HC Deb 01 July 1937 vol 325 cc2180-319

Again considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Clause."

4.35 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams

Since the interruption I have been trying to carry the matter a little further, and I think I can correctly summarise the situation in this way. Any company which owns property is going to be taxed on the total of its rents less the expenses which can be charged against it, that is, if the company is primarily engaged in holding investments or other property. The private individual who owns property, the rents of which take him above the £2,000 limit, would not be taxed apparently, unless he was also engaged in buying and selling property. I am not clear about the third class. Let us take the case of a brewery company as an example of the sort of company in which, for financial reasons, I should like to be a shareholder, though I am not. Such a company owns a lot of tied houses. Its primary business is that of buying and selling beer, but its business also to a large extent consists in the holding of investments or property in the form of public houses. I should imagine that that part of their business represents a very large proportion of the total, and that therefore a brewery company holding a number of tied houses might be taxed on the rent they received, less the expense of collecting that rent and maintaining that property, in addition to the profits on selling beer, but it is difficult to be certain because of this difficulty of interpreting the meaning of Sub-section (4).

Apart from this case it seems to me that two other classes of property owners will be treated very differently. The man who for various reasons turns a family estate into a limited company is going to pay, but the man who does not is not going to pay, and that, I submit, is a very marked differentiation which it is difficult to justify. What is the position of a company which incidentally owns a substantial amount of property though one cannot say that its business is wholly or manly that of holding investments or other property? Will the income which they derive from their property be included as part of the profits referred to in Sub-section (1) of the Clause? I hope the Chancellor may be able to clarify these points.

4.38 p.m.

Sir J. Simon

I think my hon. Friend has used his opportunity for study to very good advantage. I really think the Committee, thanks to the contributions which have been made from several quarters, pretty well understand the matter, and I claim that though it is not, of course, pleasant to be taxed, at any rate the operation of this Clause is quite intelligible.

Mr. H. G. Williams

What about the brewery company to which I referred? Would they be brought in?

Sir J. Simon

As a matter of fact a brewery company often has so many different branches of business that it is difficult to answer that question categorically.

Mr. M. Beaumont

I do not want to press the point unduly. Like the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), my interval of study has clarified my appreciation of the situation under this tax, but before I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, I want to press again on the Chancellor of the Exchequer the genuinely hard case of the estate which is turned into a private company. In point of fact, there are very few of them. It is true that they do not turn themselves into a company for the pleasure of adding the words "and Co." to their name, but because they want to get something out of it. I fully appreciate that, but in this particular case the tax appears to be unfair in its operation. The man who has not turned his estate into a company and the man who has to carry out the same function, yet one is taxed and the other is not. I quite see the immense difficulty that there would be in exempting cases of that sort, but I hope that between now and the Report stage the Chancellor of the Exchequer will think over the matter, because it is one which I do not think will operate fairly as between owner and owner. After the discussion and the clarification which we have had from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. Denman

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 25, after "Kingdom," to insert: or a dominion as defined in section twenty-seven of the Finance Act, 1920. The Committee will share my satisfaction that this Amendment raises no problems of Income Tax assessment, but, on the other hand, presents a quite simple question of policy. The Subsection which we have reached is the one under which statutory undertakers whose services are rendered wholly or mainly in the United Kingdom are exempted from National Defence Contribution, and the Amendment is to add to that list the company whose operations take place elsewhere in the British Empire. I suggest to the Committee that there is no real case for dividing up these statutory undertakings strictly in accordance with geographical location within the Empire. There are some hon. Members who would wish not to exempt these statutory undertakers at all, but I do not argue that question. My contention is that if you exempt any, there is a good case for exempting not only those who operate in the United Kingdom, but also those who operate elsewhere in the Empire. It seems to be a little hard that we should divide statutory undertakers into sheep and goats and say that those sheep who browse in comfort in home pastures shall not he taxed, but, on the other hand, that the goats who are working in stoney places outside shall be heavily fleeced. The principle underlying the exemption has been expressed several times by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Last night he said: The view we took was that a public utility company, or in some cases a company established which, by law, was rendering that kind of service and was by law restricted as regards the profits it distributed or the charges it made, was a class of case which ought to be exempted, because they are not free as others may be to make what profits they please or charge what they like."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th June, 1937; col. 2062, vol. 325.] That is a general principle, and I suggest that it does not matter where the company is performing its services. Whether the locality be Hammersmith or Hong Kong, the principle applies equally. No doubt my right hon. Friend will say that in logic I ought to claim exemption for companies operating in any part of the world, but there is a solid practical reason against that. We cannot expect the taxing authorities in this country to be acquainted with the minute details of foreign law, and it would be a matter of interpretation of the law whether these statutory undertakers are entitled to exemption or not. In the case, however, of the rest of our Empire, I believe that that administrative difficulty does not arise. I am assured that elsewhere in the Empire the laws under which these companies work are largely modelled on ours, or, anyhow, are very similar, and, of course, in any particular case of doubt it would always be easy to obtain the exact facts by reference to the India Office, the Dominions Office or the Colonial Office.

On the general question of policy as to what should be our attitude towards British firms carrying on such works within the Empire, my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg), who, I understand, is going to support this Amendment, is far more entitled than I to speak, but I would suggest that it is the settled policy of all parties to encourage the development of our overseas territories to the best of their ability. In 1929, one of the first actions of the Labour Government was to pass a Colonial Development Act with this precise object of assisting in the development of our overseas territories. If we have that object in view, it would seem to be wrong to tax a statutory undertaking because it happens to be working outside the United Kingdom in some other part of the Empire.

There is one question to which I must refer, because it is a vital one in relation to this proposal. Would the Amendment be a costly one? I should be the last to ask the Chancellor to accept any Amendment which would make a serious hole in the revenue of the Exchequer. It would be unfair of any of us to press on him a concession which would embarrass his financial scheme, but I suggest that this could not cause any very big loss of revenue. The different categories of businesses exempted are set out in the four paragraphs (a), (b) (c) and (d). I have not been able to find any companies owned in this country that will be affected by paragraphs (b) and (c), while, as regards paragraph (d), we all know that the great mass of the railways throughout the Empire would not, anyhow, come within the scope of National Defence Contribution. There would remain a certain number of electricity, water and gas companies operating in very various parts of the Empire, and I think there are a few Indian railways, and perhaps one or two in Africa; but anyhow I suggest that the scale of these exemptions cannot be very large, and that the Amendment would not be costly to the Exchequer.

A further reason for its acceptance is that, whatever may be the gross loss to the Exchequer, the nett loss would be substantially less, because, were these statutory undertakers exempted, such dividends as they pay to Trust companies here on their preference and ordinary shares would thereupon become liable to National Defence Contribution. Indeed, the effect of the Amendment would be to transfer the payment on such amounts from the statutory undertaker to the trust company. That class of investment is one which trust companies certainly used very frequently to hold, and there must be a substantial block of securities in such undertakings that are held by companies who would have to pay National Defence Contribution on these dividends. In consequence, the nett loss to the Exchequer would be considerably less than the gross loss. For the reasons, therefore, that the Amendment would not involve a heavy loss to the revenue, and that it would encourage the development of our overseas possessions, I submit that it is worthy of favourable consideration.

4.51 p.m.

Sir J. Simon

I have come to the conclusion that this Amendment should be accepted. In money it is really quite a small matter. The great mass of public utility undertakings throughout the Empire would not in any case be caught by this tax; the Amendment is limited to certain enterprises which are owned here and which are actually operating under British financial control. I think the case for it is a perfectly reasonable one, it being understood, of course, that if any difficulty arose the case would have to be proved. It is not for the revenue authorities to go about and find out what is the law in South Africa, or wherever it may be; any such undertakings claiming exemption would have to prove that they are in fact restrained in the way that the Sub-section describes. I must say at once that I should find it impossible to exempt such enterprises all over the world. I know that there are such undertakings which operate through companies domiciled here in various foreign countries, but I could not undertake to include them, for the reason, among others, that, while we are in a good position to know our own Commonwealth laws, we cannot hope to do so in the case of foreign countries. I think the principle is a fair one; it is the principle of the Finance Act, 1930; and I have come to the conclusion that the Amendment should be accepted.

