§ 16. Mr. EVELYN CECILasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Clause introduced in the Revenue Bill of 1913, that no Increment Value Duty would be payable in cases where there had been no increase in the value of the bare land, was introduce in fulfilment of the written pledge given by the Minister of Munitions as Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1910; and, if so, whether he will see that no claims for duty are made in such cases when they arose after the pledge given in 1910 and before the Bill in 1913, especially as much hardship is thus caused to small property owners, where Increment Value Duty is being claimed on sales in which they have actually incurred a loss.
§ Mr. McKENNAThe matter referred to in the first part of the question formed the subject of discussion in connection with the Budget Resolutions on 28th April, 1913, and I have nothing to add to the statement then made. As has already been explained on several occasions, no duty is being collected in cases which would have been relieved by the amending legislation proposed in Clause 2 of the Revenue Bill, 1913, and I am not prepared to give retrospective effect to that concession beyond the 7th May, 1913.
§ Mr. CECILMay I ask whether pledges are intended to have effect from the date when they are given or from the date when it is discovered that they have been broken?
§ Mr. McKENNAI am not prepared to admit that the pledge of 1910 has been broken, but certainly the date of the pledge in this case has been made to run as the date from which the Revenue Bill was introduced.
§ Mr. RAFFANWould the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ascertain, whether it would be possible to reintroduce the Revenue Bill of 1913 as an agreed Bill?
§ Mr. McKENNAI should be very glad to introduce it as an agreed measure if it is agreed.
§ Mr. RAFFANWill the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ascertain?
§ Mr. McKENNAI will make inquiries in the usual quarter.