Lords Sitting of 1 June 1932

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
COMMERCIAL GAS BILL.
  SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

HARTINGTON UPPER QUARTER AND KING STERNDALE ELEC- TRICITY ORDER, 1932.
Special Order in respect of the parishes of Hartington Upper Quarter and King Sterndale, in the rural district of Chapelen-le-Frith, in the County of Derby:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

CARRIAGE BY AIR BILL. [H.L.]
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to give effect to a Convention for the unification of certain rules relating to international carriage by air, to make provision for applying the rules contained in the said Convention, subject to exceptions, adaptations and modifications, to carriage by air which is not international carriage within the meaning of the Convention, and for purposes connected with the purposes aforesaid; and to move that it be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDERS (LINDSEY AND LINCOLN JOINT SMALLPOX HOS- PITAL DISTRICT AND WANDLE VALLEY JOINT SEWERAGE DISTRICT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER (NORTHAMPTON) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDERS (DERBY AND STALYBRIDGE, HYDE, MOSSLEY AND DUKINFIELD TRAMWAYS AND ELECTRICITY BOARD) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

GOLDSMITHS' CONSOLIDATED CHA- RITIES SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, this Bill as well as the three other Charity Bills which are down on the Paper is a Bill to give validity to a scheme altering the internal affairs of a charity. It has been before the Examiners and I understand there is no objection. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FORD STREET CHARITY SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
MAIDSTONE BREAD CHARITIES SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
EPSOM COLLEGE SCHEME CON- FIRMATION BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
AGRICULTURAL CREDITS (MORTGAGES) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

PROPOSED EXTENSION OF CATERHAM.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD had the following Notice on the Paper—To ask His Majesty's Government whether the Minister of Health is contemplating the making of an order under Section 46 of the Local Government Act, 1929, for including within the urban district of Caterham (Surrey) two undeveloped ridges of hill and two valleys in the parishes of Tandridge and Godstone and also the whole of the parish of Woldingham, all in the Godstone rural district; whether the inhabitants of Woldingham (which is separated from Caterham by the two other parishes above mentioned) have shown their strong hostility to the proposal by a unanimous vote at a public meeting and by means of a poll of the electors of the parish; whether there is, or has in the past been, any complaint as to the local government of any of these parishes; and whether having regard to recent decisions of Parliament he will be prepared to consider any proposals which may be submitted to him under subsection (5) of the said Section 46; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, you may wonder why I am interested in this particular matter, which stands in my name as a Question on the Notice Paper. The only association which I have with this district is that I happen to be a director of an electric supply company, and facts have been brought to my attention which, I think, do justify a Question of this kind being asked in your Lordships' House, in order that a matter of a momentous character connected with principle should be exposed. Since I placed this Question on the Notice Paper I have received many communications from people in Surrey who are going to
524
be affected by a decision of the Ministry of Health against the wishes of the inhabitants of small rural areas. I have received a complaint from Sir Jeremiah Colman, a large landowner in Surrey, in which he sends me a resolution which was passed at the end of last week, as a result of a communication received in connection with the decision of the Ministry of Health in regard to county boundaries, which appear to be altered under a decision of the Ministry of Health at the instance of the county council.
This resolution of a parish reads as follows:
"Resolved, that this meeting has received with dismay and profound sorrow the communication of the Minister of Health of May 6th, conveying his decision to confirm the county council's proposal to surrender the rural parish of Gatton in its entirety to the Borough of Reigate, leaving it no independent civil rights. This meeting deplores the announcement that the Minister, notwithstanding the unanimous wishes of the parochial electors, duly recorded, and what is believed to be the emphatic wish of every inhabitant.…"
and so on. That is only one instance to illustrate the case to which I am going to call the attention of your Lordships, in connection with the Questions which I have put down on the Paper.
I think the Questions are quite clear in themselves, but they really require a little elucidation. From the information which I have received the county council, at the instance of one or two persons only, and possibly of one or two officials, are trying to ride rough-shod over the wishes of small rural areas in Surrey. The case of Woldingham seems to me to be a case which does require special consideration by the Ministry of Health, as the circumstances do not justify the inclusion of a rural area of that kind in the area of an urban council such as Caterham, which is about four miles off. I hope that the noble Lord who is going to reply to my Questions will not give me the ordinary stereotyped reply that this matter has been fully considered by the Ministry, and that after all the representations which have been received the matter cannot be further considered. I know well enough how busy a Minister is, and how often he has to be influenced by his officials, and has to accept answers which are prepared by his staff. He gives them in good faith, but we all know that the Ministry of Health has been very busy,