4.54 p.m.

Sir Edward Grigg

I am sure that all those who have put their names to this Amendment will be grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the statement he has made. I felt particularly keenly about it, because it would have its reflections to some extent on the position of native peoples for whom we are trustees. Since the Amendment is to be accepted, it is not necessary to say any more on the matter except for one point. I am told that, under the language of paragraph (i) of Sub-section (5), which refers to companies or undertakings which are limited as to the charges they make by virtue of any enactment, that phrase in its ordinary interpretation means an enactment of Parliament.

Mr. Bellenger

In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is accepting this Amendment because the amount at issue is not large, can he give us some approximate idea of the figure? I should have thought that the profits of statutory undertakings in the Dominions were considerable.

4.56 p.m.

Sir J. Simon

I cannot give the figures, but I made inquiries, and received the answer which I gave to the Committee. I must point out that we are not talking about statutory undertakings in the Dominions. The number of these would be enormous. We are only talking about certain very exceptional cases, in which, although in fact the operations take place in the Dominions, what may be called the home of the undertaking is here.

Amendment agreed to.

4.57 p.m.

Captain Elliston

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 27, after "of," to insert "a market."

In my own constituency, as in other great centres of population, the market is a public utility of outstanding importance. By maintaining these markets the town council of Blackburn and other local authorities ensure abundant supplies of fresh food and other products, to the great advantage of the community, while at the same time the farmers, gardeners and other producers in the country for many miles round find a ready sale for their products. The authorities in question are rendering a great service by maintaining all these markets, and I hope my right hon. Friend will not require much persuasion to grant this concession. Unfortunately, I have not been able to ascertain, in the short time since I noticed this omission, whether the profits of these markets are in any way limited by enactment, but I understand that the tolls and other charges which are imposed have to be approved by the Ministry of Agriculture or the Board of Trade before they are adopted. In any case, these markets are such a boon to the people, especially in industrial centres, that I feel that they should be included in the same category as other public utilities.

4.59 p.m.

Mr. Marshall

I agree with the reasons which the hon. and gallant Member has given for urging the Chancellor to accept this Amendment. The omission appears to me to be a curious one. There are exemptions for tramways, railway undertakings, and various other statutory bodies, but these most important municipal undertakings are apparently to be taxed. Markets are very important municipal undertakings. They get their powers, in some cases by charter, in some cases under the Public Health Acts, and in other cases by special Acts. The tolls which they can charge are governed by the Acts under which they receive their powers; they are rigidly limited; and it appears to me that, if any public utility undertaking is to be exempted at all, these markets should be the first to receive exemption. I cannot understand why they have not been included. Another reason for their exemption is that local authorities during the last two or three years have had very heavy burdens put upon them. It appears to me that, if arty semi-private statutory undertakings are to be exempt, those owned by municipal authorities should be exempt. If we get no satisfaction here, we may put a general comprehensive Amendment down for Report, but I shall be glad to hear what the Financial Secretary has to say on the matter.

5.2 p.m.

Sir Frank Sanderson

I appreciate that there are objections to the Amendment. If it were accepted, it seems to me that it might include important markets which the hon. Member had not in mind at the time he put down the Amendment. I do not suggest that anyone would think an important industrial concern like Covent Garden Market should be free from the incidence of the tax. In regard to the smaller type of markets, they are not likely to have any increased burden placed on their shoulders by the tax, because their debit and credit sides more or less balance. They do not make large profits.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. Cluse

Bordering on my constituency is the popular Caledonian Road Market. I believe it is owned by the Corporation of the City of London. The result of this tax might be that it would have to raise its tolls and fees to the general public. It is known all over the world that goods are sold at very cheap prices there, and it is a boon to the workers of North London. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will remember it when he deals with the question.

5.4 p.m.

Mr. Dalton

We apprehend that there are many kinds of markets, and it may be that the Amendment is too wide either to be accepted by the Government or to meet the requirements of some of my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Brightside (Mr. Marshall) has presented an argument which has behind it the authority of the Association of Municipal Corporations, who are much concerned at the possibility of municipal markets being subject to this tax. I think on general grounds the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not expressed the intention of taxing municipal property and undertakings. At the same time, private markets are evidently on a different footing. Might I suggest that my hon. Friend should consult with others interested in the municipal aspect of the matter and bring forward an Amendment on Report dealing specifically with municipal as distinct from private markets? My hon. Friends would hesitate very much to give support to an Amendment so wide as this, but they feel that there is a special case to be made for municipal markets, and it might help the discussion if the Chancellor would give some undertaking now that he would be willing sympathetically to consider an Amendment covering municipal markets only.

5.6 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville)

We have given consideration to the Amendment and have looked carefully into the matter, but we do not feel that markets can be properly classed with the kind of undertakings mentioned in the Clause, such as gas and water. The conditions under which markets are held vary very widely. Some are held under old charters, and in some cases there are special Acts which contain provisions for limited control. While this is the case in some instances, very frequently there are no restrictions at all. To accept the Amendment would be out of keeping with our intention in the Clause, which relates to public utility concerns. While I appreciate the point put by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), I feel that it is not really one that we could accept, because it is not in conformity with the intentions of the Clause in relation to public undertakings.

Mr. Dalton

Do I understand that the Government simply say they will not give any further consideration to the case put by the Association of Municipal Corporations—that their mind is closed?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville

The suggestion that the hon. Gentleman now makes for the first time, that there should be a differentiation between municipal and privately-owned markets, is not one that we could accept.

5.8 p.m.

Sir Stafford Cripps

I completely fail to follow the argument that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has put forward. He says that to exempt municipal markets would not be consonant with the spirit of the new Clause.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville

No—to exempt municipal markets and to include private markets. The Amendment was to exclude all markets, and the suggestion was made that we might differentiate between the two. It was then made for the first time. I say now that it is not one that commends itself to us.

Sir S. Cripps

Then I understand that I am wrong in saying that the reason for excluding municipal markets is that which was given with regard to markets as a whole, that is to say, that it would not be consonant with the spirit of the Clause? We have no other reason assigned as yet why municipal markets should not be excluded. One must assume that it would be consonant with the spirit of the Clause to exclude municipal markets. Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman agree with that proposition? I want to get it quite clear. I gather that he does. I understand that he does not assign as a reason for rejecting an Amendment, if it were put down at a future stage, for excluding municipal markets, that such exclusion would not be consonant with the spirit of this Clause. That is what I first suggested and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman got up and denied it. I presume that his denial stands. There must, therefore, be some other reason, and we have not yet had any suggestion as to what that reason is. I should have thought that, when one is considering the class of utility which is set down already under Clause 5, harbour, dock, pier, road, bridge, ferry or tunnel, conservancy of a river, carriage of goods or passengers by road, the provision of facilities for the easy distribution of goods, which is what a market is, that was no different in its character from the provision of a similar facility by means of providing a harbour or a road or a bridge or carriage by rail or road. They are all means developed by the community for the purpose of making the distribution of goods cheaper and easier for the community, and there is no essential difference in nature between a market place where the goods are sold and the roads or vehicles by which the goods are conveyed to market. They are all part of the distribution service of the community.

