NEW CLAUSE.—(Abolition of office of assessor.) (Hansard, 21 June 1921)

§ Mr. HOLMES
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
I will deal with this matter as briefly as I can, having regard to the importance of the subject, though it is unfortunate that the discussion on this and cognate subjects in the proposed new Clauses, which fill three pages of the Order Paper, should come on now. Doubtless, however, the Chancellor will welcome ventilation of the matter. The Committee will remember that the Government introduced a Bill called the Revenue Bill in the early part of the session. It contained two important points. The first was the abolition of the three years average so far as income tax was concerned, and the second was the alteration in the rules for the administration of the income tax by bringing the law more in accordance with the practice of many years. That Bill was withdrawn after there had been a campaign of opposition in the London Press and a certain section of the provincial Press in regard to what may be called the administration Clauses of the Bill. Those who conducted the campaign congratu- 1245 lated themselves on the success of their campaign, but I think the House of Commons knows that the withdrawal of the Bill had nothing to do with the administration Clauses, but because of the other point I mentioned a moment ago. I therefore have ventured to put down as new Clauses to this Finance Bill the whole of the administration Clauses which the Government themselves included in their Revenue Bill.
As briefly as possible I will attempt to explain to the Committee what they mean. Income Tax in this country dates back to 1798, when Mr. Pitt carried through an Act "for granting to His Majesty an aid and contribution for the prosecution of the war." The method enacted was that of imposing additional duties of assessed taxes, regulated by the amount of income which, the persons already charged with assessed taxes possessed. The following year in 1799 these duties were repealed and a duty of 10 per cent, was imposed upon incomes. In 1803 the practice of charging income at the source was introduced when the duty of 10 per cent, was abolished and the rate of income tax varied between 3d. and 1s. in the £. It is worthy of notice that the yield of income tax that year, the first in which taxation at the source was introduced, was as great as the 10 per cent, of the previous year on income as returned by the taxpayer, although the rate of tax was half or less than in the previous year. In 1816 the tax was abandoned and for 26 years no income tax was imposed in this country.
In 1842 Sir Robert Peel introduced the Act of that year and he reintroduced the principle which had always previously been in existence when the tax was imposed before that date that income tax should be assessed by the taxpayers themselves, and that the Crown officials should merely survey in order to secure the proper amount of tax reaching the revenue. The 1842 Act was embodied in the Income Tax Act of 1918, but the principle contained therein continues to the present day by law, namely that the taxpayers assess themselves to income tax while the Crown merely surveys and sees that the proper amount of the tax reaches the revenue authorities. In accordance with that principle we have in this country at the present time about 650 bodies of unpaid local commissioners in England 1246 and Wales, and the administration and collection of Income Tax is according to law carried out by them with the help of their clerks and assessors and their collectors. The assessors are the men who by law should carry out the preliminary duties of obtaining the necessary information and of making the assessments. They first send out the notices requiring the returns to be sent in. They have to post up the church door notices and certify the assessments. They have to estimate the amount of a man's income if he makes no return. They have then to deliver particulars to the surveyor of taxes in order that the officials of the Inland Revenue may know the assessments that are proposed, and they may take any action on behalf of the Crown if they think the assessments are not correct.
Lastly, the assessors have to present their certificates and estimates to the local commissioners. It is then the duty of the local commissioners to make the assessment after hearing what the surveyors of taxes have to say. Of course, the collectors have to collect the taxes assessed by the local commissioners. So that the surveyors of taxes under the law have the right and duty of watching the interests of the Crown, and seeing that the correct amount is assessed, and comes to the Crown from each taxpayer. They can cause notice to be served on anybody whom the assessor has missed in serving notices with regard to the Income Tax, and they can object before the Commissioners to any assessments that are made. It will be seen, therefore, that the surveyors of taxes are not supposed to have any duties in connection with the direct assessment of the taxpayers. The Royal Commission reported that the practical adminstration of the income tax is in a highly efficient state, and with the Committee's permission I want to read that part of the Royal Commission's report, because it has been quoted in the Press campaign in connection with the contention that the Revenue Bill Administrative Clauses should not be passed. The Royal Commission said: We are glad to be able to say that, to the best of our belief—and we have had some opportunities of judging—the practical administration of the Income Tax is in a highly efficient state. The growth and the development of the tax in recent years, and especially in the War period, has thrown great burdens upon the administration, but the system 1247 has shown no signs of giving way under the strain, although the present high rates of tax tend to magnify difficulties that would have been insignificant while the rate was low. The growth in the yield of the tax has not been accompanied by any serious complaint against the administration. In short, the Income Tax is sensibly administered. But we are bound to say that this smooth working of the machine has been rendered possible only by considerable deviations from the scheme of administration originally conceived by the founders of the tax. The Income Tax Act of 1842, which follows earlier precedent, and, indeed, looks back to its origin to the old Subsidies Act, contemplated an almost purely local administration. The ancient county division was made the unit of area. Local unpaid commissioners were appointed for each division, and these commissioners appointed assessors, made assessments, heard appeals, certified to the authorities the amount to be due, appointed collectors, examined collectors' accounts, and certified the amounts that for any reason remained unpaid. The local representative of the Crown, corresponding to the surveyor of taxes, had very little part in this scheme. He had powers of inspection, objection and surcharge, but in the main the local authorities were in supreme control and their powers were of the widest character. Little by little, however, this plan has been departed from in practice under the pressure of circumstances, and every change has been in the direction of making over to the surveyor of taxes the exercise of the powers that theoretically belonged to the local commissioners and their officials. Without this gradual devolution the machinery of the tax would have been found to be hopelessly inadequate, and we might have had a very different report to make on this aspect of our subject. It will be found that many of the recommendations we have to make with regard to administration are directed towards recognising and giving legal sanction to these practical developments in the working of the tax which have so largely contributed to its success and removing those obstacles which so long as they remain act as a clog on the wheels of the machine. That is the sole object of this Clause, namely, to make the law accord with the practice. If during the last twenty years, and certainly during the War period, the practice had followed the law, the machine would have completely broken down. The Surveyor of Taxes—I have used the word "Surveyor" all through, because it is used in the Revenue Bill. They are now called Inspectors of Taxes, and in the quotation which I have read from the Report of the Royal Commission the word "Inspector" is used, but it refers to the same person—the Inspector of Taxes, instead of merely surveying and seeing that the Crown receives its proper revenue, has in the main done all the work. The local commissioners were 1248 supposed to administer the income tax of this country, but, while they have done excellent work, and I am not complaining or casting the slightest reflection on what they have done, they have been unpaid men, usually business men in each town, who could not give the timet—[HON. MEMBERS: "They do."]

