accepted, to divide upon the Amendment.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThe difficulty is that they do not deal with deductions. They are all right in regard to payments, but they do not deal with deductions. I am quite willing to consider them.
§ Mr. POLLOCKI have a consequential Amendment to leave out the words
§
"authorised under the new conditions affecting the tax," and to insert the words "payable as aforesaid." May I read to the Attorney-General the Clause as it would then read:—
Any money which has been paid in pursuance of the Resolution, which would not have been payable if the said Resolution so modified or the said Act had been in force at the time of such payment shall be repaid or made good, and any deduction made in pursuance of the Resolution shall, so far as it would not have been payable as aforesaid, be deemed to be an unauthorised deduction.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSDeduction! That is the difficulty in drafting which I pointed out.
§ Mr. POLLOCKI can move the consequential Amendment in a way which will meet the Attorney-General's criticism, which I at once appreciate. If he accepts my first Amendment, which is now before the Committee, I will move the other words to meet his criticism.
§ Mr. CAVEIt is quite easy to do that, because all you have to do when you come to deduction is to follow the same form and say—
which would not have been deducted if such Resolution so modified had been in force at the time of such deduction.That point really arises later.
§ The CHAIRMANIf this Amendment is disposed of the subsequent Amendment, which is consequential, cannot be raised.
§ Mr. CAVEI quite accept that. The criticism of the Attorney-General does not apply to this Amendment but to a later one. If this Amendment is passed, his criticism can be met by altering the later Amendment.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 277; Noes, 130.
1877| Division No. 48.] | AYES. | [6.31 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton) | Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick) |
| Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D. | Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) | Beale, Sir William Phipson |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Beauchamp, Sir Edward |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Beck, Arthur Cecil |
| Alden, Percy | Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) | Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) |
| Bentham, G. J. | Hazleton, Richard | O'Grady, James |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. | Hemmerde, Edward George | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) |
| Boland, John Pius | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | O'Malley, William |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Henry, Sir Charles | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Higham, John Sharp | O'Shee, James John |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Hinds, John | Outhwaite, R. L. |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Hodge, John | Palmer, Godfrey Mark |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Hogge, James Myles | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Holmes, Daniel Turner | Parry, Thomas H. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Holt, Richard Darning | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar) | Hudson, Walter | Pointer, Joseph |
| Byles, Sir William Pollard | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Illingworth, Percy H. | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford) |
| Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood) | Johnson, W. | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) | Radford, G. H. |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Clough, William | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Reddy, Michael |
| Clynes, John R. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) | Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney) | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Jowett, F. W. | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Joyce, Michael | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Cotton, William Francis | Keating, Matthew | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Cowan, W. H. | Kellaway, Frederick George | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Kelly, Edward | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Crooks, William | Kilbride, Denis | Robinson, Sidney |
| Crumley, Patrick | King, J. | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Cullinan, John | Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton) | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | Lardner, James C. R. | Rowlands, James |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) | Rowntree, Arnold |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Leach, Charles | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Waiter |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Lewis, John Herbert | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Delany, William | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Lundon, Thomas | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Devlin, Joseph | Lyell, Charles Henry | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glan., Bridgeton) |
| Dillon, John | Lynch, A. A. | Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B. |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Sheehy, David |
| Doris, William | McGhee, Richard | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Duffy, William J. | Maclean, Donald | Shortt, Edward |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook |
| Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) | Macpherson, James Ian | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton) |
| Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | M'Callum, Sir John M. | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim) |
| Elverston, Sir Harold | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Snowden, Philip |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Essex, Sir Richard Walter | M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Manfield, Harry | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Falconer, James | Marshall, Arthur Harold | Sutton, John E. |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | Meagher, Michael | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Taylor, Thomas (Bolton) |
| Ffrench, Peter | Middlebrook, William | Tennant, Harold John |
| Field, William | Molloy, Michael | Thomas, James Henry |
