Sitting of 11 June 1931

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three, of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Ipswich Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill.
Darlington Corporation Trolley Vehicles (Additional Routes) Provisional Order Bill.
Bills to be read a Second time Tomorrow.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (Cowes and Yarmouth) Bill.
Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.
Ashton - under - Lyne, Stalybridge and Dukinfield (District) Waterworks Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
York Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
Kincardine-on-Forth Bridge Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS (GRANTS).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Labour the reasons why no further grants are to be made in connection with the erection of town halls or council offices?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): After experience in dealing with a number of applications for grant from Exchequer funds for municipal buildings I was satisfied, and the Unemployment Grants Committee agreed, that it is impracticable to apply to them the necessary tests required by the Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Act, 1929, as to economic development and acceleration, with any degree of general acceptance.
    Mr. MANDER: Does that mean that under no circumstances will council offices be considered for grant?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Yes.

    TRANSITIONAL BENEFIT (LINCOLN).
    Mr. R. A. TAYLORasked the Minister of Labour the total number of claims for transitional benefit made by applicants registered at the Lincoln Employment Exchange since 12th January, 1931, to the latest convenient date; and whether she can state the number of claims disallowed?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Statistics showing the total number of claims to transitional benefit made are not available, but during the period 26th January to 18th May, 1931, there were an average of 907 claimants to benefit, on the registers of the Lincoln Employment Exchange, whose claims had been admitted for transitional benefit. During the period 12th January, 1931, to 2nd June, 1931, 369 claims to benefit were disallowed by the Lincoln court of referees, on the ground that the transitional conditions had not been satisfied.
    Mr. BECKETT: Will the right hon. Lady consider introducing legislation to meet this difficulty?

    DEPENDANTS' BENEFIT.
    Mr. R. A. TAYLORasked the Minister of Labour if she proposes to introduce legislation to provide that in all cases when dependant's benefit ceases to be payable by reason of a claimant having attained the age of 65 wives of unemployed men who are under 65 years of age shall continue to be entitled to dependant's benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Act?
    Mr. MILLSasked the Minister of Labour if her attention has been called to the hardship imposed upon the wives of unemployed men who have reached the age of 65; and whether she will consider amending legislation to ensure some form of allowance?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Dependant's benefit is an addition to ordinary benefit and is not payable unless the latter is payable. I am afraid I cannot undertake to propose a departure from this principle.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Will any proposed legislation deal with the very unfortunate position of men who reach 65 years of age and then may have to face life on 10s. a week?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am afraid that it does not fall within my Department to answer that question.

    GERMANY.
    Mr. McSHANEasked the Minister of Labour if she can now make available for Members the first report of the German Advisory Commission on Unemployment?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Two copies of a translation of this report were placed in the Library on Monday last for the convenience of Members.
    Mr. McSHANE: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there is a second report expected soon?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I cannot say.

    UNEMPLOYMENT FUND.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Minister of Labour the amount of the indebtedness of the Unemployment Insurance Fund to date and the unexhausted amount of authorised borrowing on that date; and when it will be necessary to make further provision in respect of the fund?
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Minister of Labour how soon it will be necessary to ask Parliament to sanction further borrowing by the Unemployment Insurance Fund?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The amount of Treasury advances to the Unemployment Fund outstanding to-day is £85,620,000 leaving an unexhausted balance of borrowing powers of £4,380,000. It is likely that this balance will be exhausted early in July, 1931, and further provision will be necessary before that date.

    ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to call a three-party conference for the further consideration of unemployment insurance now that the interim report, Command 3872, of the Royal Commission has been laid before Parliament?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay Mac Donald): The reply is in the negative.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask how we are to ascertain the views of the two Oppositions on this report?
    The PRIME MINISTER: By discussion in this House.
    Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: Is it not more important that we should have the views of the Government on the question?
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is not this another chance for the Government to waste time?

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. GOSSLINGasked the Minister of Labour the number of men from 21 to 64 years of age, the number of women from 21 to 64 years of age, the number of young men from 18 to 21 years of age, the number of young women from 18 to 21 years of age, the number of boys from 16 to 18 years of age, and the number of girls from 16 to 18 years of age registered in insurable trades?
    Miss BONDFIELD: As the reply includes a table of figure, I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:

    Estimated Numbers of Insured Persons in Great Britain in various age-groups at July, 1930.

    Age Group.

    Males.

    Females.

    16–17

    595,000

    449,000

    18–20

    945,000

    690,000

    21–64

    7,229,000

    2,230,000

    Total

    8,769,000

    3,369,000

    Corresponding figures for a later date are not available.
    Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLANDasked the Minister of Labour what is the number of persons who it is estimated or assumed for the purpose of the Ministry of Labour Estimates will be in receipt of transitional benefit on 15th October next?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I would refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall) on 14th May, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDasked the Minister of Labour if she will state in what trades the principal part of the increase last week in unemployment took place; and to what extent it was due to prolongation of the Whitsuntide holidays?
    Miss BONDFIELD: A detailed industrial analysis of the numbers unemployed at 1st June is not available, but the increase over the figure for 18th May occurred almost entirely in the North-Western, North-Eastern and Midlands Divisions and was due very largely to the extension of Whitsuntide stoppages. The increase appears to have occurred mainly in the textile and coalmining industries, and also to some extent in the metal trades.

    SEAMEN.
    Mr. OSWALD LEWISasked the Minister of Labour the number of British seamen unemployed on 1st June, 1929, and on the latest date for which the figures are available?
    Miss BONDFIELD: At 18th May, 1931, there were 32,834 wholly unemployed seamen on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain. The corresponding
    1178
    figure for 27th May, 1929, was 15,258. Separate statistics in respect of British seamen are not available.
    Mr. EDE: Will my right hon. Friend's Department take steps to impress upon British shipowners the desirability of employing British labour on their ships?

    WOMEN.
    Viscountess ASTORasked the Minister of Labour whether she can state the number of women for whom employment has been found directly or indirectly on State-aided schemes since 1st June, 1929?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I regret that this figure cannot be given. As the Noble Lady knows, the employment provided for women by means of these schemes is chiefly indirect and statistics with regard to it are not available. There is no doubt that the grants which have been made have resulted in increased employment for women in the lighter occupations in the engineering and electrical trades and in the light metal trade.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is the right hon. Lady satisfied that the Government are doing all that they possibly can for women, or one-quarter as much as they are trying to do for men?
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Lady say whether any women have been directly employed?

    BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Labour how many cases have occurred during the past two years in Great Britain in which benefit has been refused to men undergoing a course of training without pay?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I regret that no figures are available.
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAMasked the Minister of Labour the number of recipients of unemployment benefit who have, since the Act of 1930 came into force, been asked to carry out reasonable written directions given to them with a view to assisting them to find suitable employment; whether there have been any disqualifications in respect of benefit; and, if so, how many of persons who have not acted upon such written instructions?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The information asked for in the first part of the question is not available. During the period 13th March, 1930, to 11th May, 1931, 2,119 claims to benefit were disallowed by courts of referees in Great Britain on the ground of refusal or failure to carry out written directions with a view to assisting the claimants to find suitable employment.

    WORK SCHEMES.
    Mr. GORDON MACDONALDasked the Minister of Labour the number of men and women found employment on State-aided schemes during each of the four years ended 31st May, 1931?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The information available as to employment on State-aided schemes relates only to the number of persons employed on a given day in each month on schemes in operation on that day. I regret, therefore, that it is not possible to give the information for which my hon. Friend asks.
    Mr. MACDONALDasked the Minister of Labour the amount of grants made for State-aided work schemes during each of the four years ended 31st May, 1931?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Information regarding the assistance given from State funds in respect of schemes of public work may be obtained from the annual reports on the administration of the Road Fund, the reports of the Unemployment Grants Committee and the White Papers issued from time to time. To extract the information in the form now desired would involve a considerable expenditure of time and labour, and would retard the progress of urgent work, and I hope my hon. Friend will not press for it.

    AUXILIARY POSTMEN (WAGES).
    Mr. SIMMONSasked the Minister of Labour if she is aware that a man was recently sent from the Aston (Birmingham) Exchange to take up employment as an auxiliary postman at a wage of 16s. 9d. for a week of 18 hours; whether this is the standard rate of wages for that class of work; and if she will see that applicants are not sent in the future to employment that carries remuneration on such a low scale?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am having inquiries made, and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.
    Mr. McSHANE: Will my right hon. Friend communicate with the Postmaster-General with regard to this case?
    Miss BONDFIELD: That will be part of the inquiry.

    PART-TIME WORK (BENEFIT).
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the Minister of Labour whether, seeing that in certain industries longer hours are worked on three days a week in order that employés may claim unemployment pay for the remaining three days, she will state what are the principal trades in which this custom is prevalent; and whether, in view of the accentuation of the unemployment problem thus caused, she will take steps to deal with the matter?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I have no evidence that this practice is at all common. Certain instances known to the Department were brought to the notice of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance which the hon. and gallant Member will find on page 809 of the published Minutes of Evidence of the 21st Day.
    Sir F. HALL: Can the right hon. Lady say whether the Government intend to take any action on the report, and, if so, when?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question has been asked and answered before.

    GATESHEAD.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARDasked the Minister of Labour what was the number of unemployed in Gateshead on 1st June last, and what was the number on the corresponding date last year?
    Miss BONDFIELD: At 1st June, 1931, there were 13,450 persons on the registers of the Employment Exchange at Gateshead. The corresponding figure at 2nd June, 1930, was 9,531.
    Sir K. WOOD: Was this mentioned in the Labour candidate's Address?

    CARPET INDUSTRY.
    Mr. PERKINSasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed persons in the carpet industry in this country as at the latest available date?
    Miss BONDFIELD: At 18th May, 1931, there were 5,403 insured persons, in the carpet industry classification, recorded as unemployed in Great Britain.
    Mr. PERKINS: Can the right hon. Lady say whether any special steps have been taken by the Government in order to relieve the distress in this industry?
    Miss BONDFIELD: In the same sense that we meet distress in other districts.
    Mr. LESLIE BOYCE: Is the Minister aware that, if the carpets which are imported from abroad were made in this country, considerable employment would be found here.

    BRITISH SUBJECTS (REPATRIATION).
    Mr. CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the names of the countries which, owing to internal depression, send home unemployed British subjects to this country, paying their passages; and how many such unemployed British subjects have been repatriated to this country on these lines during the last six months?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): The United States Immigration Act of 1917 contains a provision for the repatriation at public expense of distressed aliens within three years of their entry into the United States if they so desire. My right hon. Friend is not aware of the existence of similar legislation in any other country. He has asked His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington to furnish a report as to the number of persons who have been repatriated from the United States under the provision in question.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: Has the Foreign Office considered the proposition of reciprocity?
    Commander BELLAIRS: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Ambassador in the United States to furnish a report as to the probable number likely to come here and become a public charge?
    Mr. DALTON: That would be guessing. We can only ask the Ambassador to furnish information as to facts.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: Can I have a reply to my question about reciprocity? It is a very important question.
    Mr. DALTON: I am not aware that that question has yet been considered.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: Will it be considered?

    APPLICATIONS FOR EMPLOYMENT (POSTAL FACILITIES).
    Mr. HOFFMANasked the Minister of Labour if an arrangement has yet been reached with the Post Office to have available at Employment Exchanges printed forms on which applications for situations may be made by unemployed persons and posted at the halfpenny rate?
    Miss BONDFIELD: This matter is still under consideration.

  COST OF LIVING (INDEX FIGURE).
  Mr. W. J. BROWNasked the Minister of Labour whether she will afford to interested Members of Parliament private access to the results of the cost-of-living inquiries recently carried out by her Department?
  Mr. STEPHENasked the Minister of Labour when the last revision of the cost-of-living index number took place; and whether she will consider an inquiry into the items and weighting of the items considered in arriving at the number, so that a more accurate figure may be arrived at, in view of the way in which working-class standards are related to the index number?
  Miss BONDFIELD: There has been no general revision of the basis of the cost-of-living index number. The Government have recently had the question under careful consideration, but they are not satisfied that this is an opportune time for collecting the information as to family expenditure which would be necessary for the purpose of establishing a new basis, or that the advantages to be gained by revising the index number would not, in present conditions, be more than counterbalanced by the disadvantages. In these circumstances, it is considered to be inexpedient to take any action for the present. I regret that I am unable to adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. W. J. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN: Since this figure regulates the wages of about 2,500,000 people in this country, and since it is known that a sub-committee of the Economic Advisory Council has been at work on this problem, is it not possible for Members of the House of Commons to be acquainted with their report?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I will see what can be done.
  Mr. STEPHEN: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the Labour movement in this country has agitated for years because of the wrong way of arriving at this figure, and, now that we have a Government, cannot that Government do something to put this matter right?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I am afraid that I cannot add anything to my reply.
  Lieut - Commander KENWORTHY: Has the question of rent been considered in view of the effects of the Conservative de-control Acts?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I am afraid that that matter does not arise out of the question.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the fact that large numbers have been compelled to go into new houses and must of necessity pay higher rents, will not the right hon. Lady reconsider the question of allowing rent to be taken into account, as it is the chief burden?
  Mr. SPEAKER: We have gone some distance from the actual question.
  Mr. BROWN: Is the Government's decision not to proceed with this inquiry in harmony with, or in contradiction of, the recommendations of the sub-committee of the Economic Advisory Council?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I am afraid that I cannot give a reply to that question.

  TRADE BOARDS ACT (FUSTIAN CUTTING AND CUTLERY TRADES).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Labour if any decision has now been come to with reference to the setting up of Trade Boards in the fustian cutting trade and the cutlery trade?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I can make no statement on these matters until the necessary investigations are complete.
  Mr. MANDER: Are negotiations taking place now?
  Miss BONDFIELD: In one ease action has taken place, and arrangements are being made in the other.

  WAGES.
  Mr. REMERasked the Minister of Labour in how many industries there have been reductions of wages since 1st June, 1929; and how many insured persons have been involved in these reductions?
  Miss BONDFIELD: The available information with regard to changes in rates of wages during 1929 and 1930 is given in special articles published in the Ministry of Labour Gazette for April, 1930 (pages 122–124), and April, 1931 (pages 130–132), and statistics for the first four months of 1931 are given on page 194 of the Gazette for May, 1931. I am sending the hon. Member copies of these issues of the Gazette.
  Mr. REMER: Do these figures show the advantages of the continuance of Free Trade?
  Mr. STEPHEN: In view of the importance of the figures, will the Minister not have them extracted from the Gazette, and put into the report?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I feel that it is rather an imposition upon the staff to extract for Members of Parliament information which they can perfectly well get for themselves.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the policy of the Tory party to reduce wages and increase hours?

  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES.
  Mr. REMERasked the Minister of Labour the number of disputes between employers and employés now going on which have not as yet involved stoppages of work where employers are demanding reductions of wages; and how many workers are involved in these disputes?
  Miss BONDFIELD: National negotiations with regard to wages are in progress in a number of industries. In each of these the joint machinery established to deal with such matters is being utilised. Negotiations of a local nature are in progress in various other industries. Figures regarding the number of workpeople concerned in negotiations which have not involved a stoppage cannot be given with any satisfactory degree of reliability.
  Captain CROOKSHANK: Has the right hon. Lady included in the figures the reduction of wages by the co-operative societies?
  Mr. W. J. BROWN: Has she also included the 300,000 civil servants whose wages have been reduced?

  CONTEMPT OF COURT (IMPRISONMENT).
  Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there are at present any persons in prison in England and Wales who have been committed to prison for contempt of court and who have been imprisoned for a period of more than three months?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): One, Sir.

  POLICE.
  Mr. EDEasked the Home Secretary if he has any general standard for the proportion between the number of constables, sergeants, inspectors, and superintendents, respectively, in a county constabulary force?
  Mr. CLYNES: There is, no general standard. The distribution of the men varies, and must necessarily vary, according to circumstances, which differ a good deal.
  Mr. EDE: Does my right hon. Friend bear in mind the principle of the proportion in all respects when applications for an augmentation or reorganisation of a constabulary force is made?
  Mr. CLYNES: Though there is no rigid standard, the principle named is kept in mind.
  Mr. W. J. BROWN: Is it the general tendency to increase or decrease the number of higher paid posts?
  Mr. CLYNES: I should like notice of that question.
  Mr. EDEasked the Home Secretary by what number the Metropolitan police force has been increased in that part of the administrative county of Surrey within the Metropolitan police area since 1st June, 1929, giving the figures for each rank separately?
  Mr. CLYNES: As the answer involves a number of figures, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. EDE: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the fact that the number of burglaries seems to increase directly proportionate and not inversely proportionate to the number of police employed?
  Following is the answer:
  Since 1st June, 1929, the strength of the Metropolitan Police attached to stations in the county of Surrey has been increased by three inspectors, two sergeants and 58 constables. In addition, one station sergeant, two sergeants and 22 constables have been transferred to a station in Surrey, on the closing of a station in the county of London, but these men did duty, and still do duty, for the most part in the county of London.

  LOTTERIES AND SWEEPSTAKES.
  Mr. DAYasked the Home Secretary whether any decision has now been arrived at with reference to the question of setting up a committee to inquire into the conditions that would be necessary and appropriate for the purpose of altering the existing lottery laws?
  Sir GEORGE PENNYasked the Home Secretary if it has now been decided whether an inquiry will be held into the legislation of sweepstakes in this country?
  Mr. CLYNES: The House will remember that as recently as the 19th May last leave was refused by 181 votes to 58 to the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison), who desired to bring in a Bill to authorise the raising of money by means of lotteries for the support of hospitals. The Government have been giving careful consideration to the suggestion that an inquiry should be held, but are not satisfied on their present information that the balance of opinion, whether in Parliament or in the country, is in favour of a revision of the law relating to lotteries and sweepstakes.
  Mr. DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are millions of tickets for these sweepstakes bought in the United Kingdom, and does not that show a great amount of public interest in sweepstakes?
  Mr. CLYNES: I admit the public interest, but I do not think that the purchasers of tickets would desire the law to be strengthened against them.
  Mr. HOPKINasked the Home Secretary if in view of the evidence of the present widespread illegal sale of tickets for the November Handicap Irish sweepstake, he will consider the necessity for taking powers to stop any race being run in respect of which it becomes known that any sweepstake is being organised?
  Mr. CLYNES: No, Sir.

  POLLING DISTRICTS (AREA).
  Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Home Secretary the average acreage covered by each polling district in English constituencies which have an area of between 300 and 400 square miles and between 400 and 500 square miles, respectively?
  Mr. CLYNES: The average acreage of a polling district in constituencies of between 300 and 400 square miles in area is, on the figures available, 4,768. The corresponding figure in the case of constituencies of between 400 and 500 square miles in extent is 4,878.
  Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that, on account of parish boundaries, electors in rural districts often have to go great distances to record their votes in spite of the fact that there is a polling station close to their homes; and whether, in view of the limitation placed on the use of cars, he will issue regulations to allow such electors to vote at the nearest polling station?
  Mr. CLYNES: I have no power to make regulations on this subject. Any case of the kind referred to should be brought to the notice of the county council, who in the exercise of their powers under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1918, can transfer any part of a parish to another polling district if the polling station of that district is more convenient for the electors in such part of the parish.

  PRISONERS (CLOSE CONFINEMENT).
  Mr. FREEMANasked the Home Secretary the total number of prisoners who are in solitary confinement; the
  1188
  maximum period for any prisoner; the main causes for such treatment; and whether he is satisfied with the necessity of dealing with them in this way?
  Mr. CLYNES: Solitary confinement was abolished long ago. Further, the period of employment in separation was reduced in 1919 to 14 days and was done away with altogether by my Prison Rules of 4th April last. There is now no class of prisoner which as such is excluded from associated labour. For breaches of prison discipline, prisoners are liable to be punished by close confinement, but after the first day on promise of good behaviour are allowed one hour's exercise daily and to attend chapel on Sundays. The maximum period which may be ordered by a prison governor is three days, by visiting justices 14 days and by boards of visitors or directors of convict prisons 28 days. The modern tendency is to substitute loss of privileges for close confinement.
  Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the difference between close confinement and solitary confinement?
  Mr. CLYNES: The difference is that a person works in his own cell without being in association with the rest of the prisoners.
  Mr. McSHANE: Is the attendance at church on Sunday regarded as punitive?
  Mr. CLYNES: No. It is regarded as something to be preferred to being kept in a cell.
  Mr. BROCKWAY: Is it not a fact that separate confinement involves confinement in a cell except for 40 minutes' exercise a day?
  Mr. CLYNES: I do not think it is quite as rigid as that, but, if my hon. Friend has representations to make, I shall be glad to receive them.
  Mr. FREEMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the separate treatment of prisoners is the best method of dealing with delinquent cases?
  Mr. CLYNES: The last words of my reply show what the tendency is, and I do not think we can improve upon that.

  EDUCATION.

    TEACHERS (ILLNESS).
    Mr. MORLEYasked the President of the Board of Education if he proposes to institute an inquiry into the reasons for the increased number of breakdowns amongst teachers, particularly young teachers, in recent years?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Lees-Smith): I have not found any evidence that there has been an increase in the number of breakdowns among teachers in recent years, but I shall be pleased to consider any information on the subject which my hon. Friend can give me.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman find out whether there is any more increase among women than among men?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: That has been inquired into, and there is not.
    Mr. MORLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that figures furnished to me by his predecessor show that nearly 2,000 teachers have been granted breakdown allowances during the past three years, and is he also aware that there have been in addition many temporary breakdowns? Should not that be a cause for inquiry?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: My hon. Friend asks me whether there has been an increase. There has been no increase.

    SIZE OF CLASSES.
    Mr. MORLEYasked the President of the Board of Education what steps he is taking to fix a maximum size of 40 for classes in junior schools?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave him on 12th March last.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Does not that mean that the reduction in the size of these classes is almost entirely due to the action of the Conservative Government?
    Mr. C. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Education whether there are still classes of over 50 in the elementary schools, and, if so, how many?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: On 31st March, 1930, the latest date for which figures are available, the number of classes in public elementary schools with over 50 children on the roll was 10,017.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind how his party, when in opposition, were always taunting us with not doing something—in this respect? [Interruption.]
    Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: Are not these local education authorities mainly Conservative?
    HON. MEMBERS: No.

  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE (COMMITTEE).
  Sir K. WOODasked the Prime Minister when a report from the Economy Committee will be available to Members of the House?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not in a position to add anything to the reply I gave to the right hon. Gentleman on the 20th May last.
  Sir K. WOOD: Can the Prime Minister state what progress the committee is making, and when he expects to be in a position to make a statement to the House?
  Mr. McSHANE (for Mr. PERRY)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of taxation per head of the population in respect of each of the following services: Army, Navy, Air Force, education, housing, public health, War pensions, interest on War debts, old age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions and Civil Service administration?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): If my hon. Friend will refer to House of Commons Paper 90 of 1931, pages 7 to 9, he will find a comprehensive analysis of public expenditure under the various heads alluded to. The most recent available estimate of the population of Great Britain, as at June, 1930, was 44,686,000.

  CHILDREN BILL.
  Viscountess ASTORasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard

  1191
  to the need for a new Children Bill, he can find time for the proposed Government Bill to be taken this Session?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Government are fully aware of the need of legislation to amend the Children Act, but I am afraid that, in view of the present state of Parliamentary business, I can hold out no hope of time being found this Session for the proposed Children Bill.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Will the Prime Minister remember that, through their mouthpiece in another place, the Government said that they were going to bring this Bill in very soon; and does he not think that it is really more important to keep one of his pledges than to pass the Representation of the People Bill?

  HOUSING.

    SOUTH SHIELDS (FLATS).
    Mr. EDEasked the Minister of Health what objections he has received to proposals of the South Shields County Borough Council to erect flats under the powers under the Housing Acts; and what steps he has taken thereon?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I have received an objection from the South Shields Labour Party and Trades Council to the proposals of the South Shields County Borough Council to erect flats in South Shields for the accommodation of persons displaced from a clearance area. I have asked whether they are able to furnish me with definite alternative proposals but have received no reply.

    LANCASHIRE.
    Mr. G. MAC DONALDasked the Minister of Health the number of houses built in the rural districts of Lancashire during the last five years; the amount of land taken over by the rural districts for building purposes, giving separate figures for the rural district of Wigan; and will he state what action his Department is taking to accelerate the rate of building in these areas?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: 6,783 houses have been built in rural district in Lancashire and 40 acres have been bought or appropriated by district councils for housing
    1192
    purposes. Of these, 86 houses, but none of the land, are in the Wigan rural district. My officers are in communication with the Lancashire County Council, who under the Housing Act of last year have responsibility in regard to the housing conditions of rural districts.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. R. A. TAYLORasked the Minister of Health whether he proposes during the present session of Parliament, to introduce legislation to provide that wives of insured men shall be eligible for pension when their husbands attain the age of 65 years?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I am afraid that I cannot undertake to introduce legislation on this matter in the present Session.
  Mr. TAYLOR: Has the right hon. Gentleman any estimate of the cost of providing for the wives of such men who are over 60 years of age?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I cannot answer that question without notice.
  Mr. PHILIP OLIVERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that no benefit accrues to the holder of a savings certificate until maturity, he will consider excluding such certificates from the calculation of means in respect of non-contributory old age pensions?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: No, Sir; the law requires that in calculating the means of a person for old age pension purposes account must be taken of the yearly value of any property belonging to that person capable of investment or profitable use, whether or not it is invested or put to profitable use by him. It follows that, whatever view is taken of an investment in savings certificates (and I do not agree with the hon. Member's premise), savings certificates cannot, under the law, be excluded from the calculation of means for the purposes of a non-contributory old age pension. But as the hon. Member is no doubt aware, means derived from savings certificates, in common with other means derived from sources other than earnings, are subject to a deduction not exceeding £39 under the Old Age Pensions Act, 1924.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    VACCINATIONS, LEICESTER.
    Mr. FREEMANasked the Minister of Health whether he is yet in a position to report on the deaths of Peter and Portia Furness, the four-years-old twins of Councillor A. B. Furness, gymnastic instructor, of South Wigston, near Leicester, who were both in good health, were vaccinated on 14th May, and died on 29th and 30th May, respectively; whether Government lymph was used; whether the operation was performed by the public vaccinator; and whether further vaccinations have been suspended in the district?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave him on the 4th instant. The results of the pathological investigations into these deaths will not be available for some weeks. The lymph used was Government lymph and the vaccination was performed by the public vaccinator. There is no power to suspend vaccinations in the district.
    Sir G. PENNY: Is the Government lymph of better quality than the Government legislation?
    Mr. ERNEST WINTERTON: In view of the strong feeling on this matter, may I ask whether this report of the Ministry of Health can be expedited?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I can assure the hon. Member that there will be no undue delay.
    Mr. FREEMAN: Can the Minister of Health give any indication when the report will be available?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: No, but I will make an investigation and let the hon. Member know.

    IMPORTED CARTON MEAT.
    Sir CHARLES CAYZERasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the growing amount of carton meat imported into this country; whether he has considered the representations made with regard to the danger to public health involved by the consumption of such meat, in view of the difficulties in the way of adequate inspection; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I have no information with regard to the amount of carton meat at present imported into this country. I have received representations with regard to this meat, and I am considering them in conjunction with certain other questions relating to the control of imported meat under the Public Health (Imported Food) Regulations. I am not yet, however, in a position to give a decision.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    MINISTRY OF HEALTH.
    Viscountess ASTORasked the Minister of Health how many men and women, respectively, have been promoted to higher executive posts and posts above that grade in the Ministry of Health since the extension of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, and subsequent Contributory Pensions Acts?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: 88 men and five women have been promoted to the higher executive grade and posts above that grade since the coming into force of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, and subsequent Contributory Pensions Acts.

    BETTING DUTY (STAFF).
    Mr. TOM SNOWDENasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any and, if so, how many of the officers appointed to perform duties with regard to betting under the provisions, now repealed, of the Finance Act, 1926, still hold office and, if so, in what capacity and for what remuneration?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The work in connection with the Betting Duty was in the main carried out by the permanent staff of the Customs and Excise Department in conjunction with other duties, but a small additional staff was engaged on a purely temporary basis for the performance of certain special work. On the repeal of the duty the services of this temporary staff were terminated except in the case of one officer who was engaged for a period of five years from the 1st November, 1926, at an inclusive salary of £600 per annum. In these circumstances, this officer is being retained on the establishment of the Customs and

    1195
    Excise Department until his contract expires (that is on the 31st October next) or until he obtains other employment. He has not yet obtained other employment.

    CONSULAR SERVICE (RUSSIA).
    Mr. MILLSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of consular representatives stationed in Russia in 1911, 1923, and 1931, respectively?
    Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): In 1911 there were 50 consular officers stationed within the territories of the former Russian Empire, which, of course, then included Poland, Finland and the Baltic States. Of these officers 14 were salaried and 36 unsalaried. In 1923 there were three consular officers in the Soviet Union appointed in connection with His Majesty's Commercial Mission. At present, in 1931, there are three consular officers stationed in the Soviet Union.
    Mr. MILLS: Has the hon. Gentleman implemented the promise which he gave to increase the number of consular officers?
    Mr. GILLETT: I am not aware that I ever gave such a promise.
    Captain P. MACDONALD: Will the hon. Gentleman give a promise that there will be more consular officers?
    Mr. GILLETT: I am not aware that we have had any request to that effect.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  Mr. JOHNasked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to make dental and ophthalmic treatment statutory benefits for all members of approved societies under the National Health Insurance Acts; and, if so, at what date?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: No such proposal is at present in contemplation.
  Captain CROOKSHANK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unless he does something to prevent the bad effects of the Land Value Tax there will be no benefits payable at all?

  INCOME TAX.
  Mr. P. OLIVERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now in a position to state whether he has concluded his consideration of cases where the revenue authorities on occasion have distrained upon the goods of a lodger in respect of the landlord's Income Tax assessed under Schedule A; and, if so, will he issue instructions that such practice should cease?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My right hon. Friend has looked into this matter. The legal position has always been that Income Tax (Schedule A) is, in default of payment, recoverable by distress upon any goods, by whomsoever owned, found upon the premises in respect of which the tax is charged. As at present advised, he does not think a case has been made out for an alteration of the law in this respect.
  Mr. C. WILLIAMS (for Sir BASIL PETO)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the assessments of industrial properties for rating are being used for new assessments under Schedule A; and whether it is proposed to have a new valuation for Schedule A taxation or whether the valuation to be made in connection with the Land Tax is to be used for this purpose?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The Schedule A valuations are separate and distinct from valuations made for the purposes of rating or Land Tax and are made by separate and independent authorities.

  AGRICULTURE.

    SHEEP SCAB.
    Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVEasked the Minister of Agriculture how many cases of sheep scab have occurred among sheep brought from Wales into Shropshire in each of the last three years and how many contact sheep have had to be dipped in consequence?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): According to information received from the local authorities, 22 outbreaks occurred in Shropshire during the years 1928 to 1930 inclusive amongst sheep brought from Wales, namely, eight in 1928, seven in 1929 and seven in 1930. The number of sheep in Shropshire which had to be dipped in consequence was 6,297.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman doing anything about this matter?
    Dr. ADDISON: Yes, we are very active.

    DISTRAINT TOR TITHE.
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Minister of Agriculture in how many cases during the past 12 months farmers' plant and livestock have been distrained upon for payment of tithe: and whether he proposes to introduce legislation to protect farmers against distraint for tithe in cases where land is not being operated at a profit?
    Dr. ADDISON: The Ministry has no statutory powers or duties with regard to the collection of annual tithe rent-charge, and I am not, therefore, in a position to answer the first part of the question, but I am hoping to arrange a conference with some of the parties concerned for a discussion of existing difficulties.

  COUNTY COURTS (JURISDICTION).
  Mr. RAMSBOTHAMasked the Attorney-General whether, with a view to reducing the cost of litigation, he will consider introducing legislation to extend the jurisdiction of the county courts; and whether, if further guidance is needed as to the scope of such an extension, he will appoint a committee of inquiry on which both the public and the legal profession will be represented?
  The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir William Jowitt): The London Chamber of Commerce have after most careful inquiry made a series of concrete suggestions for the cheapening of litigation. These suggestions have been receiving the consideration of the Bar Council and the Law Society, and I think it more practicable to see whether steps can be taken along the lines indicated in the reports of these bodies rather than to start a new inquiry before doing so.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    RUSSIA.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether the commercial counsellor to His Majesty's Embassy at Moscow has now
    1198
    completed his report on the foreign trade machinery of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; and when it will be available to Members of this House?
    Mr. GILLETT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part of the question, the report is at present with the printers and I hope to lay it before the House shortly.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade the average sum per year (taken over the five years ended 31st December last) spent in this country on foodstuffs and manufactured goods; and what percentage of this sum was spent on foreign products?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): Apart from certain particulars given on 14th April in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Freeman), of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy, the desired information is not available.

  TRANSPORT.

    ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS, WHIPSNADE (APPROACHES).
    Mr. O. LEWISasked the Minister of Transport whether, with a view to providing work for some of the unemployed, he will consult with the county councils of Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire as to the provision of better road facilities for approaching the new Zoological Gardens at Whipsnade?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Parkinson): The Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire County Councils are not directly concerned in the immediate approaches to the new Zoological Gardens at Whipsnade, which are wholly within Bedfordshire. A sum of £65,000 is being spent in the last mentioned county on the improvement or construction of roads leading to Whipsnade. It is proposed shortly to hold a conference at which representatives both of the Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire County Councils will meet representatives of the Zoological Society and of my Department in order to discuss future developments.
    Mr. LEWIS: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the authorities of the Zoological Gardens pressed both the Buckinghamshire County Council and the Hertfordshire County Council very hard to provide improved road facilities?
    Mr. PARKINSON: I understand that a conference is being called in the immediate future with a view to preventing any further congestion such as took place in the Whitsuntide period, and that the local authorities concerned are being invited to take part in that consultation.

    OMNIBUS AND COACH SERVICES.
    Mr. REMERasked the Minister of Transport how many applications have been made to the traffic commissioners to run omnibus and coach services; how many have been heard to date; how many decisions have been given; and in how many cases have the applications been refused?
    Mr. PARKINSON: Up to the 31st May the traffic commissioners had received approximately 30,000 applications for road service licences, including backings. At that date decisions had been given in 3,249 cases, including 154 refusals. I have no information as to the number of applications heard on which no decision had by that date been given.
    Mr. REMER: Will the traffic commissioners be able to complete all these cases within the year?
    Mr. PARKINSON: We hope so.

    PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES (LOST PROPERTY).
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS (for Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE)asked the Home Secretary the reasons which are actuating the Metropolitan police in refusing to accept responsibility for articles left in motor coaches?
    Mr. CLYNES: Since 21st May, when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport made the Public Service Vehicles (Lost Property) Provisional Regulations, 1931, the duty of handling and restoring property left in motor coaches in the Metropolitan Police District rests upon the operators of the coaches and no longer upon the police.

    PETROL DUTY.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS (for Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE)asked the Financial-Secretary
    1200
    to the Treasury the estimated amount of money contributed to the taxation of the country each year by motorists under the petrol taxation proposed in the current financial proposals of the Government?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEThe Budget estimate of the revenue from the duty on hydrocarbon oils in the current financial year is £24,100,000. It is estimated that of this amount approximately £22,500,000 will be derived from oils used in motor vehicles of all kinds.

  GRAND OPERA (GOVERNMENT GRANT).
  Mr. O. LEWISasked the Post-master-General if he will make available for Members of this House a copy of the agreement referred to on page 4 of Command Paper 3863 as having been entered into at the end of last year by the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Covent Garden Syndicate for regular relays of opera from Covent Garden and the provinces?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Viant): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to a question on this subject asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) on 8th June.
  Mr. LEWIS: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether either His Majesty's Treasury or the Post Office are parties to the contract?
  Mr. VIANT: I would advise the hon. Member to refer to the previous reply.
  Mr. LEWIS: It does not give the information.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT).
  Major COLFOXasked the hon. Member for the Gorton Division, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, how soon it will be possible to buy national-mark cider in the House; and if he will undertake that when present stocks are exhausted no cider which does not bear the national mark shill be on sale here?
  Mr. COMPTON: National mark cider is already on sale in the Refreshment Department of this House. With regard

  1201
  to future purchases, the Kitchen Committee will gladly give preference to the various brands of cider which bear the national mark, always providing they meet with the approval of the hon. Members who consume this beverage.
  Major COLFOX: Will the hon. Member give an undertaking that only cider bearing the national mark will be provided?
  Mr. COMPTON: The Kitchen Committee will always endeavour to satisfy the wishes of Members of this House.

  SCOTLAND.

    HOUSING, GLASGOW.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the area comprised in the slum clearance scheme in the Mile End ward of the Camlachie Parliamentary Division of Glasgow; and why the houses at 46 and 48, Soho Street, have not been included in the scheme, since the houses there have been declared unfit for human habitation by the sanitary authority of Glasgow?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Westwood): The local authority have dealt with several small areas and individual houses in the Mile End ward of the Camlachie Parliamentary Division. The total number of houses so dealt with is 611. I am informed that the houses at 46 and 48, Soho Street have not been declared unfit for human habitation.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Will the hon. Gentleman make further inquiries, as I myself have seen a certificate from the sanitary authority stating that one of these houses was declared unfit?
    Mr. WESTWOOD: In view of the statement made by the hon. Member, I shall have further inquiries made.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of houses to be built by the local authority in Soho Street, Glasgow; what class of houses will be built under the scheme; the proposed rents; whether the terms of contract provide that a percentage of local unemployed labour will be engaged in the work; and whether the workers employed at present are all enjoying the
    1202
    benefit of the fair wages clause usually insisted on with regard to such contracts?
    Mr. WESTWOOD: I am infomed that the number of houses to be built by the Local Authority in Soho Street is 18 and that all will be of three apartments in three-storey tenements. The proposed rent is 35s. per month inclusive of occupier's rates. As regards the remainder of the question, I am informed that the fair wages clause forms part of the conditions of contract, but that these conditions do not provide that a percentage of local unemployed labour will be engaged in the work.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Will the hon. Gentleman consider making representations, in view of the resentment which is felt at men being brought into the division by omnibus from many miles away to work?
    Mr. WESTWOOD: I am rather afraid that representations would not have a great deal of weight in this particular case as the local authorities are the authorities who have power to put a clause of this kind in any of these contracts.
    Mr. STEPHEN: May I further ask the hon. Gentleman if he is aware that the buildings at 46 and 48, Soho Street are to be taken down and replaced by a stable in front of the place where this scheme is being carried out; and will he impress upon the Glasgow local authority that this stable should not be placed there?
    Mr. WESTWOOD: May I suggest, Sir, that that matter does not arise out of the question?

    POLICE COUNCIL.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he proposes to convene a special meeting of the Police Council in Scotland and to approve the appointment of a woman to serve upon the Council?
    Mr. WESTWOOD: I am unable at present to make any statement as to the date when the next Scottish Police Council will be held. Before it is held consideration will be given to the question whether arrangements can be made, consistently with the statutory provisions relating to police councils, for a woman to serve upon it.
    Mr. MILLAR: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a woman member has been appointed to the English Council, and will he take steps to see that similar provision for the representation of women is made in Scotland?
    Mr. WESTWOOD: I am aware that arrangements have been made so far as the English Council is concerned for the representation of women, and I have indicated that where arrangements can be made consistently with the statutory provisions relating to the Police Council, we will make these arrangements in Scotland.

  INDIA (RIOTS, CAWNPORE).
  Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for India whether he has any information and can state when the report on the Cawnpore riots inquiry will be published?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): The report has been published and a summary of it and of the local Government's Resolution appeared in the Press here and in India on 9th June. As to presentation to Parliament, I would refer to the answer which I gave on 2nd June to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer).
  Mr. REMER: May I ask whether the full report will be presented to Parliament in due course?
  Mr. BENN: Yes, the report itself will be published textually. If the hon. Member refers to the evidence, I would refer him to the answer which I gave yesterday.
  Mr. BRACKENasked the Prime Minister when Members may expect to receive copies of the report of the commissioners appointed to inquire into the Cawnpore massacres; and whether the Government will appoint a day upon which the report may be discussed?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India. As to the second part, an opportunity for such a discussion would, of course, arise on the India Office Vote if it is put down.

  AFGHANISTAN (MUNITIONS).
  Mr. W. J. BROWNasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that early this year a loan was granted to the Government of Afghanistan by the Government of India; that it was accompanied by a gift of a quantity of rifles and small arms ammunition; and that a foreign Power has been exporting arms and munitions from Europe to Afghanistan through British India; and will he state the quantity of arms and munitions so imported into Afghanistan?
  Mr. DALTON: I have been asked to reply. His Majesty's Government agreed, after consultation with the Government of India, to give this assistance to Afghanistan towards her reconstruction and the restoration of stable conditions after the recent civil wars. Article 6 of the Anglo-Afghan Treaty of 1921 provides for the passage of arms in transit through British India without requiring the Afghan Government to give information regarding the source of supply.
  Mr. BROWN: I am not asking the Afghan Government, but the British Government.

  RIVER DEE (JOINT COMMITTEE).
  Sir C. CAYZERasked the Minister of Health whether his inspector has reported on the application of the Chester County Council and the Chester Corporation for the establishment of a River Dee board?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The inspector's report has been received and considered, and I have decided to make a Provisional Order for the establishment of a joint committee for the River Dee.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the number of important Amendments in the names of Members of all parties now standing on the Order Paper to Clause 19 of the Finance Bill, and to certain important Amendments proposed to be made to Clause 20; whether he is aware that since these two Clauses are grouped in one compartment for the Sixth Allotted Day, it is improbable that adequate discussion, if any, will take place on

1205
Clause 20; and whether, in these circumstances, he will propose an Amendment to the Motion for the allocation of time transferring Clause 20 from the Sixth to the Seventh Allotted Day?
The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that I cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I may add, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to make a statement on Clause 19 which may be expected somewhat to short-en the discussion.
Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: May I ask the Prime Minister what business will be taken next week?
The PRIME MINISTER: Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday will be the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Allotted Days respectively of the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. The business for Friday will, it is hoped, be announced on Monday. On any day, should time permit, other Orders may be taken.
Mr. C. WILLIAMS: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to proceed with the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill.
The PRIME MINISTER: As soon as we are ready.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Herbert Evans, esquire, for the Borough of Gateshead.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Select Committee;

1. "That, in the case of the Grand Union Canal (Leicester Canals Purchase, etc.) Bill [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

2. "That in the case of the Ebenezer Chapel, Birmingham, Bill [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

Resolutions agreed to.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Mr. Leif Jones to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Sunday Performances (Regulation) Bill).
Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill,
Cumberland Market (St. Pancras) Bill,
Scottish United Investors, Limited, Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  NORTH KILLINGHOLME (ADMIRALTY PIER) BILL.
  That they disagree with the Commons in their Resolution, communicated to them on Tuesday last: "That it is expedient that the North Killingholme (Admiralty Pier) Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  FINANCE BILL.
  [4TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 10 th June].
  [Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]

  FINANCE BILL.

    CLAUSE 9.—(Recording and registration of values.)
    The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: In page 8, line 15, at the end, to insert the words:
    "(d) the circumstances affecting the land value and the cultivation thereof."
    Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: In view of the many important Amendments on the Paper, and the short time at our disposal, I do not move this Amendment.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I beg to move, in page 8, line 16, to leave out Sub-section (2).
    We are now dealing with the Clause which provides in the first Sub-section that the Commissioners shall keep a record in relation to every land unit which is valued. I am moving to leave out Sub-section (2) in order that I may have the opportunity of addressing a number of questions to the Minister in charge as to the object of this provision. It provides that the Commissioners shall deposit at the offices of the various local authorities a land value register which is to be a copy of so much of the entries in the record as relates to the land wholly or partially comprised in the areas of the respective local authorities. This provision goes on to say that the registers
    "shall be so deposited, in the case of those relating to the first valuation made under this Part of this Act, as soon as practicable after such date as His Majesty may by Order in Council declare to he the date at which the valuation of all land in Great Britain has been substantially completed."
    Of course, the date when all these matters will be substantially completed is a very hypothetical date indeed. In this connection I would like to refer to Clause 12, because I have a consequential Amendment to leave out Sub-section (3), which says:
    1216
    "Every council at whose offices a land values register is deposited under this Part of this Act shall keep the register so deposited until notice is received by them from the Commissioners that it is no longer necessary to do so, and any such council shall, when required to do so by the Commissioners, make such additions thereto and amendments therein as the Commissioners direct, and shall at all reasonable times allow any person who is an owner of any land in respect of which entries are inserted in the register to inspect the register and take extracts therefrom free of charge."
    I cannot understand the necessity for this provision. Whatever we may think about the merits of this tax, it is a national tax, and I would like to know why provision is made for these records to be deposited locally. I do not understand that they will be of any particular value to a locality under the precise objects of this Bill. The Bill provides that the owner shall be served with copies of the entries, and he is the only person directly concerned. It may be interesting to hear whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has at the back of his mind some idea about local authorities being authorised to levy a rate upon land values, but I should have thought, judging by the proceedings in this House, and the general attitude of the country towards this Bill, the Chancellor is undertaking quite sufficient at the present time—perhaps more than sufficient from the point of view of his colleagues in the Cabinet and the Members on the benches behind him. What we really want to know is why these registers are being deposited with the local authorities. Why should they be mixed up with unpopular proposals of this kind? Have the local authorities been consulted about this proposal? If so, I should apprehend that they have replied that they want nothing to do with it and would like the Government to retain the sole responsibility.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Stafford Cripps): I am anxious to explain to the right hon. Gentleman what it is he wants to know. On the first valuation notification of the valuation will be given to each owner, and subsequently a list will be deposited in these various places. After that first quinquennial valuation no notification will be given to individual owners. A list will be prepared, as is done in the case of valuations for rating, and it is obviously desirable that that list should be deposited where it is accessible locally.
    Sir K. WOOD: Why not at the police station?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman thinks property owners would find it more convenient to go to the police station, but many property owners would prefer to go to the offices of the local authority, where they go already to inspect the books showing valuations for rating. The reason why registers are to be deposited locally is purely and solely for the convenience of the property owners in the district, and the obvious place for them is where the rate books are at present lodged and where owners are accustomed to go for information.
    Sir K. WOOD: May I take it that there is no reason to apprehend that the Government are desirous, when they have got this valuation, of using it for rating purposes?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It has already been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that at some future time, may be, in accordance with the wishes of a great number of local authorities, the rating system of the country will be based upon land values, and not upon the improvement values, as at present. So far as this Bill is concerned it is dealing with a tax, and the object which I have stated is our real object in making this provision.
    Sir K. WOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman any date in mind?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think we are quite prepared to accept the statement of the Solicitor-General that there is no present intention of changing the character of the proposal in the Bill to the extent of making it a rating instead of a taxing proposal; but, assuming that to be so, I have a word to say on his statement that the reason for inserting this Sub-section is that after the first valuation alterations in a register are not to be notified to owners, but it is to be left to an owner to discover whether any alteration has been made in the valuation of his property by consulting the registers from time to time. I do not want to enter into any argument on that point, because we have Amendments on the Paper which will deal with it presently, but, as we raise the very strongest objection to the procedure proposed in the
    1218
    latter part of this Clause, the answer given is not an answer to our objection to the deposit of the registers with the local authorities.
    It is obvious that the local authorities will be put to some expense, and probably some inconvenience, by the obligation to take charge of these registers, which, I suppose, will be bulky and tiresome to look after, and there is no provision for relieving the local authorities of the expense to which they will be put in the matter. If it be a fact that there is nothing in the minds of hon. Members opposite in the way of any change—at any rate in the near future—by which this valuation will be made the basis of a new system of rating, it will be time enough to talk about the local authorities taking charge of the registers when such a proposal is introduced. In the meantime we are not prepared to accept the view that the owner should be put to the inconvenience, and probable loss to himself, of having to consult the registers instead of receiving a notification.
    Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Are owners of property not to be given an opportunity of appealing when there is a revaluation?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: What I said was that they would not be served with a notice of valuation after the first valuation, but of course they would have a right of appeal.
    Sir W. BRASS: Will they have to fill up a form?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: No, not necessarily. I am not certain what sort of form the hon. and gallant Member has referred to, and I am not certain that they will have to fill up any form.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am pretty certain that they will.
    Captain CAZALET: We have been told that there are 12,000,000 hereditaments to be valued, and in many cases this must throw a very considerable amount of additional burden on the county councils, both in room, space and work. I wish to ask whether the Government contemplate in any way assisting the county councils, both in regard to lodging these various documents and providing something towards the cost of the additional clerks who will be required for this purpose?
    Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: It has been stated that there is a possibility that at some future date these records of valuation may be useful for other purposes. May I point out that, as a basis for rating, this valuation will be quite useless. If this was going to be a valuation of all the land in the country, then it might be useful, but, as it will be a partial and incomplete valuation, and as the Commissioners have the power to direct the local authorities in regard to keeping the old registers, the new valuation will not be of any use.
    Amendment negatived.
    Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in page 8, line 40, after the word "first," to insert the words "and every subsequent."
    I was glad to hear the Solicitor-General say that the landowner would not be required to fill up a new form in the case of the subsequent valuation. It would be a great inconvenience, and a matter of considerable expense, if the owner had to look up every subsequent register in order to see whether or not any valuation had been made in regard to his property. A landowner might have property in different districts, and perhaps in different counties, and that would mean that his property would be included in two registers in different districts and in different towns perhaps miles apart. I think that the Clause should at least provide that where an alteration has been made in the valuation the landlord should be informed of it.
    It would be very inconvenient, in case an owner had premises in two different districts, for him to have to inspect the register in both places, and he would not be quite certain which was the genuine one. It seems to me to be quite unnecessary to put this great inconvenience upon the owners. I think that in every case where there has been an alteration in the valuation, notice of that alteration should be served on the owner. I can understand that this would not be necessary in cases where no alteration in the value has been made, but it would only be an act of justice to give the owner notice where a change has been made. If an owner is satisfied with the original value put upon his land, he would then know whether he was going to be put to any unnecessary expense. I think the least the Government
    1220
    can provide for in this Bill is to notify the owner in cases where any change has taken place in the valuation.
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: The logic of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) is, I think, irrefutable, and I would like the learned Solicitor-General to explain the distinction between the first and every subsequent valuation, because I really think he should explain why there is to be an entirely different procedure in the second as opposed to the first valuation and thereafter all subsequent valuations. I see in this land taxation a great change in the whole fiscal system of this country and, as far as I can see, there is to be an entirely new principle of taxing people without notifying them personally of the assessment that is going to be made. Nobody, it seems, will be able to know at what he is going to be taxed, unless, in the old Jewish fashion, he goes to Jerusalem to be taxed. He has to go to the local authority, or wherever he is registered, or else he has to read the newspapers. We in this Committee may be very intelligent people who are in the habit of reading newspapers. I see a right hon. Gentleman who has expressed a certain dislike to some newspapers which he never reads, and a local newspaper might be a newspaper which somebody did not wish to read. Certainly there is a strong dislike growing in this country against some newspapers, and it might be that such a newspaper might not easily reach the eye of every owner of land.
    I would again take this opportunity to remind the Solicitor-General of the fact, of which he is well aware already, that an enormous number of people will be interested in this taxation—not merely dukes and large landowners, to whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer has constantly referred, but smaller men and people interested in the ownership of land through innumerable organisations. I should have thought that the secretary of each organisation, and each owner of land, would be entitled to know personally what increased assessment had been made. There seems to be a sort of doctrine that the value of land does not change as substantially as other securities. Of course, the value of securities

    1221
    in this country during the last four or five years has enormously changed, and I think also the value of land will enormously change. It seems grossly unfair that a man who is innocently enjoying the amenities of his own home, who does not wish to sell his home to make profit or anything else, should be affected by a more or less secret valuation. You are forcing a person to pay a visit to a local authority, or to read a particular newspaper chosen by that authority, and when he goes to the authority to try to find out whether there has been an increased assessment on his property, he may or may not be treated politely by the enormous army of officials raised and controlled at the nod of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It may be that if a large number of people visit these authorities, they may not get proper treatment. It may be that they will not understand the forms which they find deposited there.
    We all know how confusing these forms are. I know that people are frequently puzzled by the simplest documents of this kind. It is quite a different matter seeing such a form in the privacy of your own home, where you are able to ask the advice of your friends who have had to deal with similar forms. It is not everyone who can afford legal advice in a matter of this kind. I do say that if a form, however difficult, is sent to a member of the public, he can worry it out and ask the advice of his friends, but if he go in a humble way to the local authority, where, perhaps, he is overcome by the dignity of the building, and asks what his land has been assessed at, he may not be able to understand. This is not a matter of principle, but one of pure machinery, and I do think that, on reflection, the Solicitor-General, who has behaved with such reasonableness throughout, and whose eloquence is appreciated by all sides of the Committee, might consider that this is a small point on which he might give way.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): I think there is some reason for the case that has been put to the Committee, and I shall be prepared to consider an Amendment to the Bill that in cases where a change has been made in a subsequent valuation, notification shall be sent to the owner. My hon. and learned
    1222
    Friend cannot at the moment suggest precise words for an Amendment, but I will give an undertaking to bring one forward on the Report stage.
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am sure the Committee will be grateful both to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what he has said and to my hon. and gallant Friend for raising the point in the Amendment, which is, obviously, one that ought to be met. I will only make this comment, that, of course, there may be changes not only in the site value but in the cultivation value, and, therefore, notification would have to be made in either case.
    Sir W. BRASS: The right hon. Gentleman, I think, is merely following what is happening in the assessments under Schedule A. When the assessments are put up, a notification is made. In a case where the assessment is not altered, there is not any notification to the owner of the property. So that I think the right hon. Gentleman is merely following what happens at the present time as far as rating is concerned. I would like to ask him this question. In the second quinquennium, there may be, of course, new land brought in. Some land, which might have been quite ordinary agricultural land in the first five years, might have ripened by the time the second quinquennium had arrived, and in that event, of course, the owner of the land would be notified.
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I understand that where new land is brought in for assessment subsequent to the first valuation, the procedure of the first valuation is to be followed, and that notice will be sent to the owner.
    Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: I want only to put it quite beyond dispute. As far as England is concerned, everyone, of course, is grateful indeed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for being ready to consider this matter. I assume this applies to Scotland, because a fortiori there is an infinitely stronger case there.
    Captain BOURNE: I should like to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the concession he has given, and, in view of that, I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 10.—(Division of units and apportionment of values.)
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I beg to move, in page 9, line 20, after the word "shall," to insert the words:
    "cause a fresh valuation to be made of every such part and shall."
    This Amendment, which stands in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends, does not cover a very wide field, but it is one of very great importance to those people whom it affects. I do not think that it disturbs the valuation system very much, or over-weights it, or makes it unworkable, or is open to any of those objections about which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is concerned. I want, however, to make sure that where a land unit is sub-divided into parts, there should be a fresh valuation, and that the owners of the new sub-divided land units which are created should, if need be, have power to appeal against the valuation. It is not, as I say, a matter of great extent, but it is of considerable practical importance at the moment to the parties concerned.
    I would like to take two practical instances which, in the knowledge of Ministers opposite, might occur any day. Take, first of all, a piece of ordinary agricultural land which is just coming into building. You may get there a land unit which covers a considerable number of acres of agricultural land. As soon as that gets developed, it is cut up into different lots. There will be, of course, side roads and new frontages upon the side roads, and the back roads. Everyone who is familiar with new districts which are coming into building is aware that the value of all these different frontages varies enormously. The value of corners where roads intersect is often very considerable. Those are the corners, where a town is spreading, which are reserved for bank premises or other buildings of more or less general communal interest. On the ordinary side roads there will be frontages, it may be, of houses, and these in their turn will be definitely more valuable than those on the back roads.
    Therefore, it means that if a land unit of this kind is sub-divided, you get a large number of new units created, each
    1224
    one of which may differ very considerably in value from the other. They, in their turn, are either sold, or, in the case of Scotland, feued to different persons, and therefore the holders of them in the future will be different individuals. Each one of those individuals may, of course, feel that he has not been fairly treated by having an undue proportion of the original land value allocated to him. I am speaking from knowledge of what occurred in such cases. For the individual concerned it will be a matter of importance. That is the case with regard to a suburban area. It is considerably more important when you get to clearance in the middle of towns, where you have an already urban site. Take, for instance, a place like Devonshire House, which was pulled down and blocks of buildings erected, or the Hotel Cecil, which is at present being demolished. I do not know, nor does the Solictor-General probably know, how the site will be covered in future, but it is obvious that where you get a site like that of the Hotel Cecil, which may conceivably be built up and used for different purposes, as the Devonshire House site was, the different new units that will be created may differ enormously from one another in value. One of these units may be vastly more valuable than another which forms part of the land unit which is being split up. What is more, on a site like that of the Hotel Cecil or Devonshire House, which I take as typical of many others such as the Bloomsbury site, of course in those cases any one of these new land units may be of the value of thousands of pounds, and the taxation under these proposals will be very considerable. Therefore, it will be grossly unfair, just because they formed at the last valuation part of one land unit, that after the splitting up the person who wishes to acquire one of these new valuable sites, or a site less valuable, should not have the opportunity of having a valuation placed upon his site against which he can, if necessary, appeal. I put that case to the Ministers opposite, as I do not think it is already covered. [Interruption.] If the Solicitor-General tells me that it is already covered, and, if he can prove that to us, I do not, of course, wish to press the matter further, but, unless it is covered, it strikes me that it ought to be dealt with before the Bill passes.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The point which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman is, I think, fully covered in the Bill, and is really covered in a way which we thought was far more appropriate than the way that he suggests. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the basis of this proposal is a quinquennial valuation, and it is not desired, unless it is necessary in particular cases, to disturb that principle. Therefore, as regards any particular land unit which is subsequently split up, the Bill sticks to the original total value at the beginning of the quinquennium, even if, say two years afterwards, the value has gone up. No increase is put on the aggregate value of all the land units, but provision is made by which, when new land units come into existence, as they will the moment the land is split up, owing to the separate occupations, any persons owning or responsible for these land units can then have an apportionment made of the original aggregate value of the whole, and, if they are discontented with the apportionment, they can appeal to the Commissioners and have it put right. That power is expressly stated in Clause 11, and I think that if, without reading the Clause through, I just draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the proviso to Sub-section (1), he will see that it does cover the case that he has put. The proviso says:
    "No objection to revised entries"—
    this will be a revised entry, because it will be subsequent to the original entry in the register during the quinqennium—
    "in respect of any land unit which before the making of the revised entries formed part of a former land unit"—
    that is where it is split up—
    "shall be entertained under this section except on the ground that the value or values of the former unit have been wrongly apportioned by the Commissioners as between the several parts thereof."
    Therefore, any owner of a part of an original unit can appeal on the apportionment, but when the apportionment is made the commissioners will not be able to put up the total aggregate value; that cannot be altered. [Interruption.] As regards the cultivation value, Clause 10 provides that that shall be
    "apportioned as at that first day of January as between the several parts thereof according to the respective values of those parts at that date."
    1226
    That is apportionment at that date. There is no provision for a revaluation. The valuation takes place at the beginning of the quinquennium; then the apportionment comes; and the only power of the commissioners as regards the apportionment is to apportion the original valuation—there is no power to revalue. That is made quite clear in Clause 10. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, if he reads it carefully, will see that that is the effect, and that is why, under Clause 11, the appeal is limited to the apportionment, and does not affect the aggregate value.
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Does not the Solicitor-General think that, if that is the intention of the Clause—and I quite agree that it is certainly what one would expect it to be—it would be much plainer to consider the apportionment
    "as at that first day of January as between the several parts thereof."
    according to the respective values in the register of those parts at that date? If the words "according to the respective values in the register" were used, I agree that the apparent intention of the Clause would be as the Solicitor-General has stated, but I must say that the words:
    "according to the respective values of those parts at that date"
    lend colour to the belief of some of my hon. Friends that it does mean that the Commissioners are directed to take the values at that date.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am sorry to be at issue with the right hon. Gentleman as to the meaning of these words, but he will have noticed that what is to be apportioned is the value of the unit in the register, while the proportions in which it is to be apportioned are the respective values at that date. That merely gives you your means of apportioning the original sum. Perhaps I may take an instance, because sometimes it is easier to explain these things by a concrete illustration. Let me assume a unit which was valued at the first valuation at, say, £3,000. Assume that it is split up for building purposes into six different plots, one of which is worth £1,000—one of the frontage plots—and five others are worth £600 each. The total new aggregate value of the unit is therefore

    1227
    £4,000, and not £3,000. The apportionment under this Clause would lead you to take one-fourth for the £1,000 unit, and that would be one-fourth, not of £4,000, but of £3,000, since you apportion the original value of the unit. Therefore, that would come to £750. The apportionment for each of the other five units would be its due proportion, namely, one-fifth of what was left, and that would be £450. If you had a new valuation you would get a total value of £4,000, and not £3,000, so that this provision really saves the owner from having to pay during the quinquennium on any increased value that there is, and, in cases where there is apportionment, the value will almost certainly have gone up.
    Sir ROBERT HORNE: I confess that I think my friends might be reassured on this point. The phraseology to which the Solicitor-General has referred seems to cover their point, because the very words which it is suggested might be incorporated seem to be in terms already in the Clause. Reading Clause 10 shortly, it says that the land value shown by the entries in respect of the former unit shall be apportioned, so that what really is going to be apportioned is shown by the entry. I confess that, instead of using the word "shown" a second time, I would have said, "Contained in the entry," which would have made it a little more clear; but at any rate I think that the phraseology of the Clause itself covers the point raised by my friends on the Front Bench, and that they might be content with the assurance which the Solicitor-General has given.
    Captain CAZALET: If I understand this matter aright, it is very much the same as an apportionment order under the Rent Restrictions Act. Suppose that a sum is fixed next year as the value of a unit of land. That sum is fixed for five years, and if, in the course of the five years, that unit is split up, it may very well be that, owing to the splitting up, certain parts of it will become more valuable; but, nevertheless, the amount with respect to any one portion of that unit cannot be more than an apportionment of the whole sum that will be fixed next year, until a revaluation takes place five years hence. That is exactly the same as in the case of the Rent Restrictions
    1228
    Act. When a house is rent-restricted, if a sub-tenant comes in, he can, as I understand, go to the courts and get an apportionment order in proportion to the rental paid by the original tenant to the landlord.
    The only point that troubles us is this: Suppose that, instead of the value of the bit apportioned increasing, it decreases. In a country district, it might well be that land outside a small town might just come within the limit of paying a small tax, but that, when it is split up, it might fall below the level of £120, and, therefore, it would not in that ease pay tax at all. I understand that the new owner who has purchased this small property may appeal to the commissioners and point out that its value is not now as much as £120, and in that case he will not have to pay at all.
    The commissioners, I presume, will be a permanent body sitting in London, who will either themselves have, or will appoint, valuers in various parts of the country. The only point that troubles us is as to whether the valuers will be permanently allocated to certain districts. It may well be that these matters will take some time to settle. Someone buys a piece of land, and, owing to the change of ownership, has a right of appeal against the tax next year. How long will it take, and what is the exact process? Will he have to appeal to the commissioners in London, or can he appeal to the local authority, who will forward his claim? This is a pure matter of machinery, but perhaps the Solicitor-General will explain, as he did on the last Clause, what actually takes place.
    Sir W. BRASS: The Solicitor-General has told us that, when land is split up, the different parts of it are going to be apportioned at certain values, and he tells us that he does not want to accept this Amendment, which provides for a fresh valuation of the separate units after the splitting up. How is it possible to split up and apportion the bigger land unit into smaller land units without having some sort of valuation of the different portions into which the land has been split up? Imagine a fairly big site in the City of London, sold in two or three units. On one side of that site there is a fairly low building with "Ancient Lights" on it. That building abuts on to one portion of the split-up unit, and the

    1229
    fact that a portion of the split-up site looks on to the part where "Ancient Lights" exist will no doubt affect the land site value of that portion of the unit which has been split up. On the other hand, the other side, which might be built up, has no "Ancient Lights" against it. How will that particular larger unit be valued in its split-up form unless a proper valuation is made of the unit after it has been split up?
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I have given very careful study to these two Clauses, and I am bound to say that I hold the view which is held by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) as to their meaning. I am still not satisfied, and I still think that the Solicitor-General ought to reconsider these words before we reach the Report stage. I think that the words might possibly bear his construction, but that they could easily bear another construction, and, as we have to send this Bill to a judge to decide, we want to make it clear before the courts. I think that Clause 10 might well be amended. I daresay I take a hostile and unfavourable view of the hon. and learned Gentleman's drafting, but certainly I saw a sinister design, when I read Clauses 10 and 11 in conjunction, in the sentence:
    "apportioned as at that first day of January as between the several parts thereof according to the respective values of those parts at that date."
    What could that mean but the increased value of the particular parts of the building at that date? It would not mean the value of the building as a whole unit a short time before. It would mean the new value at that date. I admit that the Amendment will be far less favourable to the owner than the thesis put forward by the Solicitor-General.
    Whereupon, the GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair.
    Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

ROYAL ASSENT.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went; and, having returned,
MR. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—

1. Ancient Monuments Act, 1931.

2. Local Authorities (Publicity) Act, 1931.

3. Workmen's Compensation Act, 1931.

4. Widows' and Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1931.

5. Post Office and Telegraph (Money) Act, 1931.

6. Palestine and East Africa Loans Amendment Act, 1931.

7. Cumberland Market (St. Pancras) Act, 1931.

8. Public Works Facilities Scheme (West Surrey Water) Confirmation Act, 1931.

9. Public Works Facilities Scheme (Acton Swing Bridge) Confirmation Act, 1931.

10. Ministry of Health Provisional Order (East Elloe Joint Water Supply District) Act, 1931.

11. Alexander Scott's Hospital Order Confirmation Act, 1931.

12. Scottish United Investors, Limited, Order Confirmation Act, 1931.

13. Lowestoft Water and Gas Act, 1931.

14. Guildford Gas and Cranleigh Electricity Act, 1931.

15. Northampton Extension Act, 1931.

16. Mid Southern District Utility Act, 1931.

17. Liverpool University Act, 1931.

18. Middlesex County Council Act, 1931.

19. London Electric, Metropolitan District, and City and South London Railway Companies Act, 1031.

FINANCE BILL.
Again considered in Committee.
[Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]
Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
Mr. MARJORIBANKS: The Solicitor-General and my hon. Friends on this side of the House are entirely agreed on principle. The only division now is on the question of expression. I think, having, regard to the word "revised" in line 21, and to the phrase "respective values of those parts at that date,"

