§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy."]
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. P. Snowden)A request 1584 has been made from the Opposition that I should, if possible, before we reach the discussion on Clause 19, give some indication of what my attitude would he to the purposes sought by the various Amendments on the Paper, and I am, therefore, going to make a short statement. I make it to-night so that it will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow morning and hon. Members will have an opportunity of examining it before the Committee stage begins. It is, of course, quite natural that in the case of a new tax such as the present one, a great number of persons should seek exemption 1585 from the tax, and it was always contemplated that some exemptions would have to be given as a matter of practical expediency, although in theory the tax should allow of no exemptions at all. A number of exemptions were put down under Clause 19, but it was realised that, after a full examination of all the cases put forward by the numerous bodies which have made representations, it might be necessary to extend the list of exemptions somewhat. That examination has now been carried out, and I propose to state as shortly as I can the further exemptions which I am prepared to incorporate in the Bill on the Report stage.
I have realised that any Amendments seeking to introduce long lists of different sorts of societies and associations by name or by categories would be quite impracticable and could only lead to a great deal of trouble and litigation. T, therefore, propose to put down on Report an Amendment which would, broadly speaking, exempt charities from the scope of the tax both in respect of the lands which they own and occupy for the purpose of their charity and lands which they bold for the purpose of providing themselves with funds for such purposes. This method of exemption will have the great advantage that various bodies will know their position under the Bill, as it will be similar to their present position with regard to Income Tax, and the Amendment which I propose to put down will in effect make this position perfectly clear. Charitable purposes under the Income Tax Acts have been defined as the result of a long series of leading decisions, and they cover the following purposes: (1) Relief of poverty: (2) advancement of education; (3) advancement of religion; and (4) other purposes beneficial to the community. I cannot, of course, pretend that such an Amendment will meet every case put forward in the Amendments to Clause 19 which appear on the Paper, but it will to a very large extent meet the purpose of these Amendments.
There is, however, one other matter to which I desire to make reference, and that is the question of playing fields. A large number of these will, of course, be exempted under the general charitable exemption. I may instance the playing fields of schools, though of course this 1586 exemption would not apply in the case of private schools run for profit nor to playing fields rented on short lease. It would also apply to playing fields owned by a charitable institution, such, for instance, as the Young Men's Christian Association. There are in addition to these, however, a large class of playing fields and open spaces to which the public are admitted as of right, and I propose to put down a further Amendment to exempt these from the operation of the tax. But although, by these two Amendments, a large part of the playing field problem will be solved, they do not cover the whole of the claims under this head which have been put forward, which is virtually for the complete exemption of playing fields by whomever held, from whomever held, and whatsoever the conditions and circumstances. This is a demand which I do not see my way to accept, nor do I think that it should be accepted. The cases of the ground owned by sports clubs conducted on a purely commercial basis, private sports clubs with restricted membership, golf courses, are examples of the class of case in which it seems to me impossible to justify a concession. The weight of tax will in many of these cases be very small indeed, and I cannot subscribe to the view that the tax will produce disturbance or hardship by causing these playing fields to be built over.
There is, however, a means by which even these playing fields can substantially or largely exempt themselves from the incidence of this tax. An Amendment has been put in to-day by the Minister of Health to Clause 26 of the Town and Country Planning Bill which will permit any town planning local authority to accept an undertaking as regards the use of land within its area, and any undertaking so given and accepted will be under that Clause of such a nature that it must be taken into account in the valuation under this Bill by reason of the provisions of the First Schedule as an incumbrance. This will enable the owner of any playing field to offer an undertaking not to build on the land unit used for the playing field, and the effect of this will be materially to reduce the land value by discounting that portion thereof which represents value for building purposes by reference to the period for which the undertaking is given. Although this 1587 will not, of course, in every case lead to complete exemption of the unit, it will put it in the power of the owner to reduce the amount of the tax very materially and should be a great inducement to owners to give such undertakings. This question of playing fields will be carefully explored during the interval between the passing of the present Bill and the coming into force of the tax, and I shall be glad to re-examine the question most fully in the light of any representations that are made to me, and any further proposals that are made as to relief from the tax when I have had more opportunity of ascertaining precisely the ultimate effect of the present proposals, which will, I believe, afford relief in all cases where it is justified.