§ Sir G. YOUNGER
I am one myself.

§ Mr. HOLMES
I do not wish to cast the slightest reflection on the work of the hon. Baronet.

§ Sir G. YOUNGER
As I wish to be strictly accurate, may I say that I am, of course, speaking of Scotland. I know nothing about what the local commissioners do in England, but I know that in Scotland they do all the assessing.

§ Mr. HOLMES
It is perfectly true that the local commissioners do all the assessing, but how do they do it?

§ Sir G. YOUNGER
By sitting there and poring over it hour after hour.

§ Mr. HOLMES
They have a book put before them with all the particulars put down. The suggestion that these local commissioners can go into the accounts of all the businesses and see that the returns are correct, or see that the three years' averages as estimated are correct, is absurd. It is not done anywhere. Hon. Members who are in business know that, in order to arrive at a three years' average correctly, the accounts have to be examined and the figures worked out; and it is the surveyors of taxes who have done that work, and not, as the hon. Baronet suggests, the local commissioners.

§ Sir G. YOUNGER
The surveyor of taxes, of course, has the accounts before him and makes the calculation, and it is quite honestly done, but it often happens that the local commissioners put the surveyor right, and the taxpayer too.

§ Mr. HOLMES
I understand the hon. Baronet to agree that the surveyor of taxes has the accounts before him and works out what is to be paid by each person, and then places it before the commissioners.

§ Sir G. YOUNGER
They work it out.

§ Mr. HOLMES
The surveyor of taxes works it out. That is the whole point. By law he is not supposed to do it. That 1249 is the whole point of the Revenue Bill and of this Clause. It is the assessor, who acts under the local commissioners, who is supposed to do that; and the object of this new Clause is to put the law in accordance with what the practice actually is. The local commissioners' work, good and conscientious as it may be, is to a large extent formal. They act on figures put before them by the surveyor of taxes, and that is work which by law the surveyor of taxes should not do.