1231
there is still some obscurity in the matter, and no one but a trained lawyer would probably come to the conclusion which has been expressed by the Solicitor-General, at any rate at the first glance. If he would reconsider the words and put a proviso in to make the matter certain, we should be satisfied. My Amendment to add a new Sub-section is, of course, rendered unnecessary after the explanation of the Solicitor-General, because, if the intention which he has stated is the meaning of the Bill, paragraph (a) of the first Sub-section of the next Clause is explained, and we have no grievance whatever in respect of that. My hon. Friend and myself have thought that, whereas the owner of a split-up unit could appeal as against the apportionment, he could not appeal against the increase in valuation, which we thought was implicit and possible under Clause 10, especially as the Solicitor-General has said almost invariably that when one unit is split up into several the value of the whole increases. We did not credit him with the Christian charity of waiting until the next quinquennium and only then increasing the value as a whole. We now realise that the milk of human kindness was in his heart from the start, and we appeal to him to make the matter absolutely clear for the protection of the public in future.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am quite prepared to look again at Clause 10, but I have already tried to make the matter as clear as possible. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet), as to the mechanism by which the valuer will get to know—there are of course at present district valuers in every part of the country and it will be by an extension of their work that this will be carried through. Under Clause 23 notice has to be given to the Commissioner, and through that he will get to know of the splitting up of the land. If he did not by any chance get to know of it he would serve the wrong owner with the next assessment, and the wrong owner would of course refuse to pay, because he was not the owner. The Commissioner would thus get to know in that way. But he will actually get to know by seeing the documents upon which the sale takes place.
1232
In reply to a question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass), about the splitting up of a site of which he gave an example, in the City of London, a case in which there are rights of light, with a user on one side and not on the other—there you would have to ascertain at the 1st January, which is the date when the new valuation of these sub-units would come into force, what the relative value of these units was within the original aggregate valuation. That is to say, you would in a sense revalue it, but you would not add together those new values and make them the new aggregate value, but only use them for the purpose of apportioning the original aggregate value. Take the example I gave, original value £3,000, new value £4,000, one of the units £1,000, which would merely show that one quarter of the original value had been dealt with.
Sir W. BRASS: With reference to the land unit in the City of London, and the splitting up into three parts, with two parts affected by light restrictions, if the new valuation of the three units is to be in aggregate the same as the value of the unit when it was originally valued, and assume that part of it is highly valued and another part valued at a low amount, and there is an appeal by the person who owns the highly valued part against that value, and the appeal is successful, what is to happen to the person who owns the lower valued part? Is he going to have something added to him to make up the added value of the original aggregate value?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The answer is in a sense "yes," and in a sense "no." The appeal will not be against the new value; the appeal will be against the apportionment of the original value into the three parts. Therefore anyone interested in that apportionment will come to the appeal on apportionment.
Sir GERALD HURST: I accept everything that the Solicitor-General has said. That the original aggregate cannot be increased is clear. But I suggest, from what the Solicitor-General has said, that it is absolutely essential that a fresh valuation should be made. The Amendment, therefore, is justified. Take the case of a man whose plot of land, assessed as one land unit, is valued at £1,000. It is not

1233
assessed as consisting of a number of parcels of land of different values. The man sells one parcel for £1,000. How is it possible to apportion the original £1,000 between the land which is retained and the land which is sold without a fresh valuation? The Solicitor-General drew attention to Clause 23, which provides machinery whereby district valuers can value. That is our point. The machinery is there to enable them to make a fresh valuation. I submit that it is impossible to make Clause 10 work without having a fresh valuation.
Amendment negatived.
Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to move, in page 9, line 30, at the end, to insert the words:
"(2) Any owner of a part of a land unit which has become divided as aforesaid may serve upon the Commissioners a notice stating the fact of such division and thereupon the Commissioners shall proceed to cause such revised entries to be substituted as aforesaid."
This is a comparatively small matter, but I am not sure that it does not deal with a case of remissness on the part of the draftsman. As far as we can see, there is no machinery for providing that the owner of part of a divided unit has the power to stir the Commissioners into action to apportion the value. I think the Solicitor-General will agree, on reflection, that this power ought to be given to the owner of a divided unit. The Government may say that what will happen will be that notice of assessment will be served on the original owner of the entire unit, and that he will reply to the Commissioners that he is not liable to pay, and that the unit has been divided; and thereupon the Commissioners will proceed to the matter if apportionment. But it is quite possible that the owner of the original undivided unit may not be in the country or may have put the assessment into the fire, or may have overlooked it. It may not be possible to catch him. I can see no objection, from the point of view of the taxpayer or the Government, to giving the owner of part of a divided unit, if he desires to have it, the power to ask the Commissioners to make this apportionment. I suggest that the Solicitor-General should consider the insertion of these words, or some such words.
Sir S. ROBERTS: The Amendment is a very desirable provision. Assume that you have a fairly large piece of land which has one unit site value put upon it. Part of it is sold to a builder, and the builder then divides it into various plots. The builder wants to sell the land to the people who are going to occupy houses on the plots. The occupiers of those houses will want to know very much what the site value is. They will want to know particularly whether the value is under £120, that is to say, whether they will have anything at all to pay. The knowledge that they would have nothing to pay might make a good deal of difference to their willingness to buy and to the price that they would pay. It would not cause the Commissioners a great deal of trouble if an individual owner in this case had the right to go to them and to say, "I want this piece of land that I have bought, apportioned"; or the intermediate owner might go and say, "I want this particular piece apportioned because I want to sell it to the person who wishes to know what the site value will be." The Amendment would not hurt the scheme of the Bill and it might be very useful.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: As regards the question of notification, there is certainly no objection to it, though to us it seems unnecessary. I cannot imagine any stronger cause urging the Commissioners to act, than the fact that they will not get the tax paid unless they act. We thought that that was a strong enough urge. As regards the second part of the Amendment, I do not think that my right hon. Friend would really desire to press it, because it is obviously impossible for the Commissioners "thereupon" to cause such revised entries to be substituted. There may be an appeal on the apportionment. Under Clause 10 the date is 1st January; the effective date of the apportionment is to be 1st January. That is the date on which the register is made up. Suppose that the division takes place in June. Obviously the Commissioners could not "forthwith" or "thereupon" apportion, because they have to wait to do it as on 1st January. Apart from that point I am quite prepared to put in some words giving the owner or sub-owner the right

1235
to notify the Commissioners and to ask them to act as soon as they can under the Act.
Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I appreciate that fact, but I think the Solicitor-General does not do justice to the actual words of the Amendment. The Amendment does not say that the Commissioners shall cause such revised entries to be substituted, but that they shall "proceed to cause," and that means by due process of law.
Sir DENNIS HERBERT: The learned Solicitor-General said just now that you could not get the tax unless and until this apportionment was carried out. Is he absolutely certain as to that, and, if the point is quite clear, will he explain it to me? I am not satisfied that that is the case.
5.0 p.m.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The answer is that there would be no entry, as regards the subdivided portions, in any register, nor would there be any notification to any owner as regards the valuation, and there could not be an assessment until after one or other of those two things had happened. There would be an entry in regard to the original unit, but as on the 1st January that had ceased to exist, a tax could not be levied on it; and, if the owner was assessed to a tax, he would be able to appeal on assessment and to say, "I am not the owner of this unit. It no longer exists; it belongs to these sub-purchasers, or part of it does"; and until that sub-unit appeared in some register, the tax could not be secured.
Sir THOMAS INSKIP: I am not sure that the Solicitor-General has satisfied my right hon. Friend, but he has certainly not satisfied me. The prospect that he envisages, of an appeal by the owner, terrifies me and will, I think, terrify the owner, too. He suggests that the owner of the land unit may appeal against the assessment, but that is not very satisfactory to the taxpayers. They do not want to be involved in appeals against assessments, and the whole importance of the Amendment is not so much in the power of the owner of the unit to serve the Commissioners with notice—because there is nothing to prevent a man writing to the Commissioners—but the importance is that the Commissioners shall then proceed to cause the entries to be
1236
made which will relieve the owner of the undivided land unit from the possibility of being assessed to a tax to get rid of which he will have to appeal.
I am not clear what words the Solicitor-General proposes to insert. It will not be sufficient to put in words empowering the taxpayer to serve the Commissioners with notice of the division. We want the subsequent words, and can the Solicitor-General assure us that we shall have words to the same effect, that upon receiving notice the Commissioners shall proceed to take the steps forthwith? I do not like the words, "If it appears to the Commissioners." They may turn a blind eye to what is happening, they may be blocked up with business, and there may be all sorts of difficulties which prevent them making the necessary entries at the proper time. Do let us have machinery which does not contemplate appeals by the taxpayers, which are always expensive and may very likely involve difficulties.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: What I said when I first made a statement on this matter was that I was prepared to put in some Amendment which gave power to the owner of the sub-unit to give notice to the Commissioners, and which gave power to the Commissioners to proceed upon it so far as they could within the Section of the Act. The difficulty that I pointed out with regard to the word "thereupon" was that if notice was given in the early part of the year, and the Commissioners had to make the apportionment as at the 1st January next, they could not proceed "thereupon" to apportion, but would have to take the value as at the 1st January next. Therefore, they could not really do it till the 1st January next, and that is why I said that "thereupon" was a word which I could not accept.
Sir W. BRASS: The Solicitor-General says that this apportionment has a value as at the 1st January next. The Clause says, "as at that first day of January," and I want to know whether it is in fact the 1st January next or the previous 1st January, before the sale took place.
The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: The Clause reads:
"Where it appears to the Commissioners that on the first day of January in any year of charge any piece of land. … has become divided."

1237
It has to appear to them on the 1st January. At the previous 1st January, it will not have been divided, so that it could not mean that one, but must mean the next 1st January.
Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: That makes it rather more difficult than I thought, because the position of the unfortunate original owner of the unit which is subsequently subdivided is that during the whole of the calendar year he will be liable to be assessed, and to have an assessment served upon him, and the Commissioners will make him pay, and his only remedy is to appeal. I do not think that that is very satisfactory. I understood that the hon. and learned Solicitor-General was going to put in some words which would have substantially the effect of our Amendment, but I would call attention to the fact that the word "thereupon" is by no means unimportant. I agree that, as the Bill is drawn, it may be difficult for the Commissioners to do it, but that is no reason for doing an injustice. Rather is it a reason for endeavouring to make some modification which will meet the point.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am sorry to keep on interrupting, but the date which is the effective date in any financial year, under Clause 14, for assessment of the tax is the 1st January. First, let me assume that in June, 1935, there is a division of the unit.
Sir W. MITCHELL - THOMSON: Assume that it is in February.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Very well. Then as on the 1st January, 1935, the register will show all the people who are to pay tax on that assessment. If someone divides it up in February and wants to divide up the liability for the current year, he will do it, of course, just as he does now in regard to rates, in his agreement of sale. He will apportion it between himself and the man who buys. He will pay two months' tax and the other man will pay 10 months' tax, but it is impossible for the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to apportion the tax as between the seller and the buyer. They must charge it on one of them, and the apportionment between those two is done by agreement at the sale. On the next 1st January, when it comes along, the unit has been divided, and at that date the Commissioners have to
1238
serve the notice on the owners of the divided units, and they will be the people who at that next 1st January will be in the register as the owners of the new sub-units and will be assessed and liable to tax, the other man having gone out in the intervening period, so that you have the two dates of the 1st January following one after the other. On the first of them the owner of the whole unit will be chargeable, and on the second of them the owners of the sub-units will be chargeable.
Sir D. HERBERT: Suppose the owner of a 10-acre unit sells it in plots of one acre each, the sales being completed on the 26th or the 27th December, which is a very common date for completion, on the 1st January the original owner is no longer the owner of the 10-acre unit, but surely the reapportionment and revaluation will not have been made by the 1st January. At the moment nothing will be known about it, and the wretched owner of the 10 acres will be served with the assessment as on the 1st January. I do not see what protection he has against paying it, except an appeal.
The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: The answer is that in such a case as that, if he is served with an assessment and sends it back as he will do, of course, to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and says, "This is not my unit," and they still proceed with the assessment, he will have to appeal; but it is a rather long cry to imagine that in those circumstances the Commissioners will insist on an appeal which inevitably they must lose. I think the real solution is that the owner will write back and say, "This land has been split up, and I am no longer chargeable." They will find that that is the fact, and they will proceed accordingly.
Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I see that when you split up a £1,000 piece of land between, say, four people, in lots of £250 each, you will get the money as from the 1st January from the four people, but, suppose that the land is sold to 10 people. In that case, each lot will be only £100, and none of them will be liable to the tax. You cannot expect them to pay under those circumstances, because in your own Bill you have eliminated them on the ground that they come below the £120 limit. That seems to have nothing to do with the case which we have been

1239
discussing, and the result is that they will not want to pay and that the original owner will be justified in claiming that he also is exempt. He has gone out of it, and you cannot force them to pay because in their case there is no longer a taxable unit. It is, I think, a question which ought to be explained, and I should not like to have to explain it to my constituents.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The unit does not became non-taxable because it is under £ 120. It is just as much taxable. The individual who would have to pay less than 10s. does not have to pay, but that is a question of an individual exemption. It is not the exemption of a unit, so that that question does not arise.
Captain CAZALET: Suppose that he sold the 1,000 acres on the 1st February, the original owner would only be liable to tax from the 1st January to the 1st February on the 1,000 acres. He cannot be responsible for it after the 1st February, I imagine, or is he responsible for the whole year?
Sir T. INSKIP: It is impossible to discuss an Amendment which the Solicitor-General has not yet put down. I only wish it were possible, as on these occasions it used to be possible, to get the statement that we could discuss it on Report, but that is too much to expect. At any rate, we shall get the Amendment put on the Paper. The Solicitor-General may have expounded aright the Clause as it stands. Taking the case of the division of the unit in February, he says that everybody must wait until the following January at least, and that only then will the alteration be made. My right hon. Friend's Amendment contemplates procedure being taken immediately upon the division of the land unit in order to get the necessary entries made, so that at the earliest possible moment the new land units may be on the register. It may be that the Solicitor-General will say that this Amendment does not fit in with the opening words of the Clause, but will he be good enough to consider, in connection with his Amendment, whether it is not desirable to put in words which will enable the owner of the land unit that has been divided to get rid of his liability as early as possible? That is why we
1240
want some such words as "shall thereupon proceed to make the necessary entries" put in here. If the Solicitor-General will consider that aspect and try to meet us as far as possible in anything that we put down, we can withdraw the Amendment.
Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: On that understanding, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

FINANCE BILL.

  CLAUSE 11.—(Objections to and appeals from valuations.)
  Lord ERSKINE: I beg to move, in page 9, line 34, after the word "unit," to insert the words:
  "or any person from whom any portion of the tax may be recovered."
  The object of the Amendment, which, I think, is one of some substance, is to make sure that anyone who is called upon, or who may be called upon, to bear the tax has some right of appeal. It may be a mistake and a complete omission, but as far as we can see at the present time the man who actually holds the ground on a lease which is over 50 years will have no right of appeal at all although a great deal, and in some cases, in fact, the whole, of the tax may be passed back to him. If the learned Solicitor-General will look at Clause 26 of the Bill, he will see that the expression "owner" means:
  "In relation to any land subject to a lease granted for a term exceeding fifty years which has commenced, the estate owner in respect of the term."
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If the Noble Lord will look at Sub-section (5) of Clause 15, he will find that there is a special extension of the word for the purposes which, I think, he has in mind. It deals with passing it back. Sub-section (5) of that Clause is designed to enable anyone to whom tax can be passed back to have exactly the same rights with regard to appeals and everything else.
  Lord ERSKINE: Does that mean that in all cases where a tax may be chargeable, the person charged with the payment of any portion of the tax can have the right of appeal?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL indicated assent.
  Lord ERSKINE: That is the object of the Amendment which I have moved, and, if that is the fact, I am prepared to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I will read the passage, so that the Noble Lord can see whether I am right or not:
  "The provisions of this Part of this Act as to the service of copies of entries inserted, or proposed to be inserted, in a land values register on the owner of a land unit, as to objections to, and appeals from, valuations by the owner of the unit, as to the inspection and taking extracts from a land values register, and as to the service of documents, shall, as respects a land unit owned by a lessee, apply to any such reversioner as aforesaid, and accordingly references in the said provisions to an 'owner' shall be deemed to include references to any such reversioner."
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: With regard to the lessee, I agree that Subsection (5) of Clause 15 covers the point, but is the Solicitor-General quite clear that it also covers all the cases of people who might be called upon to bear the tax?
  The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: In England.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I had a note to ask a question with regard to ground annuals in Scotland. I am not sure whether under this Bill the ground annual pays the tax. That is a point which occurs to me. Reference to ground annual is made in paragraph (t) of Clause 30. If there is any doubt about it, there can really be no objection to the inclusion of these words at all. There is another possibility, though I do not say that one would do it simply from that point of view. Suppose that the Amendment to Clause 15 which stands in the name of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) were to be passed, even as regards England the owner of a piece of land would have recourse as against the tithe receiver for a portion of tithe passed on. I suggest that no harm whatever can come from inserting the words proposed by my Noble Friend unless the President of the Board of Trade can reassure us that it might perhaps cover the case which occurred to me in looking through the Bill.
  Sir D. HERBERT: The learned Solicitor-General knows that in the North there is a form of property known as chief rents. Some of these chief rents are created by means of a lease of 999 years. When there is a reversion the case is covered. But will he tell me what is the position with regard to the owner of a chief rent which is created, not by lease, but by conveying a rent charge, an annual sum payable out of the property without any reversion at all? Presumably the owner of a chief rent of that type is in the same kind of position as the owner of a chief rent created by means of a lease of 999 years. If not, it is as well that we should have the matter explained to us.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not think that this is quite the appropriate place at which to go into the whole question of Clause 15. The point, I wanted to make was, that everybody to whom the tax can be passed back under Clause 15 is covered in Sub-section (5) of Clause 15. There is no reference to the Scottish position. I am not going to attempt to deal with the question of ground annual, but it is disguished owing to an unfortunate misprint in page 32, line 12, of the Bill. The "provisions of Sub-section (4)," should be "provisions of Sub-section (5)." Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will raise that question on the Scottish Clause if it is necessary to do so. Unfortunately, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is not here.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It says in paragraph (b) of Clause 30 that
  "the provisions of Sub-section (4)"
  —or as the learned Attorney-General says, Sub-section (5)—
  "of Section fifteen of this Act shall apply to any person to whom any feu duty is payable in respect of a land unit in like manner as they apply to the reversioner therein mentioned."
  There is no direct mention of "ground annual." A feu duty and a ground annual are quite distinct things, though I suppose that the President of the Board of Trade would say that they come to much the same thing in fact. But historically and in definiton I fancy that they are quite distinct things. Therefore, reference to feu duty certainly would not include ground annual. I do not know whether the Solicitor-General will

  1243
  look forward to the possibility of the Amendment by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme being passed, but, if a portion of the tithe in England is passed on to the tithe owner, I imagine that the original person would still be the owner of the land and not the tithe owner.
  Sir BOYD MERRIMAN: May I come back to South of the Tweed, to where my Noble Friend left the matter? The Solicitor-General has correctly stated, as far as it goes, the effect of Sub-section (5) of Clause 15 as enabling the passing back to that place. But in page 17 there is a proviso which appears to hit the particular reversioner of whom my Noble Friend was talking. It states:
  "provided that no such reversioner shall be entitled to be served with copies of any entries unless"
  he has given notice that he will require copies to be served upon him. Surely, that is an anomaly. If you are going to put him into the same position, as the Solicitor-General says, that he is in with regard to appeals, he ought to get these notices, and not merely by reason of his having at some previous date given to the Commissioners notice that he requires notices to be served. I invite the Solicitor-General to tell us whether it is possible to take out that proviso?
  Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: This change seems to be consequential upon the Amendment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted some time ago with regard to the notices. Is it contemplated that every person shall have the right of being given notice of a change?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It really does not arise at this point. I appreciate the point. I was dealing with the question of the right to appeal. The difficulty where you have a number of reversioners is to know them. When you are dealing with one calculation, and so on, you cannot go about and find out who are all the possible reversioners. I had one experience of that in a case at law where we found about 12 reversioners of different sorts and kinds before we got back to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who had given a 999 years' lease. That is why this provision is made in that form. A lot of reversioners with nominal ground rents will not be interested.
  Lord ERSKINE: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in page 9, line 38, after the word "value," to insert the words:
  "or to any action of the Commissioners under Section eight, Sub-section (3), paragraph (c), of this Act."
  Members of the Committee will remember that paragraph (c) of Subsection (3) of Clause 8 gives the Commissioners power, where they think fit, entirely in their sole discretion, to treat as one land unit what in point of fact is more than one land unit, provided those land units belong to one owner although they may not be in the same occupation. There does not appear to me to be any method by which an owner who wishes to put the view that he would prefer to have sold the land unit separately, because he considers it more advantageous to do so, can appeal against what appears to be the arbitrary discretion of the Commissioners. If the Commissioners say that the property shall be treated as a whole, apparently, the owner has no alternative but to accept that decision. No doubt he could put forward to the Commissioners reasons why he thought it should not be done, but if they do not agree, there does not seem to be any power on the part of the owner to appeal. An appeal might be allowed to the owner against the decision of the Commissioners. It might make considerable difference to the incidence of the tax. Certainly, the owner ought to have the right of appeal in this case just as he has the right to appeal against any other item of assessment.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. and gallant Member's Amendment sounds, in one sense, reasonable, but if he will follow out what the effect of an appeal will be, I think he will see that there is not very much point in it. This is a power which when it is used, will really be for the benefit of the owner. Suppose the Commissioners decide that land A, B and C shall be grouped together for the purpose of valuation, because that is how a prudent owner would sell it. The test of that would be that A, B and C put together would fetch a better price than A, B and C separately. Let us assume that there was an appeal. Only two

  1245
  things could be decided on an appeal, either that the Commissioners were right or that they were wrong. If they were wrong, the grouping would be upset and the owner would pay on a higher land tax, because A, B and C as individually valued would have a higher value than that which had been put upon them by grouping.
  Sir B. MERRIMAN: That does not follow.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. and learned Member says that that does not follow, but it must follow. If the Commissioners have done the wrong thing, then they have done it against themselves. That is to say, if the referee determines that they ought to have valued separately, because that is what a prudent vendor would do. The only test which the referee would have as regards a prudent vendor is as to how he would get the best price. If he comes to the conclusion that the best price would be got by selling the land separately, then he upsets the decision of the Commissioners and the assessment goes up. The value is bound to go up for the three units separately. If the hon. and gallant Member wants this provision to be put in, I do not see any particular reason why it should not be put in. The reason why it was not put in was because we felt that the only conceivable result would be a decision against the owner, and we did not want to put in a provision of that sort.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We are much obliged to the Solicitor-General for his explanation, but I confess that I am not quite clear that his explanation is entirely adequate, because it does not seem to me that his conclusion is necessarily borne out from his premises. The Commissioners, in the first place, decide that A, B and C are to be lumped together, because that is what a prudent vendor would do, on the assumption that by lumping them together he would get the highest price. The owner appeals, and on the appeal it is decided that the value put upon the combined lots is too high. Then a lower value is assigned.
  The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: I apologise for interrupting. That would be an appeal against the value and not an appeal against the grouping of the
  1246
  unit. What is contemplated here is an appeal with regard to the grouping of the unit. As to the value, there is every opportunity of appealing on the valuation of the land unit.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid that I have not made myself clear. In Clause 11, power is given to the owner of the land unit to object to the land value or to the cultivation value, but he has no power to appeal against the grouping of the units. I am suggesting that in this particular case he appeals against the land value, and says that it is too high. A lower value is found on appeal, but that value in the opinion of the owner may still be too high, because he has not had an opportunity of putting the other case, namely, that the unit should have been dealt with separately. Therefore, the question whether the units were properly grouped together is not decided. I do not see why there should be any objection to appealing against the grouping of units, quite apart from the question of value,
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I did not suggest that there was no right in the Bill as it exists to appeal against the grouping, but what I did say was that the inevitable result of such an appeal, if it did exist, must be to go against the owner. [Interruption.] Let me explain. Take the three units A, B and C. The only test which the referee could have as to whether a prudent owner would lump them together is whether they would fetch the best price——
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: In his opinion.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: In his opinion, as to how the highest price would be got, on the evidence before him. If he arrived at the conclusion that the highest price would be obtained by lumping them together, then he must inevitably uphold the decision of the Commissioners, and that they have done the right thing. If he arrived at the conclusion that the highest price would be arrived at by not lumping them together, which is the only other alternative, then the only thing that he could do would be to upset the Commissioners' aggregation of them into one lot, and he would make them into three units which would ex hypothesi put a higher value upon them than that which the Commissioners have put upon them.
  Captain BOURNE: I think the Solicitor-General, has overlooked one fact, that in values you have to imagine that the unit is denuded of everything, with certain exceptions. A case might occur, for instance, under the Rent Restrictions Acts, where the mere fact that an adjacent unit had to be kept in its present form would make a very considerable difference in the value, whether they were grouped or not. Take four or five houses together in a terrace, part of which is under the Rent Restrictions Act and part not. The value of that property as a whole, if you can imagine the houses as not under the Rent Restrictions Act, must inevitably be higher than if you have to take into account under the proposals of the Bill where the surrounding properties are assumed to be in their present condition. Some parts of it would be restricted and some parts would not be restricted. I think the Solicitor-General has overlooked those facts. I can conceive that there are cases where this would be of value in an appeal by the owner.
  Sir T. INSKIP: The Solicitor-General need not apologise for interrupting. We are very glad to have someone for the Government who will explain the Bill. As no one else will do it, certainly no one could do it better than the Solicitor-General. The point of importance is in the interpretation which he puts upon the word "prudent." He has interpreted "prudent" as meaning prudent from the point of view of turning the property into cash value. I have never read the word "prudent" in that sense. The words "prudent vendor" are very obscure if they mean only that a person who is a vendor is prudent because of the price that he is thinking the property-will fetch. The Solicitor-General will perhaps correct mo if I am wrong, but "prudent vendor" is not a term of art. The term is not used in the Conveyancing Acts and in other Acts of Parliament.
  Let me contemplate a vendor who desires to put up, say, three, six or ten houses in a terrace separately for sale, because he may be selling other property on the same estate. As a prudent vendor, he may think it very desirable to offer them separately, perhaps from the point of view of the sitting tenants. Why should the owner of a terrace of houses be required to
  1248
  put them up together, because they might fetch a better price, if that prudent vendor thinks that it is right to give an opportunity to his tenants to buy their own house? Why should he be regarded as imprudent because, neglecting the cash consideration which he might get for all the 10 houses in the terrace if they were put up together, he says: "Let the houses be offered separately to my excellent tenants." The Commissioners may say, "We do not think that that is what a prudent vendor would do. You must sell these houses as a whole. You must give your tenants notice and not allow them to buy the houses separately at the sale. Therefore, we shall lump them together. We shall value from that point of view, and we shall make your 10 house unit more valuable. You will pay more tax, because we think you ought not to consider the interests of your individual tenants as a prudent owner, and sell the houses separately." As the Solicitor-General is prepared to put these words in, he might allow this second Amendment to be made in the Bill.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: If the Solicitor-General has no objection to these words going into the Bill, it seems to me that they might very well go in. Take a case where the owner objects to the assessment on the ground that it is too high because the property has been lumped together in one unit. He might be prepared to concede that the grouping did in fact give the figure that appeared in the register, but on the other hand he might say that if they were taken separately, the aggregate of the three figures would be lower than the figures of the units grouped together. There is no objection, even if the Solicitor-General thinks that it is mere verbiage, to putting in the proposed words.
  Major LLEWELLIN: The Solicitor-General, as I understood him, said that if the owner had the appeal which he would have if the Amendment were made, it would not be any good to him, because he would only be able to appeal really in cases where he did not want to.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: In cases where he might lose.
  Major LLEWELLIN: Where he might lose if he did appeal. There is a very

  1249
  simple issue between us as to whether we should give the individual owners power to take the risk of losing on their appeal, which is a matter for their own discretion, or whether we should not. Any man who appeals in the Courts of Law takes a certain risk if he fails. We might just as well leave to the owners' discretion whether they will take the risk of an appeal in Court going against them. There may be cases arising, such as that quoted by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), and others which we may not be able to think of now, in which it would be right and proper to give the owner the power of appeal. As that is the Solicitor-General's main objection to this proposal it may be left to each individual owner to decide as to whether he desires to take the risk or not. I think he should be given the right, if he desires, to have his case put before an impartial tribunal and not decided, as it will be in this case, behind closed doors by the Commissioners.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If hon. and right hon. Members opposite want the owner to be given this dangerous weapon—I hope he will not cut his throat with it—I am prepared to agree to the principle though not to the wording of the Amendment. There is some difficulty about the drafting of the Amendment, but I will undertake to bring forward an Amendment which will carry out the principle.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I desire to thank the Solicitor-General for accepting the Amendment. I agree entirely with what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip) has said. If two or three houses are valued together, the value might be higher than if they are taken separately; and that would be to the disadvantage of the owner. The landowner, however, will now be able to take care of himself.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  Sir B. MERRIMAN: I beg to move, in page 9, line 39, to leave out the word "thirty," and to insert instead thereof the word "forty-two."
  May I say, in regard to what the Solicitor-General has said about apologising to the Committee, that it is extremely inspiring to us on this side to see the serried ranks on the Government Benches willing to learn something about
  1250
  this Bill from the Solicitor-General? Nine Members of the Government supporters have attended during the last hour this somewhat intricate discussion——
  Mr. JAMES HUDSON: Is it in order for a complete misstatement as to the numbers of Members on this side of the Committee to be made in that way?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not an unusual practice for one side of the House to call attention to the sparse attendance on the opposite side. I am not responsible for the arithmetic of hon. Members.
  Sir B. MERRIMAN: I must take exception to the form in which the point of Order has been stated. It was said that it was a complete misstatement. At the moment I made the statement I verified it by counting the number of hon. Members opposite, and, excluding the Front Bench, there were only nine Members on the Government Benches, one of whom had been asleep for a considerable time. In this Amendment I am, asking for the substitution of 42 for 30 in connection with the number of days allowed for appeal, and I hope the Solicitor-General will accept it. Thirty days for an appeal under this Bill is ludicrously too short. Under the Income Tax 42 days is allowed. Here we are dealing with a whole host of intricate and new problems, some of which have already been appreciated by the Government, in regard to which all sorts of new questions will arise. Why should a less time be allowed for appeals than in the case of Income Tax, particularly having regard to the fact that Income Tax assessment is only binding for one year, while the assessment under this Bill is binding for five years?
  In certain events, unless a notice has been served at some other time, the time from which these 30 days are to run is 1st August. Is it really suggested that, with all the new problems which will arise, 30 days from 1st August is a convenient or reasonable time to allow a man to make up his mind to appeal? I shall be told that the Commissioners have a power to extend the time, but that is illusory because the application for an extension of time must be made within the original 30 days and, therefore, it follows that whatever problems may arise somebody has to make up his mind to appeal, or to apply to the Commissioners