| Fitzgibbon, John | Molteno, Percy Alport | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Mend, Sir Alfred M. | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Gelder, Sir W. A. | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Toulmin, Sir George |
| George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd | Mooney, John J. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Gill, A. H. | Morgan, George Hay | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Ginnell, Laurence | Morrell, Philip | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Gladstone, W. G. C. | Morison, Hector | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Glanville, H. J. | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Muldoon, John | Wardle, George J. |
| Goldstone, Frank | Munro, R. | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) | Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Greig, Colonel J. W. | Murphy, Martin J. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. | Watt, Henry Anderson |
| Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke) | Needham, Christopher T. | Webb, H. |
| Gulland, John William | Neilson, Francis | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| Hackett, John | Norman, Sir Henry | White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.) |
| Hall, F. (Yorks, (Normanton) | Norton, Captain Cecil W. | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) | Nuttall, Harry | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Hardie, J. Keir | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | O'Doherty, Philip | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | O'Dowd, John | Williamson, Sir Archibald |
| Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow) | |
| Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) | Young, W. (Perthshire, E.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. G. Howard and Captain Guest. |
| Winfrey, Richard | Yoxall, Sir James Henry | |
| Wing, Thomas | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Fitzroy, Hon, Edward A. | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major William | Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue | Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas |
| Ashley, Wilfrid W. | Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Gardner, Ernest | Mount, William Arthur |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. | Gastrell, Major W. Houghton | Newdegate, F. A. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gibbs, George Abraham | Newton, Harry Kottingham |
| Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) | Gilmour, Captain John | Nield, Herbert |
| Barnston, Harry | Glazebrook, Captain Philip K. | O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid) |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Goldman, C. S. | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Goldsmith, Frank | Paget, Almeric Hugh |
| Beresford, Lord Charles | Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Bigland, Alfred | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F. |
| Bird, Alfred | Gretton, John | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) | Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S. E.) | Randles, Sir John S, |
| Boyton, James | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesail) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Haddock, George Bahr | Royds, Edmund |
| Bull, Sir William James | Harris, Henry Percy | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Harrison-Broadiey, H. B. | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Butcher, John George | Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) |
| Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) | Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.) | Sanders, Robert Arthur |
| Campion, W. G. | Hibbert, Sir Henry F. | Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l., Walton) |
| Cassel, Felix | Hills, John Waller | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Hill-Wood, Samuel | Spear, Sir John Ward |
| Cater, John | Hoare, S. J. G. | Stanier, Beville |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Hohler, G. F. | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Cave, George | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Staveley-Hill, Henry |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) | Steel-Maitland, A. D. |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) | Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford) | Stewart, Gershom |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) | Houston, Robert Paterson | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) |
| Chaloner Colonel R. G. W. | Hume-Williams, W. E. | Swift, Rigby |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. | Talbot, Lord E. |
| Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Kerry, Earl of | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North) |
| Clive, Captain Percy Archer | Keswick, Henry | Touche, George Alexander |
| Cooper, Richard Ashmole | Kimber, Sir Henry | Valentia, Viscount |
| Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Weigall, Captain A. G. |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian | Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford | Wills, Sir Gilbert |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Lewisham, Viscount | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Denniss, E. R. B. | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) | Wright, Henry Fitzherbert |
| Duke, Henry Edward | Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) | Yate, Colonel C. E. |
| Eyres-Monsell, Boston M. | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Younger, Sir George |
| Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants., W.) | Mackinder, Halford J. | |
| Falle, Bertram Godfray | M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Pollock and Mr. Hewins. |
| Fell, Arthur | Malcolm, Ian | |
| Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes |
§ The CHAIRMANThe Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir A. Cripps) is, I think, equivalent to the rejection of the Bill.
§ Mr. POLLOCKMay I call your attention to this? It is quite true the matter was discussed on the Resolution, but the Bill itself would still apply to Customs and Excise, and very different considerations apply to Income Tax, the financial year for which closes on 5th April, from what applies to Customs and Excise, where the year closes, certainly in the case of the Tea Tax, on 1st July. Income Tax and Customs and Excise do not run during similar years, and therefore a great many different considerations apply to them independently, so I submit that although it has been discussed on Report it is a matter which should be considered in the House, on the Bill, as to whether the Bill should apply to Income Tax.