Mr. E. HORNE
The Commissioners act after consultation with the assessors, not with the surveyor of taxes.

§ Mr. HOLMES
It is the assessor who is supposed to place before the Commissioners the proposed assessment for any person, firm, or company.

§ Sir G. YOUNGER
He does so.

§ Mr. HOLMES
He does it formally. In actual practice it is the surveyor of taxes in every district who works out the figures and gives them to the assessor to place before the Commissioners.

Mr. E. HORNE
I never heard of the surveyor of taxes coming in at that time.

§ Mr. HOLMES
I will give an example of it in the evidence given before the Royal Commission, which really is the most satisfactory evidence that one can have.

§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS
Do you accept all the evidence given before the Royal Commission?

§ Mr. HOLMES
Perhaps the hon. Baronet will deny this when he hears what it is. In the City of London, in the year 1919–20, out of 140,500 assessments, only 3,950 were entered in the books of the commissioners by the assessors. The remainder were entered by the surveyors of taxes in pencil, and the amounts were inked in afterwards by the assessors, thus giving an outward semblance of performance of their statutory duties. Only 3,950 assessments under Schedule E out of 140,500 were entered by the assessors and the rest of the work was done by the surveyors, who are not supposed, by law, to have anything to do with it.

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
Was that Income Tax under Schedule E?

§ The CHAIRMAN
There seems to me to be a good deal of interlocutory debate. 1250 I cannot help thinking if hon. Members will allow the hon. Member for Derbyshire to finish his speech, it will shorten the proceedings in the end.

§ Mr. HOLMES
What applies to Schedule E equally applies to Schedule D. How many hon. Members, particularly those in business, have ever written to an assessor with regard to any point on which they differed with the assessment made upon them? How many of them have been to see an assessor? They are supposed to do it? Members of the public are not supposed to go to see a surveyor of taxes. They are supposed to go to an assessor. He is supposed to be their guide and friend who will assist them. No one thinks of doing it. If you want an interview you go and see the surveyor. If you write you write to the surveyor, and all the time he is doing something which is wrong by law and you are doing something that is wrong by law too.

§ Sir G. YOUNGER
So you do when he is the same.

§ Mr. HOLMES
He is never the same.

§ Sir G. YOUNGER
In almost every district in Scotland he is the same.