  1251
  for an extension of time, during the holiday month of August. That really is not reasonable, and I suggest that, having regard to all the questions which may arise in connection with trust estates, there ought to be some extension of time for appeals.
  Sir S. ROBERTS: My mind goes back to the numbers of Form IV with which I had to deal, and I feel that the Government will really be saving the time of the Department if they accept this Amendment. These assessments will come in in large numbers to those who have to deal with them. They will come in in thousands to solicitors' offices, and will have to be checked by valuers on behalf of the owners. The only thing the solicitor will be able to do is to put in an appeal against the lot, without going into the details at all. If a reasonable time is given, the Government and their valuers will be saved a large number of appeals. It is not a question of one owner looking at his assessment and considering whether it is a right and proper assessment. You have to consider those people who will deal with vast numbers of these assessments, solicitors and land agents, and, therefore, 42 days, while it is not sufficient, is better than 30 days. From a practical point of view, 30 days is utterly impossible.
  Mr. ROSS: I support the Amendment from the point of view of those who will have to carry out the proposals of the Measure as well as those who will be affected by the Bill. What will have to be sent into the Commissioners will be a regular argued case, involving questions of great difficulty in law and complicated questions of fact. No doubt the Commissioners will in most cases grant an extension of time, but it is going to add a large amount of work to the Commissioners if they have to deal with many applications for an extension of time. I ask the Solicitor-General to cast his mind back to the days when he wore a stuff gown and dealt with pleadings, and to remember that frequently it was impossible to deliver the defence which he drafted with such care and discrimination within the time allowed, and when even he had to apply for extra time. That is not a satisfactory situation, and 42 days is a very short time in which to prepare
  1252
  a long, technical, argued case on questions of law and fact. It will throw an extra burden on those affected and upon the officials who will have to deal with applications to the Commissioners. There is the further aggravation of the 1st August. As the Solicitor-General knows, at the end of July the exhausted members of the legal profession generally disperse for a time, and only begin to come back in increasing numbers by the end of the month. I would appeal to him to accept the Amendment because it is a real defect in the Bill to put in an arbitrary time of 30 days, which is less than the customary 42 days. I can see no reason why there should be this haste to get objections in so quickly. The Government are bound to gain by giving a little further time.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am glad to be able to say that the Government will accept this Amendment. The time proposed is rather too short, and perhaps the reason for the insertion of the 30 days was that they anticipated that there would be a general willingness on the part of the Commissioners to extend the time. However, we are quite willing to accept the Amendment.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am encouraged by the conciliatory mood of the Solicitor-General to ask him whether he cannot go a little further. I am not going to ask for anything unreasonable and that he should give us more than 42 days in the case of the first valuation. I am thinking of subsequent valuations, where no notice has to be served upon the owner and where, accordingly, he is given 42 days' notice after 1st August. That is the holiday season, and even 42 days does not seem to be a reasonable time when it starts from 1st August. It would be a reasonable time in any other part of the year, but it is not reasonable at that time of the year, because these are matters which will require consultation with the people concerned, who may be scattered all over the country, and solicitors will have considerable difficulty in communicating with their clients and collecting their views within 42 days. I suggest that the Solicitor-General should consider the insertion of 60 days. That would only apply to those cases in the subsequent quinquennia when 1st August would be the starting date.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The right hon. Gentleman has rather frightened me about making any further concessions. One has to be careful, but I am certainly prepared to consider the matter. I cannot go any further at present.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Major MUIRHEAD: I beg to move, in page 10, line 4, after the word "and," to insert the words "may include therein."
  I am not quite certain as to the exact meaning of this Clause as it stands. It states that if anybody objects to the valuation which the Commissioners have put upon him
  "he may give to the Commissioners notice in writing of his objection stating the grounds thereof and his estimate of the land value of the unit, and of the cultivation value of any agricultural land comprised therein."
  I am not quite clear whether a man who objects to a valuation can make his objection without stating the precise estimate which he himself would put upon his land, but I am inclined to read the Clause as meaning that if he makes an objection he must make his own estimate upon the land. It is in order to avoid that requirement from him that I move the Amendment. I think it is indefensible that a man should be compelled to put his own estimate on the land which somebody else is valuing for this purpose. The Commissioners have the obligation of making the valuation and the owner has the right of making his objection. If they cannot compose their differences then they go before the referee, but it is unjustifiable to take the owner of the land which is being valued, at a certain point in the proceedings, and turn him into a valuer, when you have people who are there for the specific purpose of valuing the land. If the owner likes to give his estimate that is another matter but it is unjust and unfair to compel him to give his own estimate simply because he chooses to make an objection.
  Let me take an instance which has just occurred in the Committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Rusholme (Sir B. Merriman) raised an objection to the sparseness of the attendance on the opposite benches during these proceedings, and he was bold enough to attach to his objection a
  1254
  numerical estimate of the number of hon. Members opposite which turned out to be wrong. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I beg the hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon for having doubted the accuracy of his estimate, but I thought he intended to include all the Members present on the opposite side and that he had forgotten those seated below the Gangway. However, that shows the difficulty and the danger of people who make objections attaching actual figures to them, and the fact that I was mistaken in attributing a wrong estimate to the hon. and learned Gentleman does not alter my main point—that in this case an owner ought to be able to enter his objection without giving his own estimate. When the question goes to the referee that is another matter. When the case comes to be dealt with in a judicial or semi-judicial manner, then, of course, all information and all figures on both sides will have to be considered, but no man should be compelled to give information of a specific character as to the value of his own land in the course of ordinary correspondence to people of no higher rank and status than the land valuers of the Commissioners. An owner should not be compelled to give such information when it may be used for any purpose, perhaps even for misrepresentation, and when he has no defence against its use in that way. This Amendment enables an owner to make a perfectly just objection in principle against a value set upon his land by the technical assessor, without being compelled himself to do the work of the valuer and to put a value upon his own land.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: I support the Amendment for the following additional reasons. This Bill is based on an entirely new conception of land values. It is proposed to proceed on an illusory and, as we think, fantastic method in order to arrive at these values. You have to imagine that the building upon the site has been razed to the ground, but that all the other buildings in the neighbourhood had been left standing, and apply the same conception in turn to the other buildings in order to find the site value of the land. It appears to be monstrous that a site owner who objects to the valuation put upon his land in this highly artificial method should be expected to acquaint himself with the mental processes by which the valuers who have studied that method proceed, and apply them to his

  1255
  own land. Furthermore, the figure which he provides in such circumstances cannot be of the smallest use to anybody. It cannot be of any use to the Commissioners. They fix a figure by the method prescribed under the Act which they have been accustomed to study, and it is unreasonable that the subject should be called upon to do more than to say: "This value which you have put upon my land is wrong; I object to it and I shall take my objection to appeal." I think this is an Amendment which the Solicitor-General might well accept.
  Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: I support the Amendment not only on the grounds referred to by the previous speakers, but also because I feel that the usual procedure will be, not for an owner to be so rash as to put his own valuation on his land, but for him to engage a firm of expert valuers to advise him. The period of 42 days from the receipt of the first notice until the value has to be put in, allowing for the process of engaging a valuer, getting the work of valuation completed, submitting the result to the owner, getting his approval and lodging it with the Commissioners is scarcely sufficient. From the Government point of view it might be well to accept the Amendment. Sometimes it may be that, on mature reflection, and when the first flush of indignation has subsided, an owner may feel that it is not worth his while appealing. His expert advisers may say to him that an appeal would not be worth what he is likely to gain on appeal, after he has paid their fees. If the Government wish to save many appeals it might be well for them to accept the Amendment.
  Captain BOURNE: I also urge the Solicitor-General to accept the Amendment. As I read this Sub-section, if a man wishes to object to an assessment he has not only to state the grounds of his objection but also his own estimate of the value. I do not think that at that stage of the proceedings a man ought to be called upon to give his own estimate. If he proceeds with his appeal, the case will go to the referee and surely it is then that the aggrieved taxpayer ought to be called upon to bring forward his own estimate against that of the valuer and not in the preliminary stage when he states his objection in writing to the
  1256
  Commissioners. In a great many of these cases there may not be much difference between the parties, and the matter may be adjusted at the earlier stage, but if a man feels seriously aggrieved he will appeal to the referee and it is when his case comes to be tried before the referee that he should produce figures of his own to support his opinion that the valuation of the Government valuer is incorrect. I submit that it is premature to ask him for his estimate of the value at the earlier stage. He should in the first instance be allowed to give notice of his objection and to state the grounds of his objection without being compelled to give a figure to be put opposite to the figure of the valuer at that moment.
  Sir S. ROBERTS: I have been trying to consider this matter from a practical point of view, and I turn to the instance of something which I happen to own myself, namely, property with factories on it near the centre of a large city. I know, roughly, what the whole property is worth, but I have no idea whatever of the site value. I do not know what values have been obtaining in the neighbourhood. In that case I shall get this assessment served upon me. I shall have no idea whether it is right or wrong but I shall probably assume that it is wrong. I shall cause an appeal to be lodged and if I had to state a value I should probably knock it down to some value which was far too low, in order to be on the safe side. I should probably employ a local surveyor of repute who when the time came would go round and have a chat with the district valuer and they would probably come to some compromise on a reasonable figure. The local surveyor knowing the values in the district would probably settle a good many of these cases with the district valuer on a fair and reasonable basis. At the stage where the matter goes to the referee it will be necessary to have a statement of claim and defence, as it were, setting out what you want. Even where it is a matter which will be settled amicably as most of these valuations probably will be settled, appeals will have to be put in. I do not think it fair or reasonable that the wretched owner within 42 days should be called upon to state what he believes to be the value of the site when he has not the slightest idea of it. I do not think that

  1257
  the acceptance of the Amendment would hurt the Government and I believe that, in the end, it would save time.
  Major GEORGE DAVIES: There are three reasons why the Bill requires amendment in this respect. First, it is an improper demand to make upon any individual to ask him to value his own land in these circumstances. It is only up to him to prove that the value placed upon his land by the proper officials is incorrect. To call upon an individual to act as valuer in relation to his own property is unfair and improper. If he is dissatisfied he should have the right to appeal and the case can be argued out when he comes before the higher authority to whom he appeals. Secondly, this valuation would be of no use to the Commissioners. It is for them to try to prove, if there is an appeal, that their view of the matter is correct. What status have I in the matter as an authority on valuation? None, except that this happens to be my property, but that does not necessarily give me any experience or authority to place a valuation on it. Therefore, I cannot see that it can be of any possible use to anyone. My third objection is that it will possibly be of disuse to the individual concerned, because whether he tries for some reason which he thinks is in his own interests to put on a high value or whether, prompted by the same feeling, he tries to put on a low one, or tries to act as a professional assessor and puts on what he thinks a fair value, it may possibly be used against him in some future transaction. Someone may say that as he put the valuation on the property, it is its true worth. I can see no reason why the Solicitor-General should not accept the Amendment.
  Sir W. BRASS: I should like to prevail upon the Solicitor-General to accept the Amendment. He has seemed very kind and reasonable to us this afternoon, and I hope that his present mood will continue. It is not really fair to ask or to force the owner of a property to give the value of the property in his estimation if he objects to the valuation that has been put upon it. I feel that there is a good deal behind this kind of compulsory Clause. Probably what will happen is that when the owner is compelled to give his estimate of the value, he may give is as low as possible, because
  1258
  he will think only of the penny in the £ tax, and forget that possibly in future another Socialist Government might put an increment duty on to the value. If the land were valued at a low figure, therefore, he would suffer from any increment that might arise later on. If he is to be asked to put a value on, I am sure that the Government have something of that kind in mind. If the owners of all properties are to be compelled if they appeal to put on their own valuations, the owner of one property will be played off against the owner of another near by.
  I agree with an hon. Friend who talks about the difficulty of any owner finding out what the site value of a property might be. I am trustee for an estate in the City of London in which there are a certain number of buildings. I may not as a trustee know what the actual site value of the property is. The only thing I can do is to get some sort of estimate of the value of the land by the rents which are paid for the buildings, but as, in valuing the site, we are to imagine that the buildings do not exist, one cannot get any sort of idea of the value of the land on which the buildings are erected. In this particular estate a number of wells are sunk. Am I, in being compelled to give the value of the site, to include the holes in the ground and the pumps on the wells, or have I to imagine that they do not exist in the same way that I have to imagine that the buildings on the site are not there? It will be difficult for trustees in a position like mine to say in an appeal, "I think that this particular property is worth so much per foot after having cleared the buildings away." What will naturally happen is that I as a trustee will not risk it, and will have to employ a surveyor and valuer to do the work for me. It is unfair that a burden of that kind should be put on to trustees.
  Major LLEWELLIN: If this estimate is to be any good, you must call in expert valuers before you can decide whether you will appeal. Drafted in its present form, the Clause is a gift to estate agents and land valuers, because it is certain that, if this estimate is to be of any value, every trustee will be bound to get in some expert advice. The trustee would be taking grave risk if he did not

  1259
  call in an expert land valuer. The result will be that, once having got the land valuer in, he will lead you on and you will have to go through with the appeal. The Clause presupposes that the Commissioners first put on a value, that the owner puts on his value, and that the two then may come to some sort of agreement. It will encourage the Commissioners to put their values rather high, and for them to say, "The owner will take off so much, and we shall be able to split the difference between the two." It is obviously prima facie for the Commissioners and the valuers to fix the value of the land, and it is up to the Commissioners to stand up to their valuation and to answer any cross-examinations on any valuation that may have been made. You ought to allow the owner to make his valuation if he wishes to do so as a basis of settlement, but if he does not wish to, he should be able to look to the Government valuers to stand up to their valuation against the objections which may be made against it.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am afraid that it is impossible to accept this Amendment. The way in which hon. Members have looked at it is not really the proper way of looking at it at this stage of the proceedings. This is not part of the appeal to the referee at all at this stage; this is a preliminary stage which is really intended to give the Commissioners and the owner an opportunity of getting into touch with one another, and coming to an agreement before any question of appeal arises. One or two hon. Members gave an analogy of legal proceedings, but one must proceed on the basis that the valuation will be assumed to be a genuine valuation. It is not quite fair of the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Major Llewellin) to say that because there is a right of objection, you must assume that every valuer may put on a higher valuation.
  Major LLEWELLIN: I said that he may tend to do that, thinking that he may get a settlement by the owner putting on a lower figure.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: One must assume that the valuer will try to get a true value and will be mistaken in some cases. It is really the mistaken
  1260
  cases with which we want to deal. When the owner receives the valuation, presumably he will do something to ascertain whether he wants to appeal or not. One must assume that the owner knows some reason why he is going to appeal, and if at this stage he puts that reason and his idea of values into writing, the chances are that the valuer—the district valuer, whoever he may be—acting for the Commissioners, will be able to get into touch with him and to come to some arrangement. By having that figure before him, the district valuer will be able to see at once whether it is a case where he has made some gross error or where something has happened to make him take the wrong piece of property, or something of that sort; and whether there is a large difference and the two views cannot be reconciled, or whether there is very little difference which can be reconciled by negotiations. All that happens before the Commissioners
  "cause the entries objected to to be amended in agreement with the objector or give notice to him of their refusal to do so."
  It is not until after that that any question of appeal arises at all. Subsequent to that, just after the owner has received the notice of refusal, the proceedings start to become legal proceedings if he wishes them to be put before the referee or taken to court if necessary. As we view this, it is very much in the interests of the owners in order to avoid litigation. It is really doing everything one can to bring the parties together at the earliest moment; and unless the Commissioners at this stage have from the owner some idea of the figure he thinks ought to be put on, all these preliminary proceedings will be entirely frivolous. The result will be that every single case where there is an objection will probably be fought. We wish to avoid that because of the expense on the Commissioners and on the owners and the country.
  Sir T. INSKIP: It is astonishing to hear that the Solicitor-General is not prepared to accept this Amendment. He must allow me to say that we cannot regard him as having the role of guardian of the interests of all who will become subject to this tax. In the position he occupies he is assisting the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the plan devised

  1261
  for placing a burden upon those wicked people who have dared to invest their money in land, and he is frankly hostile to the owners of property, and it is no good pretending that he is not. We cannot accept him as the party to express the views of landowners or to look after their interests. He is not looking after their interests. His idea is to get something from them. When he says that the Bill as drawn is, in the interests of the owners of property, he has overlooked the fact that an owner of property will be able under the Amendment to include his own estimate of value if it is in his interest to do so. The Solicitor-General has spoken as though, if the Amendment were accepted, the owner of the property could not include the estimate which is to bring him and the valuer closer together. When it is realised that this procedure has to be gone through within 42 days of 1st August, or whatever the date may be, it will be seen how impossible it is for owners to prepare an estimate.
  I think of a case affecting myself where values will have to be put upon sites, although at the moment we have not the vaguest idea of what their value may be, We shall have to ask some surveyor to advise us, and all this will have to be done and the notice of objection sent in, with the owners' estimate, within 42 days. If this Amendment be accepted an owner can put his estimate on the property, if it is in his interest to do so, but supposing he has not the vaguest notion of what the value of the property is, why, in that case, should the notice of objection be bad because he has not placed a valuation on the land? What is the owner to do who has no idea of the value of the land? It is all very well for us to think of ourselves in the position of owners, but what about all the people who are unskilled in the law, what about all the women who are unfamiliar with Acts of Parliament and notices? It will mean that they will have to employ professional valuers. In some cases they may be abroad and on holiday and may be unable to do anything. All they know is that they are aghast tat the prospect of a further tax, they see something about a notice of objection, and they can write and say, "I object to the valuation." but it is quite a different matter for them to have to say, "I value the land at such and such a figure."
  1262
  The Solicitor-General has not given us a single reason for not accepting the Amendment. I hope he has not exhausted his conciliatory mood, and that he is prepared to accept any reasonable Amendment and will reconsider the point. I know that he is alone, and that it is perhaps difficult for him to take a responsibility which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might take, but he is here with the power and the authority to do it, and I hope he will exercise his authority and accept this Amendment, which does nothing more than provide a reasonable way for people unskilled in the law and in valuation to maintain their rights by giving a simple notice of objection without having to include any estimate of the value of the property.
  Mr. KNIGHT: I suggest to my hon. and learned Friend that in setting up this new practice we might very well follow the old and approved method in these matters. The hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) said we were setting up a new practice and were providing persons with facilities for the review of these assessments. My hon. and learned Friend on the Treasury Bench knows perfectly well that under the Valuation Acts the appellant is not required to disclose the figure on which he is relying. We do not require him to say when he gets the notice of assessment, "I object to this figure; this other is the figure which I shall put forward," and I suggest that we migth apply that established practice, which is a very sound practice, to these cases. Long experience in these matters shows that if the appellant does disclose the figure it may very much shorten the inquiry, and the Amendment provides the appellant with an option to do so, and that is common sense. Let the appellant enter the figure if he chooses to do so, but otherwise let us keep to our old-established practice.
  Captain GUNSTON: I cannot help thinking the Solicitor-General imagines that everyone in the country has a legal mind, and I do not think he is making enough allowance for the ordinary person. I am not a lawyer, but I understand that when a person is accused of an offence in a Criminal Court he is not required to disclose his defence until he comes into Court. When small owners of property get their notices, or even read this Bill, they will be very much alarmed, and

  1263
  when they are told they have to put a value on their property they will feel it to be necessary to employ a valuer. The Solicitor-General said the effect of the Bill as it stands will be to bring together the Commissioners and the person who is to be taxed, and from our experience in Income Tax cases we know that the Income Tax authorities are very excellent people and can be very helpful. In the same way, if an owner goes to see the Commissioners and it is only a small amount in question an agreement will probably be reached without an appeal, but if people are compelled to put a value upon the property that avenue of approach becomes more difficult. Unless we accept these words we shall be creating more litigation.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) quoted the case of land with a well on it. How can anyone who has property which includes an artesian well know what the value of that well would be if there were no buildings upon the property? Such an owner would be bound to employ a valuer. This is an excellent Bill for the protection of valuers. They will be busy for the next 10 years. But we ought to try to protect the small people who do not want to fight the commissioners and who, if the commissioners are reasonable, will be willing to come to an agreement with them. I am sure the Solicitor-General does not want to drive them into litigation. The acceptance of this Amendment will not only be of benefit to landowners but will make the passage of the Bill easier
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: This Clause might be described as a Clause for the compulsory employment of surveyors and valuers in every valuation. The Solicitor-General has said that its object is to protect property owners, but he has now been informed from every quarter of the Committee that owners feel they would be adequately protected if the permissive words of this Amendment were inserted. It is obvious that otherwise it will be necessary for every owner to employ a surveyor at every stage of every valuation, if he is not to be gravely prejudiced. We have had estimates of the cost of this business to the State, but what will be the cost to the individual if every owner has to employ a surveyor? He may very well think that his valuation is too high
  1264
  and may desire to appeal against it, and in the interval between lodging his objection and the hearing of the appeal some arrangement may be come to as between himself and the district official as a result of his having heard what has Been done in other valuations. I do hope the Solicitor-General will give ear to the representations made from all sides of the House as to the desirability of giving an option to the owner to submit an estimate of the value without compelling him to do so.
  Sir D. HERBERT: I do not understand what solid objection the Solicitor-General can have to the insertion of these words. From the speeches we have heard he must realise that there is a great deal to be said for them, and that representatives of the taxpayers from many different parts of the country express a wish for them. If we are to force the owner of agricultural units to put in his estimate, and he is a layman with no particular knowledge of the value of land, he will find it very difficult to do so. He may have a rough idea of the value of the land, but he will find it difficult to give a reliable estimate of the land value and of the cultivation value. He has to do something there which is the work of an expert, and if we force him to give this estimate we shall be putting the taxpayers and the tax collectors at arm's length from the start. The taxpayer may say, "I object to this valuation because it is too high." He will very likely say, "I hate litigation or quarrels; can you not settle this matter with me? You know more about it than I do, but I am quite sure it is too high." In many cases, if the owner is obliged to give his estimate first, he will say to himself, "Whatever estimate I put, the tax collector will say it is too low," and therefore he will be inclined to put it much lower than he expects it to be put. He will therefore probably put a ridiculously low value on his land with the result that the collector will be incined to say to him, "It is no use trying to agree with you," and the parties are left at arm's length. There is a good deal to be said in favour of the Amendment, and I do not see why it should not be accepted.
  Mr. R. W. SMITH: I understand from what the Solicitor-General has said that

  1265
  if the owner objects to the valuation, he may give notice of his objection to the commissioners in writing. If he does that, then the owner has to state his own estimate of the value of his land. Is that correct?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Yes.
  Mr. SMITH: It is stated in Sub-section (1) that
  "he may give to the Commissioners notice in writing of his objection stating the grounds thereof."
  That seems to me to be permissive. Then the Sub-section goes on to provide that he may give
  "his estimate of the land value of the unit."
  It seems to me that the Solicitor-General does not understand his own Clause, because it is permissive in the first instance. We are dealing with an owner who is not in the ordinary sense the real owner of the land and I think it is rather hard that the only person who can take exception is the owner, and the owner of the fee simple cannot take any objection to the valuation.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: That point is covered by the word "stating," and not by the words "he may give."
  Mr. SMITH: We have been told that the owner would naturally put the lowest valuation on his property, but there may be a valuation just before the lease runs out, and that will be dealt with by the superior to whom the land is going to fall in. I hope the Solicitor-General will accept the Amendment.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I regret that I am not able to accept this Amendment. The whole of the speeches with regard to what the owner is likely to do show quite clearly that every one thinks the owner will have an idea as to whether the valuation is right or wrong. That is what I suggest. Before there is an appeal, or notice of appeal, the owner will make up his mind whether he thinks the valuation is too high or not.
  Sir T. INSKIP: Supposing we are dealing with a person who is unaccustomed to these legal points, and has not the faintest idea whether the valuation is right or not. Is it not right for him to be able to say, "I object to this." Surely some consideration ought to be
  1266
  given to that person, and why should he not be able to lodge an objection in those circumstances?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not agree about the right to object in that sense. The right to object must rest on an assumption that you are not satisfied with what you have got. If a person is not satisfied, the reason must be that he thinks the valuation is wrong. It seems to me that if a person does not know anything about it at all, he cannot tell whether the valuation is wrong or not, and therefore he cannot have any grounds for dissatisfaction. Unless we are going to proceed upon the assumption that ex hypothesi every valuation will be wrong, that is not the right way to consider this question, because ex hypothesi the valuation will be right. Unless there has been some mistake, you must assume, on the whole, that the valuation will be a right one.
  I would like to deal with one statement which was made by the hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip), who said that my attitude was one which is essentially hostile to owners of property. I deprecate that way of putting the matter, because that is not my view. I have no hostility to owners at all. My attitude is that this tax should be levied in an efficient and fair way, and that anything that is put into this Bill should help to make it easier to work and fair in its operation. I do not think there will be any hardship upon anyone. I will take the example which was given by the hon. and learned Member for Fareham of someone who knows nothing about valuation. Assume that such a person receives notice of his valuation and he says, "This looks very high," and he assumes that it must be wrong because it comes from a Government Department. All that person has to do is to put the value very much lower, and then the Commissioners, on getting that valuation, will know that the person who objects thinks that the value is much too high, and they will know something about the circumstances under which the person thinks that it is too high.
  That may not be of very great assistance in some cases, but in the vast majority of cases it will be of assistance to bring the parties together rather than leave everybody at large to put in

  1267
  an appeal in circumstances in which the Commissioners have no idea whether the parties are likely to agree or not. There being no hardship, obviously it is in the interests of all the parties, the Commissioners, the property owners, and the State to avoid litigation. Therefore, I think the best way to proceed is to have this preliminary statement showing the basis of the objection.
  Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I am not in the least satisfied with the explanation of the Solicitor-General. There are two underlying assumptions to which I desire to call the attention of the Committee. The first is that the person who is grandiloquently described as a landowner is a person in a position during the month of August, or some other time, to go away and get expert assistance either from lawyers or valuers. I approach this matter as one who is not a landowner, except that I fancy I have the right to a plot in the cemetery. I desire to raise this question as it affects a number of small people in my constituency, the value of whose land is in excess of £120 and will not exceed £1,000, but to whom every additional £ of taxation is of the utmost moment.
  7.0 p.m.
  Speaking on behalf of those people I come to the second assumption which seems to be a natural one, that if the Commissioners state one value and the party concerned states another, the true value of the land must be somewhere between those two valuations. I join issue with that assumption at once for this reason. Suppose the true value of the land should prove to be on appeal, say, £500. Suppose the poor man has it valued at £1,000, and, without the benefit of legal or expert assistance, because he cannot afford to spend the money upon such matters, he puts down the value at £750. Under the terms of the Clause as drafted, thereupon the Commissioners either cause the entries to be amended in agreement with the objector, or they give notice to him of their refusal to do so. In other words, that man in ignorance of the true value, and the Commissioners in ignorance of the value, would be accepting a valuation which this man has not had any opportunity of checking, because he had made his valuation without any legal assistance. I cannot help feeling that the
  1268
  Solicitor-General has not really considered this matter from that point of view. With regard to individuals who are in a position to get expert advice, it may very well be that they may, under the permissive form provided by this Amendment, be enabled to say, "I am advised that it is so much, and I shall give you an estimate," but I deprecate entirely compelling those persons, who are without such facilities, to take a leap in the dark. Not being a landowner, I shall never be compelled to face the problem, but, from what I know of land used for agricultural purposes on the edge of some small towns in my part of the country, I know that there will be the gravest difficulty in assessing the so-called site value of the land.
  There is another difficulty. If these appeals are to contain—as the Clause now stands—this information, in difficult cases it is going to make the time in which the appeal has to be made quite illusory. The Solicitor-General has already promised to consider the point of the time during which the notice must go in, if it happens to be one of those notices that date from 1st August. How can he really give it full consideration and fully implement his promise if facing him at the outset is this very question whether the landowner is compelled to state in his notice the estimate which he gives? I am sure he will see that that must be an element which he ought in fairness to take into account in considering the promise which he has already made. I do beg of him to see whether he cannot meet those of my friends and myself who put our names to this Amendment and give some further consideration in the matter. I do not in the least want to threaten—and if I did it would not have the smallest influence on my hon. and learned Friend—but, unless something of that sort can be done, those who feel with me on this subject feel that this is an Amendment which must be pressed to a Division.
  Major COLVILLE: I have no doubt in my mind as to what the Government intend to do here. It is their intention to get every landowner in the country, whether an individual, a trustee, a charitable institution, or a company, to put down on paper an estimated value

  1269
  for their land without the buildings on it so that they may have this record, if they want it at any future time. If they intend to proceed in this way, are they taking into account, in the first place, whether it is fair and just under duress to enforce this provision and, in the second place, are they taking into account the effect it will have? During the course of this Debate the position of industrial companies has not been stressed, but the valuation of land occupied by factories and industrial companies on the assumption that the factory is not there is going to be anything but an exact science. It will be a very difficult thing to carry out. As a director of companies connected with the iron and steel industry, it is impossible for me to state what the value of the land the works occupy is. With the works removed in imagination, it will be very difficult indeed to do so. Is every industrial company, which is striving to give employment to our people, 2½ million of whom are unemployed, to be put to the expense of having this calculation made? It appears that they are to be put to this expense. Nothing the hon. and learned Gentleman has said has convinced me that this proposal is a sound or a necessary one. In my opinion this is only an additional burden upon already overloaded industry.
  Sir HARRY HOPE: I have not yet raised my voice in Committee on this Bill, but I desire to raise a small Scottish voice to support this Amendment. The Bill, when it becomes an Act of Parliament, will create an enormous amount of worry and unrest for thousands of people throughout the country. They are going to be asked by the Bill to fix a value on their property under a very curious state of affairs. They are to be asked to assume that the buildings are not there. I can imagine that some men may wonder whether or not they are to consider what the cost will be of removing the existing buildings. I can see a great variety of valuations made by people who are thoroughly anxious to make an honest attempt to value their property. We shall facilitate the working of this very complicated Bill if we accept the Amendment which has been moved from these benches. Certainly it
  1270
  would tend to make the Bill much less unpopular than it will be with a vast number of people.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: May I put forward some further considerations to the Solicitor-General? He said that all that they wished was a method which was efficient and fair and that he himself was not in any degree hostile to the owner. None of us wish to insinuate that the Solicitor-General is hostile to the owner, but what we do know is that the whole Bill is hostile to the owner and, however the Solicitor-General may wish to temper the wind to the shorn lamb, we cannot rest on his own personal good will when we have to deal with a Clause of the Bill which is distinctly conceived in a spirit of resolute hostility. As to the question of the procedure being efficient and fair, it may be that, from his point of view, the procedure, without the acceptance of this Amendment, is efficient, but it is certainly clear that it is not fair for reasons which have already been pointed out and which I may, perhaps, reinforce again. The hon. and learned Gentleman said it was fair and right. If it is, why is it that the existing procedure with regard to rates is something quite different? The hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight) pointed out that, in the ordinary procedure with regard to rates, a person can lodge an objection without it being necessary at the same time to put in his own valuation. If that is fair in regard to rates and if it has been accepted as fair by all parties, why is it not applied under a new valuation? I should have thought that, when the Government are trying to create a now tax and new valuation, they would take unusual pains to see that a person who is to be hit by this tax has every opportunity given him by a system with which he is familiar. If it is conceivable that he ought to give his own valuation of what he has to pay, clearly it would be more reasonable to extend it to rates, which have been in existence for many years, than to a new tax of this kind.
  Let me ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider the application of this Clause to Scotland and to the owners of feu duties. This is a matter of Scottish law with which I am sure he is familiar, and, in the absence of any Scottish law officer, he can always get advice from the Lord Privy Seal. I am

  1271
  sure he is fully capable of dealing with this matter, which concerns Scotland just as much as England. An owner of feu duties will have to pay this tax. The owners of feu duties are not merely large corporations, whether the Church of Scotland or some educational institution. They include also a vast body of people of small means scattered up and down throughout the whole of Scotland. The right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home) pointed out the other day that this was the favourite security for prudent people in Scotland to put their money into. Everyone who looks at the Scottish papers will see feu duties advertised in them every day for sale. That means that a person, who may be quite ignorant of land values, may be residing in one end of Scotland and may have some very small investments, amounting to £3 or £4 a year, in another part of Scotland. These are all the people on whom this tax is going to fall. Is it not perfectly absurd to impose this requirement on these people? If the assessment is reasonable, they will be willing to pay it, but they may think it is very high. If, however, they are to appeal, they must in order to appeal against the tax on this £3 or £4 a year, get a valuation of properties in quite a different part of Scotland. I never heard of a more unjust onus to place upon them. I am not exaggerating one iota, and the Lord Privy Seal knows perfectly well that is the way in which this lax and this procedure will fall upon people in Scotland.
  One way out has been suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman. If the taxing authorities have imposed too high a tax, the person who is affected is to put in an alternative figure so low that at any rate it cannot be bigger than the tax which he would have to pay in any circumstances. That is what I gathered was the counter proposal of the Solicitor-General, that anyone is to be allowed to put himself in order by himself proposing a quite illusory figure. In other words, whatever the tax may be, one must put in a figure of 10s. or 5s. and then one is safe; one complies with the letter of the Act, and then one goes scatheless, and no one can object. What does that mean? It means that when anyone, however unskilled or ignorant, gets a notice of this kind, the
  1272
  ordinary honest person, if he is told that he is obliged to put in a figure, will cudgel his brains and put in some figure which he thinks is right, and which may prejudice him. That is what the ordinary honest person will do. I gather, however, that, unless the Solicitor-General is willing to meet us on this point, his advice to these people would be, "Do not bother about that; put in some illusory figure which you know cannot be real"—It may be 5s. or 10s., or even less if it is a small amount like a small feu duty——
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not want to misrepresent me. I took the instance given by the hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip), and I said that, if someone were so ignorant that he could not give any sort of valuation, he could, by putting in any figure, come within the words of this provision.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Of course, the last thing that I want to do is to misrepresent anything that the Solicitor-General said, but I ask again, is not that the conclusion to which he drives us? Take the kind of person to whom I have alluded, who may be living up in Wick and whose feu duty may be down in Dumfries, and may not be a large sum. What is he to do? He can put himself straight by putting in some small illusory figure, and would he not be driven to do that under a procedure of this kind? I am bound to say at once that the Solicitor-General was answering my hon. and learned Friend, but at the same time the result of the advice that he gave, carried to its perfectly logical conclusion, is that some absurdly low figure should be put in which would just satisfy the technicalities of the Act as it stands.
  Sir JOHN POWER: In listening to this Debate, I have admired the complacency with which the Solicitor-General has asserted that he is not hostile to those who have committed the criminal offence of owning property in this country. I wonder whether, when he says he is not hostile to property owners, he realises the intolerable and almost impossible burden which he is placing upon them, and the monetary cost of which is many times in excess of the tax that it is proposed to

  1273
  levy. Take, for example, an owner who has various properties in different parts of the country. He is called upon on the 1st August, during the holiday season, to obtain valuations for all his properties. That may be very good for the members of the Surveyors' Institution, but it is very bad for the taxpayer and the property owner, who is already contributing very heavily to the upkeep of this country.
  How can an ordinary owner, even with considerable experience of property values, put a value on the ground on which his building stands—that is to say, the site value? I defy any amateur to do that, and I think it is also beyond the capacity of a good many owners who have a considerable knowledge of property as a whole. You have to divest the land of the buildings, to take into consideration the buildings which are around, and of which you may have very little knowledge, and you have to arrive at a valuation. One of the most valuable contributions to this Debate was that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland), when he pointed out that the way to get out of this intolerable burden, which is being put upon owners by a hostile Government, is to put in, in order to sustain your objection, an illusory amount of £5 or £10, and then you will get the time that you require. I cannot understand why the recent rating relief procedure should not govern this new tax. As I have Said, if the Solicitor-General had any conception of the amount that will have to be paid in fees for the valuation of large properties in some of our cities, he would never assert that he is not hostile to property owners.
  Captain CAZALET: The Solicitor-General, in his confession a few minutes ago, gave away the whole case. The instance which he gave will not be a single instance; it represents what will happen in the majority of cases among small people in this country, who will be quite unable to fix what they believe to be the right and proper valuation of their land. The Solicitor-General says, "It does not matter; put down any figure you like—just a representative sum." You might as well put down x pounds. In other words, he is conniving at something which must be perfectly useless for the object of this Clause; he is forcing a person to do something
  1274
  which we know will be perfectly useless and misleading, and which in many cases may lead him into litigation at a later period. The Solicitor-General has been so reasonable this afternoon that I believe the real reason why he will not accept this Amendment is that he thinks he has already accepted too many Amendments from these benches to-day; but all our Amendments, as he has confessed himself, have been in the cause of justice and fairness, in the cause of the small man, and it is in respect of the same individual that we put forward this Amendment. After all, not one voice from the back benches opposite has been raised in opposition to this Amendment, the object of which is to protect the small man from an additional burden. It is not surprising that no voice has been raised in support of the Solicitor-General, because, up to five minutes ago, there was not one Member on the benches behind him. One voice was raised from below the Gangway, and that was in support of this Amendment. When all these facts are taken into consideration, I feel sure that the Solicitor-General will reconsider his ill-judged decision.
  Ho seems to think that the majority of people will accept the valuation. In my opinion he is an optimist. I would not like to say what proportion of these 12,000,000 valuations will be appealed against, but I think I shall not be far wrong in suggesting that there will be appeals in the majority of cases. What is the procedure? The individual who appeals must give notice in writing of his objection, stating the grounds thereof. He has to write down why he objects. He has to say that he objects to it because certain facts have not been taken into consideration, or, perhaps, because in the neighbourhood there is a piece of land of a similar nature which is only valued at so much. He has to give all these relevant facts in regard to his particular appeal, and those, surely, are sufficient for the Commissioners. Why should this additional task be imposed upon him of deciding what the value of his land is, when, according to the Solicitor-General's own statement, it may be a purely humbug figure which will not be of the slightest use?
  Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I was not surprised to hear the Solicitor-General say that there cannot be any hardship in connection

  1275
  with this matter, because the hon. and learned Gentleman is fortunate in life, and absolutely and entirely out of touch with the thousands of small people whose property is to be valued under this proposal. The case was extraordinarily well put by the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight), who pointed out very clearly and simply that thousands, and possibly hundreds of thousands of people were being compelled to add to their ordinary costs. It is not merely the tax; the tax may be only two or three pounds; but the costs which these people will have to incur constitute a definite hardship. The Solicitor-General may not be able to understand what hardship means in that way, but those who live in close contact with the people do realise that, if they have to go and get a real valuation of their property, taking into account all the things that are laid down in this Bill, it will entail upon them a very real hardship, and that point ought to be taken into consideration by the Solicitor-General in dealing with this matter.
  While I was listening to one of his earlier speeches, I could not help wondering why he is in this very great haste to compel these people themselves to lay down a figure which they think represents the value of their property. I assume that the Solicitor-General does not want to become the blue-eyed boy, or the patron saint, or whatever you like to call it, of the valuers; he is not merely trying to give them jobs. He is not put up by the Government to solve the problem of unemployment by having valuers for the Government on the one side and valuers for the owners on the other. I have followed for a good many years the whole of these land value taxation proposals, and I realise that this is not an accident.
  The Solicitor-General is not standing out against this Amendment simply out of obstinacy, but because he knows his case, and the case is that you will do everything that you humanly can to compel these owners to tie themselves to a price. We had it from the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the early part of the Budget Debate that he wished sooner or later to compel the nationalisation of land. I am not going into that question, but it does seem that, if you
  1276
  have a voluntary statement of price by the owner of a property, as you will have here unless this Amendment is accepted, you then have something with which to go to the owner and compel him to sell his property, or even to hand it over. I hope that our party will divide on this Amendment, because, if the Bill stands as it is at the present time, it will be a deliberate trap, a cruel trap to make many people—widows, and orphans in some cases, people who have no knowledge of the value of property—either to seek expensive valuers or to put down a fictitious figure; and, if they put down a fictitious figure like £5 or £10, because they know nothing about it, you then, according to all the speeches that have been made on that subject, can sooner or later go and take the land at that price.
  That is the trap. It is no use the hon. and learned Gentleman hiding his face and pretending that that is not what is in his mind. I know perfectly well, and anyone who has followed these matters knows, that this is a cruel trap, and nothing but a trap, and representing, as I do, thousands of these people who own small property, and being the only person in the House of Commons during this afternoon who can claim as well to represent in any way the thousands of people throughout the whole of Cornwall who have interests in property in this way, since no Liberals are here to fight for the small man, I say quite frankly that as far as I am concerned I think that the attitude taken up by the Solicitor-General this afternoon is one of the most callous and cruel attitudes that I have ever seen in the House of Commons.
  Mr. BIRD: It is clear to everyone that, if these words remain in the Bill, every prudent man must take the advice of an expert. From something that the Solicitor-General said, I gather that he thought that everyone who owned land knew roughly what the value was. That is a funny assumption to make, because there are infants who own land and whose affairs are administered by the Court, and there are lunatics whose affairs are administered by a committee. There are again trustees who are responsible for the estates of their beneficiaries, and no prudent man is going to put in any figure as the valuation of land without expert advice if these words remain. It has

  1277
  come out that there are 12,500,000 units which will have to be valued for the purpose of this tax. It is going to take the Government valuers a year and a half, and there are only 42 days for the independent valuers to advise the owners of these 12,500,000 units as to what is the value. It is an impossible task, and all the surveyors working on nothing else but the Land Tax could not do the job within the time. In country districts, the valuers are also auctioneers. Most of them have to attend cattle markets once a week and do the ordinary incoming and outgoing valuations as between tenants, and they have only a certain amount of time to give to the forms that they will have to consider. It would be an absolutely impossible task for these surveyors in country districts, or in London, to deal with one-tenth of the number within 42 days. Quite apart from that, the expense is colossal.
  It is on 1st August that this is going to happen. That is in the long vacation, and the Courts are closed. If an estate is in Chancery, nothing can be done without the permission of the Master. What trustee, whether he is a solicitor or the Public Trustee, will incur the expense of an expert valuer—and their fees are not light—without getting some protection from the Court, whether it be a Chancery Court or the Master in Lunacy? It would be impossible in the time to put in the proper objections. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Solicitor-General should insist on these words. He is a member of the theoretical branch of the profession, and I am a member of the practical branch—a solicitor. We shall have to deal with these questions far more than the learned branch. We shall have a stream of landowners, beneficiaries, trustees, and corporations asking our advice on these matters. It will be a physical impossibility for a solicitor to deal with them in the period, let alone a valuer. I ask the Solicitor-General to put his pride in his pocket, and, although he has refused two or three times, to accept these words. If it is not a trap—I believe it is—it will not hurt the Solicitor-General or the Government if the Amendment is accepted.
  Commander SOUTHBY: I wish to reinforce what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for
  1278
  Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson). I represent a constituency in which there are a very large number of small owner occupiers of houses in an area which is being very rapidly developed, who will be driven, under the Bill, either to put in a valuation of their own property, which they are not sufficiently expert to do, or else be forced to the expense of employing legal advice. Many of them are very hard put to it to make both ends meet. Not only does the further addition of the Land Tax hit them very hard, but, if they are to be driven to the very heavy expense of expert legal advice, it will be an added burden which may well become intolerable. If they do not employ expert legal advice, they will have to put on a valuation themselves. In this district the value of land is fluctuating, and no one who lives there knows from month to month what the exact value is. A building scheme comes along and the land rises in price. The scheme may be delayed and the value may fall. None of these people, who are in small circumstances, can possible know exactly what the value of the land is.
  I differ from what has been said by my hon. Friends, that these men will put in a sort of peppercorn valuation, because, as far as the Commissioners and the Government are concerned, it is a case of "Heads I win and tails you lose." If the valuation of the Government is accepted by the owner, it is just as likely that the Commissioners may make a mistake as the owner. It is not necessarily true to say that their valuation is going to be correct any more than the owner's. If he does not put in an objection and accepts what may be an over high and mistaken valuation by the Commissioners the Government win. If, on the other hand, he puts in his own valuation, that may also be too high, because he is afraid of putting in a valuation which is too low, and the Government win again. If he puts in a peppercorn valuation, the Government win again, because there is no shame about this Government when they say this is the beginning of nationalisation of land.
  Past experience has led people to understand that, if they put in a low valuation of any of their property, a Socialist Government, and Socialist principles,

  1279
  at once claim that that is the valuation upon which they may be expropriated. If this unhappy citizen, already overtaxed and driven into a corner by the mere suggestion of taxing his land, which in many cases he has saved all through his life to purchase, and already penalised by having to employ expert legal assistance, puts in a valuation which is too low, the day will come when the Government will turn round and say, "You cannot complain. We are going to expropriate you from your land. You assessed it. This was the value of it, and at your word you are going to be taken." This is an intolerable hardship as far as it applies to thousands of people in my constituency, and I would urge the Solicitor-General to reconsider this matter and to accept the Amendment, because the Bill, as it stands, adds a burden and will create difficulties for a deserving body of people.
  Sir R. HORNE: I would press on the Solicitor-General the great hardship which he is imposing on a vast mass of people. If I were to be asked to-day what was the value of the piece of land on which my house stood, I should not be able to give an answer, because a vast number of circumstances go to such a question. You cannot discover it upon the amount of the ground rent, because that may be entirely dissociated from what could be obtained at present. You cannot discover it from the value of the building. I could take the Solicitor-General along many streets in Edinburgh where the value of the houses could not be assessed upon any such basis, because no one could ever build them up again for the value which would be given for them to-day. I am certain that, without expert advice, and even that only doubtfully, the hon. and learned Gentleman would not be able to come to any sort of result as to the true value of the site on which his own house is situated.
  The rules that are laid down in the Bill are very difficult to construe. What is a piece of land worth cleared of what is already on the site on the assumption that the other places round about are still there? I hope I am comparatively intelligent, but for the life of me if I were in possession of a piece of property like that, I could not come to a conclusion as to the value of the site. So far
  1280
  from this thing being easy, once you begin to get the assessments of valuers, you will find that valuers all over the country have proceeded on different principles and have arrived at very odd conclusions. Anyone who starts to reconcile all the conclusions which will be given will have a hard task to perform.
  I would beg of the hon. and learned Gentleman not to put the unfortunate person who happens to be the possessor of a piece of ground into the position of being compelled to put on a value. He will never know the kind of considerations with which he is faced until he finds himself face to face with the Government surveyor, compelled to give an account of how he has arrived at the conclusions that he has presented to the referee. The Solicitor-General knows the difficulty of arriving at values on cross-examination of surveyors, and he knows that a vast number of considerations go to an ordinary assessment, apart altogether from the difficulties created by this Bill. It seems to me a terrible burden to put upon the ordinary, unsophisticated owner to present a statement to the commissioners as to the value of his land. Full justice would be done if you allowed him to appear at the court and cross-examine the surveyor before he is bound to give any sort of view at all as to what the value of the land is. How can he know upon what principles the result is to be arrived at? The Government will set up a feeling of irritation which they will never get over, and that feeling will be very just.
  Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I have been wondering how the people who live near me are going to answer the Solicitor-General. I come from a country district where the postmaster owns his own land. How is he going to answer the Solicitor-General? Next to him there is a email holding owned by a local iron-stone manufacturing concern. What kind of price are they going to put on it? If they are going to be expropriated, what is going to be the result on their mining operations? There are many farmers who own their own land. This will involve cultivators in very large and quite unnecessary expense. I should like to know how the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) would approach the subject. He would probably say that the owner and the Government officials

  1281
  would come together, the owner suggesting a low figure and the officials a higher one, and they would strike a bargain. The answer to the hon. Gentleman has been given by the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), who clearly showed the. difficulty of coming to any agreement because minerals are not excluded. How are the people I have mentioned, the postmaster and the iron-stone manufacturing concerns, to set to work and to estimate their site values without the minerals? The Government are going to get into considerable difficulties. I do not share the views of the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, but I do say that it is impossible for an owner to put a value on his site without the minerals. As a rule the site has already been valued with the minerals in it. The right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme pointed out that gravel and earth and lime were minerals and were taken into account in the valuation.
  In Lincolnshire there is a tremendous amount of lime as well as ironstone, and
  the land varies. In some places it is clay, which is extremely valuable. Any valuation so far made has no doubt had a proportion of these values included. I honestly feel that there are very great difficulties for the country people who have approached me upon this matter. I am stating some of the difficulties that they have placed before me with regard to valuations of this kind. I ask the Solicitor-General to try to meet us. The Government have always expressed a desire not to put fresh burdens upon agriculture. Whatever may be the facilities for town owners and great business undertakings to get a proper valuation of their land, these facilities are not available for agriculturists. Country people are not in the habit, in every little operation that they undertake, of consulting either a solicitor or a land valuer. I hope the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment.
  Question put, "That those words be-there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 170; Noes, 262.

  Division No. 298.]

  AYES.

  [7.50 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie.

  Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

  Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

  Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

  Albery, Irving James

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

  Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Inskip, Sir Thomas

  Aske, Sir Robert

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Iveagh, Countess of

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Atkinson, C.

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

  Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

  Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Betterton, Sir Henry B.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

  Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

  Ferguson, Sir John

  Llewellin, Major J. J.

  Bird, Ernest Roy

  Fermoy, Lord

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Lymington, Viscount

  Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  McConnell, Sir Joseph

  Boyce, Leslie

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Bracken, B.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Margesson, Captain H. D.

  Bullock, Captain Malcolm

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Marjoribanks, Edward

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Millar, J. D.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.

  Castle Stewart, Earl of

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

  Chamberlain Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)

  Hamilton, Sir George (Word)

  Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

  Hanbury, C.

  Morris, Rhys Hopkins

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Muirhead, A. J.

  Christie, J. A.

  Harbord, A.

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Colfox, Major William Philip

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  O'Neill, Sir H.

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

  Peake, Capt. Osbert

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Cowan, D. M.

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Reid, David D. (County Down)

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Remer, John R.

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Wells, Sydney R.

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Steel-Maitland Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Ross, Ronald D.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Withers, Sir John James

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

  Womersley, W. J.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Thompson, Luke

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Thomson, Sir F.

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Savery, S. S.

  Train, J.

  Sir George Penny and Sir Victor

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Warrender.

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

  Lindley, Fred W.

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Lloyd, C. Ellis

  Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

  Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Alpass, J. H.

  Gill, T. H.

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Gillett, George M.

  Longden, F.

  Angell, Sir Norman

  Glassey, A. E.

  Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

  Arnott, John

  Gossling, A. G.

  Lunn, William

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Gould, F.

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Ayles, Walter

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

  Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

  Gray, Milner

  McElwee, A.

  Barnes, Alfred John

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

  McEntee, V. L.

  Barr, James

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)

  Batey, Joseph

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

  McKinlay, A.

  Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Benson, G.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  McShane, John James

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)

  Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

  Birkett, W. Norman

  Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

  Manning, E. L.

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  Hardie, David (Rutherglen)

  Mansfield, W.

  Bowen, J. W.

  Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)

  March, S.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Harris, Percy A.

  Marcus, M.

  Broad, Francis Alfred

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Markham, S. F.

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Haycock, A. W.

  Marley, J.

  Bromfield, William

  Hayes, John Henry

  Marshall, Fred

  Brooke, W.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Mathers, George

  Brothers, M.

  Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)

  Matters, L. W.

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

  Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

  Maxton, James

  Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

  Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

  Messer, Fred

  Buchanan, G.

  Herriotts, J.

  Middleton, G.

  Burgess, F. G.

  Hicks, Ernest George

  Mills, J. E.

  Burgin, Dr. E. L.

  Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

  Milner, Major J.

  Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Montague, Frederick

  Caine, Hall-, Derwent

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Cameron, A. G.

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Morley, Ralph

  Cape, Thomas

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

  Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph

  Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Chater, Daniel

  Jenkins, Sir William

  Mort, D. L.

  Church, Major A. G.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Muff, G.

  Clarke, J. S.

  Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Muggeridge, H. T.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

  Murnin, Hugh

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Grecnock)

  Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)

  Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

  Compton, Joseph

  Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

  Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

  Cove, William G.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Palin, John Henry

  Cripps, Sir Stafford

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Paling, Wilfrid

  Daggar, George

  Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Dalton, Hugh

  Kirkwood, D.

  Perry, S. F.

  Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

  Lang, Gordon

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Phillips, Dr. Marlon

  Day, Harry

  Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)

  Picton-Turbervill, Edith

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Law, Albert (Bolton)

  Pole, Major D. G.

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Law, A. (Rossendale)

  Potts, John S.

  Duncan, Charles

  Lawrence, Susan

  Price, M. P.

  Ede, James Chuter

  Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

  Pybus, Percy John

  Edmunds, J. E.

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

  Leach, W.

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

  Egan, W. H.

  Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

  Raynes, W. R.

  Elmley, Viscount

  Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

  Richards, R.

  Foot, Isaac

  Lees, J.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Freeman, Peter

  Leonard, W.

  Ritson, J.

  1284

  1285

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Watkins, F. C.

  Romerll, H. G.

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah

  Rowton, Guy

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

  Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

  Welsh, James (Paisley)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Sorensen, R.

  Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

  Stamford, Thomas W.

  West, F. R.

  Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Westwood, Joseph

  Sanders, W. S.

  Strauss, G. R.

  White, H. G.

  Sandham, E.

  Sullivan, J.

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

  Sawyer, G. F.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

  Scurr, John

  Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Sexton, Sir James

  Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

  Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Sherwood, G. H.

  Tillett, Ben

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Shield, George William

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Wilson, J. (Oldham)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Toole, Joseph

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Shillaker, J. F.

  Tout, W. J.

  Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Wise, E. F.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Vaughan, David

  Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

  Sinkinton, George

  Viant, S. P.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhlthe)

  Walkden, A. G.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Walker, J.

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

  Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)

  Wallace, H. W.

  Charleton.

  Sir G. HURST: I beg to move, in page 10, line 12, to leave out paragraph (a).
  8.0 p.m.
  This Amendment aims at removing a most extraordinary proviso which restricts the right of appeal in a very large number of cases which may arise between the taxpayer and the Government. The revised entries referred to in this proviso are the revised entries defined in Clause 10, on page 9, that is to say, entries which are made in the register in cases where the land which is the subject-matter of one valuation of the unit has been divided or sub-divided so that an apportionment has become necessary. Under the proviso someone who acquires one of these apportioned or divided parts of an existing land unit can appeal only in a case where he challenges the actual values on the apportionment. He is restricted from challenging any other aspect of his taxation, and more particularly he is unable to challenge the value of the land which he has acquired except in so far as he is affected by the apportionment; that is to say, if a man has bought a plot of land for £1,000, and that represents the original value, he is unable to challenge that valuation on any ground except that there has not been a fair apportionment of the existing valuation. Say the existing valuation of a plot of land is £2,000, and that plot has been divided into two, so that the valuation of the land is £1,000, but he has in fact acquired it for only £500, and that is really the total site value of that plot of land. He is bound to pay on a basis of £1,000, although
  1286
  it may be common ground that the site value is only £500. That is clearly unfair, and there seems to be no ground for the right of appeal to be restricted in this way. Again, it is a fair thing that a man who has acquired land the original valuation of which may have been inadvertently accepted should have the opportunity of having that original assessment revised, particularly if in fact he has bought a plot of land the site value of which is so much less than the site value at the date of the original valuation.
  I suggest that this Clause, in its present form, cannot be justified. What is the principle by which this system of taxation is governed? We have been told that the principle is that if a man chooses to invest his money in land, he is to be penalised by paying a tax on the land. That principle connotes taxation in respect of the land value, and that a man who has acquired a plot of land for the first time should be taxed on a principle which bears no relation to the then value of the site, but has simply a relation to the value of the site three or four years ago, seems to me to be at variance even with the principles of the Socialist Government.
  This restriction of appeal has very important practical effects in the case of the county, one of whose Members I have the honour to be, in which site values are steadily decreasing. There is no doubt that, with the increasing distress and bad trade in a county like Lancashire, a great many site values are steadily depreciating, and the more we have "Socialism in our time," the more

  1287
  these site values are likely to depreciate. If a man buys a plot of land three or four years after it was valued, he may be taxed, if this proviso goes through in its present form, on a basis which bears no true relation to the current value of the site. This Clause, by restricting the right of appeal, must confer an injustice on a large number of taxpayers, particularly in cases where site values are deteriorating, and that is so in many parts of the country. It is so unfair, particularly in industrial areas, where the dead weight of Socialist government is causing so much depression and depreciation in the value of property, that I move this Amendment.
  Mr. GALBRAITH: I beg to support the Amendment. As I know the learned Solicitor-General values so highly his reputation for consistency and logic, I hope to be able to adduce one or two reasons which will induce him to accept the Amendment. Under Clause 10, where the ownership of land is split up after valuation, the Commissioners shall cause to be substituted for the original entry revised entries in respect of the divided unit, and then, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst) has pointed out, under this paragraph (a) the only ground on which an appeal can be lodged in regard to these revised entries is that the value of the former unit has been wrongly apportioned by the Commissioners as between the several parts thereof.
  The whole object of this Bill, as has been stated in most of the important speeches which have been delivered with regard to it, is to bring about two results—first of all, to bring upon the market land which has been improperly held up to the detriment of the community, and, secondly, to reduce the value of land, as it has been urged that that will be the inevitable result of bringing extra land upon the market. If those are the main objects of the Bill, let me give one simple illustration of the hardship which the restriction of the right of appeal will confer upon a person who purchases land as a result very largely of the Government's scheme. Take the case of a piece of land, whose parts are practically all of the same value, which belongs to a duke and is entered in the valuation register as of the value of
  1288
  £10,000. Assume that one-tenth of that land is sold, at a price of £750, to a person who, as a result of the Government's scheme, gets it at a lower value than it would have had if that scheme had not been brought in. Suppose he purchases it one year after the original valuation is made, he, one of the persons to whom the Government should be grateful for purchasing land which has been held up to the detriment of the community, will have, during the remaining four years during which the valuation runs, to pay a land tax not upon the basis of £750, which is the true value of the ground, but upon the footing that the land was really worth £1,000.
  That cannot be reasonable or consistent. This may affect a large number of people, and if the Government's scheme is going to have the results which they hope and intend that it shall have, that illustration shows what a great hardship the Government are inflicting on people who are purchasing land in this way if they make them pay, not upon the true value of the land, but upon its value as ascertained against a person who, it is suggested, has been holding it up in an improper way.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence)I have listened with great attention to the speeches of the hon. and learned Members who have moved and seconded this Amendment, but I am bound to say that they have left me entirely puzzled as to their position with regard to the whole of this matter. The Bill provides that once every five years the land shall be valued, that during the whole of each of those quinquennia the value fixed at the beginning shall be taken as the value on which the tax shall be paid. That applies quite naturally to land which is not sub-divided during the period of the quinquennium. We have already passed Clause 10, in which the Committee has decided that where land is sub-divided the aggregate value of all the parts shall be taken to be the same as the total value of the whole, when decided at the beginning of the quinquennium. I am entirely at a loss to see how it is possible that, now that we are on Clause 11, we can allow that to be called in question on an appeal when we have already decided in Clause

  1289
  10 that that shall in fact be the aggregate Value of the various portions of the site.
  Therefore, apart from the argument on the matter, it seems to me that if we were to make this alteration in Clause 11, it would necessitate an alteration of Clause 10 on the Report stage, and it is only to-day that we have had Clause 10 before us. This matter was to some extent at any rate thrashed out on Clause 10. Hon. Members taking a different view put forward their view, the Solicitor-General took the case on the other side, and the Members of the Opposition, as I understood, accepted the argument of the Solicitor-General as conclusive and did not press the alteration of Clause 10.
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: He said he would consider the alteration of Clause 10.
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I do not remember exactly what he did say, but if the hon. Member assures me that that is so, I will accept it. At any rate, I understood that hon. Members opposite in the main accepted the view of the Solicitor-General about Clause 10.
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: They certainly accepted the principle.
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: If so, that is quite enough for my point. This Amendment strikes at the principle of Clause 10, because it seeks to reverse the very essence of the case on which Clause 10 is based. But let me put that rather technical point aside and deal with the Amendment on its merits, on the supposition that we could not only alter it, but that we propose on Report to alter Clause 10 at the same time to make it fit in with the altered Clause 11. The hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst), who is no longer in his place apparently, said it was grossly unfair that when a man bought a site he should be prevented from altering the valuation after he had bought it. I can understand that argument if it was applied as a whole. If it was said that in all cases of sale, whenever a purchaser came into possession, he could call in question the valuation, that would seem to me to be a perfectly logical argument. As far as I know, there is no Amendment on the Paper for doing that in the general case of the sale of land. Apparently, the Opposition are quite willing to accept
  1290
  the principle in general that, where a hereditament has been valued, and when that changes as a whole during the quinquennial period, the purchaser shall go on paying Land Tax for the whole of the rest of the quinquennial period on the basis on which the valuation was made at the beginning. They have only raised the difficulty where the hereditament is not sold as a whole, but is sold in pieces. I really cannot see, if the argument of the hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment is sound, why they should be confining themselves to this case alone instead of to the larger question of what should be the position in the case of any sale of land during the quinquennial period.
  Let me take the argument a stage further. I understand them to say that in this isolated case they want to upset the valuation. I assume now that they are going to do that, not only in isolated cases but in the larger case of the sale of a hereditament as a whole. They suggest that it is only fair that, where a new purchaser has become possessed of a piece of land, the old valuation ought thereby to be upset. Do they seriously suggest that it can only be upset in one direction? If it is going to be upset in one direction in order to lower the valuation at the desire of the purchaser, clearly the commissioners ought to be given a right to increase the valuation if in fact the sale price has disclosed that the land has been under-valued.
  In spite of the illustration which the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Galbraith) gave, I should think that there would be at least as many cases the other way as there were in the direction in which he suggested. He gave the illustration of the man who possessed land of which the site value was put at £10,000 and which was cut up into 10 parts, one of which he sold to a particular individual. He supposed that that individual actually bought his site for £750 and he asked: Is it not unfair that he should pay Land Tax for the remainder of the quinquennium on the basis of £1,000? It is an arguable point whether you should keep the value for the whole quinquennium or whether you should change it as a result of the sale. Clearly you cannot change it only in one direction. If you give the right to reduce the value and therefore to reduce the

  1291
  tax in the case where the sale, instead of fetching a thousand pounds only fetched £750, equally the commissioners must be given the right, where the value, as found by the sale, has increased to £1,250, to put it up. The Government think that it is a fair plan to allow the valuation to remain for the whole of the five years. At the end of those five years the purchaser of these fractions of the original hereditament will have the right to raise the matter of the valuation. Therefore, it is only over the remainder of the quinquennium that the difficulty arises.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is fair to the Revenue authorities, why not do it?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: There is something to be said for an annual valuation of all property. There is something to be said for revising it either upwards or downwards in all cases of sale, but, on the whole, the Government think that the simpler plan is to let the valuation stay for the quinquennium. This particular Amendment would not do that at all. It would pick out an isolated case, only the case where the land was split up, and it would only bring about a change when the purchase price showed a reduction in amount. Clearly the Government think that the five years' stabilisation of the valuation on which the tax is based is the better course, and they cannot possibly accept the Amendment.
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I would not base my objection to this Sub-section upon the case of my hon. and learned Friend, with the very greatest respect to him. My objection to the Sub-section is that it is entirely redundant. It is unnecessary. It is always a bad thing to restrict the right of appeal to one particular field. As far as I can see, the Financial Secretary is entirely right that the only relevant appeal one can see at the moment as a general probability is the appeal as to apportionment, because an appeal as to increase in aggregate value will not arise at all. That being the only appeal which can possibly arise, the drafters of the Bill have put themselves to a very great deal of trouble in vain. They have provided a long Sub-section to cover a point which probably will
  1292
  not arise. I think that they would have been perfectly safe not to have provided the Sub-section at all and to have left a general right of appeal. The Financial Secretary said that the only possible appeal, having regard to the principle enunciated by the Solicitor-General in Clause 10, would be an appeal on questions of apportionment. No honest legislator in this House would regard with equanimity an entirely unnecessary Subsection. We shall have to have another explanation either from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General or from the hon. Gentleman as to the necessity of this Sub-section at all.
  We know the aggregate valuation is only to be fixed at the next quinquennium, and there will be no appeal upon that. I do not claim that the owner of a divided part of any land unit has a greater right than any other landholder in the country. I do not think that we can justify that once we grant the principle. Therefore, I cannot see the necessity for the restriction of the Bill. We take, naturally, an uncharitable view of the whole of these land taxes and of every proposal put forward to implement them, and therefore we were quite rightly bound to regard with suspicion such a restriction as this one. We have a right to ask the hon. Gentleman, if he is sincere in his argument, why he puts on this restriction at all. Upon his own arguments the Sub-section is unnecessary. He says that it does not do any harm. We say that it does not do any good. Therefore, I am quite prepared in the interests of the simplicity of legislation, to divide against the insertion of an entirely unnecessary Clause. If you look at Clause 10, you can see the possibility of an appeal upon another question, than of apportionment. Clause 10 reads in this way:
  "Where it appears to the Commissioners that on the first day of January in any year of charge any piece of land valued under this Part of this Act as a land unit has become divided into two or more parts in different ownership."
  I do not pretend to be a land lawyer, but I know that it may involve very difficult questions of law as to whether one separate land unit had really become split into two different ownerships. Therefore, I can see questions of law arising upon which no possible appeal can be

  1293
  made under the Act. That being so, the Government are very foolish in insisting upon this very unnecessary Sub-section. I do not think that such a situation will be liable to arise. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General knows perfectly well that this legislation is going to affect the whole face of the country, and you cannot possibly prophesy that some such point of law may not arise in a number of ways. It will be entirely against public interests that we should put an unnecessary restriction upon the right of appeal, having regard to the fact that this is going to affect the whole population of the country. If the Government wish to administer this part of the machinery of the Bill fairly, they ought not to impose this restriction, and I ask that their decision should be reconsidered.
  Sir D. HERBERT: May I ask the Attorney-General to give me a reply to two questions? It seems to me that if this Sub-section stays in, we may be depriving a man who, as the Attorney-General and everyone will agree, ought to be able to appeal on the question of value, from being able to do so. The Subsection provides that in a case where there has been revised entries, the owner of one of the smaller units shall have no right of appeal, except against the apportionment of the valuation. What is going to happen in a case where the vendor of a single unit sells it in 10 separate tenths? As a result of having sold the lot, he does not care what the valuation of the whole is. He has parted with it and he has no right of appeal and no desire to appeal. The other 10 people, just because they are the purchasers of revised units, are given no right to object to the valuation, which amounts to so much for the whole 10 tenths, except in regard to whether the apportionment between them is fair. I do not know whether the Attorney-General can assure me that that is not the case, but it seems to me that that is a point that requires consideration. As far as I can see, it has been overlooked.
  Mr. MacLAREN: The hon. Member who moved the Amendment, as he went on in his argument, seemed to me not to have appreciated fully what would happen if the Sub-section had not been in. Apparently, the argument is that five years is too long to wait. We must have some point at which we get the
  1294
  valuation, and if they remove the Subsection, hon. Members opposite are opening the door for the cutting down of the five years to 12 months. I would not object to that in the least, because it would redound to the credit of the State very quickly, owing to the enormous increases that take place from year to year in values. I am afraid that that was not present in the hon. Member's mind when he moved the Amendment. I cannot see the Bill having its well-knit parts unless this Sub-section remains in. In regard to the striking out of Subsection (5), as was suggested by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks) I think that would be a fatal mistake from his own point of view, because that would mean robbing the new owners or the new purchasers of their right to reviews if they are wrongly apportioned.
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I think the hon. Member has misunderstood me. Certainly, I want the right of appeal to be in and I do not want it to be restricted in any way, but the right of appeal is only on the question of the apportionment. I said that the question of apportionment was probably the only appeal that was likely to arise.
  Mr. MacLAREN: I am only throwing out a hint that there are serious dangers looming ahead from the landowners' point of view if hon. Members carry the Amendment. I intervened to point out the red lights behind the proposal to leave out this Sub-section. If the Opposition are prepared to remove the five years and to leave us with a free hand to have our reviews at intervals of less periods than five years, it is on their heads. I am simply telling them to look out and be careful before they move an Amendment such as they are moving now.
  The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir William Jowitt): Earlier in the Committee's proceedings when we were discussing Clause 10, some controversy arose as to its meaning, and those hon. Members who were present will remember that the Solicitor-General, in making clear what he thought was the meaning of Clause 10, referred to Clause 11 and pointed out that the two were dovetailed together. He relied on Clause 11 to explain the meaning of Clause 10. Hon. Members opposite are divided into two camps,

  1295
  those who object to the Sub-section because they believe that it is wicked and bad, and those who think it is otiose. The object, as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has explained, is simply to adhere to the basis fixed at the beginning of the quinquennium, and throughout the five years to adhere to that basis, notwithstanding the fact that in the course of years the unit may become split up into various units. If the unit becomes split up, then for the rest of the five years those among whom it is split up shall have also split up among themselves no less and no more than the value which was put upon the unit at the beginning of the quinquennium.
  We are told that the Sub-section is unnecessary. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks) expressed the view that he thinks it is unnecessary. I am by no means prepared to say that I am satisfied that he is wrong, but I am prepared to say that to make the matter clear—one does not want any ambiguity—I think it is wiser to have the Subsection in. It is necessary because if you read Clause 11 as a whole, before and after the proviso, you find that in perfectly general terms you give by means of this machinery the right of appeal; a general right of appeal to anybody who objects to the valuation of his land unit. The hon. Member for Eastbourne said, in effect, that the general words of Clause 11 must necessarily be qualified by the restrictions already in Clause 10. He may be right, but I think it is wiser and better to take care, in order to avoid the apparent conflict between Clauses 10 and 11 which would otherwise result, to qualify the general words of Clause 11 by a proviso, in the terms of Proviso (a), to show that you do not mean in Clause 11 to go outside the meaning which you have already put down in Clause 10. As a matter of drafting it is wiser to do that, and it is for that reason that I think we ought to retain the Subsection, which really makes plain the meaning which is in Clause 10. As the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) said, I have no doubt that in the majority of cases this plan of adhering to the valuation put upon the land unit at the beginning of the quinquennium, notwithstanding that the unit has been split up into various parts, will tell in favour of the taxpayer, but we
  1296
  think it not unreasonable to follow the precedent of the quinquennium.
  Sir D. HERBERT: Will the Attorney-General kindly answer my question?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg pardon. The hon. Member put forward the case of an undivided property owner being indifferent as to the valuation, or at any rate the case of a valuation having been fixed and then the property being divided up——
  Sir D. HERBERT: We will say the property is being sold at the moment the valuation is being made.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If the owner sells at the moment, the precise moment, when the valuation is being made the respective purchaser will want to know something about it. One of the terms of the contract of sale no doubt would be that the solicitor of the prospective purchaser would take the right to interfere in the matter, but unless the sale takes place at the precise moment when the valuation has been taken the man who is the owner at the material date, that is the date of valuation, will take such steps as are necessary to see that the valuation is not unfair, and consequently the various people among whom the land is subsequently split up will only be sharing among them that which is fair. Therefore, the point that as the valuation takes place precisely at the moment of sale, the existing landowner, who is going to sell, is indifferent to what the valuation is, and the unfortunate tenant will fall between two stools does not arise.
  Sir D. HERBERT: It is perfectly obvious from what the Attorney-General has said that the point I am making is a genuine one, and one which will have to be dealt with by the Government. When I say that the sale takes place at the moment of valuation it is only by way of example. Anyone who is accustomed to sales of large estates by auction knows perfectly well the kind of thing that is likely to happen. A valuation has been made, perhaps notice has not been given with regard to the valuation, but it is going on at the same time as the sale. Imagine the owner of a large estate which has been sold in 20, 30, 40 or 50 lots. Is it to be supposed that all the trouble and expense in the first instance of appealing

  1297
  against an unfair valuation, which is to be split up between 20, 30 and 50 different purchasers, is all to rest, as far as the Government revenue is concerned, upon the vendor of the property, and that every vendor of property who sells his property in lots is to be prepared to feel that when he sells—in the ordinary way he would finish with the land—he is going to be saddled with the necessity of conducting on behalf of his purchasers a long appeal proceeding in order to get a valuation which is fair to those who have bought his property in separate lots. This is not a matter of trying to alter the scheme of the Bill, and I am perfectly certain that the Attorney-General thinks there is something in my point because with all his knowledge and experience in these matters he has not been able to tell me that there is nothing in my point. I am certain he realises that something will have to be done to meet this point before the Bill passes.
  Mr. MacLAREN: Will the hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) agree with this, that where a large unit is split up the valuation of the respective lots if taken together have a greater aggregate value than the unit had before
  it was split up. If that is so, the argument he is now advancing does not hold, because if an immediate valuation was made after the estate was split up there would be a greater value attaching to that unit than before it was split up.
  Sir D. HERBERT: The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) completely misunderstands the whole point I have put forward. What I am assuming is—it will happen in a great many cases—that the original valuation was wrong, was very much too high, that is the whole point; and the person whose interest it is and whose right it should be to appeal against it is cut out from the right of appeal simply because he happens to be a purchaser. It is one of those cases where the original owner would have appealed, but when he has sold the property, and because it is split up into a number of different units, all right of appeal is taken away from everybody interested in the land.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 262; Noes, 129.

