NEW CLAUSE.—(Appeals to Special Commissioners against assessments under Schedule E.) (Hansard, 12 July 1922)

§ Sir R. HORNE
I beg to move, "That the Clause be road a Second time."
This is a Clause which I agreed, after discussion, to put in the Bill in response to a request by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson). It deals with the power of people who are passed to Schedule E to make their appeal to the Special Commissioners. I recognise the cogency of the argument he stated, and I think the Clause will meet the views he presented.

§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON
I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much for the concession.

§ Mr. W. GRAHAM
I should like to put a question on this Clause. The Bill provides for a very great extension from Schedule I) to Schedule E. The matter has been very hastily considered, but I understand these Commissioners do not exist in Scotland, and the question arises what form Scottish appeals are going to take. Will it lead to a centralisation of the appeals in London, and if that is so will something be done to safeguard the position as far as Scotland is concerned?

§ Sir R. HORNE
The right of appeal to the other Commissioners is not taken away. The Clause only gives a right of appeal to the Special Commissioners by those who desire to appeal to them. No one in Scotland will be deprived of the right of making the appeal he has been accustomed to make. If he chooses to make an appeal to the Commissioners in London he can take that option, hut he is not under any compulsion.

§ Sir G. COLLINS
If I understand the right hon. Gentleman correctly an individual in Scotland can appeal to the Commissioners in Scotland, but if he wishes to appeal to the Special Commissioners he must lay his case before the Special Commissioners in London. Why is the Income Tax payer in Scotland, resident perhaps in the right hon. Gentleman's own constituency, or in the far North, to be burdened with stating his case to Special Commissioners in London?

§ Sir R. HORNE
He need not.

§ Sir G. COLLINS
Why should he be placed at a greater disadvantage than the resident in London? In Birmingham the conditions are similar and are known to the Special Commissioners in London, but our conditions in Scotland are very different. The Income Tax law and administration is very different in Scotland. The Income Tax payer in Scotland pays more promptly than the Income Tax payer in England. In addition to that, when he feels that he has been unfairly treated by the Income Tax Commissioners, he must under this new Clause put his case before the Special Commissioners in London.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
No, he need not.

§ Sir G. COLLINS
The right hon. Baronet can appeal in his way to business or in half an hour during the sitting of the House, but if he were unfortunately resident in the far north he would require to travel to London.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I am afraid the hon. Gentleman does not understand the Clause. It gives people in Scotland power to appeal to the people to whom they are appealing at present and it gives them an additional appeal, namely, to the Special Commissioners. Anyone living in Northumberland who wishes to go to the Special Commissioners has to come to London just the same. It gives them something they had not got before.

§ Sir G. COLLINS
This question has already aroused some interest in Scotland. The papers during the last few days have contained several letters on the subject. My appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is this: Cannot he set up some machinery in Scotland, some Special Commissioners before whom individuals desiring to appeal may have their case tried in their own country with the outlook and spirit of their own fellow countrymen.

§ Mr. NEIL MACLEAN
I wish to back up the arguments which have been put forward. It is quite true that the Clause gives a certain additional advantage which was not possessed before by those making application, but what is agitating quite a large number of people in Scotland is the fact that if they desire to take advantage of this benefit they have to come to London. Is it not possible, more particularly as the right hon. Gentleman hails from that part of the country, to have not only the Special Commissioners who are already constituted in England, but Special Commissioners for Scotland? Surely it is quite as good for them to go to Edinburgh or Glasgow, or even Perth, one of the ancient capitals, as to come all the way to London for certain things which they submit to the Commissioners here in correspondence are not considered to be quite clear and explicit and their presence is desired in order to make the thing more explicit and clear. Considerable correspondence is appearing in the Scottish Press wondering why they have to come, and we are putting this point to see whether some arrangement cannot 1280 be made and whether when you are giving this advantage you cannot go a step further and give that consideration to the people in Scotland who desire to place their claims before the Special Commissioners.

§ Sir R. HORNE
I think I am as good a Scotsman as anyone, but what I have been listening to would really tend to make the national spirit very unpopular. I recognise, of course, what my hon. Friend opposite desires. He is an economist. He wishes to duplicate all the machinery of administration by appointing a similar piece of mechanism in Scotland, and I should probably be asked to set up re-duplicating machinery in every place where there is anything like a national spirit. I suppose we should have another duplicated machine in Wales to apply exactly the same provisions of an Act which is universally operative. I cannot assent to any such suggestion as that, but I would point out that while the Special Commissioners have their central place of operation in London, in point of fact they endeavour to seek the convenience of appellants and they go on circuit like judges and hold then-appeals at various centres according as the cases at that particular town can be most conveniently discussed. Under the circumstances it is really ridiculous to make any complaint when an option is being given which, as I understood, would be satisfactory to the whole House.

§ Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER
May I ask whether this Clause covers those people who pay their Schedule E in gross? For instance, the Corporation of Liverpool pay all their officials in one lump. There have been a great many complaints because parties having separate interests, think they have not been properly considered, and. apparently, under this Clause they will have a right to appeal. I want to know whether the Clause gives that right. At present, when you treat people in gross like that, a man who has separate interests does not always get consideration.

§ The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Leslie Scott)
I have made it my business, being also a Member for Liverpool, to inquire into this matter, and have ascertained that the result of the Clause would be as my hon. Friend desires.

§ Mr. RAFFAN
The position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is, that these special Commissioners go on circuit to suit the convenience of the appellants. Does the circuit go to Scotland?

§ Sir R. HORNE
Of course, the circuit includes Scotland. Scotland is a part of Great Britain, and I think the more important part.

§ Mr. RAFFAN
In that case, it appears to mo that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has entirely destroyed his own argument. The argument was that, if we duplicate this machinery for Scotland, it would involve a considerable amount of additional expense. But why should there be additional expense in having Special Commissioners for Scotland with special knowledge of Scottish conditions? There would, in the circumstances, be no additional expense, but a great amount of additional convenience.