HC Deb 21 June 1948 vol 452 cc1023-43

(1) There shall be ascertained and recorded as respects every person who has paid contribution under this Act in respect of investment income consisting of income from agricultural land the amount of contribution which would have been payable by such person if the aggregate investment income of that person had been limited to the amount of the investment income received by him by way of income from agricultural land.

(2) The procedure for the ascertainment and recording of the said amount shall be such as may be prescribed by regulations made by statutory instrument by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue

(3) The amount of contribution so ascertained and recorded as aforesaid shall if the conditions contained in the next succeeding subsection are satisfied be repaid in accordance with the provisions of that subsection.

(4) No repayment of contribution under this section shall be made to any person unless he shall have expended the amount of contribution so ascertained and recorded upon works in respect of which such person would be entitled to an allowance under section thirty-three of the Income Tax Act, 1945, and unless the proposal for carrying out such works shall first have been submitted to and approved by the county agricultural executive committee for the county or counties within which the said agricultural land is situate and such works shall have been completed to the satisfaction of such committee.

Provided that expenditure as aforesaid to the extent of a part only of the contribution so ascertained and recorded shall operate to authorise the payment of a corresponding part of the contribution so ascertained and recorded.

(5) In this section "agricultural land" has the same meaning as in Part IV of the Income Tax Act, 1945.—[Mr. Vane.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Vane (Westmorland)

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The certain cases referred to in the title of this new Clause are not obscure anomalies but relate to the very important case of agriculture. The object of the new Clause is not to reverse the decision which was taken in Committee but rather to repair some of the damage which is bound to result from that decision. It always seems strange to me that if any industry should be expected to bear its part of this Contribution direct, the Chancellor should have chosen the agricultural industry for that unfortunate role, and particularly that part of the agricultural industry which has the task of providing and maintaining fixed equipment, which includes the bulk of the improvements to buildings and drainage which we hope to see carried out over the next few years. To say the least of it, this choice has had a most disheartening effect in the countryside, and it is particularly surprising seeing that it comes at a time when the Government's declared agricultural policy is one of expansion.

Nor at the moment is capital flowing into agriculture in very great quantities. As evidence of that, we have recently seen the Hill Farming Act reach the statute book, and again the Government have a scheme by which certain financial assistance is given towards the carrying out of drainage works. To balance this assistance, the Minister of Agriculture—who, I see is not present again despite the fact that an important Amendment is being discussed—has imposed on this branch of the industry certain special responsibilities and heavy commitments. Now, at the same time as the Minister of Agriculture is saying encouraging things, the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes along and gives the industry as big a kick as he can. It is very strange. If someone kicks in that way it is bound to leave a bruise. The bruise left on the industry will be in the form of poor and out of date buildings.

Even if His Majesty's Ministers today look on the agricultural industry in two ways, at least the country looks on it in one way. It wants to see the expansion programme furthered and not held up. My hon. Friends and I are sure that we can offer a solution for this difficulty, and we have put the solution in this proposed new Clause. We claim that it is simple. We do not claim that it is an entirely new idea, and I think I am right in saying that something similar was included in the old E.P.T. regulations. What we propose is this. The special levy should be assessed on agricultural property and paid in the same way as on other property; but instead of it just floating away over the surface of the sea of inflation, we suggest that it should be held in what for want of a better word I should like to call a suspense account. Naturally no interest shall be charged.

It may be represented that when a taxpayer draws his income from several sources it is not easy to show how much of this special levy which he is going to pay is derived from agricultural and how much from other property. To simplify the matter, we have suggested that where a taxpayer enjoys income from several sources, the lower rate of special levy which he pays shall be deemed to have been paid in respect of the agricultural property. For instance, if he has an income of £3,000, and £1,000 is in respect of agricultural property and £2,000 from investments, we would calculate the special levy on the first £1,000, as being in respect of the agricultural property. That amount would be paid into the suspense account and the rest into the general account. The taxpayer would be able at a later date to recover such sum as he had paid in respect of his agricultural property but only up to the value of improvements carried out on his property provided such works had been done with the consent and to the entire approval of the county agricultural executive committee.