525
and all I am asking, to-day, really is that the Minister should be prepared to reconsider one or two facts in connection with the decision which he is about to take, or which he has informed the county council that he is about to take before he actually makes the order.
On Wednesday last, in another place, in reply to a member, a reply was given rather of what I call a stereotyped character. It was one of those Questions which have only received a Written Answer in connection with this very same matter. The Ministry of Health is reported in the House of Commons OFFICIAL REPORT to have said:
"The provisions of the subsection referred to are not applicable in the circumstances of this case, and I could not consider any representation under it."
That attitude rather surprises me, and I do not quite understand it, because when the Minister of Health on May 6 wrote to the county council, he used these words:
"In all cases where the Minister has proposed modifications to the county council's proposals he will be prepared to consider any observations which the county council and any local authority affected, including parish councils and parish meetings, may wish to submit to him within three weeks of the date of this letter."
An application has been sent within three weeks of the date of that letter, and I think the Minister is in honour bound to reconsider the application under the terms of that letter. But apart from that, before the order is made I believe that technically he can consider the whole of the facts connected with this case.
What I wanted to draw your Lordships' attention to is that this is a compulsory absorption of a comparatively small and harmless rural area four miles from Caterham in which there are, between Caterham and Woldingham, two other parishes which possibly may be absorbed with advantage to Caterham. But the parish of Woldingham has 960 electors and all of those 960, except twenty-six, are opposed to this absorption. Therefore you have an overwhelming majority of a community who have no identity of interest with Caterham opposed to this absorption. They object to many of the urban services being forced upon them. They do not want them, they are not required, and in addition to that there is, as I understand, a very large debt owed by Caterham, and they are pro-
526
posing to spend very large sums of money. In any case what appears to be inevitable for the comparatively poor people in the Woldingham rural parish is that they will be called upon to contribute in increased rates and increased expenses for an urban population which is four miles away, and which is hardly accessible to them owing to there being three ridges of hills and three valleys between them and the urban district of Caterham. In addition, we all know that the larger the area the more likely it is to be extravagant. It means also that officials would have to be compensated in the districts not retained and in the rural district, and it would also probably mean the creation of more officials in the case of the urban district which obtains a larger administrative area. The increase of rating is, of course, objected to by a rural population.
Having served on municipalities and for many years on county councils I recognise that there are cases in which these boundaries have to be extended where districts become more or less urban in character, but this is not a case in point. No new road has been made within the last eleven years in this rural district of Woldingham, and there is no prospect, I am told, of its becoming a big residential district, like some of the districts round about. The population very much resent this autocratic attitude of Caterham in forcing them into that urban district. The only identity of interest between this area and Caterham is that an arrangement was made some time ago that, in the event of a fire occurring in the rural area, they might have the assistance of the fire brigade of the Caterham authorities. The people in the district naturally take a keen interest in their own affairs, and the conditions in the rural area, I am told, are not likely to change. The expenditure on large sewage works contemplated by Caterham is not a matter in which they really are interested, and they can deal with their own sewage in their own way.
But it is the principle which I am fighting for to-day, the principle of the people of a district being consulted in regard to matters which really affect them personally. Your Lordships have on various occasions asserted the principle that the interests of the people of the district have to be taken into con-

