HC Deb 28 March 1935 vol 299 cc2161-3

7.37 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I beg to move, in page 83, line 42, after "interested," to insert: or which varies the meaning of the expression 'agricultural income' as defined for the purposes of the enactments relating to Indian income tax. In consequence of the Amendment which the Committee has just made in Clause 136 it seems necessary to include in this Clause words which will require the sanction of the Governor-General in his discretion, to be given to any Bill designed to vary the definition of "agricultural income." It seemed better to leave the definition where it is in the Indian Income Tax Act so that it may be varied if any difficulty arises, always subject to the previous sanction of the Governor-General, rather than to incorporate a definition in this Measure where, in accordance with the general scheme of the Bill, it would not be open to Amendment.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES

I like to look into these proposals with meticulous care as the Attorney-General will appreciate. I am not sure as to the exact effect of this Amendment. Supposing a Budget were introduced which, among other proposals, proposed to vary the meaning of the expression "agricultural income." Does this Amendment mean that there will have to be some special authority from the Governor-General for that variation or would it be enough to have the approval of the Governor-General signified to the Budget as a whole? I am anxious to make sure that the Indian Legislature in its taxation proposals shall not be unduly hampered by the effect of this Amendment.

7.39 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

These Amendments—that which the Committee has just made and that which we are now asking them to make—will, at any rate, give greater freedom to the Legislature than it would have, if we left in the Bill the expression "income from agricultural land." Then you would have had a hard and fast definition in this Bill and it would not have been open to Amendment. The effect of these words is that if there is a proposal to vary the definition, that proposal will require the sanction of the Governor-General before it is introduced.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES

I am not sure that I feel over enthusiastic about this proposal. It may no doubt be better than the other proposal but the other one was bad enough. The fear that I have arises from the fact that the provision in the Clause will now read: No Bill or Amendment whichc imposes or varies any tax or duty …. or which varies the meaning of the expression 'agricultural income' as defined for the purposes of the enactments relating to Indian income tax …. shall he introduced except with the previous sanction of the Governor-General. I do not know what the definition in the Indian Income Tax Act is, but it does not matter much as regards my argument. What I am concerned about is this. We know that landowners in India are a very powerful body and it is possible that a Provincial Parliament may desire to add to its revenues by extending or amplifying the definition of "agricultural income." My solicitude is as to whether this Amendment raises an effective bar against the taxation of land per se as distinct from the taxation of any other form of property. Is this a concession to the land-owning interest? The Attorney-General may think that I am facetious but I am not. I feel that the land-owning interest ought not to be specially protected through the medium of any such proviso as this. If, on the other hand, the Attorney-General tells me that no such thing as that is implied and that this is a provision which applies to all sorts of financial proposals, well and good. But I take strong objection to any particular exemption from taxation of the land-owning interest by an extension of this interpretation.

7.43 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I can give the hon. Member the most unhesitating assurance that there is no such intention nor is that the effect of the Amendment. The Amendment is being made solely for the purpose of saving a great deal of cross-reference in ascertaining the boundary between Federal and Provincial taxation.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 139 to 144 ordered to stand part of the Bill.