In this Clause we have not put down any time limit, because in the present circumstances, when material and labour are scarce, it is not easy to say how long a period would be fair. At best, I would suggest three years, but surely it is very easy to include a provision in a later Finance Bill. There is nothing that can be complained of in this proposal, because where no improvements are carried out there will be no repayment. Repayment will only be made against certified improvements.

I do not think that the total sum involved is very large. I have asked the Chancellor on a previous occasion to suggest the sum that he expects to gain from his levy on Schedule A in respect of agricultural property, and he says that it is not easy to assess the figure I have done my best to assess it; I do not think it will be more than £2 million or £3 million, which is something like the Purchase Tax on one of the miscellaneous articles which he has found it quite easy to waive on second thoughts. I do not think it is a larger sum than that. Yet if I may borrow an expression from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, this levy assessed in the way proposed in the Bill will have a serious psychological effect.

It is not only the £2 million or £3 million which are going to be drawn from the industry which we have to consider; the discouraging effect will be much greater and much money which might be spent on improvement over the next few years will not be so spent. Therefore, I do sincerely hope that the Chancellor will adopt this plan. I am sure human nature being what it is, that it will be a great stimulus to new improvements. At the lowest, it will do simple justice to a valuable industry which has enough difficulty in front of it, and it is possible that this may be one of those rare instances where good may come out of evil.

Mr. Baldwin (Leominster)

I beg to second the Motion.

This proposed new Clause is the result of suggestions which were made in the Committee stage. During that stage a comment was made that the Minister of Agriculture was not present to take part in the Debate. I cannot help thinking that if the Minister were here today, instead of my having to second this Clause, the Minister would have done so. I am sure that the Minister realises the tremendous amount of harm which will be done by the Special Contribution to his endeavours to increase food production. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not already consulted with his colleague the Minister of Agriculture, I suggest that he should do so.

The Minister of Agriculture is out to increase the production of food, and he has introduced legislation; for instance, there are the Hill Farming and Agriculture Acts, both of which envisage a considerable expenditure on capital improvements. Where is the money to come from if the Chancellor takes away what may amount to some £2 million or £3 million which would have been available for this capital expenditure? Sooner or later this country must face the fact that increased production from our land is vital. In order to get that increased production of food it is essential that there should be a large expenditure of capital.

Those who have to do with agricultural estates know that position; and I may say I am not speaking from something I have got out of a book, for I am responsible for the management of something like eight to nine thousand acres consisting mainly of two of the old agricultural estates which have passed down from generation to generation and which have not been reinforced by a lot of industrial money, as some estates have been reinforced. The result is that these estates, because of the neglect which has been shown towards agriculture during the last 70 or 80 years, as a result of the industrial era, have been forced to allow their buildings, housing and drainage to fall into neglect. I think it would be fair to say that at least 50 per cent. of the buildings and houses on these estates want levelling to the ground and rebuilding economically.

The question is, where is the money to come from? It may be suggested that the estate owners could borrow money from the corporations which make money available, but many estates have already borrowed money under those corporations and they hesitate further to increase their annual charges. I am afraid, therefore, that unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepts our suggestion, and if he imposes this Special Contribution, the money will not be available and we shall have great difficulty as agents in getting our principals to spend the money on necessary improvements. I suggest to the Chancellor that if he wants to make sure that the money is spent in the right way he could do nothing better than to earmark it for the building of farm-workers' cottages. If £3 million were to be taken from the agricultural industry and yet paid back to the industry for the building of cottages, something like 2,000 farm-workers' houses could be built with the money which is otherwise to be taken away. Another point on which expenditure could be incurred is drainage, and here again this money would be extremely useful if spent on draining the land.

There is a precedent in the way in which the Excess Profits Tax is taken out of industry and is paid back to the extent of 20 per cent. when capital expenditure has been completed. I suggest to the Chancellor that he might well collect this money, pay it into a suspense account and repay it on approved schemes which would first have to be accepted by the county agricultural committees before any payment was made. I know the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done something in this Budget which helps landowners, and that is allowing the expenditure of 1947 on maintenance to be counted instead of using the five year average. That is extremely helpful, but it is not a concession only to agriculture for there are just the same allowances in industry and it is really nothing very much more than industry gets. I think the Chancellor could quite well agree to this new Clause and thereby do a tremendous amount of good to the agricultural industry.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall)

