§ (1) The provisions of Section fourteen of the Finance Act, 1900, under which, as amended by subsequent enactments, relief is given in respect of the death duties payable on property passing on the death of certain persons killed in the War of 1914–18, shall, subject to the provisions of this Section, have effect in the case of persons, being persons to whom this Section applies, who, in the case of soldiers on the recommendation of the Secretary of State for War, in the case of sailors on the recommendation of the Admiralty, and in the case of airmen of the Secretary of State for Air, are certified as having died from entices directly attributable to service conditions as they have effect in the case of persons killed as aforesaid.
§ (2) The persons to whom this Section applies are the members of His Majesty's land, sea, and air forces.
§ (3) This Section shall apply in the case of any persons dying from any such causes as aforesaid arising at any time after the eleventh day of November, nineteen hundred and eighteen, and before such date as His Majesty may by Order in Council fix.—[Sir John Marriott.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Sir J. MARRIOTTI beg to move, "That the Clause be now read a Second time."
I hope there is reason to suppose that the Clause will meet with the sympathetic consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sorry not to see in his place the Secretary of State for War, but 1438 I hope that he has had an opportunity of conferring with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to this Clause. Our object is to remove what I believe the whole House will regard as a very grave injustice, not to say a gross anomaly. What we desire to do is to extend the provisions of Section 14 of the Finance Act of 1900 to all members of His Majesty's Forces, whether soldiers or sailors or airmen, who are killed on active service. The purpose of Section 14 of the Finance Act of 1900 was to give certain relief to the widows and the lineal descendants of officers and men killed in the Boer War. As far as I can remember, that was the first Statute relating to death duties on the estates of soldiers who were killed on active service. In the Finance Act of 1900 that relief related only to estates which were under £5,000 in value. Many hon. Members will remember that the procedure which was laid down by the-Act in order to obtain the remission of duties, was for the Secretary of State to give a recommendation to the Treasury that the soldier was killed on active service. The Treasury could then remit the duty. This Section of the Act applied to all wars, not only to the Boer War. Another important point is that the Clause was made retrospective to 11th October 1899, which was the day on which the Boer War legally commenced.
That was the position down to the outbreak of the Great War in 1914. Early in the Great War what was known as the Killed in War Act was passed. That Act extended the relief in respect of persons who fell in the Great War, not only to the widows and lineal descendants, but to the lineal ancestors of those who fell in the War. It also made the Act of 1900 applicable to all estates of whatever amount. But that extension referred only to the cases of soldiers who were actually killed in the Great War. We had further legislation on the subject in the Finance Act of 1915, Section 46 of which extended ate relief to Legacy and Successive Duty as well as to Estate Duty. Then a further remission was granted by the Finance Act of 1919. By Section 31 of that, Act the period which was referred to as 12 months previously was extended to three years. Still further relief was given by the Finance Act of 1918 by Section 44, of which the relief was extended to brothers and sisters, as well as descendants of 1439 brothers and sisters of any soldier killed in the Great War. I come now to the legislation of three years ago, which is important for the case I am putting to the Committee. Section 43, Sub-section (1) of the Finance Act, 1921, runs as follows:
The provisions of Section fourteen of the Finance Act, 1900, under which, as amended by subsequent enactments, relief is given in respect of the death duties payable on property passing on the death of certain persons killed in the present War, shall, subject to the provisions of this Section, have effect in the case of persons being persons to whom this Section applies, who die from causes arising directly out of the present state of disorder in Ireland as they have effect in the case of the persons killed as aforesaid.9.0 P.M.Sub-section (4) of that Section made the provision retrospective to the 31st December, 1918. It will be observed that in these Acts no reference whatever is made to India. There was a reference to the Boer War, which extended relief of this kind to persons who died in all wars; then there was the Great War of 1914 and the succession of Acts passed in reference there to, and, finally, in 1921 we find this relief extended to those who died in the disorders in Ireland. I want to bring to the notice of the Committee a case which occurred on the Indian Frontier last year. It is the case of two very gallant officers, Major F. Anderson, D.S.O., M.C., and Major Norman Orr, D.S.O., both of the 2nd Seaforth Highlanders, who were killed on the frontier of India in the early part of last