§ Mr. HOLMES
I know nothing about Scotland. There are 650 bodies of local commissioners in England and Wales, and in not one case is the Surveyor of Taxes in their district the same man as the assessor. In many cases the assessor and the collector are the same. Then they are in both cases servants of the Commissioners, but in no case in England and Wales is the surveyor of taxes the same man as the assessor. Surveyors of taxes are men who are trained in Income Tax law and practice and are able to deal, without formality and directly, with the tax payer, who cannot cope with the intricacies of the system nor face the local bodies that meet occasionally in formal session. During the war the surveyors of taxes have had exceptional duties thrust upon them with regard to the Munitions Levy Excess Profits Duty, Coal Mines Excess Payment, and other duties which they have managed to carry out with efficiency and with satisfaction to all concerned. The only object of this new Clause is to legalise what has been the actual practice for many years. There is no weakening nor destruction of the safeguards of the taxpayer. The taxpayers' safeguards are in being able to 1251 appeal to either the general commissioner or the special commissioners. All these rights and appeals will still remain. This Clause does not suggest taking away any right of appeal which the taxpayer has got. What they take away from the commissioners is this. They give the taxpayer the right to settle the assessment direct with the surveyor of taxes if he agrees with them, and if he does not want to take them before the local body of commissioners. That is done for the taxpayers' safety. The general commissioners are usually local business men, and many taxpayers do not desire that either their friends or their enemies or their trade rivals shall have an opportunity of examining their accounts. Therefore this gives an opportunity, which is particularly favourable to the taxpayer, of being able to say to the Surveyor of Taxes: "You and I agree that my assessment is so much. You can make that assessment on me straight away, and I need not go before the local Commissioners. "That is the way these new Clauses would work. The General Commissioners and the Special Commissioners would still remain appellate bodies, and the taxpayer would have the same rights as before. The effect of the Royal Commission's own recommendations, which were included in the Government's Revenue Bill, would make for efficiency, economy and fairness. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell us to what extent this will make for economy, but so far as I can estimate it will save at least £50,000 a year in administration. The chief arguments put forward for the retention of the assessor are, in the first place, that his local knowledge is useful. So far as England and Wales are concerned the assessors are the same persons as the collectors. The collector is going to remain, and he will still have the opportunity of conveying to the surveyor the local knowledge which he acquires in his journey round the district.
It is also said that the assessor has been the friend of the taxpayer. What I say with regard to the local commissioners I say with regard to the assessors. I have no fault to find with the duties they perform. I believe that in the main 1252 they have been courteous and friendly, but as a rule they have only devoted a small portion of their time to this work. They have had a main occupation, and have been appointed by the local commissioners to do this work, and as one of their side occupations. They have not the knowledge of the law of income tax, which the man of full time and fully trained like the surveyor of taxes has. In the ordinary way the ordinary assessor can no more answer a question on the complicated subject of double income tax than a child can translate an inscription on a Babylonian tomb. If this matter were handed over to the surveyors of taxes by law, as it is already handed over to them in practice, there would be more efficiency and more economy. During the past few years a new spirit has grown up in the Inland Revenue offices. There used to be a feeling that Inland Revenue officials would give no information to the taxpayer which was to the taxpayer's benefit. A new spirit has arisen. It certainly exists at the top and it has gradually worked down through all the districts, that the surveyors of taxes are prepared to advise the taxpayers as to their rights, and to explain to them the intricacies of the law. If the Revenue Bill had been passed the position would have been improved, and all the officials would be instructed that it was not their duty to take advantage of lack of knowledge on the part of the taxpayer, but that every facility and information should be given to them as to their rights under the law.
The opposition to the Revenue Bill started in the City of London, and it has been taken up by various local commissioners, as has been shown during the speech which I have made to-night. While the opposition to this has been started by certain assessors and has been aided and abetted by certain commissioners, not all the assessors and commissioners of the country are opposed to these Clauses which are included in the Revenue Bill. From one of the best-known Lancashire towns the clerk to the commissioners has written me to say: There was a strong opposition to the Revenue Bill in a certain section of the London Press. Most of the articles in these papers were misleading, inaccurate, and grossly misrepresented the objects of the Bill and its results if passed. It is generally believed that the opposition had its origin in 1253 the City of London and continues to draw its virulence from that source. My object in writing is to bring to your notice the fact that several bodies of commissioners and their clerks are strongly in favour of the Revenue Bill. In Lancashire, so far as I am aware, there was no opposition to the Bill. For instance, at a meeting in Liverpool, at which 16 out of the 20 Lancashire commissioners were represented, there was not a single opponent of the Bill. These new Clauses, if passed into law, would make for efficiency of administration, increased economy all round, and for fairness all round to the taxpayer.

§ Sir R. HORNE
I cannot profess to differ in any way from the proposals which my hon. Friend has made, because they embody many provisions which were in a Revenue Bill for which I was partly responsible. I am very glad that he has taken the opportunity of delivering the speech which he has delivered to the Committee even at this late hour, because I am afraid that there has been very great misapprehension in the country with regard to the precise meaning of the provisions of the Revenue Bill, and that they do require to be explained in order to gain a measure of support which hitherto has been wanting. On the other hand, I am bound to point out that there is no time to make proper provision for them in the Finance Bill of the present year. To put the matter in concrete form, they profess to apply certain provisions with regard to assessors and commissioners in the present year, because the Finance Bill now before the Committee can deal only with the present year. The operations which the assessors have to perform have for the most part been done. Accordingly, these provisions would be totally inoperative so far as the present year is concerned. The assessors and commissioners have been appointed and their work is in full swing, and many of the arrangements which these provisions imply could not be carried out until a great many changes have been made. For that reason the Revenue Bill had a provision that it should not come into operation until the year 1922–23, and accordingly, while I agree with a great part of what my hon. Friend has said, I beg him on the present occasion not to press the matter so far as the present Finance Bill is concerned.