As I understand it, the proposal here is that when the Special Contribution is to be levied on a landowner owning agricultural land, the amount of the levy applicable to the agricultural land should be segregated and that it should then, when it is paid, be placed either notionally or actually through a special fund and earmarked for return to the land-owner in full, if later on he can get from the county agricultural executive committee a certificate to say that he had spent it on purposes which come within Section 33 of the Income Tax Act, 1945. That section relates to: Capital expenditure on the construction of farm houses, farm or forestry buildings, cottages, fences or other works. This would not be expenditure which could be included in a maintenance claim. Therefore, it would not be "improvements" in the ordinary sense of the term, but very largely a case of new buildings and capital expenditure.

The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) used the word "improvement," but it will be capital expenditure, not work in the sense of the ordinary maintenance and repairs claim. It will be definitely capital expenditure on buildings—probably the complete rebuilding of farms and things of that kind. This Clause means that the whole of such expenditure would be subsidised by the State, so far as the individual concerned qualified under this Clause. That being so, it is asking us to do more than we are able to do. Other industries could also make the same claim. I am not complaining—I admire the way in which certain hon. Members on every occasion press, and very properly press, the claims of agriculture. I am simply saying that, if we did this for agriculture, there would immediately be a demand for similar treatment from other industries, who think they are just as important. It would, indeed, be very difficult logically to refuse to grant such a claim.

It would make the incidence of this Contribution very unequal. I think hon. Members opposite will agree that it will be, on the whole, the larger landowners who will pay the Special Contribution. As a result of the new Clause, the levy would have to be segregated, so far as its incidence on the land was concerned. That being so, it would appear that only very large landowners would benefit if the Clause were accepted.

Mr. Vane

May I ask one question? The Financial Secretary has said that if this Clause were accepted other industries would press their claims for the same thing. I wonder if he could tell us one other single industry where the working capital is to be made the subject of this levy.

Captain Crookshank

Stumped.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

Not a bit. When we were discussing the incidence of this Special Contribution on the landowner who owns agricultural land, a deputation came to the Treasury to press those points in the Schedule A maintenance claims which in the past have been based on the five-year period up to the year on which the assessment is made. They put this point to us at the Treasury: during the war years it had been very difficult for expenditure of this kind to be made and, as a lot of money had been spent on rehabilitation and repair work in 1947, it would be fair to allow that year to be taken as the basis of a maintenance claim for the purposes of assessment to the Special Levy.

My right hon. and learned Friend considered the point, and agreed, but he saw at once that, if we gave it to the agricultural landowner, we should have to give it to the rest of industry. Those who read Clause 61 will see that, whilst we have made the concession very properly to the landowner, we have had to extend it to other industries. Therefore, it is true that, if we did this, and made a special concession, there would be others who derive their income from industry who think that they, too, should have their investment income from some particular industrial source segregated and classified in this way and put into a suspense fund and repaid to them. Therefore, I am sorry, but I must ask the House to reject this Clause.

Mr. Turton

I do not quite follow the logic of the Financial Secretary's reply. He tried to explain to my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) which other industries were treated in the same way as agriculture, and at the end of his speech, having looked at Clause 61, apparently found that no other industry is treated in the same way. Under the Income Tax Act, 1945—the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—any improvement by industry can be put into the suspense account, and industry gets relief on that suspense account in respect of repairs that have been deferred owing to the shortages in wartime. This new Clause is to put agriculture on exactly the same basis with those other industries It says that it is not getting the full benefit of the Act of 1945, and that, therefore, agriculture, when we have the capital levy, should have the benefit of a suspense account.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I would remind the hon. Gentleman that agriculture does get it. It gets a rebate of Income Tax at the rate of 10 per cent. for 10 years; that drawback does help when there are capital disbursements of this kind.

Mr. Turton

There is a rebate of a tenth of the amount of the improvements actually carried out, yet no rebate for improvements that have had to be deferred owing to shortages. Now we are asking that there should be the same relief in agriculture as there is to industry, the deferred rate for the purposes of this capital levy, not a tenth of the improvement, but the relief in respect of those improvements that cannot be carried out today through shortages.