year. After the deaths of those two gallant officers an application was made to the War Office in the usual form by the representatives of the respective estates asking the War Office to make the appropriate recommendation to the Treasury in order that the duties might in the case of these estates be remitted. That action was taken, and these two particular cases were referred by the War Office to the India Office and the India Office, in their turn, passed the matter on to the Government of India to have the question decided as to whether Major Anderson and Major Orr were or were not killed in action. I desire to be as brief as possible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] It is a matter which, I am sure, must command the sympathy of every Member of the Committee, but of course I will endeavour to meet the convenience of the Committee as far as 1440 I can, though I thought I was summarising my statement of the facts almost too severely for the understanding of some hon. Members. I must make clear what happened in this case. The India Office certified to the War Office that these officers had been killed in action and, in consequence of this decision, an application was made to the Treasury for remission of the Death Duties in these cases—as the Estate Duty had already been paid—and on 18th January, 1924, this reply was sent by the Treasury to the representatives of the deceased officers:
Gentlemen,—With reference to your letter of the 18th ultimo the notification received from the War Office is to the effect that this case is one which does not conic within the operation of Section 14 of the Finance Act, 1900. As the death of the deceased did not occur during operations connected with the Great War it appears that the various enactments extending the operation of that Section are not applicable in this case and as the property passing on the death of the deceased exceeds £5,000, and the beneficiaries are not the widows or lineal descendants, the conditions of Section 14 of the Finance Act, 1900, are not fulfilled and so no remission of duty is available.It would be a gross impertinence if I were to question the law as stated in that letter. What I am trying to do by this new Clause is to amend the law. It will be quite clear to the Committee from the letter which I have just quoted that no remission of duty could be made in these cases because they were not covered by any of the statutes which I have quoted to-night, and it is on that account that I am submitting that the law should be altered. We are not contending that the representatives of these officers have been improperly treated under the law as it stands, but we suggest to the Committee that if the facts were known the Committee would insist on an alteration. I ask the Committee to remember that legislation has been passed with the general approval of all parties in order to include within the benefit of the remission of duties the eases of soldiers and others killed in Ireland owing to the disturbed state of that country in 1921. When that legislation was passed, it was made retrospective to the 31st December, 1918.The whole point I want to submit to the Committee to-night is that, if it was possible for this House—no one has questioned the propriety—to extend relief in 1441 these cases to those who fell in Ireland, identical relief ought certainly to be extended to those who have died on the North-West Frontier of India, and all ether places within the confines of the British Empire. Therefore, what we are suggesting by the new Clause is that the Sections of the Finance Act of 1900, and subsequent enactments on the question of remission of Death Duties, should be extended to all cases where soldiers die from wounds which are inflicted, or accidents which occur, or disease which is directly contracted while on active service. The effect of the new Clause would be, in my submission, to include any cases where the War Office in the case of soldiers, or the Admiralty in the case of sailors, or the Air Ministry in the case of airmen, certify or recommend to the Treasury the soldier, sailor or airman, as the case may be, has been killed on active service, and that this legislation should be made retrospective to the 11th November, 1918, which, as the Committee will remember, was the date of the Armistice.
I have tried to put the legal case, and the facts on which I am basing this new Clause, as briefly as possible. I have not raised any question of sympathetic treatment of these officers, but the circumstances under which they met their deaths are well known to a large number, at any rate, of the Service Members of this House, and, I expect, are well known to many other Members of this House. Here is a case where two gallant officers—not in the operations of war, for no war was declared—in the execution of their duties on the borders, met their deaths by the action of those hostile tribes who infest the North-West Frontier of India. With an Empire such as ours, with its wide-flung borders—borders which have to be protected, in the case of the North-West Frontier of India, against disorderly and frequently hostile tribes—we must make some provision such as this suggested in the new Clause for those members in His Majesty's service, be they airmen, sailors or soldiers, who die abroad in the execution of their duty.