I quite fail to understand any argument which has so far been put forward which would disqualify a market, but would yet qualify the other similar services for exemption from this tax. Where you have municipalities, which admittedly are not going in for the provision of markets for the purpose of making profit but for the purpose of providing essential facilities to the persons in their area, surely that is the best possible reason for giving an exemption under this Clause. Unless the right hon. and gallant Gentleman can give us some better reason than he has done at present, which is no reason at all, I think we might certainly press, if not now at a later stage, the exemption of municipal markets from this taxation.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. Marshall

May I say one more word? Under this Clause docks are exempted. What difference is there between a municipal market and a dock? Docks charge tolls and rent for stalls and places where people sell their fish. A dock is not only a loading station but a wholesale market as well in many cases and yet under this Clause a place like that is exempted and a place where you can sell dead meat is going to be taxed. It is possible under the Clause even to tax cemeteries, crematoria and baths owned by local authorities—sanitary undertakings which have been established in order to improve the public health of the community. The Financial Secretary says they cannot make a distinction. I appeal to him to reconsider that decision. I support the Amendment, because it deals with one of the activities of municipal authorities. I shall certainly take an opportunity on Report of moving an Amendment to exclude all municipal statutory undertakings.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths

May I offer one more reason why the Government ought to reconsider this? A number of municipalities own markets which are very widely used. In many cases they are old and the capital charges have been wiped off and they are making a substantial profit. The result is that there is available at the end of the financial year of the municipal authority a sum of money which is used very substantially in the relief of rates. I presume that in such a case an authority of that kind comes under this tax, and that as a result of the imposition of the tax the surplus which usually goes to the relief of rates will now be wiped out. I am speaking of the places where there are old-established markets which make some profits, such as is the case in my own town of Llanelly and other towns of that kind. They apply those profits, perhaps amounting to 2d., 3d., 4d., or even 6d. in the £, to the relief of the rates. That is a very substantial relief in the depressed areas where the rates are high.

The operation of this clause may mean that the relief which the rates have enjoyed will now not be paid. This tax, which, it is understood, is to make sure that there will be a contribution from profits towards the cost of armaments, will in these cases become a contribution obtained from the poorest of the community. I hope that this matter will be reconsidered, and, if not, we ought to press it to-day or at some other stage. I can foresee the time when these municipalities will have to go to the Ministry of Health and say that they must have bigger grants because of the action of the Treasury in taking away some of the profits of the markets which used to go to the relief of rates.

5.17 p.m.

Sir J. Simon

The Amendment which has been moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Blackburn (Captain Elliston) simply and plainly applies to all markets, and I think that it is the general opinion of the Committee that such an Amendment, which has raised a very important and interesting discussion, really could not be accepted. My hon. and gallant Friend was thoroughly justified in pointing out how difficult it would be to bring in markets without bringing in other municipal enterprises. I do not think that it will be possible to make a distinction between municipal enterprises of that kind, and washhouses, libraries and all sorts of things. I think that it would be very difficult to do it, but I agree that some of the considerations mentioned in the speeches but not involved in the Amendment on the Paper are subjects for investigation. I do not accept at the moment, naturally, everything that is within the impression of various hon. Members here, neither do I contradict it because I do not know. I really cannot accept the Amendment, and I do not think that the Committee would wish me to do so. I would make it quite plain that I am not giving any undertaking that it will be possible to make a modification, but in view of what has been said, the position to take up is that I will certainly consider very carefully what has been said and I will make some more inquiries. It must be clearly understood that I do not make a promise, and I think that that is the position in which the matter might reasonably be left at the present time if my hon. and gallant Friend will be good enough to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Dalton

As I mentioned just now, the Association of Municipal Corporations are a little disturbed about the effect of the Bill as it stands, and as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been having consultations with many groups of people in trade and industry on the general structure of this part of the Finance Bill, will he be good enough to receive a deputation from the Association of Municipal Corporations to enable them to present their case?

Sir J. Simon

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Treasury know the Association of Municipal Corporations very well, and if there had been any representations from them they would have been attended to with great care. It is not necessary now to make an appointment for a deputation. We have to see what they have to say. I dare say that the Corporation of the City of London have something to say, but I do not think that we have had any communication from them, and that is one of the reasons why I do not make any observations. If the association make representations they will be very valuable in helping us to make up our minds. The form of the tax must depend upon the representations made to me, and I hope that in the circumstances the Committee will allow this matter to go through.

Captain Elliston

In view of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. Denman

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 31, at the end, to insert: or the carriage of goods by canal or inland navigation. This Amendment raises a very small point. As the Clause stands a canal is exempt in so far as it gets its revenue from tolls. If it obtains revenue by the carriage of goods, as one or two canal companies do, it pays tax on such revenue. Now its charges are subject to statutory limitation in the case of the carriage of goods, as in the case of tolls, and there seems no reason for treating the two classes of work differently. That is why I am moving the Amendment.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams

I wish to support the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman). We feel that it must be an oversight that canal and river undertakers have not been placed upon the same footing as railways, because the rates and charges of both railway and canal undertakers are subject to the statutory maximum. If they will read together paragraphs (b) and (d) of the Clause moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, where it says that the following undertakers are exempt in respect of the provision or maintenance of a canal, harbour, dock, pier, road, bridge, ferry, or tunnel, and the carriage of goods or passengers by railway, or the carriage of passengers by road, I think that the Committee will agree that it is illogical to exclude the undertakers mentioned in the Amendment of my hon. Friend. There is still, as the Committee are aware, a considerable amount of carriage of goods by inland navigation, particularly in the area with which my hon. Friend and I are most familiar. For one reason it is extremely economical, and it would be unfair for the companies that transacted such businesses to be damnified by accident when the railways are specificially exempted.

5.24 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville

We agree that there is a case for the exemption of these undertakers. I understand that there are, in fact, very few concerns which are statutory undertakings as defined in Subsection (5), but so far as there are such undertakings, we believe that it will be in conformity with our intention in the Clause that they should be excluded from the incidence of tax, and therefore we accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

5.25 p.m.

Sir E. Grigg

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in page 36, after "Kingdom," to insert: or a Dominion as defined in section twenty-seven of the Finance Act, 1920. This Amendment is consequential and covered by the very welcome undertaking my right hon. Friend gave a short time ago, and I will, therefore, only ask him to make sure that the words by virtue of any enactment really cover enactments in any part of the Empire, and not enactments merely in this country.

5.26 p.m.

Sir J. Simon

This is consequential upon the decision at which the Committee arrived a short time ago and is merely trimming up the Clause. On the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg), perhaps I may be allowed to say that I have made inquiries, and I am sure that there is really no doubt at all that the Clause in the form in which we are now going to amend it, will, by the words "any enactment," cover enactments in the Empire, and would not be limited to enactments in the United Kingdom.

Amendment agreed to.

5.27 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Clarke

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 40, to leave out, "distributing any higher rate of dividend," and to insert: paying a dividend at any higher rate, or distributing by way of dividend any greater amount. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that every statutory gas company will be exempt from the operation of the National Defence Contribution, notwithstanding the method whereby the dividends payable by such companies are computed. We are afraid that rather more than half of the statutory undertakers will not be covered by the Clause as it stands. It will be remembered that the Acts and Orders which control the dividend payable by gas companies come under three heads. First, those who control them by the fixing of a maximum price and a maximum rate of dividend, and secondly, those who control them by the sliding scale method. Both these categories are, I think, covered, and I do not propose to go further into them, but there is the third method known generally as the basic price system, which we do not think will be covered. This basic price system is the most modern of the three. It really started to come into operation only about 1921, but at the present time it controls all the gas companies of the London area and rather more than half the output of gas in the whole of the United Kingdom. It will be remembered too that it was the subject of an inquiry by a joint committee of both Houses last autumn, and that they commented favourably upon its operation and recommended its continuance.

I think the difficulty can best be illustrated by a brief reference to the provisions that regulate the payment of dividends by these companies controlled under the basic price system. In nearly all cases, under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, there is a basic price fixed for the gas and a basic dividend. That dividend is usually somewhere about 5 or 6 per cent., but if the gas is sold at a price below the basic price, a fraction, generally about one-sixth, of the benefit accruing to the consumers is allowed to be added to the dividends or may be put to reserve according as the company wishes. In addition, these companies are in most cases allowed to take money from reserve, and this can be applied to paying dividends in excess of the prescribed rate. Therefore, it is felt that it might be difficult to contend under this Clause that these companies were precluded from distributing any particular rate of dividend. Our Amendment is designed to meet this fact. The case for the Amendment really is that the amount of money which may be distributed rather than the rate of dividend is regulated in these cases.