I am alarmed at the idea that the Government seem to have that this would be subsidising agriculture to some extent. I thought that the object of this Government—as it is our object—was to produce more food. The only justification for this Clause—and it is a great justification—is that it would mean that more food would be produced for the people of this country. If land cannot be drained because the money for the drainage is going into the pocket of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the people of England will lose food. This new Clause is designed to secure that, although the money that ought to be going for the production of food shall go temporarily into the pocket of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the improvements have been effected, that money shall come out to enable food to be produced. I hope the Chancellor will reconsider the Clause.

Mr. Hollis

The case has been so cogently argued by my hon. Friends that I do not think I need to take the House through the whole argument again. However, we must ask the Financial Secretary to answer the question put to him. He has not yet answered it, and it is very unsatisfactory to have to end Debates without having answers to questions. The central fact he did not attempt to dispute is, that it is highly desirable and meritorious that agriculture should be supported. The whole question is whether agriculture would by this new Clause be unduly favoured or whether it would not. The basis of the Financial Secretary's case was that in this Clause agriculture would be—as he put it—subsidised by the State; that is to say, it would be put in a favourable position over against industry.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) asked the Financial Secretary to give an instance of another industry in which working capital has to pay this Special Contribution, the right hon. Gentleman got up and denied that he was stumped altogether and then went on to read the House a lecture on a quite different question, the question of maintenance, which has nothing whatever to do with this case. Therefore, I must beg the Financial Secretary or the Chancellor himself to give the House the answer to this question. I do not want to be offensive, but it is almost an insult to the House to be asked to give up the Clause until we are given a clear answer to the question my hon. Friend put.

Mr. Scott-Elliot (Accrington)

In the interests of agriculture generally and of hill farming, in particular, I do ask my right hon. Friend to have another look at this matter. I must say I am profoundly disappointed at the reply we had from the Financial Secretary, who seemed to me to confuse maintenance claims and improvements. I voted advisedly against a proposal that was put forward in Committee from the benches opposite to free landowners from the Special Contribution. I entirely disagreed with that, but I am inclined now to support this Clause. We must have more food in this country, and if we are to have more food we have to have a lot more capital expended.

I should like to dig a little more deeply into this, particularly from the point of view of hill farming. I am just back from a three weeks' tour of the Highlands of Scotland, and I have been looking into this question there. It is the owner-occupiers who are putting in big, valuable improvement schemes but they get out of this Special Contribution completely owing to the fact, as I understand the matter, that they are owner-occupiers. But the people who have not put in claims are those who are letting their farms. These people have probably less money and it is in their interests that this Clause is being moved. The Financial Secretary said, that it would be difficult to refuse the claims of other industries. When he was asked specifically by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) to name another industry, he did not answer. I challenge him to produce another industry in this case. There is no other industry. I agree with the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) that we simply cannot accept this reply, and unless some other and better answer can be given, I do feel that we ought to press this new Clause upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite

I hope the House will not be too vehement in its denunciation of the Financial Secretary, because I feel that he has been sent into battle at a rather difficult moment. I do not agree that he was stumped. I thought he hit his own wicket. The hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Scott-Elliot) in his courageous remarks—I hope they will not have any deleterious consequences for him—has underlined and emphasised the importance of this new Clause. I hope the House is not going to be very intolerant of the Financial Secretary because—and I say this in no offensive sense at all.— he is entirely the wrong Minister to have made that speech. If this proposal of the Government has any serious impact upon agriculture and food production, the Minister to come here to tell us so is the Minister of Agriculture who is conspicuously absent. He ought to have come to us, and explained that this new Clause, which seeks to deal entirely with a practical problem, was misconceived.

7.30 p.m.

Both the Minister of Agriculture and his Parliamentary Secretary are absent from this Debate. We can draw only one conclusion from that. They know perfectly well that the Special Contribution will have a harmful effect on agriculture and upon the production of food supplies at this time. The Minister of Agriculture knows that in his Act of last year certain assurances were given. Agriculture was to be stabilised. There were to be assured markets, stable prices, and all the rest of it. He knows perfectly well that this proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Finance Bill is the first damaging blow which has been struck at agriculture. He knows perfectly well that many of these landowners, as a result of this, will be unable to carry out proper repairs and maintenance, and, by being unable to do so, may be declared by officials to be inefficient, and dispossessed. This is a most important point and the Financial Secretary did not refer to that aspect of the matter. I am sure that the Minister of Agriculture, if he were here, would agree. The Financial Secretary said that this would only catch the large landowner. Is not that rather soap-box language on a serious matter of this kind? Does it really matter whether the landowner is large or small, if agricultural production is affected, which is what we on these benches believe will happen?

