§ (1) Any claim made under Section 2 of the Finance Act, 1912, shall, so far as the claim is based on increased rent, be made upon the person to whom for the time being such rent is payable, and not otherwise; and, so far as such claim is based on any increased premium, shall be made upon the person to whom such premium was paid, his executors, or administrators.
§ (2) This Section shall have operation as from the date of the passing of the Finance Act, 1912, without prejudice to any proceedings actually pending at the passing of this Act.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI beg to propose this Clause. It is a very important Clause, and is an attempt to do what the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked me to do in 1913—to construct an Amendment to Section 2 of the Finance Act, 1912, getting rid of many hardships and injustices which have arisen under that particular Section.
§ Mr. MONTAGUMay I interrupt the hon. Baronet? There are various proposals on the Paper for dealing with Section 2 of the Finance Act, 1912. The Government do not care what is done in this matter, so long as an agreement can be reached. We should have to draft a new Clause, if it is decided not to repeal. Might I suggest that the hon. Baronet should not move this Clause to-night, but that he and my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. J. M. Henderson) should come to a conference at the Treasury between now and the Report stage, and see if we cannot come to an agreement? The hon. Baronet does not deal with the whole case, and we might get harmony instead of a long Debate if the course I suggested were adopted.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI always try to meet any offer made to me from the Treasury Bench; but I must remind the right hon. Gentleman of the difficulty we are in. If you postpone the consideration of this proposal until the Report stage we get to the question of imposing an extra charge. I do not see that there is any way of avoiding that, if you are to do justice in the way of removing hardships which have undoubtedly arisen under this Section. As I said last year, I regretted its having been placed in the Finance Act in its present terms, because it had given rise to hardships and to claims which were monstrous, and which ought never to have been made. The intention of the Act was that whoever benefited by the monopoly value of a licence should pay his share of the new licence. The intention was to accept an Amendment to carry that out. If the Secretary to the Treasury can suggest a means by which, on the Report stage, we can introduce an agreed Clause, I shall be happy not to move this Clause now.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI understand that what my hon. Friend fears is that, if this Clause is postponed to the Report stage, it may be held to impose a charge on the subject. I do not know whether that is correct. I think it is a little far-fetched. I presume the argument of my hon. Friend is that at present the brewer, say, has to pay £60 on a licence, and under certain circumstances can claim back from the freeholder £30. That reduces the charge which he has to pay by £30. If we repeal the Clause, the brewer will have to bear the whole of the amount. Does that constitute an increased charge on the subject? If so, it must be done in Committee of the Whole House, and it is no use putting it off to the Report stage. I am not arguing that it imposes a charge. I have my doubts as to that. But we ought to know what we are about.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERIf the Clause is repealed it will obviously increase the charge, not necessarily on the brewer, but on anybody who has the right to claim under Section 2. Similarly, if you limit the ascending scale right back to a point where someone who now pays gets off paying, there will be an increased charge on somebody else.
§ Mr. MONTAGUMay I say, in support of the argument that it does not necessarily impose a charge to introduce a Clause which redistributes a charge, that when Section 2 of the Finance Act, 1912, 1736 was moved in this House there was no Money Resolution in Committee upon which it was founded. If that did not impose a charge, the redistribution does not impose a charge.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean)As far as I have been able to gather from what the hon. Baronet himself has said, somebody else will have to pay. I am therefore against the Clause, being allowed to be discussed. On the Report stage this Amendment, or some modification of it, can be moved, and Mr. Speaker will then express his own view of the Clause. As at present impressed, I am against the Motion being discussed.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI think the repeal suggested is going far too far. Has the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer any objection to the recommittal of the Bill, which will only take a few minutes in order to insert the Clause, and if we find we cannot move it on Report?
§ Mr. McKENNAI shall be very glad if we can come to an agreement upon the subject, but I should like to know something of the arrangements suggested before I commit myself.
§ Mr. POLLOCKBefore we proceed, I really think we ought to ask the Government to be quite plain. I quite see the difficulty therein, but we have now got this matter before the Committee and also a number of Amendments which propose repeal. I have one to that effect. I have also an alternative to the hon. Baronet's Clause which embodies the Clause which was the Government's own Clause in the Revenue Bill of 1913, I think. There are various suggestions which have been put forward, and I hope the Government, before we allow this matter to pass and it becomes a subject of negotiation, will undertake to do whatever is necessary and to find the means of incorporating an agreed Clause if such an agreement can be come to in the Bill, and if necessary give us an opportunity of discussing this question of repeal before we part with the Bill. It will be quite unsatisfactory for us to allow this opportunity to pass and come to the Report stage, then move a Clause for the repeal of Section 2 and find Mr. Speaker ruling that you cannot do so. That would be very unfortunate; therefore if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say that he will help us, even to the extent of the recommittal of the Bill or by doing whatever is necessary for us to have an 1737 opportunity of debate, I am quite ready to meet him if he wants it; and if he does not feel able to do that, then I ought to go on.
§ Mr. McKENNAAs I understand the ruling of the Chairman, it is impossible to go on. I am not dealing with the Bill on its merits now.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI am asking that you should come to an arrangement.
§ Mr. McKENNAI am anxious not to delay any longer over this Finance Bill than I can help. Obviously there must be another Finance Bill. If, therefore, an arrangement were not come to very quickly I would rather not recommit the Bill.
