CLAUSE 1.—(Income Tax in any Year to be Charged under Schedules A, B, C, D, and E.) (Hansard, 6 August 1918)

§ Mr. KING
On that Clause, I think we ought to know whether the whole of this Committee stage is going to be taken. It is very formidable. Really, I think it would be desirable, now that you have had the Second Reading, to let the Bill stand over till some of us who would like to look over it may just have the opportunity. Is it desirable to get the Bill before the Recess?

§ Sir G. HEWART
I hope my hon. Friend will not press his objection. I am sure that we are all delighted to gather that the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London has studied, or will study, every line and every word of this Bill—

§ Sir F. BANBURY
Oh, no!

§ Sir G. HEWART
I gathered that. I know something of the ingenuity of my hon. Friend (Mr. King), but I do not think that even long consideration could lead to any useful Amendments to this Bill, which restates the law without altering it. It was considered most carefully in another place, where the Bill had the advantage of the opinions of many great lawyers. It was referred to a Select Committee of both Houses, where it was most carefully considered line by line, and I cannot 1310 imagine that any further delay would be useful. It is said that delay would not be harmful. But, on the contrary, when this Bill is passed into law it will greatly aid the work of many officials who are very fully engaged at this time, and it is important that the Bill should become law at the earliest possible moment. There should be no risk of delay until autumn.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I quite agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I do not think it is quite wise to take the Committee stage of a big Bill like this immediately after the Second Reading. It would be more in keeping with the custom of the House to take the remaining stages to-morrow, and it would be better to give the House an opportunity of sleeping over the Bill.

§ Mr. KING
The Bill seems to have had a very short life. It has only been printed a very few days. Bills like this get the attention of law journals and people who are specialists in Income Tax administration. It will be examined by certain solicitors with a practical knowledge which I doubt even if many great lawyers in the other place or on the Select Committee have had. I am sorry it comes so near the Recess, but it would be on other grounds generally advisable not to take the Committee stage so rapidly.

§ Sir G. HEWART
It is some weeks since the Bill passed finally through all its stages in another place. It is many weeks since it began to be discussed in that House. It is many years, I believe, since a Bill of this kind began to be considered. It is now a quarter-past eleven at night. I cannot imagine the gloom which the hon. Member desires to cast over the slumbers of these expert gentlemen if they are going to bring the considered results of their labours to bear upon this Bill by four o'clock to-morrow afternoon. The right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) seemed to think that, if we postpone the Committee till to-morrow, many things might happen. Nothing, in fact, would happen except postponement. I do not suppose that one hon. Member, with the notable exception of the right hon. Baronet, would spend a sleepless night in studying the Clauses of this Bill.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I really think if we put off the Committee stage till to-morrow nothing will happen, and in all probability no one will know what has 1311 occurred. But it is not advisable to introduce the precedent of taking all the stages of an important Bill in one night. It will be exactly the same if the remaining stages are taken to-morrow, and it would be more in keeping with the practice of the House to allow an interval to elapse between Second Beading and Committee. I desire to maintain the old custom and tradition of this House, which marks a delay between the Second Reading and the Committee stage of a Money Bill. This is a Money Bill, and I am not sure that it is in order to take it. I shall raise no objection to-morrow to the Third Reading being taken on the same day as the Committee stage. Therefore, I beg to move that the Debate be adjourned.

Mr. DUNDAS WHITE
As one who had the honour of being a member of the Joint Select Committee which considered this Bill, I desire to reinforce the appeal made by the Solicitor-General. As regards the question of examining the Bill a Report was issued last week by the Committee, and every opportunity has been given for considering the Bill fully. As members of the Committee, it was very strongly pressed upon us that this Bill should be got through as soon as possible for Departmental convenience, and in order that the work of obtaining the money should be carried on as easily as possible.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
You can get it to-morrow.

Mr. WHITE
Yes, but in their Report the Select Committee venture to make a suggestion that in this House certain Amendments should be inserted embodying what they consider to be the law, in fact, although they have stuck to the words of the law in the Bill. I may be wrong, but I anticipate that the Solicitor-General proposes to move these Amendments. If, therefore, the Committee stage was only taken to-morrow it would not be possible to move these Amendments until to-morrow, and they could not be considered in another place until Thursday, the day of the Adjournment, Under these circumstances, and in view of the care that has been taken to put the House in full possession of all the facts, and the shortness of time that has been at the disposal of the Joint Select Committee to get through this very large Bill, I sincerely hope that my hon. and right 1312 hon. Friends will not press their objection, but will allow the Solicitor-General to get the Bill to-night.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
The speech of the hon. Gentleman has confirmed my opposition. I thought this was only to be a formal stage. I did not know that Amendments were going to be moved.

§ Sir G. HEWART
Formal Amendments.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
The hon. Member said they were not formal Amendments, but Amendments which were considered by the Select Committee as necessary. Under the circumstances, I think there can be no question that the Committee stage cannot be taken now. It could be taken to-morrow, and if it could not be taken in another place before Thursday, we might get it on Friday. The House of Lords could deal with it on Friday. May I ask is it in order, if objection is taken, to take two stages of a Money Bill on the same clay?

The CHAIRMAN
I have satisfied myself that there is nothing of a charging nature in the Bill, and that the Amendment is merely a declaratory Amendment, carrying out the recommendations of the Select Committee.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I have not seen the Amendment, and therefore do not know. There is a very small House, and I would ask the Government not to insist on the further stages of the Bill.

§ Sir G. HEWART
Nothing is further from my wish or my disposition than to insist against the desire of the Committee. We all know that my right hon. Friend is probably one of the most reasonable Members of the House, even when he protests against a precedent because there have been so many other precedents of the same kind, and even when he says that he desires the Bill to be postponed until to-morrow, because he knows that nothing will happen in the meantime. But I would like to point out two things as to which he does for the moment seem to labour under a slight misapprehension. The first is that he thinks that it will be time enough if the Bill goes to another place on Friday. It will not. It must go to another place on Thursday. In the second place, the Amendment which I am going to propose is not an Amendment of substance. It is a mere matter of words. It is not for the purpose of altering the law, but it is for a purpose than which I believe 1313 few things are dearer to the heart of my right hon. Friend—that is, making clear the existing law. I am sure that, having heard this explanation, he will withdraw his opposition.