Surely, it is important for the Governrnent to have another look at this matter. If the Financial Secretary or the Chancellor will not listen to us, perhaps they will listen to the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Scott-Elliot) who made such an eloquent plea just now, and who certainly would be the last hon. Member to do so on any grounds of sympathy for the landowners, or anything of that sort. He said that there must be capital if agriculture is to be developed, and that this proposal was striking a blow at it. He has no sympathy for one class or another. He deals with this matter on practical lines, and so do we. We feel that a case has been made out for the re-examination of this problem in its amended form. On this new Clause we do not take up the same position as on the Committee stage. We have to shift our ground, as one often does in the House of Commons. Here is a modified proposal that certain works and repairs on farms shall be exempt from Special Contribution by certificates from the county agricultural executive committees—the very people who are trying to get more food production.

Sir S. Cripps

I think that the arguments on which hon. Members opposite have proceeded are on a false basis. There is no question of taxing the agricultural industry as an industry. That, as we all admit, is excluded [An HON. MEMBER: Is it?"] Agriculture as an industry is excluded from taxation under this Bill. The taxation which is being dealt with here is the taxation on the capital investment in land, which may be agricultural land in one case, urban land in another case, forest land in a third case, and so on—but it is land. The suggestion which is made is not that some tax should be removed from the agricultural industry, but that certain individuals who happen to have an income derived from land which is used for agriculture should themselves be relieved of the tax. There is no conceivable justification for that as between different individuals.

Even if one were contemplating such a thing, this would be a very unfortunate way of doing it. A person getting £250 a year out of rents would get nothing; a person whose income was £500 a year out of rents, would get £25 put in a reserve account, which seems hardly worth while; the person getting £1,000 a year out of rents would get £125 a year put in a reserve account. Only the people getting very large sums indeed from rents—and there are very few cases in this country—would in fact get any benefit at all from that income. No one could face up to such proposition, however desirable it may be thought to be in the case of these large landowners—and no one is blaming them for being large, because it is a question of how their money is invested—because clearly such a provision would deprive the small person who is, perhaps, even harder up, of the same sort of advantage.

Mr. Baldwin

Can the right hon. Gentleman say, if these sums are so individual or small, what the total amount is that he is taking out of the industry?

Sir S. Cripps

I cannot. It is quite impossible because it is not isolated from other investments. All investments are taken together, and, therefore, we cannot say under the suggestion made here that it is isolated and given a certain tax value. If it is mixed up with other investments, it is quite impossible to say what the taxation which would fall to this would be. Hon. Members have asked whether there are any other industries that bear a similar tax. The answer is that this tax is not on industry in any way. It is not on industry in the case of agriculture. It is on investment. Every business carries some tax on the investment in the business. If the argument is that this deprives agriculture of the opportunity of investing fresh moneys by virtue of savings in investment in land, that is exactly the same as regards the shareholders of any other business in the country. There is absolutely no distinction whatever so far as that is concerned.

Mr. Vane

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what other industry there is where what he calls investment, is subject to a Minister giving directions that certain additional money can be spent on certain works, similar to the powers which the Minister of Agriculture has taken under the recent Act?

Sir S. Cripps

The Fishery Board is a case, obviously. The Cotton Board, the steel industry, and a number of them are subject to controls and directions where all sorts of provisions can be made as regards prices. Price, after all, is a very important form of control, and the prices of a great many articles in this country today can be regulated and are, in fact, being regulated. That is a very important factor in control and an important factor in agricultural control as well. Therefore, there is no possible difference between this and other industries, and it would be quite inequitable to pick out this particular form of investment and give it preference, especially if we are picking out substantially those people who have very large investments in that form of property and not many other people who have smaller investments in that form of property. For those reasons, I find it quite impossible to accept the proposed new Clause.