§ Mr. HOLMES
In view of what the Chancellor has said, may I ask him whether the Government have any inten- 1254 tion at a later date of introducing these provisions into a Bill?

§ Sir R. HORNE
Undoubtedly the Government will take into consideration the views expressed, and at some subsequent date, when the time is more suitable, undoubtedly the provisions of the Bill will be presented again.

§ Mr. HOLMES
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

HON. MEMBERS
No.

§ Sir G. YOUNGER
Before the Clause be withdrawn, may I point out to my right hon. Friend that he has given only a qualified answer as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the future of this measure? I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider whether the Scottish system could not satisfactorily be applied to England. Under the Scottish system, in the great majority of cases, the Assessor of Taxes is a Government official, but he is appointed by the local Commisioners and not by the Inland Revenue. He is also the Surveyor of Taxes. The system works admirably. I quite agree that many of the returns made need not really be taken before the local Commissioners. There are the yearly salaries paid by large and small companies to their employés. These are rendered by the Assessor of Taxes, who is also the Surveyor of Taxes. But the most important thing is that the individual is not the servant of the Inland Revenue as Assessor at all. He is the servant of the local Commissioners, who appoint him and control him. They can also remove him if they like. I hope my right hon. Friend will consider this point if he is going to make any changes.

§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS
Before the Motion be withdrawn, may I say that I interrupted the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Holmes) not from any discourtesy, but because I did feel that it was not quite fair on the House of Commons, at this time, that a private Member should reintroduce a very important Government Bill right in the middle of the Finance Bill of the year. The Government introduced this Bill, and dropped it, because they could not get it through. It would be quite improper for the House of Commons to include—

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
It was dropped because of your activities.

§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS
It was dropped because the Government felt it would not be desirable to attempt to pass it. For a private Member to come forward, and try to introduce a whole revolution of the Income Tax law into the Finance Bill would be to take up the time of the House unnecessarily. That is why I was, perhaps, a little discourteous to my hon. Friend. I did not mean it as any personal discourtesy, but I must point out that if the Government do intend to introduce this scheme this year, it would meet with the same opposition.

§ Mr. RENDALL
I am sorry to delay the Committee, but I think it is my duty to say a word or two in support of the proposal. In this matter the Government have been singularly lacking in courage—

§ Mr. ALEXANDER RICHARDSON
On a point of Order. Has not the Mover withdrawn his Motion?

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
No, we have not given him leave.

§ The CHAIRMAN
Leave has not been granted.

§ Mr. RENDALL
The Government proposed a most excellent Revenue Bill which would have made a valuable alteration of the law, but, unfortunately, through the weakness and cowardice of their supporters, the Bill was withdrawn. It was one of those excellent and sensible administrative reforms which, if it had been pressed, the Government would have easily have been able to convince the House to pass into law. But because the Government was playing about with other things they could not find time for it. Now my hon. Friend has proposed this Clause which, if accepted, would put into the Finance Bill some important provisions. He has proposed that they should be incorporated in the Finance Bill, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer says it is not the right place or time. We have heard that ever since we were born. There is no time like the present. The Chancellor of the Exchequer smiles, knowing perfectly well that he is not likely—at all events it is very doubtful—that he will have an opportunity of bringing forward a Revenue Bill next year. I suggest that we might very well put this Clause in. It would make the law of the country in absolute accordance with the 1256 practice. When I was in practice as a solicitor, I was constantly being asked to advise various traders and companies as to what they should do about Income Tax. I never once had the necessity of going before the Commissioners. In every case what figures could be obtained from the trader or company were produced, and at an interview with the Inspector of Taxes the matter was arranged. In 999 cases out of 1,000 the Inspector of Taxes makes the decision in regard to all disputable points raised by the taxpayer The local Commissioners know nothing about it. I lived in a large provincial town where this work was being done, and I do not know the name of a single local Commissioner in that town, and never have known it. All the time when I was in active practice we went to the Inspector of Taxes and nobody else. The Inspector was always spoken of as a person of greater intelligence than the local Commissioners, and he had far more experience. One felt when one once argued the case before him and he had given a decision, that that decision was probably the best in the circumstances. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed, agreed!"] Hon. Members who shout "Agreed" must understand that they must pay the penalty for the weakness of their Government. If you had been agreed a month or two ago the Revenue Bill might have been passed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] If you are agreed, then why did you not support your own Government? Why did you leave the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the lurch? [Interruption.] I am sorry that when we are discussing important matters like this, hon. Members should have this violent desire to interject remarks. It seems to me they should divert their minds—in so far as their minds are still awake—to the matters in hand. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] It is a pleasure to speak to an enthusiastic audience even in the House of Commons, and I do so with no reluctance whatever, I assure you. Not only, as I have said, does the individual person go to the Inspector of Taxes and not to the Commissioner, but companies also adopt this course. Several companies in which I have a small interest employ the services of chartered accountants. The procedure followed on occasions when a very difficult acocunt has to be dealt with and when we do not know what 1257 the Excess Profits Duty will be, is to go into the accounts at great length and arrive at a balance which seems to be accurate and fair and shows a certain amount of tax liable to be paid. What do we do then? [An HON. MEMBER: "Pay it!"] Oh, dear, no! We do not pay it. Do we go to the assessor? Do we go to the local Commissioner? No, what we do is to take the chartered accountant along to the Inspector of Taxes. We make an appointment with that gentleman. I want hon. Members to have every detail so that they may thoroughly understand my point. Having made our appointment and having kept it, we find ourselves in the room of the Inspector of Taxes [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I congratulate the Committee on its quick sense of perception. We go into the room with him and sit down.