There is one final matter, and that is the position of the friendly societies, which are at present exempt from Income Tax. As regards those, I am prepared to put down an Amendment on the Report stage to exempt them both in respect of lands occupied by them and lands used by them for investment purposes. The concessions that I propose to make will, so far as I can see, meet entirely 14 of the Amendments on Clause 19 which have been put down, while they will go some way, in fact a considerable way, towards meeting 14 others.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINI desire to express my acknowledgements to the right hon. Gentleman for consenting to come down here, I hope at not too much personal inconvenience, to make the statement to which we have listened to-night. That statement shows that he has not been blind or deaf during the last few weeks, and that he has carried out what I think he explained to us on Second Reading was the intention, to make his theory subordinate to practical expediency. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that it might be a little difficult clearly and fully to apprehend all the implications of an oral statement, and I confess that, although I listened to him attentively, I found some difficulty in fitting what he told us to the Amendments on the Order Paper. He said that he thought he had fully met 14 Amendments. There are, however, 14 pages of Amendments on the Order Paper, and I am afraid that, when we see in print 1588 what the right hon. Gentleman has told us to-night, our discussions to-morrow will be really reduced to a wilderness, because nobody will know, until they see the right hon. Gentleman's suggestions in the form of Amendments, whether any particular Amendment upon the Order Paper is fully covered by his concession or not.
I was very much surprised to hear that he proposes to put the Amendments down, not on the Committee stage, but on the Report stage. How are we to discuss in Committee a whole series of Amendments all of which will be affected by his statement as to none of which are we told how far they are affected until we see the Amendments which are to be introduced upon Report. It seems to me that he is going to put the Committee into an impossible position. I would like to make a suggestion, which occurred to me while the right hon. Gentleman was speaking and which would perhaps get the Committee out of what otherwise will be an impossible position. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government desire that full and free discussion should be given to the important questions which are raised in Clause 19. The practical suggestion that I would make for getting over the difficulty is that the Government should withdraw Clause 19 and put down a new Clause to take its place, in which would be embodied the Amendments which would carry out the suggestions which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. We should then postpone discussion in Committee upon Clause 19 until we see it in its amended form and that would enable us to discuss it with full knowledge of what we are doing. It will have another advantage. It will commend itself, no doubt, to hon. Members opposite, because it will give them an opportunity of continuing the discussions which we understand have been taking place to-day upon Clause 20, and if that advantage be added to the additional clarity which will be given to the suggestions made by the right hon. Gentleman, I hope they will provide an overwhelming reason for the acceptance of the proposition.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI gave notice that I intended to raise a certain matter on the Adjournment of the House.
§ Mr. SNOWDENI really do not see that I am called upon to give an answer to the right hon. Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) on the spur of the moment. The suggestion of the right hon. Member strikes me as being a physical impossibility, for it is impossible to redraft the Clause and have it ready for tomorrow.
§ Mr. SNOWDENClause 19, I think, must remain because there are a number of exemptions already given in that Clause. As the Amendments are proposed to-morrow the attitude of the Government will be indicated, and also the nature of the new Amendments which we propose to put down for Report. I do not see how I can possibly accept the suggestion to withdraw Clause 19.
§ Mr. SNOWDENMost certainly.
§ Lord HUGH CECILMay I make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. It would be quite in order for him to postpone Clause 19 until the end of the Committee stage and by that time the right hon. Gentleman would be able to see how he could re-draft it.
§ Mr. SNOWDENIf we were not working under the Guillotine that course would be possible, but I am advised that it cannot be done under the Guillotine procedure.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHAMay I ask whether the novel procedure which the right hon. Gentleman recommends to the House involves the resistance by the Government of Amendments which contain principles which are accepted by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman has explained that as far as the principle of the Amendments on the Paper are concerned the Government are in complete agreement with them. Is this House to be reduced to the position of discussing at great length proposals which are acceptable to the Government, but which the Government to-morrow are going to reject? The procedure which he has outlined has another great inconvenience. It is an assault on one 1590 of our most cherished procedures in this House. The House of Commons is entitled to a Committee stage. It has existed for hundreds of years. Private Members have to give notice of Amendments on Committee stage; why should not the Government, with all their resources, show the same courtesy to the House instead of depriving it of a whole stage to which it is traditionally entitled. I suggest that the Government are reducing democracy to degradation. They come here with a Guillotine procedure which denies to the representatives of the people the proper opportunities to discuss matters of great importance to their constituents, and not content with that they send a representative to the House of Commons to announce in the most dictatorial fashion that the House, will not be given an opportunity of discussing at the usual length and within the limited time at our disposal such Amendments as the right hon. Gentleman intends to move. I should have thought that the proper representation of the people's interest was as much a matter of concern to hon. Gentlemen opposite as it is to others.