Captain Crookshank

I do not know what hon. Members will think of the rather plausible argument which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has put up in the absence of his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, but it seems to me, and I think we all agree, that the tax as devised is not a tax on industry. We all recognise that. It is a tax on investment, but we are talking about agricultural land and investment in agricultural land, and, in spite of the final remark of the right hon. Gentleman there are liens that exist through legislation upon the use of the income for developing agricultural land: we are talking about something rather different from the case of other industries and other forms of investment.

As my hon. Friends have pointed out, and as the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Scott-Elliot) has pointed out, if we take the story right through as we have seen it in this Parliament, we have had the need for more food and the Minister bringing in the Agriculture Act in order to ensure the production of more food. Under that Act good husbandry and good estate management come under controls which they have never had before, with the consequent necessity for those who have investments in land to use as much money as they can for developing their properties. Then this Special Contribution comes along and it must retard that process. It is there, really, that my hon. Friends and I join issue with the Minister of Agriculture, but he is not here to speak for himself. I am sure that he is on our side and that the Secretary of State for Scotland is on our side, but they are not here. I cannot put words into their mouths, but I am sure they would agree with my hon. Friend that this is a bad proposal. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks it too, because the arguments which he has put forward, which were anticipated by his right hon. Friend, never really said that this proposal was in itself inherently bad.

The Chancellor and the Financial Secretary rode off on three separate propositions. The first argument, of course, was the old one of giving a dog a bad name; calling it a preferential subsidy for agriculture which no one else would get; saying that if something of this kind were conceded in the case of agricultural invest- ment income it would be very unfair as between agriculture and other industries and as between one kind of owner of agricultural land and another; that the incidence would be unequal. I am afraid that is a criticism which can be made about the whole of this proposal; it is extremely unequal, and in many cases, as it will be worked out, will be found to be extremely unfair as between one individual and another, as between one beneficiary under a trust and another, and so on. I do not intend to re-open the whole thing; but anyone who has any hopes that it will be equal all round will have those hopes very much falsified.

There was the first argument, that it was a subsidy; a nasty, horrid thing. The second argument was that it would accentuate the inequality of incidence. Well, I do not think that it can be accentuated, because it already exists. The third argument was that if this were done for agriculture, other industries would at once put in a claim. The fact of the matter is, they have not; there is no other proposed new Clause dealing with any other industry; no other industry has suggested it would be damnified in the same way as the agricultural industry has suggested it will be damnified by this proposal.

I take it that, now that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has spoken, under our procedure on the Report stage of this Bill, there is no other occasion upon which this can be discussed. It certainly cannot be introduced in another place. This is the last opportunity that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has of doing what we consider the right thing, of helping and not retarding—and this is so important—the improvements which are required today on many agricultural estates, and which the Agriculture Act itself was designed to bring about. The Financial Secretary gave a list of some things. I think the reason he produced that list was to try to make out that this would allow not every kind of capital development to be approved by the agricultural executive committees, which is the proposal in this new Clause, but only certain things—farmhouses, and this, that and the other.

Well, if it is not the whole field which can be approved because of the reference to Section 33 of the Income Tax Act, 1945, it is certainly a sufficiently important field; and for the Chancellor to say that if our new Clause were accepted some people, only a few people, would get a large benefit, but in the majority of cases it would be only small sums which would be put into the suspense account for this purpose—£25, £50, £100, £150, and so on—all I can say is that in these days every little helps. When one remembers the terrible exactions which the Chancellor will raise in the Finance Bill as a whole, any small assistance—and he admits there would be a lot of small assistance, even if there were some large assistance also under this new Clause—would certainly be welcomed.

It seems to me that the Chancellor has hardened his heart and is not going to help any way in this matter. I am surprised that he has not listened to the very cogent arguments which my hon. Friends and his hon. Friend the Member for Accrington put in support of this Clause. Of course, the drafting may not be absolutely correct; but the Chancellor did not take that point; he realised what we were trying to get at, and he said that what we were trying to get at was a bad thing. Well, we think his decision is a bad thing for the agricultural industry. I see that the Home Secretary has just arrived; an agricultural Minister has turned up at last, for he sometimes talks for agriculture—in Northern Ireland, at least. I do not know whether he endorses my views or not; I suspect he knows nothing about it.