5.31 p.m.

Sir J. Simon

My advisers and I have looked up this matter and it appears to us that my hon. and gallant Friend is right. He has said that the words which he suggests would fit in with the more modern method of regulation. That is true. I might as well make a confession. I believe the form of words which we put into this Clause were really lifted out of the Corporation Profits Tax, and that is some time ago. The truth is that we have adopted a rather antiquated form of words, and I believe that the form of words suggested by the hon. and gallant Member is more apt for the purpose. We are not dealing with any matter of substance, but we want to make sure that the words used really do fit the modern case. Having had the matter definitely inquired into by the appropriate Department I am told that there is no doubt that there is as much ground for allowing exemption to the public utility service which is subject to limitation as regards the amount distributed in dividend, as there would be if the restriction was expressed in the terms of the rate. For these reasons it seems to me that the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member is useful, and I suggest that we accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. Ross Taylor

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 41, at the end, to insert: and includes also any company carrying on in Scotland an undertaking for the supply of gas otherwise than under the authority of an enactment. Non-statutory gas companies in Scotland, of which there are about 15o, mostly small in size, are in a special and unique position, and that fact has been recognised by Parliament on more than one occasion. It is by reason of that fact that they seek to be classed with statutory companies in respect of the Clause under discussion and so obtain exemption from the National Defence Contribution. In 1934, when the Gas Undertakings Act of that year was under consideration in Committee, it contained a Clause which provided that all non-statutory gas companies, save the very smallest, must within a certain time acquire statutory status. It was then represented on behalf of the Scottish non-statutory companies that by reason of the conditions under which they operated they should not be subject to the Clause in question. That contention was accepted, and by Section 35 of that Act, which deals with the application to Scotland, the non-statutory companies were excluded from the operation of Section 9 of the Act, which imposes statutory status on non-statutory companies. As far as the rest of the Act is concerned, it imposes upon the non-statutory companies various obligations which ordinarily are imposed only on statutory undertakings. The main ground for the exclusion from the operation of this Clause is to be found in the Burghs Gas Supply (Scotland) Act, 1876, Section 21, and the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894. It results from these two Acts that if any non-statutory gas company fails in its duty to its consumers or to the public the local authority may displace the company and become the gas authority in the district and acquire the undertaking.

Thus, while these companies to which I am referring are not subject to any statutory limitation of charge or dividend, as are statutory companies, there is none the less a very powerful compulsitor upon them to keep their charges down, and the results over a long period of years show that that compulsitor acts very effectively. They know that if they do not charge reasonably they will be taken over by the local authority, which is entitled to take them over at any time. This special position was again recognised by Parliament in the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1935. In its original form the Bill afforded certain protection to statutory undertakers in Scotland, but on representations being made the expression "statutory undertakers" was changed to "public undertakers," so as to cover the non-statutory undertakers as well. The definition in that Act of "public undertakers" makes it clear that the non-statutory companies in Scotland benefit by the protection which the other undertakings receive. The considerations which weighed with the Government in making that change in Committee were no doubt the same that led to the amendment of the Gas Undertakings Act to which I have already referred.

In another respect non-statutory gas companies in Scotland have been placed on the same footing as statutory companies, but this time disadvantageously, because they do not get the benefits of derating under the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1920. Statutory companies were precluded from the benefits of derating, and the non-statutory companies were placed in the same category. They got certain other advantages similar to those enjoyed by statutory companies which have been accorded to them by reason of decisions of the Scottish courts. I submit, therefore, that there are strong reasons as well as precedents for placing these non-statutory Scottish companies in the same position as statutory companies as regards this new tax. In the full and strict sense of the term they are not statutory but by legislation and in other ways they are subjected to very much the same control as is imposed upon statutory companies. They can, of course, avoid this tax by acquiring statutory status, a procedure which is open to them at any time, but it is a costly procedure, particularly for small companies, and it seems unnecessary and even unfair that they should have to undertake that expense in order to avoid the tax.

Another point in favour of the Amendment is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could make this concession at very small cost. The companies concerned, although they are numerous, are small. The latest information I have on the subject shows that only about 66 of the companies normally show a profit of over £2,000 per annum. In the aggregate their assessable profits would not yield to the new tax more than £7,000 per annum. On these grounds I commend the Amendment to the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee.

5.40 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville

It is true, as my hon. Friend says, that the profits made by these companies are not large, but I think that he will see that the Government would be in a difficult position if they departed from the rule which they have laid down in regard to this matter of statutory limitation. I accept what he said that, although there is no statutory limitation, there is some compulsion on these companies to keep their prices at a reasonable level. There is, however, no statutory limitation, and it would he very difficult to depart from this guide, in framing our provisions for this tax. A gas company in Scotland, as the hon. Member says, can if it likes apply to the Board of Trade for a Special Order under the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, for the limitation of prices, and if it applied for and obtained such an Order the requirements of the Section would be fulfilled, and it would not be liable to pay the tax. The hon. Member said that that was an expensive operation. I do not think that this is a very serious objection, but it gives the power to the company to bring itself within the scope of the exemption if it so desires. I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment for the reason that it would mean a departure from the rule to which we must adhere, the rule of statutory limitation, as against the compulsion to which he referred. Finally, I may mention that as profits of less than £2,000 are exempted, these companies would not be required to pay a very heavy tax.

Mr. Ross Taylor

In view of what the Financial Secretary has said I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, and I should like to say in doing so that probably the Scottish non-statutory gas companies will find it cheaper to pay the tax than to acquire statutory status by obtaining an Order.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman

I do not call the next Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Ross Taylor). The hon. Member may like to know that it is quite unnecessary. With regard to the next Amendment, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) and the following Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), and the next one, in the name of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, I have been in consultation with the advisers of the Chair, and have had considerable difficulty in making up my mind that these Amendments are in order. There is, however, a point of some doubt on the subject. But it is clear that the question raised by these Amendments is one which might properly be raised on this Clause by an Amendment which would be perfectly in order if proposed in some other and different form. As there is this element of doubt about it and the subject is a proper one for discussion, I propose to stretch a point and to call these Amendments, and I make these few observations because I do not want it to be used against me as a precedent in any similar case in the future.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. Dalton

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 46, after "persons," to insert "to carry on or".

I am obliged to you, Sir Dennis, for your observations and for the degree of elasticity in your Ruling, and I feel sure that the Committee will entirely share your view that the subject dealt with by this and the next Amendments is one which should be discussed in relation to this tax. If it can be shown that some other form of words which you would rule to be unquestionably in order, and which would have an effect equivalent to the Amendment that we have put down—I gather that it is not your wish to make a suggestion on that point at the moment—I have no doubt that my hon. Friends who are associated with me in these Amendments would be glad to have that Amendment rather than this. For the purpose of our Amendment perhaps it is convenient that they should be taken separately and not dealt with in a general debate.

The Chairman

On that matter I am in the hands of the Committee. I think it will be necessary to discuss with this Amendment the further Amendment in the name of the hon. Member and then afterwards have a separate discussion on the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies).

Mr. Dalton

The points raised by the Amendments are, of course, different. The Amendment I am moving relates to existing Special Areas as defined by law and the Amendment of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) relates to the certified areas. Hon. Members who represent constituencies in the Special Areas are deeply concerned at the absence of any revival in these areas. It is true that there have been some geographical sub-sections of the Special Areas in which some revival in employment has taken place, but they are only sub-sections where work on armaments and kindred work has been undertaken. Over a large part of these Special Areas no appreciable revival has taken place, and in considering any proposal for the imposition of a new tax which might fall upon any undertakings in these areas it is the duty of the Committee most carefully to consider whether the imposition of further taxation would not still further prevent any revival in these areas.