§ Lieut.-General Sir AYLMER HUNTER-WESTONI associate myself entirely with what has been said by my hon. Friend who has moved this Clause. He has dealt with it in the general and also in the particular. I want to confine myself, very shortly, to the general case 1442 In advocating this new Clause, it will have been observed from what my hon. Friend has said, that we do not advocate any new principle. We merely desire to prevent the cancellation of a measure of justice already accorded to those of our men who fought in the last Great War The principle that it is wrong that the State should benefit financially by ordering one of its armed defenders to undertake a duty which leads to his death, has, I think, been recognised by everybody, and certainly was recognised in the Statute of 1900, which my hon. Friend has quoted. The small measure of relief which was then given to the dependants of those who lost their lives for their country, has since been made more just by various Acts that have been passed in 1914, 1915, 1918 and 1919. All these Acts relate only to those who were killed in the late War. They are not of universal application, as they ought to be, and it is this defect that our Clause will remedy. As already pointed out, in 1921 this principle, the justice of which is universal, was recognised, and was applied in the case of those who, to quote the words of the Act, "died from causes arising directly out of the state of disorder in Ireland." Our Clause, which follows closely the wording of that Act of 1921, would make this just principle applicable, not only to those who died in Ireland, and to those who died in the Great War, but would apply to all members of His Majesty's land, air and sea forces who are killed or die in any country, in any war, at any time, because the principle and the justice of this is universal. It is very simple, it is very just, and it has the immense advantage, from the point of view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whatever party he belongs, that it costs very little.
The only argument I have heard put forward against it is that soldiers are paid to be killed. That, I think, is not an argument which will appeal to anybody in any part of the House. Our soldiers, sailors, and airmen are all very ready to lay down their lives for their country, if duty calls. They are quite ready to risk their own lives, but they think it unjust that, if they lose their lives in the service of their country, their dependants should be mulcted in the way they are, and the State should benefit financially by their death. You are having difficulty in getting recruits for 1443 the defensive forces of the Crown. One reason of that is that members of the profession to which I have the honour to belong, and of all the other defensive forces of the Crown, feel that they are not being fairly treated either by this House or the country at large.
For it's Tommy this, and Tommy that, and Tommy go away. But it's 'Thank you, Mr. Atkins' when the band begins to play.There is a very genuine feeling, I can answer for among men of all the three Services, that they are being unjustly treated in many ways, and in this especially. To remedy this injustice will cost very little, and I appeal very confidently to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remove this genuine grievance, and this great injustice, and at the same time at very litle cost.
Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSI would like to add a word in support of His appeal of my hon. Friends, because I think it is merely by an accident that officers who are killed to-day in frontier disturbances, or in the small wars to which our Empire is always subject, lose this benefit, which has been given in the case of the South African War, and extended in the case of the Great War. This remission from estate, legacy and succession duty would be inevitable in the case of any considerable war in the future. It is admitted that the distinction between a large war, where you have to have conscription, and a small war, where you depend upon volunteers, has been swept away by the extension of the principle in the case of the Irish disturbances, where it was given recently in its fullest form to our volunteer army. I think it is very unjust that the family of an officer who gives up his life in this way should suffer by his early demise.
I would remind the Committee of a point that has not been mentioned, I think, that in cases of estates of the value of £5,000 the law has never given complete relief to anyone killed in war. Under the Killed in War Act., 1914, only partial relief in these larger estates is given, based on the actuarial expectation of life. I think the House will agree that it is wrong that the State should make a profit out of the death on duty of any officer. This amendment of the law would not deprive, on the average, the State of any Death Duties which it 1444 would have got, apart from these deaths on duty, because, owing to the actuarial calculations laid down in Section 1 of the Killed in War Act, 1914, they will only be remitted the difference of the Death Duties which would have become payable on a normal expectation of life, and that incurred in the earlier period from death on duty. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to make this amendment in the law, because it will go a little towards removing an inequality which is felt very strongly by those who have served.
Sir BEDDOE REESI would just reinforce the appeal that has been made by the hon. Members who have spoken so far. I feel sure that we are all in agreement in suggesting that the Chancellor should adopt the Amendment, for it is one which will appeal to the sympathetic nature of the Chancellor himself. For once the matter of cost need not come into consideration, for the Amendment will involve only a very small cost, I think I express the opinion of those who sit on the benches beside me in adding to the appeal of the Chancellor to at least accept this Amendment, if no other.