We obviously have no chance of taking the matter further; but this is one very big argument which we shall constantly employ: however much the Minister of Agriculture and the Government go round telling the agricultural world that they have been its saviours, here is one occasion on which the Chancellor could have done a great deal to remove from the agricultural industry the disadvantages which will come from this year's Finance Bill, but he has refused to take the opportunity.

7.45 p.m.

Major Legge-Bourke

I had not intended intervening in this Debate, but I must say a few words on what the Chancellor said regarding the effect that this levy would have on investment and not on industry. He said it would affect all industries equally because it was a levy on investment. I would point out that there is a great difference between agricultural investment and investment in land concerning other industries. I am really amazed that the Chancellor should have adduced the arguments he did adduce, because I know that occasionally he visits rural areas. I should have thought he realised that there is, or should be, a partnership between the landowner and the tenant where agriculture is concerned, and that there is no industry in greater need of capital re-equipment than the agricultural industry.

If, as the Financial Secretary said, the really large landowners will be most affected, it is equally true to say that there are no estates which require capital re-equipment more than the big estates, for

the simple reason that those estates suffered from Death Duties to a far greater extent than every other type of estate. I should have thought that if the Chancellor were really at one with the Minister of Agriculture when the Agriculture Act was passed he should be prepared to accept this new Clause. I can only suppose that it is all part of what I suspected this levy was orginally—a political plan—in other words, that the Chancellor is being led by the nose by the Minister of Health and is determined, that at no price shall houses be built in rural areas by private enterprise.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 86; Noes, 234.