The position is this: There is power already under the Special Areas Acts to the Commissioners in their own spheres to recommend certain remissions of taxation for new undertakings which are set up in the areas. The purpose of the Amendment is to give the Commissioner an additional discretion, to extend the duty he is called upon to perform, and enable him in respect of this particular impost to recommend that it shall not fall upon any existing industry which is carrying on work in a Special Area. The reason for the Amendment is simple. Any hon. Member who represents a Special Area could give the names of particular undertakings which are known to have been struggling on, many of them small undertakings and others of moderate size, but representing between them an appreciable amount of employment. They have struggled on in spite of all the depression and the exceptional burden of local rates. Unless some additional power of relief is given to the Commissioner, this tax will be imposed on the top of all the other taxes and local burdens, and it might indeed be the last straw which will break the camel's back in regard to many of these undertakings.

In terms of employment the result might be very serious in the distressed areas. In my own constituency there are a number of firms which have struggled on very gallantly in the face of great difficulties during the long period of depression. In my own, as in other constituencies, the only bright spot, from the point of view of employment, in all the surrounding gloom of unemployment, is some firm which is struggling on with a very narrow margin of profit. The falling of this tax upon them may result in shutting them down and completely destroying all employment in these areas. We strongly press on the Government that no risk should be run, and that such activity as has maintained itself in the more depressed parts of the Special Areas should not be jeopardised by this further taxation on such undertakings. What we are asking by our Amendment is that an additional power of discretion shall be given to the Commissioner over and above the discretion he already has in regard to recommending relief from taxation under the Special Areas Amendment Act. Those who earn their living and carry on their business in the Special Areas will watch with great interest whether they are indeed to be subjected to this new impost or whether the Government will give this slight alleviation of the burdens which are pressing them down.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths

I want to associate myself with what the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) has said. The purpose of the Amendments is to make it possible for the Commissioner to give some aid and relief from this tax to existing industries in the Special Areas. May I say in one or two words why I think it is very important? These areas are dependent on one or two main industries, the heavy industries, and there have been very little improvement in their position during the last few years. There has been no substantial improvement. What improvement there has been in the Special Areas has been confined to some selected spots and has not been generally diffused throughout them. As a matter of fact, there are some parts of the Special Areas in a worse position than they were two or three years ago. These industries, coal, iron and steel, and associated industries, give the largest amount of employment per unit of production. The newer industries which it is desired to attract, and which have been assisted, are the lighter industries, and they do not give as much employment per unit of production as the older industries.

We consider that this Amendment presents an opportunity to the Government to do something which they have not done yet for the Special Areas. Up to the moment they have touched only the fringe of the problem. While all kinds of attempts are being made to attract new industries to the areas, the old industries continue to die. This gives the Government an opportunity. The hon. Member for. Leigh (Mr. Tinker) has been pressing the Secretary for Mines for months past to take some steps to prevent a colliery closing down, to ensure that it is kept going, because of the amount of employment it was giving in the district. It will take a lot of new industries to replace the old and heavy industries. The Commissioner may assist local authorities under the provisions of the Special Areas Act, but if a case is brought to his notice of an industry which is threatened with extinction, or a pit or factory which is going to be closed, he cannot give assistance. We suggest that if in these Special Areas there is an industry, a colliery or a factory to which this further impost will be more than it can bear, if it will be the final and decisive factor in closing it down, and they make representations to the Commissioner that if the new tax is imposed upon them they will have to close down, the Commissioner in such a case should be empowered to recommend to the Treasury, in order to keep such an industry in existence and prevent what is the only means of livelihood to the whole community having to close down, that relief should be given.

Sir Henry Fildes

If a colliery is not making a profit it would not be called upon to make this contribution.

Mr. Griffiths

That is perfectly true, but the kind of case we have in mind is that of a colliery which had had a bad time and has not paid dividends for some time past. It may have heavy charges to meet, debentures at 6 or 7 per cent. and perhaps loan charges from the banks. I am not thinking of a colliery which is making a handsome profit.

Sir H. Fildes

But all such collieries are exempt.

Mr. Griffiths

That may be, but we suggest in the Amendment that there may be cases where this power on the part of the Commissioner might save a colliery having to close down. We think this is an opportunity for the Government to do something. There is no power by which the Commissioner can keep existing industries alive and that is the first thing we should do for the Special Areas. It is impossible to wait for new industries to be established. It is because we believe that we have here a chance of enabling the Commissioner to give some kind of relief to industries which are already in existence in the Special Areas that this Amendment has been moved, and I wish to associate myself with it.

6.1 p.m.

Sir J. Simon

I am sure that the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. Griffiths) appreciates, as he was reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Fildes, that if an undertaking such as he has in mind is not making profits, or if it is making gross profits and those gross profits are required for paying interest on debentures—I think he suggested even 6 per cent. or 7 per cent.——

Mr. Griffiths

In some cases.

Sir J. Simon

——in proportion as that is so, the tax which we are discussing would not touch the colliery company, because it is expressly provided in the scheme that an undertaking may deduct all the interest it pays on debentures or loans before there is a sum to which the tax would apply. As the hon. Member knows, up to £2,000 there is no tax, and up to £12,000 there is a graduation of the tax. However, I quite understand that the general point raised by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), who was supported by the hon. Member for Llanelly, is wider than that, and I will state briefly why I cannot accept the Amendment. I find it rather difficult to discuss this subject in its wider aspects, because it seems to me that it would have been much more rightly discussed as an Amendment to the Special Areas (Amendment) Act than as an Amendment to the Finance Bill. It was only last month, I believe, that the Special Areas (Amendment) Act was passed, and that Act, as the Committee will remember, gives to the Commissioner certain powers to give to various persons who contemplate starting new industries in the Special Areas relief from Income Tax, rates or rent as an inducement to them to establish new undertakings. I may not have done as much as the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland would wish, although he will recognise that it is something, but I thought that, strictly within the four corners of the new tax, I might take an opportunity of making a little further contribution by providing that this tax may also be subject to relief being given by the Commissioner. I think that is strictly within the scope of the Finance Bill, and undoubtedly it is a welcome proposal as far as it goes.

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland has now brought forward a new proposal, and I quite understand, and do not complain of, the general motives which inspired him to do so. The proposal is a very extraordinary one. It is that the inducement which the Commissioner may offer of being relieved from this tax in order to persuade persons to establish new industries in a Special Area should be extended so that he is also to be empowered to say to persons who are now carrying on business in the Area that, in order to induce them to continue to carry it on, he will let them off this new tax.

There are two observations I would like to make on that proposal. The first is that an inducement of relief from taxation if a person will establish an industry in the Special Areas is a form of inducement that can be worked in practice. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. It is because a new industry is set up that the person is let off the tax. If, however, one says that in order to induce a person to carry on an undertaking which he is at present carrying on, one proposes to let him off a tax, it is manifest that that inducement would not be a very easy thing to work in practice. I suppose that everybody in the area would at once proceed to say that they must have the relief if they were to carry on. I should think that it would be impossible to determine whether it really was the case that the only way to induce a person to carry on was to let him off the tax.

There is a second reason why I cannot agree to the Amendment, and I think it is a conclusive argument against the Amendment. We are not now engaged in amending the Special Areas Act. I am sure you will agree, Sir, that if we were to attempt in this discussion to amend the Special Areas legislation, it would be quite out of order. It is only a month ago that Parliament deliberately said that the Commissioner should have power to induce persons to establish new industries in the Special Areas by offering them relief from Income Tax, rates or rent. I propose that he should also have power to give relief from this new tax. The effect, if the hon. Gentleman's Amendment were adopted, would be that although the Commissioner would be prevented by the Special Areas Act from giving relief from Income Tax, rates or rent in respect of an undertaking that is already established, in contradistinction to that, Parliament would have laid down, in the month of June, that he could let them off the National Defence Contribution, although they are already established in the area, as an inducement to them to continue to carry on their business.

The foundation of the relief which is now given is the relief which is provided for under the Special Areas Act in respect of other taxes, and if we proceed to say that we are going to begin to reform the Special Areas Act in the Finance Bill, I do not see where it would lead us. It is not possible in the Finance Bill to say that this new tax should have this peculiar quality. It is not the case in connection with the relief from Income Tax, rates or rent, relief from which is given in order to induce persons to establish new undertakings in the Special Areas; and I do not think that it is practicable to suggest that this particular form of relief is needed in order to induce an existing undertaking to continue to carry on. My proposal is an addition to the existing forms of relief, which is quite a different thing. I regret that I cannot give a different answer to the hon. Member, but I think hon. Members, whatever may be their constituencies, will see that there is a good deal of natural common sense in that position. I cannot undertake, in connection with this Bill, to enlarge the scheme of the Special Areas Act.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Morgan Jones

I happen to have one of the trading estates in my constituency, and that trading estate naturally consists of a certain number of enterprises which would be able to avail themselves of the benefits provided by the Special Areas Act. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the effect of the Government's proposal, because it says that the commissioner shall consider whether, for the purpose of inducing any persons to establish an industrial undertaking in any of the Special Areas, it is expedient that those persons should be given relief in respect of the National Defence Contribution. Does that mean that hereafter they will get this benefit? Some of these concerns have already been established, and I believe that one has actually been started to-day. Would those concerns he entitled to get this extra benefit, or would it be confined to concerns that might be induced into the area hereafter?

6.10 p.m.

Sir J. Simon

That point occurred to me when I looked at the Clause, and I realise that the present Bill will not become law for some three or four weeks. The question put by the hon. Member is whether new enterprises which are just coming into the area will be just too early to benefit from the inducement which we offer. I have made tentative inquiries about this, and I think I can assure the hon. Member that the relations between the Treasury and the Commissioner in respect of those cases are such that I do not think particular sort of instance that he mentioned would arise. I have considered whether we ought to put in some words to cover that, but I am told that in all these cases there are discussions and negotiations, and I think that in the sort of instance that he mentioned there world not, in fact, be any objection raised to adding this benefit to those which are already being offered, in connection with an enterprise which is just becoming established.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Attlee

I was approached not long ago by a firm which wanted to start in the Special Areas, and the whole question was whether it could avail itself of the provisions of the Special Areas Act. The effect of including in the Act words which said that the benefit was to apply to undertakings that were to be established in the Special Areas was to hold up the whole work of getting the business going, because the person could not get his money and could not get the undertaking started at the time he wanted because he had to wait until he came within the category of these undertakings. I suggest that the same thing will happen here. If there is a business that wants to start in the Special Areas, it will have to wait at least four weeks until this Bill becomes law. I do not see why a definite date should not be inserted in the Bill to make it clear. It does not seem to me to be very sound to leave this matter to administrative action. Would it not be better to insert some words making it quite clear that firms setting up now will receive the benefit under this Bill?

Sir J. Simon

The right hon. Gentleman began by giving as an illustration a point which arose under the administration of the Special Areas Act. I can only repeat that I made an inquiry about this, as I appreciated the sort of point which the Leader of the Opposition has put. In view of the fact that it always takes a little time, as there are discussions and negotiations, I was assured that there would not in practice be any delay or obstacle, such as the hon. Gentleman said did arise in one case under the Special Areas Act. I see the importance of this, because one does not want to make people better off by asking them to delay. I will gladly make inquiries again, but I believe that this is one of the cases where the thing works out right as long as there is a clear understanding as to what we intend. I think, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to look into it, that would be better than if I were to make another statement at this stage.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Dalton

There will be great disappointment in the Special Areas at the very cold reception which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given to this Amendment. I do not wish to take up the time in rearguing the case, but, frankly, I am not convinced, nor are my hon. Friends convinced, that the gift of this additional discretion to the Commissioner would not be valuable, from the point of view of maintaining employment in those areas. May I give one illustration? Surely the Commissioner ought to be able to make inquiries in relation to an established business and to find out what are the prospects of that business continuing to maintain itself and to provide a certain amount of employment, say, for 500 men or 1,000 men, or whatever the number might be. The Commissioner might as a result of such inquiry be satisfied that the concern would have great difficulty in maintaining that scale of employment. On the other hand, if a slight relief were given it might make all the difference in regard to the concern, either having to close down altogether or discharge a certain number of its employés. We are not at all satisfied that this proposal has been viewed in a sympathetic or imaginative spirit, and, therefore, particularly on behalf of the unfortunate population of the distressed areas who have so little to thank the Government for, we shall carry the Amendment to a Division.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 195.

Division No. 249.] AYES. [6.16 p.m.
Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple) Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Oliver, G. H.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Harris, Sir P. A. Paling, W.
Adamson, W. M. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Parker, J.
Ammon, C. G. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Parkinson, J. A.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Banfield, J. W. Hills, A. (Pontefract) Price, M. P.
Barr, J. Holdsworth, H. Pritt, D. N.
Batey, J. Hollins, A. Quibell, D. J. K.
Bellenger, F. J. Hopkin, D. Ridley, G.
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W. Jagger, J. Riley, B.
Broad, F. A. Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Ritson, J.
Brown, C. (Mansfield) Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire) John, W. Rowson, G.
Burke, W. A. Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Chater, D. Jones, J. J. (Silvertown) Sanders, W. S.
Cluse, W. S. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Seely, Sir H. M.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R. Kelly, W. T. Sexton, T. M.
Cocks, F. S. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Silkin, L.
Cove, W. G. Kirby, B. V. Simpson, F. B.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Kirkwood, D. Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Daggar, G. Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G Smith, E. (Stoke)
Dalton, H. Lathan, G. Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) Lawson, J. J. Smith, T. (Normanton)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) Leach, W. Sorensen, R. W.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Lee, F. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-la-Sp'ng)
Dobbie, W. Leonard, W. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Leslie, J. R. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Ede, J. C. Lunn, W. Thorne, W.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Macdonald, G. (Ince) Thurtle, E.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. McEntee, V. La T. Tinker, J. J.
Foot, D. M. McGhee, H. G. Viant, S. P.
Gallacher, W. MacLaren, A. Walker, J.
Gardner, B. W. Maclean, N. Watkins, F. C.
Garro Jones, G. M. MacMillan, M. (Western Isles) Watson, W. McL.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) MacNeill, Weir, L. Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) Mainwaring, W. H. Welsh, J. C.
Gibson, R. (Greenock) Mander, G. le M. Westwood, J.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) Marshall, F. Wilkinson, Ellen
Green, W. H. (Deptford) Mathers, G. Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Messer, F. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Grenfell, D. R. Milner, Major J. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Montague, F.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.
Groves, T. E. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Naylor, T. E.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Carver, Major W. H. Donner, P. W.
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Drewe, C.
Albery, Sir Irving Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham) Duckworth, w. R. (Moss Side)
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n) Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Aske, Sir R. W. Channon, H. Duggan, H. J.
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.) Chorlton, A. E. L. Duncan, J. A. L.
Balfour, G. (Hampstead) Christie, J. A. Dunglass, Lord
Balniel, Lord Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead) Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury) Clarry, Sir Reginald Ellis, Sir G.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston) Elmley, Viscount
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J. Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Bennett, Sir E. N. Conant, Captain R. J. E. Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Bernays, R. H. Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Blair, Sir R. Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs) Everard, W. L.
Boothby, R. J. G. Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.) Fildes, Sir H.
Bossom, A. C. Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L. Furness, S. N.
Boyce, H. Leslie Cox, H. B. T. Gluckstein, L. H.
Bracken, B. Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page Goodman, Cot. A. W.
Brass, Sir W. Crooke, J. S. Gower, Sir R. V.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Grant-Ferris, R.
Brocklebank, Sir Edmund Crossley, A. C. Granville, E. L.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) Crowder, J. F. E. Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon, J.
Bull, B. B. Cruddas, Col. B. Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Burton, Col. H. W. Dawson, Sir P. Grimston, R. V.
Butcher, H. W. Denman, Hon. R. D. Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Butler, R. A. Denville, Alfred Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H. Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Hannah, I. C. Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Hannon, Sir P. J, H Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.) Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Harvey, Sir G. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) Moreing, A. C. Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. Morgan, R. H. Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) Storey, S.
Hepworth, J. Munro, P. Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Higgs, W. F. Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H. Strickland, Captain W. F.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon J. W. (Ripon) Nicholson, G. (Farnham) Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S. O'Connor, Sir Terence J. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J. O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Sutcliffe, H.
Horsbrugh, Florence Patrick, C. M. Tasker, Sir R. I.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Peake, O. Tate, Mavis C.
Hume, Sir G. H. Peat, C. U. Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Hunter, T. Peters, Dr. S. J. Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Hutchinson, G. C. Pickthorn, K. W. M. Titchfield, Marquess of
Keeling, E. H. Ponsonby, Col. C. E. Touche, G. C.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton Train, Sir J.
Lamb, Sir J. Q. Procter, Major H. A. Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. Radford, E. A. Turton, R. H.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.) Raikes, H. V. A. M. Wakefield, W. W.
Lees-Jones, J. Reid, Sir D. D. (Down) Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Leighton, Major B. E. P. Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead) Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Liddall, W. S. Reid, W. Allan (Derby) Warrender, Sir V.
Little, Sir E. Graham- Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) Waterhouse, Captain C.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col, J. J. Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool) Watt, G. S. H.
Lloyd, G. W. Ropner, Colonel L. Wayland, Sir W. A
Loftus, P. C. Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Rowlands, G. Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G. Salmon, Sir I. Withers, Sir J. J.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F. Samuel, M. R. A. Womersley, Sir W. J.
Macquisten, F. A. Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P. Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.
Magnay, T. Savery, Sir Servington Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Maitland, A. Selley, H. R.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E. Shakespeare, G. H. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M. Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree) Major Sir George Davies and Mr.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar) Cross.
Markham, S. F. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
The Deputy - Chairman (Captain Bourne)