It is only a few days ago that the hon. Baronet the Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley) suggested to the Select Committee on Procedure that we might curtail discussion here altogether and proceed by edict, that it would simply be incumbent on the Government to announce what their proposals were, and that this House would have reserved to it only the duty of saying "Yea" or "Nay." We have not had to wait long for the recommendations of the hon. Baronet to be put into effect. It is not necessary for candidates representing the new party to be elected; they have their nominees on the Treasury Bench. It is observable that the hon. Baronet the Member for Smethwick no longer graces the House with his presence. He can safely leave his Mussolini methods to-the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I should have thought that it would have appealed to the Government that, having imposed the Guillotine on this House, they might leave it at any rate the ordinary stages of procedure; but they have treated the House with complete defiance. I have no doubt that when the electorate is asked to record 1591 a verdict on their achievements, the electorate will treat them with the same contempt as they treat their constituents. I therefore invite the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider his decision, or at any rate to tell us what is going to be the attitude of the Government to-morrow towards the Amendments that are on the Paper. Those Amendments have been down for many days, and they embody the wishes and desires of very important bodies in this country. Why should not the Government adopt the normal course of letting the House of Commons either have their wishes conceded by a majority or rejected by a majority instead of curtailing the procedure which has been observed for many centuries? The right hon. Gentleman will live to regret the precedents which he has established. They do no credit to the Government and they bring the House of Commons into even greater contempt than that to which it has been reduced by right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
§ Sir R. HORNEOn a point of Order. I would like to ask for a Ruling upon a question which has been raised by the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He told the House, somewhat to my surprise, that it was impossible on a Committee stage when the Guillotine was in operation to postpone consideration of a particular Clause until later. I should have thought that it meant only that we should reach Clause 20, and that another opportunity would be found at a later stage for dealing with Clause 19. May I ask your Ruling upon that question?
§ Sir BASIL PETOThe Chancellor of the Exchequer said he had been informed that, under the Guillotine procedure, it was quite impossible for him to adopt the course which was adopted last year, of postponing a Clause entirely, taking it out of the Bill, and proposing a new Clause to be considered with the new Clauses. If that procedure were adopted, in the present case, being a Government new Clause, would it not take precedence of all Clauses on the Paper and therefore have its opportunity for discussion before any other Clause is discussed on the ninth day under the Guillotine Resolution?
§ Mr. ERNEST BROWNMay I put another point which is of importance? There are many Amendments, backed by Members in all parts of the House, which do not appear at first hearing to be covered by the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Therefore, I think it important that we should have, at any rate, some shall share of the Committee stage in order to draw out what view the Government take on these points.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt is difficult for me to give a Ruling on something which I have not actually seen proposed. On the other hand, it seems to me that it would be quite possible for the Government, if they liked, to postpone consideration of this Clause, because on the last day under the Guillotine Motion—the last day of the Committee stage—the Government new Clauses would come up first.
§ Mr. P. SNOWDENIf we were to postpone Clause 19, it then would not be taken, I understand, at the end of the Bill as it stands, but would come up as a new Clause?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt would come as a new Clause on the ninth day.
§ Mr. SNOWDENI said in reply to the Noble Lord that I would take the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman into consideration.
§ Mr. SPEAKERPerhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to explain. If the right hon. Gentleman postponed the Clause, then it would come up as a postponed Clause. If it was withdrawn, then it would come up as a new Clause.
§ Mr. SNOWDENAm I to understand, then, that we could not postpone the Clause? I am not prepared to give an opinion just now.
§ Mr. E. BROWNThe advantage in withdrawal is this. If we postpone the Clause we may not be able to make radical changes such as the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicates, whereas, if it is withdrawn, it comes up as a new Clause, and the House itself, as well as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will have an opportunity of dealing with it.
§ Mr. S. BALDWINIf I may suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, it is perfectly possible for the Government to 1593 postpone the Clause, and if they do not like that, it is possible to take the course of withdrawing the Clause. I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to be able to give a definite answer on this very complicated matter. I have had some experience in Finance Bills, having helped in the conduct of five of them in this House, and I think the right hon. Gentleman runs a great risk of getting into serious difficulties with this Clause to-morrow after the statements made to-night. I am sure it would be for the convenience of the House if the Clause could be put down as a new Clause, and I am equally sure that it would be to the advantage of those who have to conduct business in the House of Commons.
§ Captain CROOKSHANKAre we not to have a reply? If the right hon. 1594 Gentleman looks at the Order of the House he will see that after Half-past Seven o'clock on the Ninth Day time is allotted to the new Clauses, Schedules, new Schedules, and any other matter necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion. Does not that cover him whether it is a postponed or a withdrawn Clause?
§ Mr. SNOWDENThe right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has said that it would not be reasonable to expect me to give a definite reply now on a matter involving a good many complications and I cannot go beyond what I have said.
§ It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.