§ Mr. SNOWDENThe hon. Gentleman the Member for York (Sir J. Marriott), who moved the Amendment, made no appeal on the ground of sentiment. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayr and Bute (Sir A. Hunter-Weston) said that an argument had been used, or might be drawn from this proposal, to the effect that the soldier was paid to be killed. That would be an extremely brutal way of putting an argument in which there is a certain clement of truth. What I mean by that is this—and I am quite sure the Committee will not misunderstand me as minimising the dangers in the life of the soldier—but these various matters are taken into consideration in fixing the soldier's emolument [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]
§ Major-General Sir J. DAVIDSONHas that always been the case? Is it not only since the Great War' Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to the pre-War rates of pay?
§ Rear-Admiral SUETERDoes what the right hon. Gentleman is saying apply to sailors as well?
§ Mr. SNOWDENThere is no doubt that these various matters are taken into con- 1445 consideration, and there is also taken into consideration, in the case of the Army officer, or the Naval officer, the fact of the pay given to corresponding positions in civil life——
§ Rear-Admiral SUETERThese men get less than anybody else outside. The statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not accurate.
§ Mr. SNOWDENI am suggesting a certain correspondence not only with the salaries; for there are other compensating advantages, or attractions, for the officer, such as the social position involved, and so on. Nobody, however, would, I hope, subscribe to the brutal form of the argument quoted by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, if it was meant to imply that in fixing the remuneration of any kind of service that the risks are not taken into consideration.
I have, everybody will have, a certain amount of sympathy with the objects aimed at in this Amendment. The exemption urged is already included in many Acts of the Legislature to which hon. Members responsible for the Amendment have already referred. Disregarding, however, altogether the point I made just now, I would certainly not advance any argument in opposition to the special consideration of the matter of the death duties upon the estate of the soldier killed on active service. But the hon. Members who are responsible for this Amendment have changed its terms since it was originally put upon the Paper, and it goes much further than the concessions to which reference has been made in the speeches in which they have supported the Amendment. The Amendment certainly goes a great deal further than suggested by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last. May I direct the attention of members of the Committee to Sub-section (1) of the Amendment and the last lines? The whole of the contention of those who put forward the Amendment was that these should be men who were killed upon active service. Yet they state in the Amendment
in the case of soldiers on the recommendation of the Secretary of State for War, in the case of sailors on the recommendation of the Admiralty, and in the case of airmen of the Secretary of State for Air, are certified as having died from muses directly attributable to service conditions.
§ Sir A. HUNTER-WESTONThis is actually copied from the Act of 1921, 1446 which is the law of the land—directly attributable to the disorders in Ireland.
§ Mr. SNOWDENQuite so; but the circumstances of that Act were very exceptional.
§ Sir A. HUNTER-WESTONNo more than the case which has been quoted by my hon. Friend, and where on the Indian frontier, Anderson and Orr were shot on actual service. Under present conditions they cannot be brought within the scope of the provision which speaks of them as being killed while in performance of their duty—therefore their death being "directly attributable to service conditions."
§ Mr. SNOWDENThis was what I was going to say, "Attributable to service conditions'' may mean a great deal. It may mean the case of a man who has died from the effects of wounds or of an ordinary disease. The question would be bound to arise whether that disease was or was not attributable to his Army service. I am only mentioning this to show the difficulties which will arise in disposing of the Clause in the form submitted by the hon. Member. The hon. Member may think I am unsympathetic.
§ Sir A. HUNTER-WESTONNo, no.
§ Mr. SNOWDENI am prepared to concede what hon. Members want, but I could not accept the form in which this Clause is drafted. If they will be willing to withdraw it, I will have a consultation with them before the Report stage is reached to see if we can agree.
§ Sir A. HUNTER-WESTONMay I say that the question of the form of words is one which has given me considerable anxiety? I need hardly say we will be only too glad to accept what the Chancellor has said, and withdraw the Clause on the understanding that we have some form of words which we will all desire.
§ Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.