Before calling on the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) to move the next Amendment on the Paper, I ought to inform him that in the case of this Amendment also there was considerable doubt as to whether it is in order or not, but in accordance with what has already been said from the Chair I am allowing him the benefit of the doubt.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 47, after "areas" to insert: or in any area to which section five of the Special Areas (Amendment) Act, 1937, applies. It is not the first time, Captain Bourne, that I have enjoyed the benefit of the doubt, and I hope to show that the Amendment is one that ought to be accepted. I would also point out that it is to be taken in conjunction with the next Amendment on the Paper—in line 47 to leave out from "persons" to "should," in line 49. I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here at the moment. I worked with the right hon. Gentleman on the Factories Bill in Committee upstairs when he was Home Secretary and we were able to wring a few concessions out of him during those proceedings. I shall be very disappointed therefore if we do not succeed in getting some concession upon this Amendment. The last part of the Clause which we are now discussing must be read in conjunction with the provisions of the Special Areas (Amendment) Act, 1937. Section 3 of that Act provides for financial assistance being given to new undertakings in the Special Areas. The Clause of the Finance Bill which we are now considering gives certain relief to undertakings in the Special Areas, in respect of the National Defence Contribution.

We cannot understand why the Government, in any relief which they propose for the Special Areas, always neglect the other distressed areas which are in a far worse plight than those scheduled as Special. I have been asked to move this Amendment because the district which I have the honour to represent is actually in a worse plight than most of the districts which are scheduled as Special Areas. The official returns of unemployment showed that the percentage of unemployment among males in the township of Hindley with 26,000 inhabitants, is higher than that of any town in the county of Durham. How comes it therefore that the Government in their treatment of the distressed areas problem, always give certain advantages to the scheduled areas but leave out of account altogether the distressed areas that are not scheduled? We failed to establish the principle of equality in this connection when the Special Areas Act was under consideration. We wanted to bring all the distressed areas within the ambit of that Measure so that they would all be treated alike and so that any benefits accruing to the Special Areas so-called, would extend to all distressed areas some of which though not scheduled properly belong to the same category.

Our complaint, therefore, is that after failing to secure equality under that Measure, a distinction is once again being made to the disadvantage of those distressed areas which are not scheduled in the original Measure. I am, of course, asking for this relief from the point of view of securing work for our people. Under this proposal the National Defence Contribution is not to be imposed on firms that are induced to go to the Special Areas, but firms that are induced to come into my distressed area, which is in a worse plight than most of the Special Areas, are not to get any relief at all. I cannot understand the mentality of the Government. Their attitude is, that having scheduled the Special Areas six or seven years ago, they are to remain Special for all eternity. There are patches of Lancashire in a terrible situation, and if one penny of relief is to be given to any firm that can find work to the people who are in distress, it ought to be done for those Lancashire districts as much as for Durham, Northumberland and Wales.

If we allowed this to pass—the second occasion in 1937—when a distinction is being made against those areas outside the Special Areas, I suppose the Government will continue their policy and we shall have in the end patches of this country that are in a terrible condition suffering under the great injustice that the Government do not think they ought to receive attention of any kind. I know that some people will ask, "Why do the Socialists want to secure relief for the capitalists?" While I see men who for o long years have been without any income but public relief and unemployment assistance, I will do almost anything to get them out of their distress. What we are trying to do now is not very much; but every time we can raise our voices in favour of getting these men some work to do and to prevent their spirit being broken by unemployment and poverty, we shall do it.

6.34 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell)

I also, like the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), have the benefit of the doubt. I have not a great deal to add to the general argument of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the earlier Amendment. The hon. Gentleman has complained that the Government, having fixed the schedule of Special Areas six or seven years ago, were proceeding on the basis that the schedule is final and not subject to extension or change. As he reminded the Committee, however, in the Act which we passed a short time ago there was an extension of the relief to be granted to the certified areas. He and his friends challenged the Government's policy at that time and said that those areas should be in all respects on an equality with the Special Areas. That suggestion was not accepted by the House. This new Clause, therefore, has to be considered, as my right hon. Friend said, in the light of the decision taken by the House in the Special Areas Act of this year.

So far as the certified areas are concerned, there is no power to give relief in respect of Income Tax by way of inducement to new industrial undertakings that come into them. The form of assistance in respect of certified areas is assistance to a site company by way of a loan. That is the form of assistance that Parliament has decided shall be given in the certified areas. If this Amendment were accepted, it would bring into existence a new form of assistance to the certified areas in addition to that which Parliament decided should be the form a few weeks ago. If I may relate the argument to the last Amendment which we had to consider, that dealt with the case of industrial undertakings being induced to come into a Special Area. Under the Special Areas Act the Commissioners are given power to give relief in respect of rates, rent and Income Tax, was wholly in accordance with that principle—and it would have been illogical if we had not done it—that having said they might be given that relief we said that they should be given relief in respect of National Defence Contribution.

Parliament having decided that in the case of certified areas the inducement should take the form, not of relief in respect of other charges, but of financial assistance to a site company, it would be outside the principle of this Bill and these Clauses to give a form of assistance by way of relief from taxation, which was the form negatived by Parliament in the Special Areas Act. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite approach this question with a complete sense of reality, and I would point out that if the basis of the Special Areas Act is not inducement in regard to certified areas by way of relief from taxation, it cannot be suggested that this Amendment would effect the object of hon. Gentlemen and what every one has at heart, namely, to induce enterprises to go to those areas that might not otherwise go.

