§ 46. Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the termination of the appeal in the Lumsden case, the House of Lords being equally divided; whether he has considered the judgment delivered and in particular the observations of Lord Justice Moulton; whether he is aware that legislation was promised on this subject by the Government on 1st August of last year; and whether, as the Revenue Bill is dropped, the Government will introduce and press through the House a one-Clause Bill, giving the promised relief to those who are affected by this decision?
§ The PRIME MINISTER
I understand that this case—which had already been decided in favour of the Crown by the Revenue judge, and in the Court of appeal—has now been decided in favour of the Crown by the House of Lords. As regards the last part of the question, the Government are prepared to introduce and pass this Session a one-Clause Bill as suggested, provided the measure is treated as unopposed.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
I understand that either the Chancellor of the Exchequer will introduce the Bill at once or that the Prime Minister will make the inquiries through the usual channels?
§ 92. Mr. ROYDS
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the Lumsden appeal in the House of Lords, where, owing to the constitution of the Court, the judges were equally divided on the merits of the appeal, and consequently Increment Value Duty is still demandable in cases 632 where the value of the bare site has not increased; and whether, having regard to the pledges which he has already given, and in view of the withdrawal of the Revenue Bill, he will now give an undertaking that no Increment Value Duty is to be collected except in cases where there has been an actual rise in the value of the bare site?
§ Mr. MONTAGU
I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave this afternoon in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham.