FINANCE BILL (Hansard, 30 July 1958)

§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAM
My Lords, this is the Bill that we discussed at considerable length yesterday and, in the circumstances, I think I am entitled to move its Third Reading formally. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.

§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH
My Lords, unfortunately had to be absent from the portion of the debate last night when the noble Viscount was replying. He said that he regretted it, as did other Members of your Lordships' House. That makes it necessary for me to make a general apology, though I had expressed my regrets to the noble Viscount before his statement was made. Had I been here, I should have liked to interrupt once or twice while he was making his reply, and I think I should have been justified.
It is always a mistake to believe, every time you get a Departmental brief, that the brief must be correct. If the noble Viscount knew the history of the fight by the co-operative societies against unjust taxation as well as I do, perhaps he would not have been led into taking purely the official memorandum. Certainly the Royal Commission of 1920 made just the same kind of notes as the noble Viscount quoted at length from the recent committee Report, but Parliament rejected that position. With regard to the argument about making a profit assessment nice and tidy over all corporations, I remember being much interested in organising the defeat of the Government on their own Finance Bill in 1921 on that very issue. In view of the tone of the noble Viscount's remarks, it may be that we must nom, set about arranging that for the future and 'having another defeat.

§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAM
My Lords, when I said that we all regretted the noble Viscount's absence, we were all aware of the reason for it, and it was not only the fact of his absence but also the reason for it that we both understood and regretted. I particularly regretted it because it is much more fun, if I may say so, replying to the noble Viscount when he is here than when he is not here. I can assure him that I am the last Minister to read a Departmental brief. The only thing I read in my reply was the Report of the Royal Commission, which took a view not based on tidiness but, in my judgment, based on justice—namely, that if you have a profits tax, it must be a tax on profits, and one must neither privilege certain classes of people from paying such a tax nor ascertain profits in an unofficial way. Of course, I am familiar with the various controversies which have raged at one time or 488 another about taxation on the societies registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act. Indeed, if the noble Viscount will believe me, in many cases I have been a strong supporter of some of their contentions. What the noble Viscount will not forgive me for is that I do not support all their contentions, but I must reserve a modest measure of independence. In this case, when I have the majority of Parliament and a Royal Commission behind me, I think that I can lay claim to more than any Departmental brief.