Sitting of 7 May 1931

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

  LIVERPOOL UNIVERSITY BILL. [Lords.]
  As amended, considered.
  Amendments made.
  Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: On a point of Order. May I ask if these Amendments have been circulated, and, if not, how is the House in a position to consider them?
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Sir Robert Young): They are only drafting Amendments.
  Mr. KNIGHT: I make no apology for raising this point. I can understand the convenience of dealing with a matter of this kind in this way when it applies to only one or two drafting Amendments, but when it is a matter of a whole series of Amendments of this character, it is not conducive to the proper conduct of business in this House.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a drastic condemnation, but it is the usual practice of the House. If they are drafting Amendments, they are dealt with in that way. If they are more substantial Amendments, the House has a fuller opportunity of dealing with them.
  Mr. McSHANE: How is it possible for hon. Members to know that they are only drafting Amendments? Are we to be engaged in a pure act of faith in that respect?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The House must put a little trust in me sometimes.
  Bill to be read the Third time.
  London Midland and Scottish Railway-Bill (by Order),
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  Ministry of Health Provisional Order (East Elloe Joint Water Supply District) Bill,
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Accrington and Leicester) Bill,
  Read the Third time, and passed.
  Alexander Scott's Hospital Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
  Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.
  Public Works Facilities Scheme (Acton Swing Bridge) Bill,
  Read the Third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    KERB-STONE DRESSERS (TRAINING).
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Labour the results of the conference between the representatives of the quarrying industry and the Government Departments concerned with regard to the training of kerb-stone dressers?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR: (Miss Bondfield): The question of the supply of, and demand for, granite kerb has been referred to a small joint committee representative of producers and users. Further consideration of the training question must await the outcome of this committee, which will, I understand, hold its first meeting on 14th May.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: How long does the right hon. Lady expect these conversations to go on?
    Miss BONDFIELD: That is a matter for the parties who are conducting them.
    Mr. PYBUS: Is the right hon. Lady aware that all this time Norwegian granite, aided by a Government grant, is being imported into this country?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The granite producers are largely responsible.
    Mr. PYBUS: Seeing that this granite is aided by a Government grant—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a different question.

    COAL MINING AND IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRIES.
    Major COLVILLEasked the Minister of Labour (1) the number of workers in the coal mining industry registered as unemployed on 1st June, 1929, and at the latest available date;
    (2) the number of workers in the iron and steel industry registered as unemployed on 1st June, 1929, and at the latest available date?
    Miss BONDFIELD: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will

    NUMBER OF INSURED PERSONS in the Coal Mining and Iron and Steel Industry classification recorded as unemployed in Great Britain.

    Industry.

    27th May, 1929.

    23rd March, 1931.

    Wholly unemployed.

    Temporarily stopped.

    Total.

    Wholly unemployed.

    Temporarily stopped.

    Total.

    Coalmining

    127,486

    71,677

    199,163

    176,091

    117,067

    293,158

    Pig Iron (Blast furnaces).

    2,140

    312

    2,452

    6,467

    1,170

    7,637

    Steel Melting and Iron Puddling, Iron and Steel Rolling and Forging.

    15,710

    16,835

    32,545

    39,645

    43,074

    82,719

    FOREIGN WAITERS.
    Major DESPENCER-ROBERTSONasked the Minister of Labour the number of foreign waiters employed in this country; and how this number compares with the number of English waiters employed by foreign countries under reciprocal arrangements between those countries and Great Britain?
    Miss BONDFIELD: There are no available statistics of foreign waiters employed in this country, nor of British waiters employed in foreign countries. The number of permits issued for the admission of foreigners to take up employment in this country as waiters (mostly of the student employé type), was 319 for the 12 months ended 30th April, 1931. The number of British subjects who were enabled to take employment abroad as waiters under reciprocal arrangements with foreign countries, was approximately 228 during the same period.
    Captain PETER MACDONALD: Is it the policy of the Government that only
    circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Major COLVILLE: Can the right hon. Lady say in regard to both these industries whether there is any district in the United Kingdom where employment has improved since the Government took office?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I should like to have notice of that question.
    Following is the statement:
    foreign waiters who have some reciprocal agreement with British waiters are allowed to come in?
    Miss BONDFIELD: No, I would not say that it is entirely reciprocal.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT-WARD: Can the Minister of Labour tell us the conditions under which these waiters are allowed to come into this country?
    Miss BONDFIELD: It is for a limited period of time, and for the purpose of acquiring the language.