§ Sir F BANBURYOn a point of Order. I am not quite sure whether I understand whether you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, have given a ruling in regard to the first Clause of my hon. Friend, which, as I understand, is a Clause which the Chairman of Committees himself did give ruling upon. I now understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks that you have given a ruling also upon the Clause to omit the original Clause. May I point out that the omission of the original Clause is merely the omission of a Clause which was put in in 1912 to repeal the Clause which was put in in the Committee Stage in 1912. Therefore the repeal of that Clause does not add any duty, on the contrary it takes away duty. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Well, it puts the position of affairs back to the same place that they were. I should like to know whether we understand that you rule that you cannot allow us to move the repeal of Section 2 of the Finance Act of 1912.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member (Mr. J. M. Henderson) has a Motion down on that point. I will decide that when I come to it.
§ Mr. POLLOCKOn a point of Order. We were invited by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary to consider this case. It is quite obvious there will be a very large number of Amendments or Clauses down on the Paper. Unless we know what your ruling is to be we shall not be able to enter into any arrangements to deal with all these Amendments brought up to deal with this point.
§ Mr BOYTONDo I understand, Mr. Maclean, that you rule out any discussion 1738 of this nature on this new Clause appertaining to Section 2, that is the Amendment or repeal of Section 2 of the Finance Act, 1912; because, if you are so ruling, you are perpetrating a great injustice.
§ Mr. J. M. HENDERSONI can quite see that the repeal or the redistribution of the duty might be debated on another Resolution. I can only appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give us the means of putting it in order in this Finance Bill, if the hon. Baronet and I can agree upon terms. I would just like to read out a few words from a statement of the predecessor of the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealing with this question. The right hon. Gentleman said:—
Section 2 had produced the grossest iniquity. The intention of the Government and of the House was perfectly clear. The Courts had given a totally different interpretation to it.…The late Chancellor of the Exchequer was fully aware of the iniquity of this Clause. I need not go into it. But the relief intended to be given to the licensed holder is, in fact, given to the brewer—a thing that was never contemplated at all. At the same time, the ex-Chancellor saw that it was very difficult to get something which would ensure an equitable distribution of the burden. If my right hon. Friend will allow me to meet him at the Treasury to consider the matter, I shall be very pleased to see him. If not, it cannot be done in this Finance Bill. I would appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put the matter in a Resolution for the next Finance Bill.
§ Mr. McKENNAWe are all agreed that something must be done. The only point is what can be done to bring both parties together.
§ Sir F. BANBURYMy hon. Friend said he would be glad to meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I have an Amendment down about which I feel very strongly. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would prefer that we should have some short discussion together, I am perfectly willing to agree, if it is clearly understood that we shall have an opportunity, to be given to us by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of moving the repeal of this Clause in some form or other this Session—that is, if we do not come to an agreement.
§ Mr. McKENNAThis financial year, not this Session.
§ Sir F. BANBURYCan I get that assurance?
§ Mr. McKENNAI cannot give any positive assurance without the presence of the Prime Minister, but so far as I can pledge myself, I think the hon. Member will have an opportunity in the course of the present financial year to discuss this subject on a Bill in which I myself will introduce the necessary amendment of the law—if the hon. Baronet opposite and my hon. Friend behind me can agree upon a form of Amendment.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI do not want to undervalue the assurance which was given by the right hon. Gentleman, but the Committee must not forget that assurances of this sort have been given on two occasions before. Amendments would have been introduced into the Revenue Bill, but owing to a variety of circumstances the Revenue Bill was not passed, and I am afraid of that. The right hon. Gentleman talks about the financial year, but the injustice is going on all the time, and there is the great expense of the cases being put before the Court. It would take such a very little time, that I really must ask the right hon. Gentleman to say that within a short time, if we can come to an agreement, or if we cannot come to an agreement, we should have an opportunity of repealing this Clause. I am afraid we cannot postpone it indefinitely. It has been postponed from 1913 indefinitely, and, under the circumstances, I think we must have some understanding that we shall put an end to this expensive litigation which is going on, and put an end to it speedily.
§ Mr. POLLOCKI am glad the hon. Baronet accepts the suggestion the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes that the alteration can take place during this financial year. I think if it is during this financial year it would be satisfactory, because it would mean in the autumn, or something of that sort.
§ Mr. McKENNAI anticipate.
§ Mr. POLLOCKThen perhaps we may be successful if some person will endeavour to find some via media by which this Clause can be dealt with; but I should like to say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a good many on this side have an interest in the matter, and I hope the invitation to the conference will not be limited to the hon Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. J. M. Henderson) or the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury).
§ Mr. McKENNAOh, no.
§ Mr. POLLOCKI am not sure, much as I love the hon. Baronet, that I am content to let him settle his views on Section 2 on that point, and, affectionate as I am towards the Member for West Aberdeenshire, I am not quite sure he would meet the case of the English people, because the Clause, as I understand, works uncommonly well in Scotland. My difficulty is about England, and I hope some of us who take an interest in the matter will be invited to attend the conference.
§ Mr. BOYTONrose—
§ Mr. BOYTONI must accept your ruling, but I have risen over and over again.
§ Sir F. BANBURYTo be in order, I beg to move, that Section 2 of the Finance Act, 1912, be repealed.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat is a matter for the hon. Member in whose name the Clause stands.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThat is down in my name.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANBut it is not here. The hon. Baronet knows as well as I do that the time for another Member to move a new Clause is at the end of the new Clauses.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERIf you allow that to be moved I must ask whether the Motion is in order?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI think I must make an appeal to the Committee in view of the very complex nature of the question the Committee is now discussing, and especially after the arrangements which have been substantially arrived at, to accept the decision which was taken by the hon. Member in whose name the Clause stands.
§ Mr. J. M. HENDERSONIs there any advantage in moving it formally?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI do not think so.