527
sideration. When there was a Liverpool and Bootle amalgamation it was laid down as a principle by the Committee that it should only be effected by mutual consent. When there was recently a Birkenhead extension before your Lordships' House, the late noble Earl, Lord Kintore, stated quite clearly in this House that no Provisional Order for borough extension should be brought before Parliament for confirmation which had not previously received the substantial support of the areas proposed to be incorporated. Then a statement was made before the Royal Commission by Sir Edward Holland on behalf of the County Councils' Association that
"Objection to absorption, if entertained by the majority of the inhabitants of the area proposed to be added is, subject to an overwhelming case of public interest as defined in paragraph 15 above, a conclusive ground for refusal of the extension."
In 1931 your Lordships will remember that we debated a measure promoted by Stoke with a view of absorbing Newcastle-under-Lyme. Your Lordships threw that out because the people were not prepared to be absorbed in the larger area. And that principle obtains generally.
May I refer to the letter of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, to The Times, in which he lays down the principle very clearly? He said:
"Cases of this kind, it would seem, should be governed as far as possible by the principles laid down by the Royal Commission on Local Government regarding county borough extensions. Here the wishes of the inhabitants were prescribed as being of such importance that the weight to be attached to them should be so great as not to be over-ruled unless it could be shown that there were considerations of public importance more weighty than the decisive wishes of the inhabitants."
He goes on to say in a later paragraph:
"It seems, therefore, that parishes which are dissatisfied with the proposals of county councils should consult together and put forward alternative suggestions."
That is exactly what has been done in the present case.
On May 6 the decision of the Minister of Health was intimated to the county council, and the areas have considered the matter de novo. They have practically fresh proposals to make of an alternative character to those which have already been submitted, and they maintain that under subsection (5) of Sec-
528
tion 46 of the Local Government Act, 1929, they have an absolute right to make representations to the Minister in regard to a modification of his proposals. I am not an unreasonable man, I believe, and I hope, in the answer which His Majesty's Government may make to the Question in this House, that at any rate I may be assured that these facts will be fairly considered by the Minister before the order is made, and that he will receive further representations of a character which will be new and which are really not directly in conflict with the decision of a general character which he has already made. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, this is a question arising out of a county redistribution scheme which it is the duty of the Minister to consider together with any objections to it that may be put forward. I think it is by no means an uncommon experience, in the course of these very extensive reviews over the whole of England, to find that certain parishes, and even larger units, take the very strongest objection to the proposals of the county councils. According to the procedure followed in the Ministry of Health, if the Minister's decision in regard to any particular part of a scheme confirms the view of the county council that decision is final. If the Minister modifies the county council scheme, there is then a further opportunity for objections to be made, but only to that particular modification. I think it is fairly natural that you should insist on some procedure of that sort, otherwise there would be no finality in the making of an order.
As regards the particular area to which the noble Lord refers, the Minister's decision has been given, and it confirms the view of the county council. No order has yet been made, but there appears to be little chance that under this Act the decision can be changed. The noble Lord has criticised the decision that the Minister has made. I do submit, with all deference to the noble Lord, that there are certain difficulties in adequately defending the Minister's decision and in answering the points made by the noble Lord. I have no desire to be evasive in this matter, but let us consider the facts. The Surrey scheme, as everyone knows, is a very complicated one. It has taken

529
several years to prepare, and it has been followed by a local inquiry which lasted the abnormally long time of seventeen days, and in the course of that local inquiry the views of Woldingham received, so I am informed, the most careful consideration.
In the summary from which the noble Lord quoted, the Minister, in announcing his decision in relation to Caterham, says:
"The Minister has fully considered the representations put forward on behalf of objectors, and appreciates their point of view, but he has arrived at the conclusion that the county council's proposal is in the best interests of local government of the area, and should be confirmed."
To give a proper explanation of this decision it would obviously be necessary to go in some detail into such questions as the future requirements of Caterham and also of Godstone in regard to water supplies, sewerage, roads, and so forth, and future developments of various sorts that will probably take place there within the period before the next review. I desire to give every possible information to the noble Lord, but I do feel he will agree that it is an almost impossible task to perform adequately, and one can only do it in the most superficial and incomplete way. I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied with a stereotyped reply with a certain addendum made to the actual summary of the reply.
I am authorised to say that the issue of such an order is contemplated, that the Minister is well aware of the attitude of the inhabitants, but that he has not received complaints regarding local government except one some years ago of the alleged contamination of a well. There is, however, a case for consideration as to whether some further services should not be provided when the time is opportune. I may add that this is not a case to which Section 46, subsection (5) applies. That subsection gives the Minister power to make a change where a county council has failed to do so. In this case the complaint is that the county council have been too active. It is quite true that this is a stereotyped reply, but it is impossible to make a full and complete answer to the noble Lord without going into very great detail, which is really a difficult matter to do upon the floor of
530
the House. I will, however, assure him that any new facts which are brought forward will be carefully considered by my right hon. friend. I cannot possibly give any assurance as to what action my right hon. friend will take on that matter, but if any new facts are brought forward my right hon. friend will consider them with a view to any subsequent action that he may take.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, the reply of the noble Viscount is very much the kind of one I anticipated. The point I put has not, I am afraid, been made quite clear—namely, that this is a new application made to the Minister in connection with another alteration of the boundaries, which will be a modification and not a direct contradiction of the decision at which the Minister has arrived and on which he will make an order. It is, as I understand, open to the Minister of Health to reconsider his decision in the light of a new application from a different local authority under subsection (5) of Section 46, to which I have referred, because it is a fresh and alternative application. What I think I can ask the noble Viscount is that he will bring that point clearly before the Minister in order that the Minister may see whether he cannot do justice to the alternative proposal, so that the community shall not suffer in the way it is anticipated it will suffer. The House will realise that to force small rural districts into urban districts against their will does not promote good government, but raises a lot of hostile feeling; and it is most undesirable. Therefore the interests of these small communities should be fairly and fully considered under all the powers which the Minister possesses.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I will certainly put that before my right hon. friend.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