§ Mr. FILDES
May I inquire, does the Inspector of Taxes keep a box of cigars in his office?

§ Mr. RENDALL
The hon. Member asks a question which I am really unable to answer. I have not had the offer of a cigar under these circumstances. What then happens? The interview takes place. We place the case before the Inspector of Taxs, it is argued at length and all the facts are brought out, and all the implications to which those facts point are thoroughly discussed. After that discussion and with the facts fully before him the Inspector of Taxes makes a decision. Surely it is a farce. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] I am glad hon. Members agree with me that it is a farce. If the Chancellor refuses to accept this Clause the whole Committee seems to be with me. It is absolutely a farce that taxpayers should be following a procedure which is practically prohibited by the law, in obtaining a decision on which taxes are to be paid, while the Commissioner and the Assessor are really the only authorities empowered to make that decision. I say you are not treating the Inspector of Taxes fairly. You are not giving him legal power to perform the work you expect him to do. I say therefore this Clause ought to be accepted. I think it is very sad that this Government with its enormous majority should be influenced into dropping the Revenue Bill. I think it is very regrettable that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot give us a little more hope that he is going to accept this Clause. It is all very well to say he will 1258 accept it some other time. There is no time like the present. He might just as well accept it now, and save another newspaper campaign. I am quite certain the unanimous opinion of all persons who have any experience of work before the Inspector of Taxes proves the universal custom is as I have described, and that being so the law ought to support the custom. I do not want to detain the House for another moment, more particularly in view of the fact, as far as I can see, that they are in entire agreement with the arguments I have advanced.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
It is not the fault of hon. Members on this side of the Committee that we are discussing this very important matter at this hilarious hour. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been a very short time in the House, or he would not have suggested that these Clauses should be reserved for some future Revenue Bill. I have seen four different Revenue Bills introduced into this House in the last seventeen years, and three of them never got as far as the Report Stage. It is the rarest thing to get a Revenue Bill through. A Revenue Bill is one of the easiest Bills on which to tack alien matter, and it is a Bill with the least Cabinet support behind it. The Revenue Bill in every case is the child of the permanent officials at the Treasury. It is the result of their experience, and it has no great party cry behind it to back it up, with the result that these excellent Revenue Bills are habitually—

§ Mr. FORD
On a point of Order. Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech strictly relevant to the point before the Committee?

§ The CHAIRMAN
So far it is.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I am glad to hear my speech is in order. My point is that these Revenue Bills are generally very carefully thought out by the permanent officials. They are introduced. Immediately some interested party or parties get hold of some Member of this House, such as the hon. Baronet the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks), and he uses the opportunity to show the Government of the day the power that he wields both in the) Press and in the House of Commons, particularly if he feels that he has not been treated properly by that Govern- 1259 ment. He takes the opportunity of wrecking their Bill. I am not referring in the least to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks). I have seen it over and over again. I have done it myself. The Member, using the Press, and being assisted by people who are directly affected by the legislation, legislation intended to remove red tape and simplify the collection of the taxes, creates a sufficient opposition to make the Government reconsider their position and drop the Bill, which has no party behind it and from which no party advantage is to be gained, and the old, cumbersome machine goes on. In this case it was the clerks to the local Commissioners. They saw that if the Revenue Bill were carried they would lose their jobs.