  Division No. 299.]

  AYES.

  [8.43 p.m.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Chater, Daniel

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Church, Major A. G.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

  Clarke, J. S.

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

  Cluse, W. S.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)

  Angell, Sir Norman

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

  Arnott, John

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Harbord, A.

  Aske, Sir Robert

  Compton, Joseph

  Hardie, David (Rutherglen)

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Cove, William G.

  Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)

  Ayles, Walter

  Cripps, Sir Stafford

  Harris, Percy A.

  Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Daggar, George

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

  Dallas, George

  Haycock, A. W.

  Barnes, Alfred John

  Dalton, Hugh

  Hayes, John Henry

  Barr, James

  Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)

  Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

  Benson, G.

  Duncan, Charles

  Herriotts, J.

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Ede, James Chuter

  Hicks, Ernest George

  Birkett, W. Norman

  Edmunds, J. E.

  Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Bowen, J. W.

  Egan, W. H.

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Elmley, Viscount

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Broad, Francis Alfred

  Foot, Isaac.

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Bromfield, William

  Freeman, Peter

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph

  Brooke, W.

  Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

  Isaacs, George

  Brothers, M.

  Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

  Jenkins, Sir William

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

  Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)

  Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Buchanan, G.

  Gill, T. H.

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

  Burgess, F. G.

  Gillett, George M.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Burgin, Dr. E. L.

  Glassey, A. E.

  Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)

  Gossling, A. G.

  Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

  Caine, Hall-, Derwent

  Gould, F.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Cameron, A. G.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Cape, Thomas

  Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

  Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M

  Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

  Gray, Milner

  Kirkwood, D.

  Knight, Holford

  Morley, Ralph

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Lang, Gordon

  Morris, Rhys Hopkins

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

  Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)

  Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Law, Albert (Bolton)

  Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

  Law, A. (Rossendale)

  Mort, D. L.

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Lawrence, Susan

  Muff, G.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

  Muggeridge, H. T.

  Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

  Murnin, Hugh

  Sorensen, R.

  Leach, W.

  Nathan, Major H. L.

  Stamford, Thomas W.

  Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Lees, J.

  Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

  Strauss, G. R.

  Leonard, W.

  Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

  Sullivan, J.

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

  Sutton, J. E.

  Lindley, Fred W.

  Palin, John Henry.

  Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

  Lloyd, C. Ellis

  Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan)

  Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Perry, S. F.

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Longden, F.

  Phillips, Dr. Marlon

  Tillett, Ben

  Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

  Picton-Turbervill, Edith

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Lunn, William

  Pole, Major D. G.

  Toole, Joseph

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Potts, John S.

  Tout, W. J.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

  Price, M. P.

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Vaughan, David

  McElwee, A.

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilton

  Viant, S. P.

  McEntee, V. L.

  Raynes, W. R.

  Walkden, A. G.

  McKinlay, A.

  Richards, R.

  Walker, J.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Wallace, H. W.

  Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

  Ritson, J.

  Watkins, F. C.

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Romeril, H. G.

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  McShane, John James

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

  Rowson, Guy

  Welsh, James (Paisley)

  Mander, Geoffroy le M.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

  Manning, E. L.

  Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

  West, F. R.

  Mansfield, W.

  Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

  Westwood, Joseph

  March, S.

  Sanders, W. S.

  White, H. G.

  Marcus, M.

  Sandham, E.

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

  Markham, S. F.

  Sawyer, G. F.

  Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

  Marley, J.

  Scurr, John

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Marshall, Fred

  Sexton, Sir James

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  Mathers, George

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Matters, L. W.

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Maxton, James

  Sherwood, G. H.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Messer, Fred

  Shield, George William

  Wilson, J. (Oldham)

  Middleton, G.

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Mills, J. E.

  Shillaker, J. F.

  Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)

  Milner, Major J.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

  Montague, Frederick

  Simmons, C. J.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Sinkinson, George

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Mr. Edwards and Mr. Paling.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Colfox, Major William Philip

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Albery, Irving James

  Colville, Major D. J.

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

  Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Cowan, D. M.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas

  Atkinson, C.

  Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Balniel, Lord

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

  Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

  Betterton, Sir Henry B.

  Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

  Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

  Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Llewellin, Major J. J.

  Bird, Ernest Roy

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Wetton-s-M.)

  Lymington, Viscount

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  McConnell, Sir Joseph

  Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

  Fermoy, Lord

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Boyce, Leslie

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Bracken, B.

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Margesson, Captain H. D.

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Marjoribanks, Edward

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Bullock, Captain Malcolm

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Millar, J. D.

  Butler, R. A.

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Campbell, E. T.

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Castle Stewart, Earl of

  Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

  Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)

  Hanbury, C.

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  O'Neill, Sir H.

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Penny, Sir George

  Christie, J. A.

  Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Cohen, Major J. Brunel

  Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

  Reid, David D. (County Down)

  1300

  1301

  Remer, John R.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Reynolds, Cal. Sir James

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Rood, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Wells, Sydney R.

  Ross, Ronald D.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Sueter, Roar-Admiral M. F.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Salmon, Major I.

  Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Thomson, Sir F.

  Withers, Sir John James

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Train, J.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Skelton, A. N.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

  Major the Marquess of Titchfield

  and Captain Wallace.

  Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to move, in page 10, line 21, to leave out the word "thirty" and to insert instead thereof the word "forty-two."
  This Amendment is consequential upon an Amendment which has already been accepted by the Committee. I propose later to move a second Amendment which is also consequential and a third one which is nearly consequential, in relation to the question of the period of time allowed in connection with objections and appeals. We have already altered the period from 30 days to 42 days in the earlier part of the Clause. The first two of these three Amendments—in lines 21 and 28, respectively, to leave out the word "thirty" and to insert the word "forty-two"—are necessary for that reason, and the third Amendment which I propose to move—in line 30, to insert the words "not being less than forty-two days"—is in order to equate the period in the subsequent proceedings with the period of 42 days which applies to the earlier proceedings. I do not imagine that the Government will make any objection.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: We are prepared to accept these Amendments. The first two, as the right hon. Gentleman says, are merely consequential. The third Amendment is to make a fixed time with regard to the period within which appeals must be made, and, although not at present in the Bill, we are quite prepared to accept those words also.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In page 10, line 28, leave out the word "thirty" and insert instead thereof the word "forty-two."
  In page 10, line 30, after the word "time," insert the words "not being less than forty-two days."—[Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson.]
  Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: I beg to move, in page 10, line 33, to leave out the word "one," and to insert instead thereof the word "two."
  The Solicitor-General let fall a dictum that everyone will not appeal when he has received his valuation. That may be literally true, but I think that a large number of people will feel great bitterness about this Bill, and will regard it as something conveying an injustice to them; and, although we are totally against the principles of the Bill, we ask to be allowed to exercise our right to mould it in such a form that it will reduce the bitterness to which I have referred. I am dealing with the Sub-section which says that a person may appeal to one of the panel of referees. I would like the Solicitor-General to tell us what virtue he attributes to the word "one." Why only one? This is not a very contentious Amendment, and to use again an observation of the Solicitor-General, it may make the Bill more easy to work. We feel that one is not enough, and, if the Clause be amended as I propose, the appeal will be heard by not less than two referees. If that be carried, it may be necessary for there to be an umpire, but, if the Solicitor-General is prepared to accept two, I will not press for the third. Some provision should be made in certain cases, however, so that an umpire can be called upon. This Subsection also provides that
  "any party to the appeal may require the referee to state his award as to the whole or part thereof in the form of a special case for the opinion on any question of law of the High Court."
  Is not that the very thing which we want to avoid? We want not only to save bitterness, but to make it less likely for an appellant to feel that he must go further and appeal. The House of Commons should save persons the necessity of appealing to a court of law.

  1303
  In the interests of peace, therefore, we urge the Solicitor-General to take the view we hold, and to allow us to have two referees instead of one.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think that the addendum of the hon. Gentleman proves the wrongness of his Amendment. The fact that he envisaged the necessity for an umpire shows the completely unsatisfactory character of a court which consists of two referees. A court consisting of two persons is always unsatisfactory, because you can never get a majority decision, and to have to resort to one of them withdrawing his decision, or some such recourse as that, is highly unsatisfactory. This provision is really modelled upon the Acquisition of Land (Compensation) Act, 1919, which has always worked quite satisfactorily. Under that Act a single referee has always been appointed, and I think that all parties have been satisfied with that form of procedure, which has been adopted in heavy compensation cases when large issues in regard to money have been raised.
  As regards the proviso, the hon. Gentleman will realise that the referee who deals with valuation points is not a proper tribunal to deal with any point of law that may arise. Therefore, it is necessary to have some means by which, if a point of law does arise—one hopes that they will not arise very often—an appeal can be made to the courts in order to settle it. That is again the procedure which has been found quite satisfactory under the Acquisition of Land (Compensation) Act. In fact, one of the advantages of that Act which everybody realises was the getting of a single arbitrator to decide the matter instead of resorting to the old clumsy procedure of having two arbitrators and an umpire, which resulted in the two arbitrators generally being rather partisan and the umpire acting as the referee in the long run.
  Mr. SAMUEL: In view of what the Solicitor-General has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir D. HERBERT: I beg to move, in page 10, line 34, to leave out the words:
  "I. of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910." and to insert instead thereof the words:
  1304
  "III. of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927.'
  The effect of this apparently cryptic Amendment is simply to alter and, I hope the Solicitor-General will agree to improve the constitution of the committee which is to deal with the panel of referees. That committee under Part 1 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, consisted of the Lord Chief 9.0 p.m. Justice, the Master of the Rolls, and the President of the Surveyors' Institution. Seventeen years after, under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, similar machinery was established, and it was decided that the committee should consist of the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Surveyors' Institution and the President of the Law Society. I hope that the Government will look with some favour on this Amendment. The finding of suitable persons to act as referees on the panel is a matter which needs a committee with two particular qualifications. One is absolute impartiality; they must be people who are respected for their high position and general impartiality. Another is that they should be people who know something of the work which has to be done by these referees, and know the reputation, experience and ability generally of that particular profession or class of person from whom the referees are to be drawn. In this case they would be surveyors, auctioneers or other persons accustomed to dealing In land—and the land in the particular part of the country where the valuations are to be made.
  The President of the Law Society is a man who, in his official position, has a special reason for being able, if I may put it in those words, to give good and reliable advice as to the type of person to be chosen. Indeed, I venture to say there is no one who could do it better. He, being a solicitor, and not allowed, therefore, to be a surveyor, does not compete with members of the surveyors' profession, and has no interest therein, but he does represent the profession which more than any other employs those people, and a profession which, with that of the surveyors, probably knows more about the land and methods of dealing with land than any other. The Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls are two Judges of great dignity

  1305
  and position, but one would hardly expect either of them to have any practical knowledge of, or to go through the actual labour of inquiring into, who are the most suitable people in a particular part of the country to do this work. Their names are there in order to give confidence that the choice made is a correct and proper one, but there ought to be associated with them others who have practical knowledge of those who are to act as referees or who, from their official positions, are able to obtain particulars of the reliability and suitability of the people who are to act as referees. If those two great Judges are to have proper and efficient assistance I cannot think of anyone more likely to give it than the President of the Law Society and the President of the Surveyors' Institution. The knowledge of each supplements that of the other.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I have very great sympathy with the real point which lies behind this Amendment which is that in the selection of these referees the services of the President of the Law Society should be available, but there is a real difficulty in the form in which the Amendment is put forward, arising from the present constitution of the two panels. The panel under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, is largely a panel of surveyors, the type of men wanted as referees in valuations; but the panel under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, is largely a panel of lawyers, either barristers or solicitors, excellent in their way, but not experts upon valuation points. The ideal would be to add to the selecting body under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, the President of the Law Society, but frankly I am not quite certain whether that could be done, and it would be necessary to consult the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls and the members of the panel before such a proposal could be accepted by the Government. [Interruption.] I beg pardon, I mean the members of the selecting body. If I may I would suggest that the hon. Member should withdraw this Amendment on the basis that we make inquiries of the reference committee as to whether that condition could be met, and that if it is found possible to do it some such Amendment should be suggested by us on the Report stage. I do not wish to give any undertaking
  1306
  that such an Amendment will be put in, because the position must be explored, but we are anxious to explore the suggestion, and, if possible, to act on it.
  Sir DONALD MACLEAN: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) and myself appreciate the sympathetic way in which the Solicitor-General has dealt with this Amendment. We are quite aware that in its present form it is not particularly apt for the occasion, and although the Solicitor-General has not given an undertaking—and we could not ask him to do that in view of the fact that he must consult those who are already members of this committee—subject to that I feel a certain amount of confidence that when the Report stage arrives he will be able to give full effect to the suggestion, very modest, but most useful, contained in this Amendment.
  Sir T. INSKIP: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) attaches importance to the provision in the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, by which the reference committee may appoint persons for particular localities as well as generally, but, speaking for myself, I think that is a valuable point. The difference between the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, and the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, lies partly in that distinction. I am not going to ask the Solicitor-General to do anything more than he has undertaken to do, and that is to consider the matter, but having regard to the importance of getting people familiar with the locality it would be a great protection to the taxpayer if it were possible for the reference committee to do what they have power to do under the Landlord and Tenant Act, and that is to appoint persons not merely generally, but to any particular locality. There does not seem to be much point in a London surveyor being selected to deal with land in Lancashire or Scotland, and I hope the Solicitor-General will consider whether he cannot incorporate that part of the Landlord and Tenant Act.
  Sir D. HERBERT: I entirely sympathise with what my hon. and learned Friend has said as to the value in this particular case of adopting the course provided for in the Landlord and Tenant

  1307
  Act, and, indeed, in moving this Amendment I did make reference to the necessity for valuers having local knowledge. After what the Solicitor-General has said I shall be willing to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, realising that he cannot go further at the moment, but feeling perfectly satisfied with his promise to inquire into the matter, the more so as I believe that everybody concerned with the practical working of the Bill will realise the assistance they are likely to get if the proposals of my hon. Friend and myself are carried out. As the present Government were warned, and expressed their intention of accepting the warning, not to make the mistakes which had been made by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), they would be well advised to see that gentlemen with local knowledge are appointed in the different localities, and that a gentleman who has gained most of his experience in valuing surburban villas on the other side of the Thames will not be sent to value farms in Lincolnshire, as was done under the Act of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir T. INSKIP: I beg to move, in page 10, line 37, to leave out from the word "any," to the word "or" in line 40, and to insert instead thereof the words
  "person aggrieved by the decision of the referee may appeal against the decision to the High Court within the time and in the manner and on conditions directed by rules of court."
  My Amendment is intended to give a general right of appeal in these cases. The Clause, as drafted, provides
  "That any party to the appeal may require the referee to state his award as to the whole or part thereof in the form of a special case for the opinion on any question of law of the High Court."
  There are not many hon. Members present even on the Government side of the House, and it is not much good to say anything about special cases and the way they are prepared. I am afraid the power to demand a special case and state a point of law too often results in the tribunal, particularly if they are a little jealous of their own decision and a little anxious not to see it reversed, stating the facts in such a way that,
  1308
  although a point of law may appear on the face of it, the facts are such that the point is bound to be decided against the appellant. That is no reflection on individual integrity or impartiality, but it is an observation founded upon the defects of human nature. If you get somebody to state the facts upon which a point of law arises, in nine cases out of ten it is possible to state them in such a way that you can anticipate what the decision on the point of law will be. There are precedents for this, and, although the Solicitor-General may say it is unfortunate from the point of view of the taxes imposed in 1910, the taxpayer will not say that, because everybody knows that the power to appeal to the High Court, often unencumbered by a statement of facts, is very valuable to the taxpayer.
  The Solicitor-General may say that that was one of the causes of the downfall of those taxes, but it does not seem to lie in the mouth of the Government to refuse a general appeal on law and fact simply because there might be so many appeals that it would be impossible to collect the tax. Any argument of that kind would show how desirable it is that we should give a general appeal, and the more it shows that the public are very much interested in having an unrestricted right of appeal. As the Solicitor-General will no doubt have informed himself by Section 33, Sub-section (4), of the Finance Act of 1910, any person aggrieved by the decision of the referee may appeal against that decision to the High Court within the time prescribed by the rules. Therefore, the Amendment I am moving is in accordance with precedent, a course found to be very convenient and one which affords a much desired protection to the taxpayer. Although a special case may be a convenient form of stating facts for a superior court, all lawyers know perfectly well that it very much restricts the right of appeal both on points of law and on points of fact.
  I think, however, that the High Court may be trusted not to entertain appeals merely on questions of values, about which they have had no experience, and upon which they must depend on the evidence of responsible people. No High Court judge or tribunal would be likely to allow people to appeal to them merely

  1309
  because they thought respectable witnesses had put too high or too low the value on a piece of land. On the other hand, questions of valuation which come under what are known as mixed questions of law and fact can only be properly safeguarded by giving an unrestricted right of appeal as is provided under the Act of 1910. I ask hon. Members opposite, who claim to represent what are generally called the people, to be very careful to see that unrestricted rights of appeal are given to the people. The proposal of the Bill is novel and intricate in its design, and I hope the Solicitor-General will not simply say that he is sympathetic towards the object of this Amendment, but will be willing to accept it in the interests of those who ought to have the most ample protection that this Committee can give to them.
  Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I support this Amendment as the result of a not inconsiderable experience on the effect of making appeals solely by way of cases stated for the opinion of the court. I do not think there is any Member of this Committee who has had practical experience of that class of appeal who has not come to the conclusion that that procedure has proved completely unsatisfactory in a great number of cases, and has often resulted in a real denial of justice. That procedure is dilatory in its operation because it often happens that, by reason of the restriction under which the court finds itself, a case has to be sent back for further information, and it has to be re-stated. Sometimes additional information is supplied on points that arise, and which do not arise in an ordinary appeal case. Only in this way, any information which the court desires can be obtained, and the Law Books are full of cases dealing with highly technical points which are not of much value and which have cost the public enormous sums of money. I remember one instance in which the case had to be stated on four different occasions before finally we got to the point at which the matter was intended to be decided, and when that time arrived, one of the parties had been forced to file his petition in bankruptcy, and consequently there was no decision at all. There are many illustrations of technical points which have been raised which the parties have really tried to get decided, but have found themselves in
  1310
  the meshes of an award stated in special cases One cannot help knowing that very often these things are due to the ingenuity of the advocates who are instructed on the one side or the other. The advocates can only do their duty in accordance with the state of the law which they are called upon to help to elucidate.
  Let me give another illustration. It is well known that the form of special case in which appeals under the Income Tax Acts have arisen in the past have caused a maximum of inconvenience and all sorts of difficulties have arisen. The Courts have finally come to the conclusion that they are forced to give a decision in one way or the other based simply and solely upon the form in which the case comes before them and without being able, under this form of procedure to have real regard to the true merits of the dispute. Speaking, as I am, to a member of my own profession who, I am satisfied, has a wide experience in this matter, I feel sure I need not dilate any further on the particular evils of the system which we desire not to see perpetuated under this Bill. I earnestly hope that the Solicitor-General on this occasion, as on so many occasions this evening, will be able to give us either some assurance or some acceptance of the Amendment, in that extremely reasonable frame of mind which I think, on the whole, he has shown to our efforts to improve the Bill.
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I intervene in this Debate after some very distinguished members of my profession have given their experiences. I would remind the Solicitor-General of the very important book which was written a year or two ago by the Lord Chief Justice, called "The New Despotism." Perhaps one of the chief characteristics of our 20th century civilisation has been the creation of a lot of tinpot Courts, which have not any real means of forming a judgment, and with no proper right of appeal from them. That is rightly regarded as a very great invasion of the rights of a subject in matters of legal dispute. Let me give another example of the new despotism. I have not had the experience of my hon. and learned Friend behind me, but my experience has been quite sufficient, because the Solicitor-General will appreciate that in one's earlier years at the Bar one comes

  1311
  into contact very largely with benches of magistrates. He will appreciate that the case stated by magistrates, who are usually under the domination of the magistrates' clerk, leads to many kinds of injustice throughout England. These cases stated are very often quite honest but prejudiced from the start.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member ought not to criticise the bench of magistrates in such terms.
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I will not pursue that line any further, but I understand it has frequently been criticised before, and criticised outside this House a very great deal. I will not refer to the magistrates as you, Mr. Dunnico, regard them as sacrosanct. I was merely stating that the system of cases stated really dates back to an archaic period in our history. It dates back to the time of formal pleading and matters of that kind, whereby the litigant is deprived of his ordinary rights. That is really the case stated, and I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider the facts of the present situation. In this case you have an official appointed under the Government, and he has to draw up, in the form of a special case, a case which he himself decides. I do think it would be much better if that was not so, and if there was unrestricted right of appeal in this matter. We have the precedent in the previous Act which has already been referred to and I really do not see what, at any rate, on the matter of principle, can be said against unrestricted right of appeal. I should have thought it was absolutely conclusive that unrestricted right of appeal would mean a far more just tribunal, when the head of the tribunal is not a trained lawyer or judge, but merely has to serve under Government on a technical matter. It would be far better if beyond that technical atmosphere which must invade the court of referees, there were, at any rate, the sanction of the court behind it.
  There is a later Amendment on the Paper in which I notice the county court is mentioned. I do not in the least object to there being appeals to the county court in matters of small amount. I think the work of the county court judges is very seldom appreciated. They are brought closely into touch with the
  1312
  people, and the judge very often has to appear as advocate on both sides of the case to help the litigant. Their work is enormously valuable, and they would form a very suitable court, as formality is sometimes dispensed with in the county courts. I do ask the Solicitor-General to reconsider his decision in this matter. As a matter of fact, I am afraid he will not, because there is such a great question of principle involved here, but perhaps he will surprise me once more by showing reasonableness and generosity.
  Sir T. INSKIP: On a point of Order. A moment ago you ruled that my hon. and learned Friend must not say anything disparaging to or critical of magistrates.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I did not rule the hon. and learned Member out of order. I think it is perfectly in order to make general comment on the Benches, but I did think the hon. Member was rather trespassing too far afield by making such harsh charges against magistrates which might lead to retaliation.
  Sir T. INSKIP: I should not presume to criticise your Ruling and I was only anxious about what was capable of being regarded as a ruling that one must not reflect on the magistrates in this country as distinct from Judges of the superior Courts. I thought it necessary to get an indication of your opinion, and that was all I intended. I am very much obliged.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am afraid I cannot even regard this Amendment with sympathy. That is a result of my own experience. May I first of all draw attention to the fact that my hon. and learned Friend who spoke last made one mistake in dealing with this Amendment? He suggested that the person who was to decide the matter of valuation as referee was the creature of the Government. That is not so. He is chosen from a panel of perfectly independent persons, and he is chosen, amongst others, by the author of "The New Despotism." Therefore, one can hardly assume he will be in any way a person who is likely to err in that matter. The real difference between the Government and hon. Gentlemen opposite is as to whether there should be, on the question of value, an appeal to the High Court. I quite appreciate the argument which has been put as regards the difficulties

  1313
  which sometimes occur as regards cases stated and, what is quite a different thing, awards stated in the form of special cases. Where one is dealing with lawyers of great ingenuity who sit as arbitrators, it may possibly be, though I hesitate to suggest it, that the form of the special case is sometimes such as to make it difficult for the Judge to come to any conclusion other than that arrived at by the arbitrator.
  In this case we are dealing with a simple surveyor who is unlikely to have that degree of ingenuity, and when he states a ease, according to my experience—and I have been concerned with a good many special cases and awards in the form of special oases stated by the official referees under the Acquisition of Land Act—there is invariably extreme fairness, and almost every case supplies the necessary facts, which in valuation cases are extremely simple. It is not a case of having a complicated series of facts which have to be stated. It is very easy, in cases of compensation or valuation, to state the facts simply, and the point of law which is taken by either party from those facts. I do not think that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are justified in thinking that there is any real restriction in this case upon an appeal being fully heard by the High Court on any question of law which is raised by either party. One hon. and learned Member mentioned the Income Tax Act, but I venture to think that, if every Income Tax case at the present time were open to appeal on all questions of fact as well as of law, the Courts would be very much fuller of appeals than they are at present.
  Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: May I intervene to point out that there is no difficulty at all in regard to the county courts? Under Section 120 of the County Courts Act, the appeal is limited to law, but, nevertheless, you do not have your case put forward in the form of facts stated; you get a general appeal, and the court can then investigate what facts there are to give rise to the question of law. It is quite a different procedure, and I think that upon reflection my hon. and learned Friend will see that it does not follow that what we are pressing for is a complete appeal upon every conceivable little point of fact that will arise under these valuations. I can
  1314
  quite see that that would give rise to all sorts of difficulties.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am afraid I was only speaking to the Amendment and the suggestion which was perfectly definitely put forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who moved it, which was that there should be a perfectly open appeal on all questions of fact as well as of law. I was attempting to point out to the Committee that in my experience that would be disastrous, because it would lead to a vast multiplication of appeals, and I gave the instance of the Income Tax Acts, which I think will show to anyone who has experience of them that really on the whole that system is a very satisfactory system, and one which tends vastly to limit the area of appeal. After all, one has to take account of the fact that these provisions, and provisions in any Act of this sort., whatever it may be concerned with, where you have arbitration, should be so designed as not to lead to unnecessary appeals, that is to say, not to tempt the litigant—and everyone knows that the litigant always wants to go on, apparently for the sake of litigating; he always wants to go to a higher court.
  This limitation represents exactly the position as regards compensation cases under the Acquisition of Land Act, the Land Clauses Act, and all the other Acts in which there has been compensation legislation. The position is precisely the same here, except that it does not include what has been in some cases, I agree, an unfortunate feature, namely, the feature of stating a case for the opinion of the court in the course of the arbitration. There is a good deal to be said against that, and that is why we are here adopting the alternative form of stating the award when the arbitrator has finally finished the hearing and then stating a special case raising points of law for the court. I can confidently say from my own experience that that procedure is calculated to lead to an absolutely fair decision on a point of law raised, and not to shut out anyone who wants to raise a point of law, while, on the other hand, it is going to stop needless and unnecessary legislation on points of fact which are most properly decided by the referees.
  Sir B. MERRIMAN: The Solicitor-General really gave us the key to his answer when he made it clear that what he really desires is to stop appeals. I am not the least impressed by what he said a moment ago about these poor simple surveyors who always state facts exactly as they are, untrammelled by any attempt to state either party out of court, or anything of that sort, whereas the lawyer who sits as an arbitrator can exercise his ingenuity. It is notorious, and I am perfectly certain that, if the Solicitor-General thinks for one moment, he will agree that these professional non-legal arbitrators almost invariably, or, if not almost invariably, very frequently, employ a solicitor or counsel to put their awards into form for them. Indeed, I am reminded that the official referee is actually provided with a solicitor for the purpose. At any rate, we are dealing now with these referees on the panel, and with surveyors sitting as arbitrators, and it is notorious that they do employ lawyers to draw the case, so that there is nothing in that point at all.
  Again, I think that the Solicitor-General has very seriously under-estimated the sort of difficulties which will arise, and their complexity. Look for a moment at the sort of things which will arise under Clause 8 of the Bill. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip) said that the sort of things about which he is thinking are what we call mixed questions of law and fact. Is a particular work erected for agricultural purposes; or is it erected partly for agricultural purposes and partly for something else; or is it erected not for agricultural purposes at all? Is grass growing on a unit a natural growth or not? Is heather, gorse, sedge or thistle a natural growth in any given case? When is a natural growth not a natural growth? We were told last night by the Solicitor-General that the greens in the fairway on the Bramshott golf course were grass within the meaning of the sort of natural growth which is assumed to be left upon the unit, like thistles. All these are mixed questions of law and fact. The matter bristles with points of this sort. Why should we not be allowed to take them to the proper tribunal and get them decided, not hedged about by some narrow restriction in the way in which
  1316
  the case is stated so as to raise only one particular point? So far as this particular part of the 1910 Act is concerned, I do not think anyone has seriously criticised the effect it has had on the working of that Act, and yet both of these points on which we are insisting here were incorporated in the 1910 Act, and, in my submission, they ought to be incorporated in this Measure.
  I should like to add a word on a slightly different point which so far has not been emphasised. That is in regard to the person who is to have the right of appeal at all. Owing to the way in which this Clause is drafted, again in contrast with the Act of 1910, the right of appeal is very severely limited. It will be seen from Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Clause 11 that the purpose of an appeal, and the persons whom the referees can decide to add as parties to an appeal, are severely limited by the question of ownership of the land. It is plain that in many cases the valuation here will vitally affect a great number of people who do not come within the definition for the time being of owner of that particular unit. For example, mortgagees may be very vitally affected by the valuation. The ground landlord may be very vitally affected in a case where the lessee is, under the terms of the Bill, the owner within the definition Clause. Trustees, again, who may not be the owners, may be affected and, last but not least, to give one other illustration, a person who is entitled in remainder to the immediate estate.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Reversioners?.
  Sir B. MERRIMAN: I mean that the remainderman may be affected. A remainderman need not necessarily be the owner at all. There is an estate in existence to which, perhaps, in a very short time he may expect to succeed, but he is not the owner and therefor cannot be a party to this appeal, or indeed to the proceedings before the referee, and yet really to all intents and purposes he may be the person most vitally affected of any one. There ought to be some provision for that. That is implicit in the use of the words "person aggrieved"—the words used in the 1910 Statute, and in the Income Tax Act. Why should they not be used in this Statute? There is nothing about the

