§ I will now deal with a subject which is connected with agricultural burdens. The Committee will, no doubt, remember that this subject raised considerable 1034 Debate in this House last year. There were revealed very startling figures showing how occupiers of land had been hit by the burdensome character of the taxation which had been levied upon them. I promised to look into the matter—I, obviously, was unable to deal with it at the time—and I have done so with great care in the course of the year. I have made very full investigations, have seen very many representatives of the landowning and agricultural industry, and everything that was said in the House has been more than confirmed by the results of these investigations. I have accordingly come to certain conclusions. But I should like to say this at once. There is no suggestion that anything in the shape of an indirect subsidy is to be given to the agricultural industry by anything that I propose in connection with this matter. My whole desire has been to put the agricultural industry on the same footing as the other industries in this country in considering the proper burdens which they ought to bear.
§ I can explain, perhaps, in a sentence the source from which the difficulties arise. The profits of the occupiers of land have been assessed in this country upon an assumption of their maintaining a certain ratio to the value of the land which they occupy. It is perfectly obvious that that ratio varies with the circumstances. Before the War, it was assumed that the people occupying land should be assessed upon the basis of one-third of the annual value. That was so whether you were an occupier who did not till the land, or whether you were a farmer who occupied it for tilling. During the War, profits on land, as everyone knows, rose very considerably, and, accordingly, the basis of assessment was raised. Now, of course, the profits have decreased very greatly, in some cases disappearing altogether, and it is necessary to reconsider the basis of assessment which was arrived at during the War. During the War, in the case of farmers tilling their farms, the basis of assessment was raised, at first to the annual value, and then to twice the annual value. That was perfectly right at the time it was done, but it no longer represents the facts, and, accordingly, after all the investigations I have been able to make, I am going to propose to the Committee that we should reduce the basis of assessment in the case of the 1035 farmer from twice the annual value to the annual value, which, I am sure, is as much as it should be assessed at at the present time. In the case of land which is not being agriculturally dealt with, where there is no profit, and very often only expenditure—in those cases I propose that we should go back to the pre-War rate of assessment, that is, one-third of the annual value. These proposals will, I estimate, in the case of what are called amenity lands, mean a loss to the Exchequer of£150,000 in the present year, and£300,000 in a full year; in the case of agricultural land, a loss of£950,000 this year, and£2,150,000 in a full year.