INCIDENCE OF TAXATION.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the practice of claiming Income Tax from persons holding military or civilian Government appointments in India and the Colonies who reside for more than six months in this country when on leave; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am

531
going to ask His Majesty's Government to consider extending the period of exemption from Income Tax from six months to one year in the case of Government servants in India and in the Colonies when home on leave. I am very well aware that any person who suggests even the smallest alleviation of the yoke of taxation which we have to bear in the present emergency must adopt a defensive and even an apologetic attitude.
My motive in raising the matter at the present time is twofold. In the first place, it was raised last year by my noble friend Viscount Elibank, and I am most anxious that it should not be forgotten, but that it should receive the most careful consideration of every Government. In the second place I hope to show that the direct loss to the Exchequer may very well be smaller than appears at first sight and that the gain to British trade may be well worth considering. This is not perhaps the most suitable opportunity to pay a tribute to those very gallant gentlemen the members of the Indian Civil Service and the officers of the Indian Army and of the British Army in India. Suffice it to say that any concession which might be made on their behalf at the present juncture would be peculiarly appropriate. The civil servants are bearing an immense burden of responsibility. They are carrying out their duties at the risk of their lives. The officers of the British Army in India and the Indian Army have to be prepared at any moment for the most distasteful duty, I suppose, that lies within a soldier's part—the duty of leading out their troops in aid of the civil power to suppress rioting and commotion. Recent events in Bombay, when the troops and the civil servants alike behaved with such consummate coolness and gallantry, will be fresh in the memory of noble Lords.
For reasons of health, officers stationed in the tropics are necessarily granted fairly lengthy periods of leave. It is no uncommon thing for an officer to receive nine months or even a year's leave, to be spent at home. They naturally desire to spend that period in the home country to see their relatives and friends and to renew acquaintance with the normal pleasures of English life. But if they remain for so long a period as six months in this country—six months in any one financial year—they are compelled to pay Income Tax on all the
532
money which they receive while in this country and on any money which may be remitted to them in this country during that financial year. That is the position in the case of those who have no domicile here. If they have a residence in this country they would be compelled to pay Income Tax to the full amount during the financial year if they visited the country even for a day. It is particularly hard in the case of those officers who have children being educated in England, for if they spend more than six months here they are taxed on any sums which they may remit to England for the children's education.
In those circumstances it is no wonder that a certain number of officers spend a portion of their leave on the Continent. A man with nine months leave will spend several months abroad and will take care to be in this country for less than six months. I have no idea of the number of officers who take this course, but I have heard of a number of instances recently and I think it may be supposed that the proportion of officers taking this course will increase while the burden of Income Tax is so very heavy. They are not wealthy men. Their salaries are by no means on a too generous scale and their expenses while on leave are very considerable and unusual. The position is an extremely unfortunate one. It involves British internal trade in a considerable loss. A man on leave is generally a good spender, and it is, from the most severe economic point of view, a thousand pities that he should spend his money out of the country.
The remedy is comparatively simple. It is to increase the period of exemption from Income Tax to one year. How much would this cost? We cannot answer that question until the Government has made some investigation into the number of officers who do in fact pay tax while on leave. I suggest that this examination should be made with as much care as possible. Two noble Lords far more eloquent than myself have pleaded this cause. I have already referred to the Motion of the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, last year. May I be allowed to quote from the reply given to him by the noble Lord, Lord Passfield? Speaking of the case of officers on leave, he said:
"That, I think, is a somewhat hard case. I am not Chancellor of the Exchequer, but