Division No. 232.] AYES. [7.49 p.m.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C. Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Baldwin, A. E. Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Bennett, Sir P. Hollis, M. C. Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich) Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Bowen, R. Howard, Hon. A. Rayner, Brig. R.
Bower, N. Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J. Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Jeffreys, General Sir G. Robinson, Roland
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. Kendall, W. D. Ropner, Col. L.
Byers, Frank Lambert, Hon. G. Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Challen, C. Langford-Holt, J. Savory, Prof. D. L.
Clarke, Col. R. S. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H. Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral) Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon H. F. C. Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Spearman, A. C. M.
Darling, Sir W. Y. McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S. Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
De la Bère, R. Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight) Sutcliffe, H.
Digby, S. W. Mackeson, Brig. H. R. Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Dodds-Parker, A. D. McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Drayson, G. B. Maclay, Hon. J. S. Turton, R. H.
Drewe, C. Macpherson, N. (Dumfries) Vane, W. M. F.
Duncan, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (City of Lond) Maitland, Comdr. J. W. Walker-Smith, D.
Duthie, W. S. Marshall, D. (Bodmin) Ward, Hon. G. R.
Eccles, D. M. Medlicott, Brigadier F. Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie
Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Walter Mellor, Sir J. Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)
Foster, J. G. (Northwich) Matson, A. H. E. Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)
Fraser H. C. P. (Stone) Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen) White, J. B. (Canterbury)
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale) Noble, Comdr. A. H. P. Williams, C. (Torquay)
Gammans, L. D. O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Glyn, Sir R. Orr-Ewing, I. L. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Grimston, R. V. Peto, Brig C. H. M. Mr. Studholme and
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley) Pitman, I. J. Major Ramsay
NOES.
Adams, Richard (Balham) Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Colman, Miss G. M.
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith South) Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl Exch'ge) Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. Bramall, E. A. Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Cove, W. G.
Alpass, J. H. Brown, George (Belper) Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Attewell, H. C. Brown, T. J. (Ince) Daggar, G.
Austin, H. Lewis Bruce, Maj. D. W. T. Daines, P.
Arles, W. H. Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G. Davies, Harold (Leek)
Ayrton Gould, Mrs B. Burden, T. W. Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Balfour, A. Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) Deer, G.
Barstow, P. G. Callaghan, James de Freitas Geoffrey
Barton, C. Castle, Mrs. B. A. Delargy, H. J.
Battley, J. R. Champion, A. J. Diamond, J.
Bechervaise, A. E. Chater, D. Dobbie, W.
Benson, G. Chetwynd, G. R. Dodds, N. N.
Berry, H. Cluse, W. S. Donovan, T.
Berwick, F. Cobb, F. A. Driberg, T. E. N.
Blackburn, A. R. Cocks, F. S. Dumpleton, C. W.
Blenkinsop, A. Coldrick, W. Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Blyton, W. R. Collins, V. J. Edelman, M.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) Longden, F. Shawcross, Rt. Fin Sir H. (St Helens)
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) Lyme, A. W. Shurmer, P.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.) McEntee, V. La T. Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Evans, E. (Lowestoft) McGhee, H. G. Simmons, C. J.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) McGovern, J. Skeffington, A. M.
Ewart, R. Mack, J. D. Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Fairhurst, F. McKay, J. (Wallsend) Skinnard, F. W.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) McLeavy, F. Smith, C. (Colchester)
Follick, M. Macpherson, T. (Romford) Snow, J. W.
Foot, M. M. Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Sorensen, R. W.
Fuser, T. (Hamilton) Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield) Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Mann, Mrs. J. Sparks, J. A.
Gibbing, J. Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Steele, T.
Gibson, C. W. Marquand, H. A. Stross, Dr. B.
Glanville, J. E. (Consent) Mathers, Rt. Hon. George Stubbs, A. E.
Grenfell, D. R. Mellish, R. J. Sylvester, G. O.
Grey, C. F. Messer, F. Symonds, A. L.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side) Middleton, Mrs. L. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Guest, Dr, L. Haden Mikardo, Ian Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Gunter, R. J. Mitchison, G. R. Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Guy, W. H. Monslow, W. Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Hale, Leslie Moody, A. S. Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil Morgan, Dr. H. B. Thurtle, Ernest
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. Morley, R. Tolley, L.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill) Moyle, A. Turner-Samuels, M.
Hardy, E. A. Murray, J. D. Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Harrison, J. Neal, H. (Clay Cross) Viant, S. P.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.) Walkden, E.
Herbison, Miss M. Noel-Buxton, Lady Walker, G. H.
Hicks, G. O'Brien, T. Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Holman, P. Oldfield, W. H. Warbey, W. N.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) Palmer, A. M. F. Watkins, T. E.
Horabin, T. L. Pargiter, G. A. Weitzman, D.
House, G. Parkin, B. T. Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Hoy, J. Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe) Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr) Pearson, A. West, D. G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Peart, T. F. Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.) Platts-Mills, J. F. F. White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Porter, E. (Warrington) Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Porter, G. (Leeds) Wilkins, W. A.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool) Pries, M. Philips Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Jay, D. P. T. Proctor, W. T. Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Jeger, C. (Winchester) Pursey, Comdr. H. Williams, R. W. (Wigan)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool) Randall, H. E. Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow) Ranger, J. Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Jones, J. H. (Bolton) Rees-Williams, D. R. Willis, E.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Reeves, J. Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.
Keenan, W. Reid, T. (Swindon) Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Rhodes, H. Woods, G. S.
Kinley, J. Ridealgh, Mrs. M. Wyatt, W.
Kirby, B. V. Robens, A. Yates, V. F.
Lang, G. Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth) Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Lee, F. (Hulme) Rogers, G. H. R. Zilliacus, K.
Leslie, J. R. Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Lewis, J. (Bolton) Royle, C. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Lindgren, G. S. Segal, Dr. S. Mr. Collindridge and
Lipson, D. L. Shackleton, E. A. A. Mr. Popplewell.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Sharp, Granville
Mr. E. P. Smith

On a point of Order. When Mr. Speaker put the Question, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) shouted "Aye" in an unmistakable voice, which was also heard by by hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling), but in spite of that protest he wandered into the Lobby against the Clause. May I ask, therefore, that his Vote be not recorded?

Sir William Darling (Edinburgh, South)

I confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. E. P. Smith) has said. I was astonished, because I know that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire is not usually a "yesman," not to hear him say "No."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont)

That is not a point of Order. It would be a point of Order had the hon. Member for Ashford raised it before the Vote was recorded, but the Vote having been recorded, nothing can be done.

Mr. E. P. Smith

Is it your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the moment a figure is seen disappearing into the opposite Lobby the point of Order should be raised?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

There is an opportunity before the Vote is declared for the protest to be made. That opportunity was not seized, and therefore whatever the hon. Member did cannot now be rectified.