REVENLTE BILL. (Hansard, 12 August 1913)

§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)

Mr. Speaker, I promised yesterday, on the 2420 Motion to report Progress, that an effort would be made to adjust the differences between the various sections of the House with a view to saving this Bill. I regret very much that after a good deal of effort, not merely on my part but on the part of all those interested in the Bill, the negotiations have failed and I am afraid now it will be my duty to move that the Bill be discharged. It would be quite impossible to proceed with it in face of the very large number of highly controversial Amendments which have been placed on the Paper. 2421 I do not think it would be desirable for me to attempt to apportion the blame, and I do not think it would be desirable to enter into the whole history of the negotiations. In fact, there would be nothing more unsatisfactory than that negotiations which must necessarily be conducted privately between parties should be put before the House in their full terms, and therefore, I do not propose to enter into the various proposals and counter-proposals that have been made. All I have to say now is that I very much regret that we have failed to come to some arrangement, and on behalf of the Government I can only promise that at an early stage next Session these Clauses, I will not say in this identical form but in a form substantially like that in which they are now embodied in the Revenue Bill, will be reintroduced.

I think I am bound to say that the Bill as it is drafted was the result of undertakings given by the Government, I think early this Session, to the Opposition and to hon. Friends of my own sitting behind here who criticised certain parts of the Land Taxes. That applies not merely to the concessions made to the builders, but it also applies to the much more controversial Clause 11. I said yesterday that I had been under the impression that Clause 11 was a concession to criticisms on the other side as well as this side, and I was very gratified to find in a copy of the "Land Union Journal" of August, 1913:— Clause 11 with its accompanying memorandum was again a concession to the attack which has been made by the Land Union on the methods adopted by the Commissioners. I only want to make that clear in order to show that no one was more surprised than I was when I found that Clause 11 was regarded as a highly controversial Clause—apart, I mean, from the one or two questions which undoubtedly would have to be debated with regard to limitation. That I fully realised. In the Debate on the Second Reading the hon. and gallant Member (Mr. Pretyman) and two or three other Members said they regarded the limitation as to improvements as a matter to which they would call attention at a later stage, but I simply thought that that was a Committee matter which could be disposed of. I regret, however, that it has been quite impossible to arrive at an agreement, and I came to the conclusion, after taking some time over it and consulting others who were in responsible positions and spoke with authority representing the various sections in this matter, 2422 that it would be quite impossible to reconcile the differences, and, therefore, I think it would be much better to put it off until next year when the Bill will be introduced substantially in its present form, I hope, with other Amendments which I have indicated. I do not know of anything further which I could usefully add, and anything in the nature of a discussion must be not only unnecessary but futile as the Bill will be introduced again next year.

§ Mr. PRETYMAN

I am glad to have the assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this Bill will be reintroduced early next Session containing substantially all the concessions which are now included in it, and I must express on my own behalf, and I am sure on that of everyone who sits on this side, our great regret that it has been impossible to come to an arrangement. I have already dealt with that subject, and I do not wish to add or detract anything from what I said yesterday. I also concur with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that nothing could be gained now by a lengthy debate upon this subject, but I am bound to deal quite briefly, though I do not desire to deal in a controversial spirit, with the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman made just now, that my attitude had been inconsistent on Clause 11, and with the extract which he read from the "Land Union Journal." May I read my own words on the Second Reading Debate before any of this controversy arose at all, in which I said: I feel sure that this Clause was introduced with a desire to meet the objections which have been raised no this side of the House: but the question is so difficult and complicated that the whole purport of the Clause appears to have been misunderstood by those who drafted it." — [OFFICIAL, REPORT, 29th July, 1913, col. 325–6.] So that I distinctly stated my opinion at that stage—although I am bound to admit that what has happened since has modified my opinion—and at the same time that the article appeared in the "Land Union Journal," that that Clause had been introduced for the purpose of meeting objections raised on this side of the House. I think that is a complete answer to the suggestion that I have in any way altered my attitude. I went on to point out in the Second Reading Debate (column 326 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July), that the one thing in the Clause which we could not on any consideration entertain was the time limit for agricultural improvements. I said that in the strongest possible terms. I am bound, in view of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, to justify my atti- 2423 tude, and it is not only the attitude taken on this side of the House. The feeling of a very large section on the other side of the House is quite as strong on that point, and even at this moment there stands on the Paper a Motion for the rejection of this Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Sir Courtenay Warner), who sits on the other side.

Although I do not wish to go into the history of the negotiations, I am bound to state to the House and to the country that the time limit is the only thing between us. I ant prepared, and I have stated that I am prepared, on behalf of my hon. Friends and anyone who will do so to assent to this Clause being included in the Bill, provided the time limit is taken out. And, therefore, I claim that I have been absolutely consistent. I said from the first that this Clause was intended as a concession to us. I said it was misconceived in its drafting, that it would require a great deal of discussion, that the time limit was inadmissible, and that I could not face the agricultural industry if I had in any sense consented or permitted or done anything to countenance the placing upon the Statute Book of a Clause which purported to arrive at the unimproved value of agricultural land which, as I stated in the Second Reading Debate, is the oldest industry in the country. If you were to place a time limit upon the improvements which were to he excluded from that valuation you would be stultifying the House of Commons by allowing a Clause which did not exclude improvements to be regarded as a Clause which did exclude them. The time limit is the critical issue, and I would make any other sacrifice than that. I am most anxious for this Bill to go through.

I do not desire to throw stones at anyone on the other side. I only desire to defend my own consistency and that of my hon. Friends, which I hope I have doge, and I do not desire that any bad feeling should arise; but I do say that we on this side have a right to protest. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is doing his best to repair the mistake early next Session, but I think we must realise that the great mistake he and the Government have made is in deferring the critical stage of this Revenue Bill. That is the whole trouble. The real blame lies there. The object of this House is that, after hearing the opinions of both sides, it may arrive at a just conclusion upon them, and it is the duty of the Government to give sufficient 2424 time for those opinions to be reasonably expressed on both sides. The whole difficulty arises because that time has not been given to the Bill, and the Government cannot divest themselves of the responsibility.

From that point of view I cannot recede. I very much regret to have to assent to what I hope is only the shortest possible postponement of the benefits which this Bill would confer on many people who are suffering grievous hardships from the present application of the Land Taxes, and the benefits of which, I am sure, hon. Gentlemen opposite do not desire to deprive them of. They must be the judges of how far they are able to go. It is not for us here to criticise their conduct. It will be for the country to judge between us, and I only hope that at the very earliest opportunity we may get this chance of discussing this question of valuation as it deserves to be discussed, from the opposite points of view which are taken on both sides of the House.