533
I shall certainly take an opportunity of representing that case to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because I have been brought into contact with it in the Colonial Office, and I think it is a little hard on the British official who has gone out to the tropics and comes home that he should be charged in that way."
In response to a, question addressed to the noble Lord, Lord Passfield, later in the year, my noble friend Viscount Elibank was informed that those representations had failed.
I am certain, however, that they ought to be renewed from time to time. I trust that the present Secretary of State for the Colonies will not be backward in making them. I am sure that he will be joined by the Secretary of State for India and perhaps by the noble and learned Viscount the Secretary of State for War. I very much hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, will give, if not an affirmative, at least a sympathetic answer to the considerations I have put forward, which very vitally affect a class of men to whom we owe a particular debt of gratitude. I beg to move.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT SNOWDEN): My Lords, the question which has been raised by the noble Earl is one which, as he himself said, has often engaged the attention of Parliament. It was under the consideration of your Lordships about twelve months ago. It has become something of a hardy annual. There is, I know, a great deal of interest in this question arising out of the feeling of grievance at the taxation to which the Motion calls attention. The noble Earl has confined his request to one for consideration of an extension of the period of residence in this country which would render a visitor liable to taxation. Perhaps before I give a reply to that direct question I may deal briefly with the law as it stands at present in regard to the taxation of visitors to this country. The liability to British Income Tax in respect of income derived from sources outside the United Kingdom is determined by residence, and the first thing is to see in what circumstances visitors to this country become resident within the terms of Income Tax law. Lord Passfield, I believe, in the debate to which the noble Earl has referred, gave an interpretation of the law in this respect and therefore I will just state it very briefly in one or two sentences. A visitor is charge-
534
able as a resident for an isolated year in which he is here for six months or upwards; or for any year in which, a place of abode available for his use being maintained here, he visits the United Kingdom; or if as part of his habit of life he is regularly here for substantial periods. "Substantial period" in practice is interpreted as being three months.
I may point out that the particular classes to which the noble Earl calls attention—persons, that is, holding military or civilian appointments in India or the Colonies—are in no different circumstances from other visitors in this country, and one of the difficulties in the way of making a special exemption in favour of these particular classes would be that we most certainly could not confine it to these people alone. If the principle were once surrendered, I think it would be impossible to prevent the extension of it to other visitors. By becoming a resident in this sense in the United Kingdom a visitor does not extend his taxation liability in respect of income derived from United Kingdom sources; he is chargeable on such income whether he is resident in the United Kingdom or not, with one or two exceptions. There are certain war loans in respect of which the tax is not ordinarily charged.
As regards income from sources outside the United Kingdom, Indian and Colonial officials of the class to whom the Motion refers incur in a year in which they are resident here liability in respect of remittances out of pay received abroad and in respect of any leave pay issued in this country. As I said, these particular classes are exactly in the same position as all other visitors to this country, but I would like to point out, although I have no doubt the noble Earl is familiar with the fact, that six months does not always mean six months —if I may put it like that. It is six months within an Income-Tax year and, therefore, if a visitor to this country were to select a particular period of the year for commencing his holiday in this country he might live here for nearly ten months without rendering himself liable to Income Tax. If he came, say, in December, he would have four months of one Income-Tax year and then he could reside here for more than five months after the end of the following March.