If an enterprise contemplates going to one of the certified areas, can anybody really suggest that it would be deterred from going by the mere fact that, if it makes profits of over £2,000, it will have to pay with everybody else the 5 per cent. National Defence Contribution, the position being that it would have to face the fact that it would have to pay ordinary rent, rates and Income Tax? The only extra inducement that would be afforded if the Amendment were carried is that in the event of profits exceeding £2,000, it would escape the National Defence Contribution. When one looks at it from that point of view, one sees that the Amendment would not effect any of the objects which the hon. Member has in mind, for no enterprise would be deterred by the absence of this Amendment. It would also be outside the scope of this Clause, and for the reasons which the Chancellor of the Exchequer elaborated on the last Amendment I suggest that the Amendment cannot be accepted.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 129; Noes, 192.

Division No. 250.] AYES. [6.41 p.m.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Grenfell, D. R. Mainwaring, W. H.
Adamson, W. M. Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Marshall, F.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Messer, F.
Ammon, C. G. Groves, T. E. Milner, Major J.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Montague, F.
Banfield, J. W. Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Barr, J. Harris, Sir P. A. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Bellenger, F. J. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Naylor, T. E.
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W. Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Noel-Baker, P. J.
Broad, F. A. Hills, A. (Pontefract) Oliver, G. H.
Brown, C. (Mansfield) Holdsworth, H. Paling, W.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire) Hollins, A. Parker, J.
Burke, W. A. Hopkin, D. Parkinson, J. A.
Cape, T. Jagger, J. Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Han. F. W.
Chater D. Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Price, M. P.
Cluse, W. S. Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Pritt, D. N.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R. John, W. Quibell, D. J. K.
Cocks, F. S. Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Ridley, G.
Cove, W. G. Jones, J. J. (Silvertown) Riley, B.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Ritson, J.
Daggar, G. Kelly, W. T. Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Dalton, H. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Rowson, G.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) Kirby, B. V. Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) Kirkwood, D. Sanders, W. S.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G. Seely, Sir H. M.
Dobbie, W. Lathan, G. Sexton, T. M.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Lawson, J. J. Silkin, L.
Ede, J. C. Leach, W. Simpson, F. B.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Lee, F. Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. Leonard, W. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Foot, D. M. Leslie, J. R. Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Gardner, B. W. Lunn, W. Smith, T. (Normanton)
Garro Jones, G. M. Macdonald, G. (Ince) Sorensen, R. W.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) McEntee, V. La T. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) McGhee, H. G. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Gibson, R. (Greenock) MacLaran, A. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) Maclean, N. Thorne, W.
Green, W. H. (Deptford) MacMillan, M. (Western Isles) Thurtle, E.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. MacNeill, Weir. L. Tinker, J. J.
Viant, S. P. Welsh, J. C. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Walkden, A. G. Westwood, J. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Walker, J. Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)
Watkins, F. C. Wilkinson, Ellen TELLERS FOR THE AYES.
Watson, W. McL. Williams, T. (Don Valley) Mr. Charleton and Mr. Mathers.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Goodman, Col. A. W. Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Astheton
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. Gower, Sir R. V. Procter, Major H. A.
Albery, Sir Irving Grant-Ferris, R. Radford, E. A.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Granville, E. L. Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Aske, Sir R. W. Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon, J. Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Astor, Han. W. W. (Fulham, E.) Grimston, R. V. Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Balfour, G. (Hampsteas) Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake) Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Balniel, Lord Gunston, Capt. D. W. Richards, G. W. (Skipton)
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Porlsm'h) Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H. Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Bennett, Sir E, N. Hannah, I. C. Ropner, Colonel L.
Boothby, R. J. C. Hannon, Sir P. J. H. Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Boyce, H. Leslie Harvey, Sir G. Rowlands, G.
Bracken, B. Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Brass, Sir W. Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Salmon, Sir I.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P. Samuel, M. R. A.
Brocklebank, Sir Edmund Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith) Hepworth, J. Savery, Sir Servington
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) Higgs, W. F. Selley, H. R.
Bull, B. B. Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon) Shakespeare, G. H.
Burton, Col. H. W. Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S. Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Butcher, H. W. Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J. Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Butler, R. A. Horsbrugh, Florence Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Carver, Major W. H. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Hudson, R. S. (Southport) Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham) Hume, Sir G. H. Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n) Hunter, T. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Chorlton, A. E. L. Hutchinson, G. C. Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead) Keeling, E. H. Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Clarry, Sir Reginald Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) Spens, W. P.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston) Lamb, Sir J. Q. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J. Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. Storey, S.
Conant, Captain R. J. E. Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.) Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.) Leckie, J. A. Strickland, Captain W. F.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Lees-Jones, J. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs) Leighton, Major B. E. P. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.) Liddall, W. S. Sutcliffe, H.
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L. Little, Sir E. Graham- Tasker, Sir R. I.
Cox, H. B. T. Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J. Tate, Mavis C.
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page Lloyd, G. W. Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Crooke, J. S. Loftus, P. C. Thomas, J. P. L.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Crossley, A. C. Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) Titchfield, Marquess of
Crowder, J. F. E. MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G. Touche, G. C.
Cruddas, Col. B. McEwen, Capt. J. H. F. Train, Sir J.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil) Macquisten, F. A. Tree, A. R. L. F.
Dawson, Sir P. Magnay, T. Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Denman, Hon. R. D. Makins, Brig.-Gen. E. Turton, R. H.
Denville, Alfred Manningham-Buller, Sir M. Wakefield, W. W.
Donner, P. W. Margesson, Capt- Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Drewe, C. Markham, S. F. Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Dugdale, Captain T. L. Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Warrender, Sir V.
Duggan, H. J. Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.) Waterhouse, Captain C.
Duncan, J. A. L. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Watt, G. S. H.
Dunglass, Lord Moreing, A. C. Wayland, Sir W. A
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Morgan, R. H. Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Ellis, Sir G. Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Elmley, Viscount Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Emrys-Evans, P. V. Nicholson, G. (Farnham) Withers, Sir J. J.
Entwistle, Sir C. F. O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Womersley, Sir W. J.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) Peake, O. Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.
Everard, W. L. Peat, C. U. Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Fildes, Sir H. Peters, Dr. S. J.
Furness, S. N. Pickthorn, K. W. M. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.
Gluckstein, L. H. Ponsonby, Col. C. E. Mr. Cross and Mr. Munro.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  1. NEW CLAUSE.—(Computation of profits and accounting periods.) 1,478 words
  2. cc2222-41
  3. NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemption and abatement in respect of minimum profits.) 7,370 words
  4. c2241
  5. NEW CLAUSE.—(Assessment, collection, appeals, etc.) 162 words
  6. c2241
  7. NEW CLAUSE.—(Deduction of National Defence Contribution in computing liability to Income Tax.) 103 words
  8. cc2242-63
  9. NEW CLAUSE.—(Deduction in respect of children undergoing training.) 9,422 words, 1 division
  10. cc2263-9
  11. NEW CLAUSE.—(Allowance in respect of earned incomes.) 2,537 words, 1 division
  12. cc2269-77
  13. NEW CLAUSE.—(Extension of s. 19 of Finance Act, 1920.) 3,296 words, 1 division
  14. cc2277-91
  15. NEW CLAUSE.—(Repeal of 22 and 23 Geo. 5, c. 30.) 5,809 words, 1 division
  16. cc2291-3
  17. NEW CLAUSE.—(Reduction of duties on certain licences.) 660 words
  18. cc2293-307
  19. NEW CLAUSE.—(Repeal of s. 34 of 26 Geo. V., and I Edw. VIII., c. 34.) 5,974 words, 1 division
  20. cc2307-11
  21. NEW CLAUSE.—(Discount on payments of income tax in advance.) 1,552 words
  22. cc2311-4
  23. NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of 1 Geo. V., c. 8, s. 43, 18 and 19 Geo. V., c. 10, s. 6, and 19 and 20 Geo. V., c. 17, s. 5, in respect of mead.) 1,303 words
  24. cc2314-6
  25. NEW CLAUSE.—(Reduction of duty on certain tricycles.) 789 words
  26. cc2316-9
  27. NEW CLAUSE.—(Reduction of duty on tower wagons.) 1,360 words, 1 division