§ The CHAIRMANIf I understand aright, the whole origin of this Bill is the action brought by Mr. Gibson Bowles, which dealt with Income Tax, and that is the main thing which we have had in our mind all these days. It is a little late to move to leave the Income Tax out of the Bill. It would make the Bill of no effect.
§ Mr. CASSELI beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "four" ["at the end of four months"], and to insert instead thereof the word "three."
I would submit that three months are sufficient; for this reason, that you are practically bound under the Bill to introduce the Budget within one month of the close of the Income Tax year. The Income Tax year closes on 5th April, and payments and deductions may continue without any Resolution for one month from that date, so that the necessity for bring- 1879 ing in the Bill really arises on 5th May. Unless the Bill is introduced by 5th May the Income Tax deductions would lapse, so that the date from which you start the four months is 5th May. Four months from that carries you through to 5th September, and why the Finance Bill of the year should be put so late as 5th September I really do not see. I should have thought 5th August would have been late enough. Before this Government came into power there is absolutely no precedent for any Finance Bill being carried later than August, and I think there is none of ally Finance Bill having left this House later than July. Under these circumstances I submit that three months are sufficient. Whether the manuscript Amendment of the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil) has any effect on the point I really cannot tell. It is most unsatisfactory to have a manuscript Amendment which affects the whole procedure of the Budget for all future years brought forward which no one can understand. Subject to that having any effect, I should have submitted that three months was sufficient, because that would carry you to 5th August, taking the latest date at which the Budget can be introduced, having regard to Clause 2, under which the Income Tax continues to run for a month after 5th April without any renewal.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will not persist in taking this matter to a Division. Certainly, after what has transpired to-day and after the acceptance of the Amendment of the Noble Lord, there are, I should have thought, very ample safeguards as regards this Resolution. The effect of that Amendment was that the Resolution would only have effect, and continue to have effect, for ten days on which the House sat, and unless confirmed on Report it would lapse, and equally after that, unless the Bill founded on the Resolution was introduced into the House within twenty days on which the House sat, again the Resolution would lapse, so that there is ample protection for the proper introduction of the Budget. I really do not think there is any ground for anxiety when you have that special provision. It is quite true that it may possibly be deferred until a later date, but equally it may not. The hon. and learned Member says, "I want to fix the extreme period," but there is really not 1880 any need if you have the safeguard and protection which we have introduced in the Bill to-day.
§ Sir GEORGE YOUNGERSo far as the earlier period is concerned I think we are protected. If you have a period of four months, as prescribed in the Bill as it stands, we may have the Budget postponed to a very late date in normal Sessions. We who had the experience in connection with the Budget of 1909, know what that meant. It meant that we were deprived of our right and privilege of reviewing the finance of the year, and of criticising the new taxes. In many cases we were closured, and when we were not closured, we were only allowed short periods of time for discussion. I had an Amendment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed to accept in 1908, but on account of the procedure followed it was not accepted until last year, four years after. That was owing to the Budget being crowded into a short period at the end of the Session. We had no chance of exercising our constitutional right of criticism. That is the difficulty I see in this matter. If the period is shortened in the way proposed by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Cassel), the Budget would have to be brought in before the House was jaded and worn out at the end of a long Session.
§ Mr. McKENNAindicated dissent.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERThe Home Secretary shakes his head, but I would point out that the Finance Act may not be dealt with until the last days of August or the beginning of September. The Committee and Report stages of the Bill are those which concern us most in these matters. These are the stages upon which we can review the taxation proposed for the year and seek to reduce it where we think it is proper to reduce it. I support the Amendment, because I see no reason why the Finance Bill should not be disposed of before that period.
Question, "That the word 'four' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), leave out the words
the expression 'temporary tax' means a tax which has been imposed or renewed for a limited period not exceeding eighteen months,and insert instead thereof the wordsany expression referring to the renewal of the tax shall be deemed to refer also 1881 to the reimposition of the tax."—[Sir Rufus Isaacs.]Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.