§ Mr. A. RICHARDSON
Can the hon. Member discuss a Bill which has been dropped?

§ The CHAIRMAN
I understand the hon. Member is discussing a resurrected measure.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
The hon. Member who interrupted is probably not aware that for the last hour and a half we have been discussing an Amendment in which all these Clauses in the Revenue Bill, which was dropped, are to be inserted in the Finance Bill. I have several Amendments on the Paper which I originally drafted for the Revenue Bill and which I have transferred bodily to this Finance Bill. The real difficulty is that whereas a Revenue Bill can be dropped a Finance Bill must be passed, and therefore many Amendments which are germane to both are better moved on the Finance Bill than kept for the Revenue Bill. In this case the clerks to the local Commissioners were the backbone of the opposition which grew up under the leadership of the hon. Member for Twickenham and the "Times" newspaper. They wrecked the Revenue Bill, not in the interests of efficiency and of economy, but solely in their own interests, and we must take this opportunity, although it is a bad time, to protest against the action of the Government in conceding to that opposition the victory of wrecking the Bill.
I hope, even at this late hour, we shall have a Division to show to what extent 1260 public opinion, on these benches at any rate, is in favour of efficient administration. The Treasury is the backbone of our financial strength, and unless we provide the Treasury with efficient machinery, especially with all these new taxes coming along, we shall be landed in a great financial muddle as well as in much pecuniary loss. It was all very well to carry on with the old machinery so long as income tax was 1s. 3d., but now that it is 6s. in the pound, and we have the super-tax as well, it is infinitely more important that we should have the best machinery for collecting the taxes, and I am glad to say the party with which I am connected, and for which I speak tonight, has throughout backed the Revenue Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which party?"] The Labour party. The last train has gone, and only those Members of the Labour party who can afford cabs can remain to discuss it. There are two of us, I gather, who can afford cabs. That is one of the misfortunes of legislating at this time of night.

§ The CHAIRMAN
This is not a Motion to report Progress, but a Clause for the abolition of the office of assessors.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
The assessors to the Local Commissioners were the real backbone to the opposition to the Revenue Bill. Then, again, very often they do not know their local commissioners. My first experience as a Member of Parliament was an application from the Treasury asking me to nominate six gentlemen as local commissioners of Income Tax. They explained it did not matter who they were, but that there always were in every constituency certain people who liked to be Commissioners of Taxes. It was a sort of honorary appointment, less onerous than being a Justice of the Peace, and more convenient than being a member of the Victorian Order. If there was a certain demand for this position I do not know why we—

§ The CHAIRMAN
May I again remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we are on Clause 1, which deals with the abolition of the assessors.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
Yes, and if you abolish them the local commissioners will follow in their wake. The Commissioners were set up in 1846 by Sir Robert Peel. They are out of date now. On that ground alone I think the new machinery proposed 1261 in the Revenue Bill ought to have been sufficiently considered by this House, and I think that a definite statement from the Front Bench is desirable dealing with their reasons for introducing that Bill, and also why they withdrew it, why the Amendments wilted away under pressure from the hon. Member for Twickenham. Before we vote we ought to have some explanation.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
On a point of Order. I object. We have already had a request to withdraw this Motion and it was objected to. The hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) objected to its being withdrawn, and spoke on it. There has been no statement again requesting that it should be withdrawn, and I submit to you that you are wholly out of order.

§ The CHAIRMAN
It is not for the hon. and gallant Member to say that to me. Before the Motion was withdrawn the hon. Baronet wished to make one or two remarks, and he was followed by one or two other Members. Then the question for withdrawing the Motion was put and voted upon. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was too late in objecting.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
On a point of Order—

§ The CHAIRMAN
We have passed on to the next Amendment.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I must get this put right. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order! Order!"]