535
As to an extension to twelve months this was a matter considered by the Royal Commission on the Income Tax and that Commission, after exhaustively examining the whole problem, came to the conclusion not to recommend that there should be an extension of the period of non-liability, but that it ought to be restricted in the sense that six months residence in this country, whether it overlapped into a second Income-Tax year or not, should make the visitor liable to the Tax. The Royal Commission said that
"any person who continuously resides for six months within the United Kingdom where that six months residence falls within one or two Income-Tax years should be liable to be assessed as a British resident for a complete year—apportioned if necessary between two years of assessment."
This Royal Commission, therefore, which had all the facts before them, not only refrained from making any recommendation of a relaxation of the rule, but recommended that it should be strengthened.
The noble Earl said that he was of opinion that if the relaxation for which he asks were conceded there probably would be very little loss of revenue and the trade of the country would be stimulated by the spending power of the visitors concerned. In regard to the amount of revenue involved, may I say that this is by no means the determining factor in the Government's hesitation to make any relaxation of this rule? I am not in a position to give your Lordships even an estimate of the amount of revenue which would be lost by extending the period from six to twelve months. It might not be very large, but it would be extremely difficult and very expensive to get at the actual cost because the assessments are spread over innumerable tax districts. The collection of the information would not only be very prolonged; it would involve a great amount of labour and very considerable expense. But as I said, that is not the chief reason. The main reason is that it would be impossible to discriminate between the classes to which the Motion refers and all other visitors to this country, and the Indian and Colonial officials are, I should think, but a very small percentage of the number of people who come to reside temporarily in the United Kingdom and therefore render themselves liable to Income Tax. Having once made the concession in the case of a small class, and it being im-
536
possible to prevent an extension of it, the loss of revenue would be very considerable indeed, and I think your Lordships will agree that this is hardly a time when the Exchequer can afford to sacrifice revenue even of a very small amount.
Speaking as one who has had some experience of dealing with taxation matters, I may say that this is by no means the only grievance felt by taxpayers. As I have often said in the other place, if I had, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, a surplus of some tens of millions and I had a difficulty in knowing how to dispose of it, I think I should make a good many reforms in the incidence of taxation, where I am convinced that the incidence at present presses very harshly; but these considerations cannot be taken into account in the present financial position of the country. I have tried to give the noble Earl and your Lordships the reason why the Government do not feel justified at the present time in entertaining this proposal for the extension of the period from six months to twelve months, and the main reason for that is, I repeat once more, that it would be quite impossible to restrict that consideration to this particular class. May I say that I associate myself most warmly with the tribute that the noble Earl paid to the servants of the country in India and in the Colonies? They go out there, I believe, inspired by high motives. They live in all cases an arduous life, and in some cases a very dangerous one, and no tribute that we could pay to their services would, I am sure, be too generous. I regret that I have not been able to give the noble Earl a more satisfactory reply than this, but I am quite sure he will appreciate the difficulties that I have stated, and also the impossibility of doing anything at the present time which would involve a sacrifice of revenue. I am not, I repeat, and I am quite sure the Government are not, without sympathy with this grievance which I know is quite honestly felt but which is a grievance with which I regret we are not able at the present time to do anything to deal.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for the sympathetic tone of his answer, and I cannot say that I am surprised or particularly disappointed by the unsatisfactory contents of it. If I may make a few remarks upon the subject,

537
his references to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Income Tax were extremely alarming and I hope they may not be carried into effect. To Government servants in India the fact of the six months having all to be in one Income Tax year is not particularly comforting, for, as many of your Lordships know, it is the practice in India to begin one's leave before the hot weather and to come back here just before the beginning of the ordinary Income-Tax year, and so the majority of long-leave periods do fall within the Income-Tax year. I much regret that the noble Viscount is unable to make an exception in the case of these officers. The usual ground on which in politics we are anxious not to make exceptions of certain classes is that a certain amount of jealousy may be aroused. I do not think that if we had the courage to make this exception any jealousy at all would be instilled into anybody. No foreigner who was forced to pay Income Tax after six months would grudge the exemption of a further six months to officers of His Majesty's Government. But, my Lords, I will not say more, and as I believe there are no Papers which could advantageously be laid, I will ask leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, before the adjournment is moved I would ask the noble and learned Viscount who leads the House whether he can tell us something about business during the next few days, more especially with regard to the Coal Mines Bill. At the same time I think it has been intimated to him that on Wednesday next Lord Parmoor will not be moving the Motion which stands in his name on the Paper—[relative to the Report on "The Weathering of Natural Building Stones"] —which he intends to postpone to a later date. That may relieve the pressure next week.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for his question. Your Lordships will appreciate that my answer must be a little provisional, because we are awaiting Bills from
538
another place, and have no control as to the time when they will reach us. I understand the position is that the Coal Mines Bill is expected to complete its passage through the House of Commons by the end of this week, that the Town and Country Planning Bill is expected in the following week, and that the Finance Bill is also expected at the end of next week. Two of those Bills, the Finance Bill and the Coal Mines Bill, are Bills as to which there is great urgency, and indeed in the case of the Finance Bill it is essential that the Royal Assent should be given by June 16. In those circumstances I think probably the convenient course will be to take the Second Reading of the Coal Mines Bill on Wednesday next. I had thought of Tuesday, but in view of what the noble Lord has said Wednesday will give us a little more time for consideration. On the Thursday there is the Committee stage of the Children and Young Persons Bill, already down. On Tuesday the 14th we could, I think, take the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, which generally does not take very long in this House, the Committee stage of the Coal Mines Bill, and the Report stage of the Children and Young Persons Bill, on Wednesday the 15th, and on Thursday the 16th the Third Reading of the Finance Bill and the Coal Mines Bill. That is a provisional programme only, but I think probably it is the most convenient method of enabling your Lordships to have time available for consideration of business.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I am obliged to the noble Earl and approve of the programme he has laid down. I suppose it would necessitate a formal sitting on Friday to take the First Reading of the. Coal Mines Bill?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Either a formal sitting on Friday or a late sitting on Thursday, and that is being arranged with the Opposition.