  1317
  right of appeal being limited to a party to the assessment. It is quite sufficient for my purpose that the phrase is used in the 1910 Act on this kindred subject matter. There cannot possibly be any danger to the Crown in the use of these words as distinct from the use of "party to the appeal," limited strictly to anyone who may be said at any given moment to be the owner. No one can suppose for a moment that the High Court, or the county court, if my hon. Friend's other Amendment is accepted, would allow the court to be embarrassed and blocked with appeals by persons who have no sort of interest in the matter. The High Court would take very good care to ensure that any person who said he was a person aggrieved was, in the legal sense of the word, a person aggrieved, or they would make short work of him. There is no danger to the Crown, but there is a great safeguard to people who are really aggrieved by any given valuation, and whose interests ought to be protected.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. and learned Gentleman is not quite right in his statement as to the people who have a right to appeal because he has forgotten what was pointed out earlier in the evening, that Clause 15 (5) gives a right to anyone who can in any circumstances bear any part of the tax as a reversioner or anyone in that position who may come in as owner.
  Sir B. MERRIMAN: That would not apply to a remainder man, would it?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I was not saying that. I was saying the hon. and learned Gentleman was not quite right in the ambit that he took of the person who could at present make use of the right of appeal. I did not say it covered all the people he mentioned, but it covers some, and one of them is the reversioner to the lease who, he said, could not appeal under existing circumstances.
  Sir B. MERRIMAN: The Solicitor-General tried to make me say I was referring to a reversioner and I expressly said I was not.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If the hon. and learned Gentleman looks at the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow he will see
  1318
  that, before he got to the remainderman, he talked about a person who was a reversioner to a lease.
  Sir B. MERRIMAN: No. I said a ground landlord.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It is the same thing. The ground landlord is the reversioner to the lease in every case.
  Mr. BIRD: Improved ground rents!
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am dealing with ground rents and not with improved ground rents.
  Mr. BIRD: You said it must be the ground landlord. It is not necessarily so. [Interruption.]
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I quite agree, and the reversioner would be the ground landlord. He would also be included in Clause 15 (5).
  Sir T. INSKIP: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether in Scottish law the superior is a party who might be aggrieved, whether the superior is a reversioner or not? We have not the benefit of the Lord Advocate's presence. Whether he knows anything about the Bill or not, I think he ought to be here.
  Sir B. MERRIMAN: I do not know whether the Solicitor-General is as familiar with the chief rents in Lancashire as some of us are. I think the landlord there is in exactly the same position as the Scottish landlord to whom my hon. and learned Friend has referred. I want to know whether he is protected.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Wild horses will not drag me into a discussion on Scottish law.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I submit that we are entitled to have the responsible legal advisers of the Government to deal with the points at issue and, in so far as these Clauses are general Clauses, and deal with Scotland as well as England, we are entitled to have the responsible legal opinion which can deal with Scottish points. We all respect the Solicitor-General and the skill, if not always the convincingness, with which he deals with English points, but we are entitled to have legal opinion given us with regard to the Scottish points that arise on these general Clauses which affect both countries.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The right hon. Gentleman is not quite accurate, because I think the Scottish point, as regards the position of the Scottish superior, arises on the Scottish adaptation Clause. At present we are dealing with reversionaries and matters of that sort, which have no existence in Scottish law. When we come to the Scottish adaptation Clause, there are a number of Subsections which deal with the Scottish law.
  Sir JOHN GILMOUR: There are innumerable points which are being settled in Clause 19 which, it is true, in Clause 30 are going to be adapted, but the essential matter is the principle, which affects great masses of people in my country, for whom this House is responsible. The hon. and learned Gentleman's statement will not bear examination for a moment. I think at the least, in courtesy to the House and to Scottish Members who have a right to be heard in this matter, the Lord Advocate or someone representing the Scottish Office ought to be on that bench.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am sorry to differ. We are not discussing Clause 19 at all. We are discussing Clause 11, which deals obviously with the English procedure. The terms used, "High Court" and the rest of the terms, are quite inapplicable to Scotland. There is to be an adaptation of that Clause to Scotland, and in that adaptation Clause the question whether the superior or the chief renter, or whatever the people are called in Scotland, are equivalent to some similar person in England, will of course arise, and whether the superior ought to be in the same position as a man who owns a ground rent or a landlord, and points of that sort.
  Sir T. INSKIP: Really, we must protect all parts of the United Kingdom. When the Solicitor-General says that we are dealing here with words which obviously apply to the English system of law, he really is inaccurate, because these words are not legal words or terms of art as he calls them. "Party to the appeal"—that is the expression with which we are dealing. We want to substitute for it the expression "person aggrieved." We are entitled to be told whether or not the persons we mention are covered by the words "party to the appeal." It is no answer to tell us that when we come
  1320
  to the Scottish Clause we can deal with the matter. We cannot then amend Clause 11, which we are now considering. We might possibly interpret the terms of art in English law into terms of art in Scottish law, but "party to the appeal" is not a term of art and is not capable of being dealt with in Scottish law.
  Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON rose——
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite might let me speak. The point which has just been put to me is this: There may be within the terms certain people in England, and the hon. and learned Gentlemen wants to know whether certain other people in Scotland come within the terms. Under Clause 15 (5) there is a provision that any person to whom a tax is passed back will be entitled to be a party to the appeal. Beyond that people will not be entitled to be a party to the appeal unless they are owners. That is to say, the people mentioned by an hon. Member opposite, mortgagees, will not be entitled to be a party to the appeal. The reason why the Clause is being brought forward in this form is that the people who have to pay the tax are thought to be the people who will be chiefly interested in the valuation, and they will be quite a sufficient body of persons, together with the people who may be added, that is to say, the subsequent purchaser if the land changes owners, to see that protection is afforded on questions of law.
  10.0 p.m.
  Of course, this is only a question of appeal on points of law. If no points of law appear to any of these people who have to pay the tax I do not think there is any ground for complaint that we did not go wide enough. "Person aggrieved" is a very much wider term than the hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip) seems to think. Any neighbouring owner could come along and say, "I am aggrieved because this land has not high enough land value." It would be quite intolerable if you had the position that anyone in an area could appeal against anyone else's land valuation after the reference to some point of law which he chose to raise. I really ask hon. Members opposite who accept the view that there is no undue limitation of any sort here,

  1321
  and that on all the precedents of valuation, except that of 1909–10, which is not a very happy precedent to quote——
  Sir T. INSKIP: It was used too much.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: And as the hon. Gentleman knows, the art of obstruction which was practised with regard to appeals in that case was one of the causes.
  Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: The Solicitor-General has really been most good-humoured in dealing with the points put to him, but I wonder whether he would answer one question which brings the matter, perhaps, a little nearer home than Scotland or Lancashire. The hon. and earned Gentleman at present represents a division of the city and county of Bristol. There they have a system of what are called perpetual fee farm rents. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman at some time make inquiry and see whether the people who get the perpetual fee farm rents in Bristol will be entitled under the Bill to ask for an
  appeal? Further, will he look at Subsection (4), which in express terms mentions "The Reference Committees for England and Scotland"?
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: The Solicitor-General, in answer to a question, mentioned the Lord Chief Justice's book, "The New Despotism," as if it justified the Government in some way. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not wish to take advantage of a point to which he is not entitled. The whole thesis of the Lord Chief Justice's book was that the courts were asked to implement the bureaucratic behests of the House of Commons. In fact, the hon. and learned Gentleman turned the Lord Chief Justice into a new sort of despotism which I do not think would satisfy the author of that book.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 264; Noes, 171.

  Division No. 300.]

  AYES.

  [10.4 p.m.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Harbord, A.

  Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

  Compton, Joseph

  Hardie, David (Rutherglen)

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillshro')

  Cove, William G.

  Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)

  Alpass, J. H.

  Cripps, Sir Stafford

  Harris, Percy A.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Daggar, George

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Angell, Sir Norman

  Dallas, George

  Haycock, A. W.

  Arnott, John

  Dalton, Hugh

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Aske, Sir Robert

  Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

  Henderson, Arthur, Jurn. (Cardiff, S.)

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

  Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

  Ayles, Walter

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

  Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Herriotts, J.

  Barnes, Alfred John

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Hicks, Ernest George

  Barr, James

  Duncan, Charles

  Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

  Batey, Joseph

  Ede, James Chuter

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

  Edmunds, J. E.

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Bennett, Sir E. M. (Cardiff, Central)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

  Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Benson, G.

  Egan, W. H.

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Elmley, Viscount

  Isaacs, George

  Birkett, W. Norman

  Evans, Herbert (Gateshead)

  Jenkins, Sir William

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  Foot, Isaac

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Bowen, J. W.

  Freeman, Peter

  Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

  Broad, Francis Alfred

  Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Bromfield, William

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Brooke, W.

  Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Brothers, M.

  Gill, T. H.

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

  Gillett, George M.

  Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

  Glassey, A. E.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Buchanan, G.

  Gossling, A. G.

  Knight, Holford

  Burgess, F. G.

  Gould, F.

  Lang, Gordon

  Burgin, Dr. E. L.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)

  Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

  Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)

  Caine, Hall-, Derwent

  Gray, Milner

  Law, Albert (Bolton)

  Cameron, A. G.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

  Law, A. (Rossendale)

  Cape, Thomas

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Lawrence, Susan

  Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

  Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

  Chater, Daniel

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Leach, W.

  Church, Major A. G.

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

  Clarke, J. S.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Lees, J.

  Leonard, W.

  Nathan, Major H. L.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

  Lindley, Fred W.

  Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

  Sorensen, R.

  Lloyd, C. Ellis

  Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

  Stamford, Thomas W.

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Palin, John Henry

  Strauss, G. R.

  Longden, F.

  Paling, Wilfrid

  Sullivan, J.

  Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

  Palmer, E. T.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Lunn, William

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Perry, S. F.

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Phillips, Dr. Marlon

  Thurtle, Ernest

  McElwee, A.

  Picton-Turbervill, Edith

  Tillett, Ben

  McEntee, V. L.

  Pole, Major D. G.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)

  Potts, John S.

  Toole, Joseph

  McKinlay, A.

  Price, M. P.

  Tout, W. J.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

  Vaughan, David

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Raynes, W. R.

  Viant S. P.

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Richards, R.

  Walkden, A. G.

  McShane, John James

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Walker, J.

  Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

  Ritson, J.

  Wallace, H. W.

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

  Watkins, F. C.

  Manning, E. L.

  Romeril, H. G.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Mansfield, W.

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  March, S.

  Rowson, Guy

  Welsh, James (Paisley)

  Marcus, M.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

  Markham, S. F.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

  West, F. H.

  Marley, J.

  Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

  Westwood, Joseph

  Marshall, Fred

  Sanders, W. S.

  White, H. G.

  Mathers, George

  Sandham, E.

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

  Matters, L. W.

  Sawyer, G. F.

  Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

  Maxton, James

  Scurr, John

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Messer, Fred

  Sexton, Sir James

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  Middleton, G.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Mills, J. E.

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Milner, Major J.

  Sherwood, G. H.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Montague, Frederick

  Shield, George William

  Wilson, J. (Oldham)

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Shillaker, J. F.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Morley, Ralph

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

  Simmons, C. J.

  Wise, E. F.

  Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Sinkinson, George

  Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

  Mort, D. L.

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

  Muff, G.

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Muggeridge, H. T.

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Murnin, Hugh

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Albery, Irving James

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Christie, J. A.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Astor, Viscountess

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Hanbury, C.

  Atkinson, C.

  Cohen, Major J. Brunei

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

  Colfox, Major William Philip

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

  Colville, Major D. J.

  Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

  Balniel, Lord

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Beaumont, M. W.

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

  Cowan, D. M.

  Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

  Betterton, Sir Henry B.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

  Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Bird, Ernest Roy

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Inskip, Sir Thomas

  Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

  Iveagh, Countess of

  Boyce, Leslie

  Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

  Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Buchan, John

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

  Bullock, Captain Malcolm

  Ferguson, Sir John

  Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)

  Butler, R. A.

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

  Campbell, E. T.

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

  Llewellin, Major J. J.

  Castle Stewart, Earl of

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Lymington, Viscount

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

  Gower, Sir Robert

  McConnell, Sir Joseph

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

  1324

  1325

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Remer, John R.

  Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James

  Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Margesson, Captain H. D.

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Marjoribanks, Edward

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

  Mason,-Colonel Glyn K.

  Ross, Ronald D.

  Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Rothschild, J. de

  Thompson, Luke

  Millar, J. D.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.

  Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Moore Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

  Salmon, Major I.

  Todd, Capt. A. J.

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Train, J.

  Morris, Rhys Hopkins

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Savery, S. S.

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

  Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

  Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  O'Neill, Sir H.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Wells, Sydney R.

  Peake, Captain Osbert

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

  Penny, Sir George

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Womersley, W. J.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Reid, David D. (County Down)

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain

  Wallace.

  Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 11, line 29, to leave out paragraph (d).
  This Amendment is to omit the paragraph which limits the number of expert witnesses who may be called in a case. I feel sure that hon. Members opposite will realise that as far as I and any members of my party are concerned, we would never wish to add unnecessarily to the legal expenses of those concerned, and I hope the learned Solicitor-General will not demean himself by making the excuse that if our Amendment were carried, it would in any way add to the, costs. The real reason why some of us wish to omit this paragraph is that we realise that when you have these cases—and they are appeal cases in a sense—it is not right that you should lay down any limitation on the number of witnesses. Many of the cases during the first period of the working of the Act, if ever it comes into operation, will be examples upon which the whole of the law in connection with the exaction of the tax will be based. A given case will he taken and the amount of tax which will have to be paid by other people will entirely be based upon it. When you are liable to take cases which in some instances must deal with properties of great value, and in other instances must lay down the law for a very large number of cases, you should not in any way limit the freedom of the individual, who, in his particular case, may possibly be having the whole of his fortune brought under review. You should not limit the number of witnesses he may bring forward.
  I presume that, in the event of a case being lost by the Government, naturally the Government would bear the expenses, although I cannot find anything to that effect in the Bill. It seems to be unfair that when you are levying a tax of this kind upon an individual, or upon a great corporation, such as a trade union or friendly society, that it may cover a very large amount of property in one way or another. It is not right that you should say to these people that the Government have the power to say that you may bring only one, two or three expert witnesses. I do not wish to see the proceedings delayed or the costs raised in any way, but when you take up a position under the Act of laying burdens on a variety of people in almost every part of the country, you should give them absolute freedom to bring whatever witnesses they like to the court. I hope that when we have a reply as to why the words should not be left out, we shall not be told in this case that it does not apply to Scotland, or that you can find a Scottish example somewhere later on in the Bill. At the beginning of the paragraph it deliberately lays it down that it applies to England and Scotland. I hope that the Government will be able to accept this very reasonable Amendment to omit paragraph (d).
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The Amendment is contrary to the whole of the previous legislation in this class of case which has been found to work extremely satisfactorily. Anybody who has had experience of practising before the official referee in compensation cases, where an exactly similar Clause applies,

  1327
  will admit that it has been very satisfactory in its working. I see an hon. and learned Gentleman opposite with that experience nodding his head at me. The reason why it is so satisfactory is, that in the general and ordinary case one expert witness is accepted as quite sufficient, and whenever a case is made out in which there is any importance, the referee is always willing to give his permission to have more than one expert witness. The hon. Member seems to think that expert witnesses cost nothing. I do not know whether he has been engaged in litigation, but I know that many lawyers' mouths have watered when they have heard of the fees paid to expert witnesses.
  There will be no limitation of any witnesses as to facts. No possible point of law that can arise and go to the High Court is ever involved in the evidence of an expert witness but only in the evidence of witnesses as to facts, so that this really has no bearing upon appeals to the High Court. One other question which the hon. Member raised, which had nothing to do with the Amendment but which I am glad to answer, related to costs of appeals. Under Sub-section (6) of the present Clause the referee may order that the costs of any appeal to him incurred by any party may be paid by any other party. That, again, is an extremely satisfactory provision and far better than the one that is in the Acquisition of Land Act, which attempts to fetter his discretion, because he is able to apply more or less the ordinary rules that apply in the courts when awarding the costs of any litigation.
  Amendment negatived.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Question is, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Are you not going to call the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), on the top of page 1870?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It was not understood that that Amendment was to be called.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If I may say so with respect, we could not exactly calculate how much time would be open to us.
  1328
  It was only on the assumption that we should not have time that we, refrained from asking Chat that Amendment should be called.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Captain Bourne.
  Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in page 11, line 38, at the end, to insert the words:
  "(f) that if any party to the appeal so requests, the referee shall himself view the land unit in respect of which the appeal is made."
  This is a reasonable Amendment. Obviously, there are going to be many complications in the class of cases which are going to go before the referee. It is by no means clear in Clause 8 what is to be taken into account and what is not. It is very necessary in some cases that the referee should himself go down and view the land. You may have a case on one of the new roads, a main road which has been much improved out of the Road Fund. With regard to certain parts of that road the valuer may very well consider that they have a possible building value in excess of the cultivation value, but it is almost impossible for the referee to judge that without a personal inspection. The evidence is likely to be contradictory. It is not always easy to say whether or not it is an eligible building site, especially if the owner contends that it is not a good building site because, say, of the absence of water or something of that kind, although it may appear to be a desirable site. Without personal inspection it is very difficult for the referee to judge of the merits or demerits of the owner's case. Where it is a question of the referee having to make a personal inspection it is very important that he should do so, and I think this is an Amendment which the Government might accept.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: This is a matter which in our view, should be left to the discretion of the referee, who is, obviously, a gentleman skilled as a referee and surveyor, who will always view the land whenever he thinks it necessary. Exactly the same position arises under the Acquisition of Land Act, and I have never known a case where the official referee has not viewed the land if requested to do so by either the parties, sometimes before and sometimes

  1329
  after the arbitration. It would not be of any assistance to take away from the discretion of the person who is trying the reference the question as to whether or not he should view a particular site. He is far better able to judge as to whether he can form his ultimate decision better by viewing the site or by depending upon the evidence before him without viewing the site, especially where you may have a large number of cases, in one street or a road. Once he has visited the site it is wholly unnecessary for him to make a journey, perhaps of many miles, to view it again. The Committee can feel confident that in every case where a view is desirable the referee will take the step which any surveyor will take, and that is to have a view.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The Solicitor-General, while as usual putting a good case forward, has not really met some of the apprehensions which some people feel and quite reasonably ask to have removed. As on a previous Amendment, he has again referred to existing practice. No reference to past practice can be conclusive in regard to a new impost of this kind. Earlier in the afternoon when we desired the existing practice to be adhered to in the matter of appeals we could make no impression upon the Solicitor-General. In that case we wished that the person who was objecting to a valuation should not be forced to give his own alternative valuation. The Solicitor-General refused our request, although we pointed out that the existing practice, so far as it offered any guide at all, showed that it was
  perfectly right to admit the objection without the person who makes the objection having to give an alternative assessment. I agree that in certain cases it may be sufficient for the referee not to be compelled to have to go to the site unless he himself thinks fit to do so, but in the case of a new impost of this kind, I submit that if the Government want this tax to be accepted with the minimum degree of grievance, the referee himself should be ready to view the site, and that if the parties wish him to view the site they should be entitled to require him to do so. It does not add greatly to the cost of valuation or to the delay, but it means that the person who may be called upon to pay this new impost, of a kind entirely unknown, would be satisfied in his own mind that, so far as the fairness of the case is concerned, he has been given full justice. I would further point out that one objection which the Solicitor-General put forward is without foundation in fact. If I interpreted the hon. and learned Gentleman aright his objection was that there were cases in which the referee might be able to pronounce a better decision——
  It being Half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 4th June, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 175; Noes, 274.

  Division No. 301.]

  AYES.

  [10.30 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

  Albery, Irving James

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Cowan, D. M.

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Bullock, Captain Malcolm

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

  Butler, R. A.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

  Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

  Astor, Viscountess

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Campbell, E. T.

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Atkinson, C.

  Castle Stewart, Earl of

  Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Balniel, Lord

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

  Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

  Beaumont, M. W.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

  Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton

  Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

  Betterton, Sir Henry B.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

  Bird, Ernest Roy

  Christie, J. A.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Ferguson, Sir John

  Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Boyce, Leslie

  Cohen, Major J. Brunei

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Bracken, B.

  Colfox, Major William Philip

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Colville, Major D. J.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

  Buchan, John

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  McConnell, Sir Joseph

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

  Smithers, Waldron

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Marjoribanks, Edward

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.

  Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Hamilton, Sir George (llford)

  Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

  Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)

  Hanbury, C.

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Sueter Rear-Admiral M. F.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

  Thompson, Luke

  Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

  O'Connor, T. J.

  Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  O'Neill, Sir H.

  Todd, Capt. A. J.

  Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

  Peake, Capt. Osbert

  Train, J.

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

  Inskip, Sir Thomas

  Reid, David D. (County Down)

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

  Iveagh, Countess of

  Remer, John R.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Wells, Sydney R.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Ross, Ronald D.

  Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Womersley, W. J.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

  Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

  Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

  Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

  Savery, S. S.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Llewellin, Major J. J.

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

  Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

  Skelton, A. N.

  George Penny.

  Lymington, Viscount

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Clarke, J. S.

  Harbord, A.

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Hardie, David (Rutherglen)

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)

  Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Harris, Percy A.

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Alpass, J. H.

  Compton, Joseph

  Haycock, A. W.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Cove, William G.

  Hayes, John Henry

  Angell, Sir Norman

  Cripps, Sir Stafford

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Arnott, John

  Daggar, George

  Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)

  Aske, Sir Robert

  Dallas, George

  Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Dalton, Hugh

  Herriotts, J.

  Ayles, Walter

  Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

  Hicks, Ernest George

  Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

  Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

  Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Barnes, Alfred John

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Barr, James

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Batey, Joseph

  Duncan, Charles

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

  Ede, James Chuter

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

  Edmunds, J. E.

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph

  Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

  Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

  Isaacs, George

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

  Egan, W. H.

  Jenkins, Sir William

  Benson, G.

  Evans, Herbert (Gateshead)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Foot, Isaac

  Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Birkett, W. Norman

  Freeman, Peter

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Bowen, J. W.

  Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

  Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

  Broad, Francis Alfred

  Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Bromfield, William

  Gill, T. H.

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Bromley, J.

  Gillett, George M.

  Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

  Brooke, W.

  Glassey, A. E.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Brothers, M.

  Gossling, A. G.

  Knight, Holford

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

  Gould, F.

  Lang, Gordon

  Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Buchanan, G.

  Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

  Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)

  Burgess, F. G.

  Gray, Milner

  Law, Albert (Bolton)

  Burgin, Dr. E. L.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).

  Law, A. (Rossendale)

  Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Lawrence, Susan

  Caine, Hall-, Derwent

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

  Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

  Cameron, A. G.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

  Cape, Thomas

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Leach, W.

  Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Lees, J.

  Chater, Daniel

  Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)

  Leonard, W.

  Church, Major A. G.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  1332

  1333

  Lindley, Fred W.

  Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

  Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

  Lloyd, C. Ellis

  Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

  Sorensen, R.

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Palin, John Henry

  Stamford, Thomas W.

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Paling, Wilfrid

  Stephen, Campbell

  Longden, F.

  Palmer, E. T.

  Strauss, G. R.

  Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Sullivan, J.

  Lunn, William

  Perry, S. F.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

  Phillips, Dr. Marlon

  Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Picton-Turbervill, Edith

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

  McElwee, A.

  Pole, Major D. G.

  Thorns, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  McEntee, V. L.

  Patts, John S.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettlestone)

  Price, M. P.

  Tillett, Ben

  McKinlay, A.

  Pybus, Percy John

  Tinker, John Joseph

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Toole, Joseph

  Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

  Tout, W. J.

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Raynes, W. R.

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Richards, R.

  Vaughan, David

  McShane, John James

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Viant, S. P.

  Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

  Ritson, J.

  Walkden, A. G.

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

  Walker, J.

  Manning, E. L.

  Romeril, H. G.

  Wallace, H. W.

  Mansfield, W.

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

  Watkins, F. C.

  March, S.

  Rothschild, J. de

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).

  Marcus, M.

  Rowson, Guy

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Markham, S. F.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Welsh, James (Paisley)

  Marley, J.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

  Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

  Marshall, Fred

  Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

  West, F. R.

  Mathers, George

  Sanders, W. S.

  Westwood, Joseph

  Matters, L. W.

  Sandham, E.

  White, H. G.

  Maxton, James

  Sawyer, G. F.

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

  Messer, Fred

  Scurr, John

  Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

  Middleton, G.

  Sexton, Sir James

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Millar, J. D.

  Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  Mills, J. E.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Milner, Major J.

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Montague, Frederick

  Sherwood, G. H.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Shield, George William

  Wilson, J. (Oldham)

  Morley, Ralph

  Shillaker, J. F.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)

  Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Simmons, C. J.

  Wise, E. F.

  Mort, D. L.

  Sinkinson, George

  Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

  Muff, G.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhlthe)

  Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

  Muggeridge, H. T.

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Murnin, Hugh

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Nathan, Major H. L.

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T. Henderson.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  The CHAIRMAN then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at this day's Sitting.
  Clauses 12 (Amendment and keeping of registers) and 13 (Values in force for assessment of tax) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]
  Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Upon this Motion, I desire not only to renew in the most formal way she protest which we feel ourselves obliged to make against this constant practice of the Government, but also to make a suggestion to the Government as regards the course of business next week, and perhaps I had
  1334
  better make the suggestion first. At Question Time to-day my right hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) addressed a question to the Prime Minister with regard to the position in which we shall find ourselves in dealing with Clause 19 and Clause 20. Clause 10 concerns exemptions, and on that there are a largo number of Amendments already on the Paper, to which I shall make further reference later. On Clause 20 there are certain Amendments which will raise very important questions which clearly deserve decision and debate. As things stand, it appears improbable that anything more than a most perfunctory discussion, if any discussion at all, can be given to Clause 20. There are at present something like seven pages of Amendments to Clause 19 on the Paper, by no means confined to Amendments from Members of the Conservative party, because of those Amendments no fewer than 17 stand in the names of Members of parties other than

  1335
  that to which I belong. Under these circumstances it is clear that there must be a protracted discussion on Clause 19, and I understand the Prime Minister had that in mind to-day when he gave an indication that a statement would be made on behalf of the Government at the beginning of the proceedings on Clause 19 which he thought, if I understood him aright, might have the effect of abbreviating discussion.
  Of course, I have no means of knowing what that statement will be, but I imagine that what the Government have in contemplation is that either the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, or somebody else on behalf of the Government, will make a general statement indicating what further exemptions the Government are prepared to make. That statement having been made, the Government hope to shorten Debate on the Clause. I think that is perfectly true. Would it be possible, instead of having a considerable portion of the very short time—only one day given to Clauses 19 and 20—occupied by making a statement on the 6th Allotted Day, to utilise that time on Monday night during which either the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or somebody on behalf of the Government, could make a statement as to what exemptions they propose to accept? That would have this great advantage, that there need be no further Debate, and hon. Members would have the night to reflect upon and consider——[Interruption.] Clause 19 is one of the Clauses upon which it might be said that we look forward to being able to set aside our prejudices, because there are Amendments to that Clause standing in names of all parties.
  If the statement of the Government's intentions were made that night, and still more if the proposed Government Amendments were tabled, we should start on Tuesday with that statement and these Amendments in front of us. In those circumstances, I think we should undoubtedly be able very materially to shorten what would otherwise be protracted proceedings on Clause 19. If we could do that, it might be possible to conclude the Debate on Clauses 19 and 20 at a reasonable hour, which I think is the result at which we all desire to arrive. I put that suggestion to the
  1336
  Government. As regards the other part of my observations, we wish to renew in the most emphatic manner our protest at the fact that the Finance Bill has been allotted less time for discussion than is usually allotted to Finance Bills and even less time than is usually given to an ordinary Bill.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion, but I am sorry that I cannot give a definite answer at this moment. Through no fault of the right hon. Gentleman, but because I had another engagement—this matter was only placed in my hands after two o'clock, and this has been a most unusually heavy day for me—I have not had an opportunity of consulting the right hon. Gentleman as to what precisely he means. I should have liked very much to have had an opportunity of consulting the right hon. Gentleman, and, if he will agree to taking note of the suggestion now, I will give it my most careful consideration. I am not at all sure at what point the Chancellor of the Exchequer would intervene, but, obviously, the intervention must be at a time when it is possible to curtail Debate. I will do my very best to see if we can come to some sort of accommodation, and I am sorry that I cannot be more definite now.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but can we have any idea as to when he will be able to give us a definite answer on this point? May I point out that there are a great many important bodies throughout the country who are particularly interested in this particular Clause, and I am quite sure hon. Members on all sides who have received communications from these various bodies will desire to see how far the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer meets the objections, and criticisms that have been put forward by those bodies. If the statement is only made immediately prior to the Debate, it will be very difficult for hon. Members to be certain whether their criticisms are met by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement; therefore, it would be a very great advantage if we could have a little time to consider any statement that may be made.
  Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I be permitted to call the attention of

  1337
  the Committee to the position in which we are placed? We are acting under very rigid limitations of time adopted by the House on the Motion of the Government. We are told to-day that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will, at the opening of the sitting on Tuesday, make a statement which will materially curtail the discussion which would appear to be inevitable from the notices of Amendments already given. What does that mean? It means that on Tuesday, when the time that we can give to Clause 19, which is immediately affected, and the next Clause, is limited to the hours between a quarter to four and half-past-ten, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to come down at some point, not necessarily at the beginning of the sitting, and recast this Clause. We shall really be confronted not with a Committee discussion but with a Second Reading Debate on a new proposal, and we are expected to conduct that Second Reading Debate and the following Committee Debate on the Amendment within the narrow limits I have mentioned.
  On all sides of the House we are regretting the lowered estimation of this House in the eyes of the country. [Interruption.] I thought we all were, but if some Members do not feel that regret, I am sorry that it should be so. I am quite sure that the Prime Minister, as much as myself, cherishes the honour and the traditions of this House, and regrets anything which leads to it being held in less estimation in the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about last night?"] We are all too ready to attribute that to the actions of others than ourselves and to the Press, though sometimes they contribute to it, but if there is one thing which can reduce the estimation in which this House is held and which can lessen its influence with the country, it is that issues such as will be raised on Tuesday should be scamped in discussion, and that the country should feel that when great bodies of men and countless individuals have vital interests at stake the House of Commons has no time to give to their consideration.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I hope that nothing will be said to stir up what, after all, was the conciliatory atmosphere created by the remarks of the Prime Minister. He laboured under great difficulties, as the House labours, but what the right
  1338
  hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) has said has peculiar force in regard to Clause 19. There are, of course, many political issues wrapped up in this Bill, but in regard to that particular Clause there are issues and interests outside this House and, indeed, outside the ordinary range of party politics, which are deeply affected by it, and I sincerely trust the Prime Minister, as I believe he will, will go as far as he possibly can in what seems to me the reasonable suggestion made from this side of the Committee.
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is very difficult for me to say more than I have said. It is unfortunate that to-morrow is a Friday, but I will inform myself in the morning of the situation and, through the usual channels, or directly with the right hon. Gentleman himself, I shall be very glad to see what statement can be made on the lines of what I have said, and get it communicated to the House generally in the best way we can.
  Sir D. HERBERT: I have not the least wish to do anything to interfere with the conciliatory spirit to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. I only rise for the purpose of reminding the Prime Minister of the course which was adopted by his Government and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in somewhat similar circumstances in the case of the Finance Bill of last year. The Prime Minister will remember, and I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade will remember, that there was a very difficult and complicated Clause in last year's Finance Bill, known generally as referring to single-premium life insurance policies. That Clause had been criticised a great deal, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised that he would make certain concessions and alterations in it; and for the convenience of the House he issued a White Paper showing the Clause as originally drawn and the amended form in which he was prepared to accept it. I venture to suggest to the Prime Minister that that might be done in consultation between now and next Monday, without any awkwardness owing to the intervention of a Friday; and, if that White Paper were issued on Monday, I think it would meet all those desires which have been expressed on this side and have been received with so much sympathy by the Prime Minister.
  Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 263; Noes, 172.

  Division No. 302.]

  AYES.

  [10.58 p.m.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

  Markham, S. F.

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Gray, Milner

  Marley, J.

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

  Marsball, Fred

  Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Mathers, George

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

  Matters, L. W.

  Alpass, J. H.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Maxton, James

  Ammon, Charles George

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Messer, Fred

  Angell, Sir Norman

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Middleton, G.

  Arnott, John

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Mills, J. E.

  Aske, Sir Robert

  Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)

  Milner, Major J.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

  Montague, Frederick

  Ayles, Walter

  Harbord, A.

  Morgan Dr. H. B.

  Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Hardie, David (Rutherglen)

  Morley, Ralph

  Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

  Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

  Barnes, Alfred John

  Harris, Percy A.

  Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Barr, James

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Mort, D. L.

  Batey, Joseph

  Haycock, A. W.

  Muff, G.

  Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Muggeridge, H. T.

  Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

  Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)

  Murnin, Hugh

  Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

  Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

  Nathan, Major H. L.

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

  Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Benson, G.

  Herriotts, J.

  Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Hicks, Ernest George

  Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

  Birkett, W. Norman

  Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

  Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Palin, John Henry

  Bowen, J. W.

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Paling, Wilfrid

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Palmer, E. T.

  Broad, Francis Alfred

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Bromfield, William

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Bromley, J.

  Isaacs, George

  Phillips, Dr. Marlon

  Brooke, W.

  Jenkins, Sir William

  Picton-Turbervill, Edith

  Brothers, M.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Pole, Major D. G.

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

  Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Potts, John S.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

  Price, M. P.

  Buchanan, G.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Pybus, Percy John

  Burgess, F. G.

  Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Burgin, Dr. E. L.

  Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

  Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Raynes, W. R.

  Caine, Hall-, Derwent

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Richards, R.

  Cameron, A. G.

  Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

  Kirkwood, D.

  Ritson, J

  Charleton, H. C.

  Lang, Gordon

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

  Chater, Daniel

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Romeril, H. G.

  Church, Major A. G.

  Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

  Clarke, J. S.

  Law, Albert (Bolton)

  Rowson, Guy

  Cluse, W. S.

  Law, A. (Rossendale)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

  Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

  Sanders, W. S.

  Compton, Joseph

  Leach, W.

  Sandham, E.

  Cove, William G.

  Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

  Sawyer, G. F.

  Cripps, Sir Stafford

  Lees, J.

  Scurr, John

  Daggar, George

  Leonard, W.

  Sexton, Sir James

  Dallas, George

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lindley, Fred W.

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

  Lloyd, C. Ellis

  Sherwood, G. H.

  Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Shield, George William

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Shillaker, J. F.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Longden, F.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Duncan, Charles

  Lunn, William

  Sinkinson, George

  Ede, James Chuter

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhlthe)

  Edmunds, J. E.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Egan, W. H.

  McElwee, A.

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

  Elmley, Viscount

  McEntee, V. L.

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Evans, Herbert (Gateshead)

  McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)

  Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

  Freeman, Peter

  McKinlay, A.

  Sorensen, R.

  Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Stamford, Thomas W.

  Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

  Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

  Stephen, Campbell

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Strauss, G. R.

  Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Sullivan, J.

  Gill, T. H.

  McShane, John James

  Sutton, J. E.

  Gillett, George M.

  Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

  Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

  Glassey, A. E.

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

  Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

  Gossling, A. G.

  Manning, E. L.

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

  Gould, F.

  Mansfield, W.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Marcus, M.

  Tillett, Ben

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Toole, Joseph

  Welsh, James (Paisley)

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Tout, W. J.

  Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

  Wilson, J. (Oldham)

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  West, F. R.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Vaughan, David

  Westwood, Joseph

  Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)

  Viant, S. P.

  White, H. G.

  Wise, E. F.

  Walkden, A. G.

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

  Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

  Walker, J.

  Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

  Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

  Wallace, H. W.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Watkins, F. C.

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.

  NOES.

  Actand-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

  O'Neill, Sir H.

  Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Peake, Capt. Osbert

  Albery, Irving James

  Ferguson, Sir John

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Astor, Viscountess

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Reid, David D. (County Down)

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

  Remer, John R.

  Atkinson, C.

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

  Balniel, Lord

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Beaumont, M. W.

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Ross, Ronald D.

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Rothschild, J. de

  Betterton, Sir Henry B.

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Salmon, Major I.

  Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

  Guntton, Captain D. W.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Bird, Ernest Roy

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Hamilton, Sir George (llford)

  Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Hanbury, C.

  Savery, S. S.

  Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

  Boyce, Leslie

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

  Bracken, B.

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Skelton, A. N.

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Buchan, John

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

  Bullock, Captain Malcolm

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Butler, R. A.

  Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Inskip, Sir Thomas

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Iveagh, Countess of

  Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Campbell, E. T.

  Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

  Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)

  Castle Stewart, Earl of

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. Geoge (S. Molton)

  Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

  Thompson, Luke

  Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton

  Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)

  Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

  Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

  Todd, Capt. A. J.

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Little, Graham- Sir Ernest

  Train, J.

  Christie, J. A.

  Llewellin, Major J. J.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Lymington, Viscount

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  Cohen, Major J. Brunei

  McConnell, Sir Joseph

  Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

  Colfox, Major William Philip

  Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Marjoribanks, Edward

  Wells, Sydney R.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

  Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

  Millar, J. D.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

  Womersley, W. J.

  Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Muirhead, A. J.

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  O'Connor, T. J.

  Committee accordingly report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  IRON AND STEEL TRADE (INDIA).
  IRON AND STEEL TRADE (INDIA).
  SHIPPING INDUSTRY.
  SHIPPING INDUSTRY.
  WORK SCHEMES.
  WORK SCHEMES.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  BOROUGH.
  BOROUGH.
  JUVENILE TRAINING CENTRES.
  JUVENILE TRAINING CENTRES.
  EMPLOYMENT (STATISTICS).
  EMPLOYMENT (STATISTICS).
  ROYAL NAVY (SHIPWRIGHT OFFICERS).
  ROYAL NAVY (SHIPWRIGHT OFFICERS).
  FOOD STANDARDS (JAM).
  FOOD STANDARDS (JAM).
  CENSUS ENUMERATORS (REMUNERATION).
  CENSUS ENUMERATORS (REMUNERATION).
  CASUAL WARD, CAMBRIDGE.
  CASUAL WARD, CAMBRIDGE.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  FACTORY INSPECTORATE (INCREASES).
  FACTORY INSPECTORATE (INCREASES).
  COST-OF-LIVING BONUS.
  COST-OF-LIVING BONUS.
  OMNIBUS LICENCES.
  OMNIBUS LICENCES.
  CRANES (REGULATIONS).
  CRANES (REGULATIONS).
  SWEEPSTAKE TICKETS (POLICE PURCHASES).
  SWEEPSTAKE TICKETS (POLICE PURCHASES).
  HERRING FISHERY.
  HERRING FISHERY.

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Duke of Somerset—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CITY OF WORCESTER) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDERS (MANCHESTER AND SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
SCOTTISH UNITED INVESTORS LIMITED ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
CUMBERLAND MARKET (ST. PANCRAS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

NORTH KILLINGHOLME (ADMIRALTY PIER) BILL.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Message of Tuesday last, namely: "That it is expedient that the Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons."
Moved, That the Commons Message be now considered.—(Lord Amulree.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD AMULREE): My Lords, this is a Bill introduced by the Admiralty in another place, the effect of which is

103
to recondition a pier at Killingholme in the County of Lincoln. At one time it was considered to be a desirable course that a Joint Committee of the two Houses should consider this matter. Since then circumstances have arisen which render it in my opinion unnecessary that that course should be taken, and if your Lordships are agreeable, it might be convenient that the Motion which I submit should be negatived. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do concur in the following Resolution communicated by the Commons, namely: "That it is expedient that the Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons."—(Lord Amulree.)
On Question, Motion disagreed to.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

WIDOWS', ORPHANS' AND OLD AGE CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

HOUSING (RURAL WORKERS) AMENDMENT BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:—

Ancient Monuments,

Local Authorities (Publicity),

Workmen's Compensation,

Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions,

Post Office and Telegraph (Money),

Palestine and East Africa Loans (Amendment),

Cumberland Market (St. Pancras),

Public Works Facilities Scheme (West Surrey Water) Confirmation,

104

Public Works Facilities Scheme (Acton Swing Bridge) Confirmation,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (East Elloe Joint Water Supply District),

Alexander Scott's Hospital Order Confirmation,

Scottish United Investors Limited Order Confirmation,

Lowestoft Water and Gas,

Guildford Gas and Cranleigh Electricity,

Northampton Extension,

Mid Southern District Utility,

Liverpool University,

Middlesex County Council,

London Electric, Metropolitan District, and City and South London Railway Companies.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

INCIDENCE OF INCOME TAX.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK had the following Notice on the Paper:
To draw the attention of His Majesty's Government to the Income Tax Acts and regulations as affecting—

1. British Colonial officials and other persons of British origin not ordinarily resident here, who are entirely earning their livelihood overseas, and who temporarily visit this country on leave of absence, or for other purposes;

2. Foreigners who make temporary visits to this country and whose income is derived entirely from foreign sources.

Secondly, to point out that as a result of the existing Income Tax laws and regulations many of those in category (1) are now visiting foreign countries instead of this country and that the visits to this country of those in category (2) are becoming less frequent, with the consequence that apart from other important considerations, money that would be spent in this country is being spent in European countries; and
Thirdly, to ask whether in these circumstances His Majesty's Government will take early steps to review the whole

105
incidence of Income Tax as affecting both these classes of individuals with a view to amending the existing laws and regulations in such a manner as will induce them to come to this country instead of driving them away.
And to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have ventured to place on the Paper the Motion which stands in my name because I think it is a matter which your Lordships will agree calls for serious consideration. I should like, however, to preface the remarks I have to make on the subject by pointing out that I do not blame the present Government for the existing position. On the contrary, the methods of the application of the Finance Acts and regulations to the classes of individuals I have mentioned in the Notice have grown up over a number of years under Governments of various political creeds. My object, therefore, in bringing this Motion before your Lordships' House is not to attack the Government, but to try to induce them to reconsider the whole incidence of taxation as affecting these two classes of individuals, with a view to bringing legislation into line with practical and reasonable conditions and considerations, and to eliminating the largely theoretical basis upon which the present taxes are levied—which, in my opinion, does far more harm than good.
I do not wish to weary the House by discussing at length the sections of legislative enactments and regulations by which the Treasury are empowered to levy Income Tax upon those individuals; nor do I wish to examine the details of the various Income Tax schedules which apply to their cases. I hope, indeed, that the Government, as a result of this debate, will see their way at a later date to review that legislation and those schedules. All I am concerned with today is to put before your Lordships the broad effect of the law and how it affects these individuals, and the disadvantages which accrue not only to the individuals themselves but to the country at large.
Let me take the first case mentioned in my Notice, that of the British Colonial officials and other persons of British origin not ordinarily resident here, who are entirely earning their livelihood overseas, and who wish to visit this country temporarily for purposes of
106
pleasure, or on leave of absence, or whatever it may be. If a place of abode is not maintained here Income Tax is payable by those persons on remittance of overseas income for any year in which they are in this country for six months or upwards or for periods equal in the whole to six months in the Income Tax year beginning on April 6. I think your Lordships will agree, with Income Tax at its present high rate of 4s. 6d. in the £, that this becomes a very serious matter to all those concerned. They are usually individuals who are just contriving to make both ends meet and have very little to spare for triennial or even six-yearly visits to the old country. It is so serious that probably all of those persons arrange to-day to spend in Europe such part of their leave or holiday as will avoid the payment of Income Tax in this country, the heavy incidence of which would just weigh down the scale and prevent them from coming here at all or, if they wished to spend the whole of their holiday in this country, would considerably curtail the extent of the holiday they could so spend.
I would like to sum up very shortly what this country loses by the present laws so far as those individuals are concerned. The principal disadvantages, so far as I see them, are, first of all, that the money expended by these people, is spent in France, Italy or elsewhere instead of in Great Britain. Secondly, these British people—I emphasise the word "British"—and this applies especially to officials, should be regaining their touch with, and knowledge of, home conditions and political conditions. Instead of that they are frittering—I use the word advisedly—their time away in foreign watering places. Thirdly, those engaged in commerce are probably forming new foreign trade connections instead of new British trade connections. I am not blind to the fact that at some stage Income Tax must reasonably become payable by these people. It is the shortness of the period to which I take exception and which, I venture to believe, requires reconsideration.
Quite recently an example came to my own cognisance of a British official home on leave for a somewhat long period from one of the Colonies. Instead of spending all his leave in this country, as he wished to do, he left this country two or three

107
weeks ago, to my own knowledge, in order to go to Italy to spend two or three months there. It was much against his will, but he could not afford on the income he receives from his Colony to spend that leave in this country for fear of the Income Tax which would be levied upon him if he did so. I venture, therefore, to suggest to His Majesty's Government that the period of six months is too short, and should be, in the case of these officials and other Britishers who come from overseas, extended to at least nine months. I put that suggestion to His Majesty's Government as one worthy of consideration.
There is another anomaly to which have not referred in my Notice, but which I feel should be brought up to-day, and that is the hardship imposed upon oversea officials and other Britishers living overseas who wish or have to maintain their wives and their families in this country for educational or for health reasons, whilst they themselves are earning their livelihood overseas. In another place, I know that an honourable friend of mine, Sir John Sandeman Allen, a Member for one of the Liverpool Divisions, has an Amendment down to the Finance Bill in which he brings up this point, and is seeing what he can do to have it remedied. At the same time, I think it is not out of place that I should refer to it on this occasion and support in this House what my hon. friend is doing in another place in the next few days.
There is yet another anomaly in relation to the same category of individuals to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention. This again is not mentioned in my Motion, but it is part of the comprehensive subject to which I am referring. At present, if any of these officials or commercial men come here from overseas on duty leave, or for consultations, and not on holiday leave, they are liable to be charged Income Tax immediately they set foot in this country—I mean on their income remitted to this country. This is especially a handicap to British business firms who have in the past not infrequently arranged, when matters of difficulty have arisen, for their managers or other representatives to come to this country in order to consult with them. Your Lordships will agree that with this Income Tax liability attaching to such a temporary visit, this work,
108
which is very useful and very helpful to business firms and sometimes to Government Departments, will be hampered and the practice must largely cease, much to the detriment of British overseas business. If it does not cease, then, if that tax is continued, I am afraid that subterfuges will be resorted to with the object of putting a different complexion on the visit and so avoiding the payment of Income Tax. In other ways we have often heard that the Income Tax as applied to-day in its inquisitorial manner is creating unwilling criminals of many classes.
I should now like to turn to the second category of persons named in my Motion. I refer to the foreigners who make temporary visits to this country, and whose income is derived entirely from foreign sources. I think the best way of putting the subject before the House is to quote from a recent circular which was issued by the Board of Inland Revenue. This is what it said:
"A visitor"—
that is a foreign visitor—
"who maintains no place of abode in the United Kingdom and whose visits are not habitual but occasional only is not regarded as resident in the United Kingdom unless he has been in the United Kingdom for a period or periods equal in the whole to six months in the Income Tax year (beginning 6th April).
Moreover, even though he does not maintain a place of abode in the United Kingdom available for his use, and does not stay for six months in any one year, he is regarded as becoming resident if he visits the United Kingdom year after year (so that his visits become in effect part of his habit of life) and the annual visits are for a substantial period or periods of time. The question of residence in any particular case can only be determined by reference to the facts of the case, but it can he said that the Board of Inland Revenue would normally regard an average annual period or periods amounting to three months"—
I ask your Lordships to notice that period specially—
"as 'substantial' and the visits as having been 'habitual' after four years. And, where the visitor's arrangements indicated from the start that regular visits for substantial periods were to be made, he would be regarded as resident in and from the the first year."
The circular goes on:
"A visitor who thus becomes chargeable as a resident is liable not on the whole of

109
his income arising abroad but only on so much of that income as is received in or remitted to the United Kingdom."
To begin with, I want to emphasise that the foreigner here concerned earns no part of his income in this country, but only comes here to spend it, or to spend a part of it, after he has already paid Income Tax in his own country. These regulations which I have just read out, on the other hand, are going a long way towards stopping foreigners coming to this country regularly, or for any length of time, and consequently are having the effect of keeping them away altogether. This applies, I believe, to foreigners who have hitherto been regular visitors to this country. The regulation which refers to a foreigner being liable to Income Tax by qualifying as a resident by visits which have become in effect part of his habit of life, and which constitutes three months as a substantial period for an annual visit and characterises the visits as habitual after four years, has to my own knowledge driven one American lady away from this country—a lady who used to come here regularly and expend anything in a period of five to six months of £5,000 to £10,000 during her visit. She, under these regulations, would be mulcted in 4s. 6d. in the £ on that amount if she spent £10,000. That would be an additional £2,500 for the privilege of coming here. She cannot afford it, and so she stays away and visits France, Italy and other places.
Just before I came into the House I was given by a noble friend information regarding another very similar case. The case mentioned to me by my noble friend is this. His daughter is married to an Italian. She has British investments in this country, but, having married an Italian, she has assumed her husband's nationality and domicile. If she came to this country to spend a holiday she would be immediately mulcted in Income Tax on those investments, with the result that she and her husband at the present moment, with their servants, are spending several months in Austria instead of coming to this country.
Cases of that kind could be multiplied ever and over again. They are all within the knowledge of your Lordships' House, and therefore I will not weary the House by giving other cases because
110
nearly all of your Lordships know of cases yourselves. I have had many conversations with foreign friends of mine, and especially Americans, and it is generally stated that fewer and fewer foreigners are coming to Great Britain to make Great Britain their temporary home because of this Income Tax question. On the other hand, it is well-known that many of them are visiting France, Germany and Italy, and that those countries welcome them. They welcome them for the money they spend, they welcome them for the business they bring, and they do not mulct them in heavy taxation in addition to the taxation of their own country as is done here.
I venture to assert that this country is very short-sighted in its policy in this connection because we require the presence of these foreigners just as much as other countries do. I cannot understand how, for instance, the present Government—and other Governments, I agree—support travelling associations of Great Britain in the face of this attitude. Only recently a Bill was introduced called the Local Authorities (Publicity) Bill to encourage travelling in Great Britain and it was supported—with a certain amount of enthusiasm I may say—by the noble Lord, Lord Marley, on behalf of the Government. We have the "Come to Britain" movement supported by the Government in public speeches and other ways on the one hand, and, on the other, the Inland Revenue doing all they can to keep these people out of the country. They may be doing this with their eyes shut because not sufficient publicity is brought to hear upon this subject. That is one of the reasons why I have ventured to-day to bring the matter before His Majesty's Government, in the hope that the Government will examine the. position very carefully indeed, that they will investigate it, and investigate it impartially, not only through the eyes of the Treasury but through the eyes of some persons who know something about the outside as well as the Treasury point of view.
I even venture to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will set up another Committee, a strong Committee, an impartial Committee, to investigate this subject. In view of the great partiality they have shown for setting up

111
Committees on numerous subjects, I am sure they will feel it very difficult to resist such a request on my part for a Committee to investigate this very important subject of Income Tax as affecting the classes of individual I have named in my Resolution. Therefore I hope the Government will see their way to take this subject not as a mere subject of debate to-day but as one of serious import; that they will take it into consideration and do what they can to alleviate the position. I beg to move.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: My Lords, before the Minister replies, may I add one word in support of my noble friend He has alluded to many cases which I think deserve the consideration of the Government, but there is one point upon which he has not touched which peculiarly affects the country I come from. Your Lordships are aware that we rely in Scotland upon the rents that we receive from our shootings and fishings. I believe it is now held by the Board of Inland Revenue that if any foreigner takes a lease of a shooting or fishing in Scotland he renders the whole of his income in foreign countries liable to taxation. I believe that is very seriously affecting these lettings in the North. It is a matter which I think has been dealt with by successive Chancellors of the Exchequer in a very blind fashion. They have not seen that we are treating this Income Tax question differently from any other country in the world. France, for instance, taxes the foreigner through the hotels. She tells the person who receives a traveller in a hotel to add so much to the bill which goes for national taxation. She does not in any way charge the person who travels through the country on his income derived from abroad. That is perfectly right, but here we do not do that. A man can freely travel about if he uses hotels, but if he takes a house or gets an abode that instantly makes the whole of his property abroad liable for Income Tax. That is a short-sighted way of treating the matter. I do hope that my noble friend's request that careful consideration be given to this question will be agreed to by His Majesty's Government.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD PASSFIELD): My Lords, I make no complaint whatever of the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, for
112
bringing this question before your Lordships nor of the noble Marquess, Lord Huntly, for supporting him, because I agree that there is a certain discouragement of people coming to this country. But, as I shall attempt to show your Lordships, that discouragement in so far as it exists, is based really on a misapprehension as to the things which will he done to those people by this wicked Inland Revenue Department. It really is not quite so serious as has been represented, but there is a great deal of misapprehension and a certain amount, let us say, of fear. Therefore the more the matter can be ventilated, the more apprehension is dissipated and fear is removed, the better everybody will be pleased. This is an extremely difficult question, a difficult question for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Inland Revenue because naturally they have to be careful that they are not, by concessions, eating away at the Income Tax which for good or for ill has become the sheet anchor of the national finances.
The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, was good enough to indicate that it is not a matter for which this Government has any responsibility. The law has grown up under a succession of Governments quite irrespective of their political views. I should like to point out that it is not a question of an inquisitorial, oppressive and bureaucratic Inland Revenue. The position as described, in so far as it is correctly described, by the noble Viscount, is a matter of law, and the inland Revenue is but carrying out the law as it has been determined. Of course the law can be altered, but I am anxious to make it clear that it is not the fault of the Inland Revenue. What is complained of is actually part of the law of the land either by express words of Statute or based on decided cases, because as a matter of fact these things become so intricate that it is not until the Judges get to work on them that you can really say in some cases what is the law. Viscount Elibank rather complained of the theoretical basis upon which these exactions took place, but I want to suggest to your Lordships that it was Viscount. Elibank himself who was rather giving theoretical cases.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: If the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt, I should like to say that my cases were not theoretical. My cases were actually cases I know.
LORD PASSFIELD: If the noble Lord would have a moment of patience, that is exactly what I was going to explain—that it was the theory that he was explaining rather than the actual facts of the case, because all the cases which he described were not cases in which the person would have been subject to Income Tax at all; or at any rate in any case in which he might have been charged it would be to nothing like the extent which the noble Viscount suggested. That is simply bearing out my proposition. I said that there was a lot of misapprehension, which is in itself mischievous. I entirely agree, and we had better try and get it explained.
What is the law to-day for persons who come and live here for a time? Are they never to pay Income Tax? The noble Viscount suggested that at some point they must be liable for Income Tax and, in fact, the only question then is in what conditions, after what term of residence and in what circumstances they shall be roped in. The test for the liability to Income Tax, according to the law, is residence in this country. "Residence," in connection with this matter and others, is a difficult word to define. It is easy enough at first sight, but in actual practice extremely difficult, to decide whether a person is resident here or not. Judges and Statutes have laid it down that, if a person has a place of abode here and comes here, that person becomes a resident here—not a, permanent resident, but a resident in respect of the twelve months from April to April during which the Income Tax runs. That is not the case which the noble Viscount brought forward, or at any rate not the main case. He was referring to people who do not abide here, but who visit this country, either on leave of absence, as visitors or commercial people coming to consult, and so on. Those persons are not regarded as resident, and are therefore not liable for Income Tax in this country if the period of their visit does not exceed six months; but let me observe that it is six months in any one Income Tax year.
If, as I understand it, they come here for the five months ending on April 6, 1931, and if they stay on for another five months, it seems to me that they are not here for six months in any one Income Tax year, and consequently the shortness of the period can hardly be
114
complained of, since a person who is here for six months or more can hardly be considered a transient visitor. If it is agreed that he should be liable for Income Tax at some point, then you must at some point consider him resident, and really I think six months in any one Income Tax year is a very fair period for a visit. I am sure we should be glad to have the company of these people even for a longer time than that, but at some point it is held that they must be liable for Income Tax. I want to go on to explain, as to the fear which the noble Viscount expressed of the effect of Income Tax on wealthy Americans and foreigners who come and stay for longer than six months, that, after all, the shooting season and the fishing season hardly last longer than six months. If they stay longer than six months, I think both the noble Viscount and the noble Marquess said that they become liable to pay Income Tax upon the whole of their income. I am advised that this is not so at all.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I think the noble Lord has misquoted me. I did not say that. What I said was that they were liable to pay upon such income as they remitted to this country.
LORD PASSFIELD: I did not wish to particularise the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, but I think the noble Marquess, Lord Huntly, did actually say that they became liable to pay upon the whole of their income.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: What I understand is now held by the Court is that, if a foreigner takes a lease or has residence in Scotland, he is liable on the whole of his income for Income Tax in this country. I understand that is the rule.
LORD PASSFIELD: That is the difficulty of these special cases. Certainly if a person becomes resident in Scotland he does become liable to pay Income Tax as a resident here, but, as a matter of fact, if persons are resident for a certain period they incur liability in respect of such part of their income only as they receive in or as is remitted to the United Kingdom. As I understand it, the liability is therefore limited to Income Tax on the amount, practically, of their expenditure here, or of the income brought for that purpose. As Lord

115
Elibank, I think, quoted, the rule with regard to any particular case depends on the facts of the case. I am only stating what the general effect of the law is. Accordingly, as I say, a visitor is not considered resident for the purpose of becoming liable to any Income Tax at all unless he resides for six months in any one Income Tax year. The only complaint that can be made about that is that six months is not a long enough time, but I should have thought that, as a matter of fact, six months would cover the case of practically all visitors to this country unless they really become resident; and if they become resident they have to pay Income Tax.
There is another case which personally I am a little bit more concerned about than these foreigners who come here on prolonged visits. The noble Viscount spoke of the lady who fled to Italy lest she should become liable to Income Tax here. I do not know if she had already resided just upon the six months within the Income Tax year. Since April 6 she could not have resided for six months, so that she need not have left at any rate until October, and could have stayed to enjoy the British summer before she went. It is that misapprehension as to becoming liable for Income Tax which, I think, is having a powerful effect, but I cannot think that six months is not a reasonable limit. Then there is the other case to which the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, referred—that of the Colonial official.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I am so sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but it is rather a difficult case. The noble Lord has not dealt with the case of those visitors who are regular visitors to this country and who are only allowed to remain for three months. That is the case I am referring to.
LORD PASSFIELD: If the noble Viscount would only allow me to go on. I cannot refer to more than one class of case at once. Let him have a little patience. There is a more serious class of case than that, to my mind, and that is the Colonial official, or the person engaged in commercial pursuits, who comes to this country under the head of those who come for a period of six months in the year and will become liable to Income Tax, though only to the extent
116
of the income that they receive here or is remitted to this country. If such a person has an abode here—for instance, if his wife is living here or he keeps a house in which his children are living—then if he conies to this country at all during an Income Tax year he will become liable to Income Tax upon the amount of the income which is received here or which is remitted to him here.
That, I think, is a somewhat hard case. I am not Chancellor of the Exchequer, but 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. He is not, as I have said, charged if he has not an abode here, but if his wife is here, or if he has a house for his children, he becomes liable, even if he only comes for one day. That seems a little hard, and I should like to make a representation on the point. You will notice, however, that he is liable only for the income received or remitted.
Then there is the case of a man who does not come here for six months, but who does come for a substantial period, which I suggest is at least three months, in successive years, and actually makes a habit of coming for more than three months every year, at any rate for four years. Apparently, he may come for five months or five and a half months for three years in succession and not be dropped upon, but if he comes for four years his visits become a habit and the law will regard him as a resident. There again it is only a question of where you draw the line. If a man is going to come to live in England for a substantial period, year after year, it seems to me that he must be regarded as liable to Income Tax at some period. He is only liable for tax on the income which is remitted to this country, and the question is whether more than three months in each year for more than four years is too small a limit. I should be very glad to talk that over with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I am afraid that I cannot hold out any hope of being able to soften his heart, because it is the result of the experience of the Inland Revenue for a whole generation, and I am

117
afraid they will have reasons which will be far more cogent with the Chancellor of the Exchequer than any which I can bring to bear upon him.
To sum up, the position is that you are not liable to tax on the whole of your income if you come to reside here for a short time. You must remain for six months, and for six months in any one Income Tax year. Consequently, two separate periods in two separate Income Tax years will not make you liable. Then you are only liable for tax on the income which is received here or remitted to this country. But if you have an abode here and you come back to this country then you may be liable for a much briefer period, but, again, only on the amount of income received here or remitted here. Or if you make a practice of coming here for more than three months yearly for more than four years, then you may be considered a. resident and again have to pay, but only for the amount of income which you receive here or is remitted here. The noble Viscount has not brought this forward, of course, because it is an ingenious and interesting point, but because of the apprehension that it is having an effect in preventing foreigners or British subjects living abroad from coming to this country. I agree with him that it is undesirable to prevent or discourage them from coming, but I am not sure that I should put it so greatly on the amount of money that they spend here. I am not sure whether Scotland benefited by these shooting or fishing rents. At any rate, Scottish lairds have intimated to me grave doubts whether Scotland is richer or better for them.
But we do not want to discourage foreigners from coming to this country. I want to encourage them, and I think it is a great advantage that we should travel in other countries. I think foreigners can learn something from us, and that we can learn something from them. When the noble Viscount said that fewer and fewer foreigners were corning here he said what is quite contrary to my information. Neither the Inland Revenue nor the Board of Trade are aware of any diminution in the number of foreigners coming to this country. On the contrary, they inform me that more and more foreigners are coming—that the number coming from the United
118
States and from the Continent of Europe and the Far East is increasing year by year. That, of course, does not affect the question raised by the noble Viscount. We do not want to discourage them, whether they are coming or not coming. I beg the noble Viscount to take heart. I think England is becoming more and more attractive to foreigners—I do not say it is because we have a Labour Government—and especially to the number coming from France. That being so, I cannot believe that this complaint is of very serious import.
I think, however, the misapprehensions are serious, and I think that something should be done to prevent people fleeing from this country who have been here three months, because they are afraid of being made liable for Income Tax. They will not be and I think they should be made aware of it. As to the suggestion that the Government should appoint a Committee to enquire into the subject, I am afraid that I cannot hold out any hope that the Government will consent to that, although I will consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether it is possible. So far as my information goes, a Committee would not have a desirable result, but might, by advertisement, even magnify the evil. I repeat that I think something should be done to clear up the misapprehension difficulties. I am informed that no Papers exist which could he presented, except a bare statement of the law, and that would not really he a useful document. I beg the noble Viscount not to persist in his Motion for Papers, because I can assure him that we cannot find any Papers which would be useful to lay before the House. I will, however, see whether some steps cannot be taken to remove the misapprehensions which do exist, and which have an effect upon a small number of people coming to this country.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Lord for his sympathetic reply. At least he has given us some crumbs of comfort, for he has said that he will refer certain points to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and will also consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether a Committee should be set up. I wish to thank the noble Lord for those concessions. At the same time, I should like to add one or two words after the speech which he

119
has made. It seems to me that whilst he has attributed certain misapprehensions to me, the noble Lord himself is under some misapprehension as to the real effect upon these visitors. I do not think he has grasped the fact that it is the regular visitors to this country who really bring most money here. It is not the visitors who come here occasionally and are mulcted in Income Tax after six months' residence, but the visitors who come here regularly and who are now told that a "substantial period" is three months after four years. They are not only mulcted in Income Tax in the fourth year, but also for the three previous years as well. That is not only very unreasonable, but very unfair. Those are the cases which I particularly wish to impress upon the noble Lord, and which I hope he will bring to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Then, again, the noble Lord told us that after all these regulations were the result of legislation which has been passed, and that they were actually embodied in the laws. I venture to oppose that statement, because so far as I know the word "substantial" was never interpreted in the law. The law says only that it shall be for a substantial period. It is the Inland Revenue officials who have interpreted that word "substantial," and said it shall be three months. I think, therefore, that the noble Lord himself was under a misapprehension when he told us that this was embodied in the law. That is a point which I consider should be brought to the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—namely, as to whether that period of
120
three months should not be considerably extended. The noble Lord in his reply did not, I think, deal with the question of British Colonial officials coming here on leave for six months. He did not say that he would represent their case to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope I am not misrepresenting the noble Lord.
LORD PASSFIELD: I expressly said I thought their case was one which came home to me in particular, and I would do something about it. But, as a matter of fact, they can stay here for five and a half months; it is not any worse than that.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: No. But I have already stated the reasons why I think the period ought to be longer than that. I did not know that the noble Lord was going to represent that case to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If he is going to do so, of course I withdraw what I said. Those are the only points I wish to make. I hope that a Committee will be set up, and I am grateful to the Government for having given as much consideration to the Motion as they have. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
LORD PASSFIELD: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make clear that I am making no promises. I had to tell the noble Lord that I was afraid I should not be able to induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take my view, though I have undertaken to convey the view he takes. But that is not a promise.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before six o'clock.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Accrington and Leicester),
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Godalming and Scunthorpe and Frodingham) [H.L.],
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Bristol and Leicester) [H.L.]
Also the Certificates that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (St. Helens and York) [H.L.],
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Rhymney Valley Joint Sewerage District) [H.L.],
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Abertillery and District Water District and Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board) [H.L.],
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Lancaster and District Joint Hospital District) [H.L.],
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Portslade and Southwick Outfall Sewerage District and Seaton Burn Valley Joint Sewerage District) [H.L.].
And also the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
West Hartlepool Corporation,
London County Council (Money),
Metropolitan Water Board,
Seaton Urban District Council,
Salvation Army,
Southampton Corporation.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.