    VACANCIES.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the Minister of Labour the number of vacant jobs of which the Employment Exchanges in Great Britain had particulars on 31st January, 1928, 1929, and 1930, respectively; and what were the total numbers of registered unemployed on the same dates?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am having a table prepared, and will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

    INSURANCE FUND (CONTRIBUTIONS).
    Mr. GEORGE LAMBERTasked the Minister of Labour the total contributions to the unemployment insurance fund for the year ending 31st March, 1931, of the Exchequer, employers, and employed, respectively; and, assuming the live register remains the same and no changes are made in rates of contribution or benefit, what will be the contributions of the Exchequer, employers, and employed, respectively, for the year ending 31st March, 1932?
    Miss BONDFIELD: As the reply is somewhat long, and contains a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    The contributions to the Unemployment Fund during the year ended 31st March, 1931, when the average live register was about 2,200,000 were approximately as follow:

    £

    Employers

    16,004,000

    Employed persons

    13,690,000

    Exchequer (exclusive of contribution in respect of transitional benefit)

    14,900,000

    Assuming that the average live register for 1931– remains the same, and that no changes are made in rates of contribution or benefit, the estimated contributions for the year are:

    £

    Employers

    16,538,000

    Employed persons

    14,146,000

    Exchequer (exclusive of contribution in, respect of transitional benefit)

    15,342,000

    In addition, the Exchequer pays a sum equal to the cost of transitional benefit and its administration. This amount in 1930–1 was about £20,600,000, and the estimate for the current year is £30,000,000.

    ROYAL COMMISSION (REPORT).
    Sir ASSHETON POWNALLasked the Minister of Labour whether she anticipates receiving the report of the Royal Commission on Unemployment before the Whitsuntide Recess?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I cannot add anything at the moment to the replies I have already given on this subject.
    Sir A. POWNALL: Does the right hon. Lady still expect to have an interim report by the end of May?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I do.

    GOVERNMENT SCHEMES.
    Sir A. POWNALLasked the Minister of Labour what are the bases on which it is estimated that the work schemes of the Government provide, approximately, 2,000 man-years of employment directly and 2,000 indirectly for every £1,000,000 of money expended?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I would refer the hon. Member to the speech made by the late Lord Privy Seal in the Debate on 12th February last, in which the basis of this calculation is explained in considerable detail?

    GERMAN COMMISSION'S REPORT.
    Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLANDasked the Minister of Labour whether she has received the German proposals for dealing with unemployment; and, if so, will she place a translation of them in the Library?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I have received a copy of the first report of the German Advisory Commission on Unemployment. A translation is being prepared and will be placed in the Library of the House.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Is it true that in the view of the German Ministry of Labour, the chief measure for reducing unemployment in Germany was bringing the country into a sound financial condition?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I must have notice of that question.

    LIVERPOOL (SCHEMES).
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Minister of Labour the number of people at present directly employed in Liverpool upon new schemes that have been sanctioned for grant for the relief of unemployment?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Returns received in respect of State-aided schemes in operation in the Liverpool area show that 3,061 men were directly employed on 27th March last. The figures exclude schemes carried out by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board.
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Minister of Labour the amount of the schemes that have been submitted by the Liverpool Corporation for grant for the relief of unemployment since 1st January, 1931, and the number of schemes that have been approved since the 1st January, 1931?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am having these particulars extracted, and will send them to the hon. Member as early as possible.
    Mr. SANDHAM: Is any unnecessary delay being experienced in connection with these schemes in Liverpool; and, if so, will the Minister urge the authorities to remove the obstacle?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am having a statement prepared, and I could not answer that question until I have seen the statement.

    TRAINEES.
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Minister of Labour how many persons are at present being trained at the various training centres for the unemployed; how many are being trained for overseas settlement and how many for industrial or other occupation in Great Britain; and what is the rate at which the latter are being absorbed into their own occupations?
    Miss BONDFIELD: During the week ending 28th April, 6,662 persons were in attendance at centres conducted by, or on behalf of, my Department; all were in training for employment in this country. The majority are placed in employment on, or shortly after, the completion of their course, the average percentage of placings for 1930 being 89.4.
    Captain MACDONALD: Will the right hon. Lady answer the part of the question which refers to oversea settlement?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I have said that all these are being trained for this country. There is no training now for oversea settlement.

    NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE.
    Sir NICHOLAS G RATTAN-DOYLEasked the Minister of Labour what assistance has been given by her Department to applicants in Newcastle-on-Tyne for allotments under the special scheme for the unemployed?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Local officers of the Ministry of Labour are co-operating in the scheme by bringing to the notice of unemployed or partly employed persons the facilities available. Posters are exhibited on Exchange premises, forms of application for plots, which are returnable to the local authority, are issued to applicants, and applicants for supplies of seeds, etc., are directed to the appropriate channel for obtaining them.

  DOMESTIC SERVANTS (HOURS OF WORK).
  Mr. MORLEYasked the Minister of Labour what steps she proposes to take in the near future to reduce the hours of labour of domestic servants and give them a statutory right to reasonable periods of leisure?
  Miss BONDFIELD: Legislation on this subject is not at present in contemplation.
  Mr. MORLEY: Is the right hon. Lady aware that there has been a great increase in the numbers in domestic service in recent years, and that many of these girls work from 7 o'clock in the morning until 10 o'clock at night with only one afternoon off each week. Cannot she extend the same protection with regard to hours as is extended to those who work in shops?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I can only repeat what I have said.
  Sir F. HALL: Is it not a fact that there is a tremendous number of vacancies for domestic servants, and does not the right hon. Lady think that she should go into the matter more carefully with a view of seeing whether it is possible to reduce the dole, and put these people on a basis—
  HON. MEMBERS: Order!
  Mr. McSHANE: In view of the fact that the conditions in some of these situations are really abominable, and in view of the fact that courts of referees now regard domestic service as suitable for claims for benefit, should it not be the first object of the Minister to make certain that the industry to which they are sent is a protected industry, so that the interests of those concerned are protected?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I can only add that domestic service is a notoriously unregulated industry, but, owing to the pressure of public business, I cannot undertake to introduce legislation.

  BUDGET (TRANSITIONAL BENEFIT).
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDasked the Minister of Labour, in view of the fact that transitional benefit begins to come to an end under the existing law on 18th October next, whether the Budget estimate of £30,000,000 for the present financial year is based on the supposition that the existing law continues in effect?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I would refer the right hon. Member to the reply given on 5th May to the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Is it not the case that there was a certain amount of ambiguity about that answer; and does not the right hon. Lady realise that it is for the purpose of clearing up that ambiguity that I have put this question?
  Miss BONDFIELD: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that this was not a matter which could be dealt with by question and answer, and that it was proposed to make a statement upon it later.

  WAGES (INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON).
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDasked the Minister of Labour if she will give a table of the rates of actual wages and real wages, respectively, for Great Britain and other countries for which data are obtainable for June-July, 1929, January, 1930, October, 1930, and the latest date available, the average figure of 100 for Great Britain for 1924 being taken as a basis?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I regret that the available information with regard to wages in different countries in the period 1924 to 1930 is insufficient to provide a satisfactory basis for the compilation of internationally comparable statistics of the kind desired by the right hon. Member.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Could the right hon. Lady get the figures even for the later years?
  Miss BONDFIELD: The only statistics that are available are those compiled by the International Labour Office and as the right hon. Gentleman knows the whole question is under consideration.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Is it not the case that some of these figures have already been published, and, if that be so, could not the right hon. Lady give us later figures to compare with the earlier figures already published?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I will publish such figures as are available.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    MINISTRY OF LABOUR (WOMEN, PROMOTION).
    Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Labour the number of women promoted to the departmental clerical class of the Ministry of Labour in the years 1928, 1929, and 1930, respectively, and for the first quarter of the current year?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The number of women promoted to the departmental clerical class of the Ministry of Labour was as follows:

    Year.

    Number.

    1928

    …

    …

    8

    1929

    …

    …

    10

    1930

    …

    …

    58

    1931 (1st quarter)

    …

    …

    38

    The total of 114 includes four cases in which the appointments were made by competitive examination limited to members of the minor and manipulative grades. The remainder were promotions of shorthand-typists, typists and writing assistants.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Were any ex-service men taken on in connection with these jobs?
    Miss BONDFIELD: There are no men displaced.

    LAND VALUATION.
    Mr. WELLSasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many additional civil servants will be required to carry out the new land valuation scheme?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): The necessity of completing the valuation within a limited time must involve a considerable addition to the existing staff of the Inland Revenue Department, the bulk of which will of course be engaged on a temporary footing. It is not possible to state with any precision what the total addition will amount to; but it is not anticipated that it will at any time exceed 2,000.
    Mr. WELLS: Have preparations already been made for engaging the additional staff to meet the extra work?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Full preparations will necessarily be delayed until Parliament has given its consent.
    Sir A. POWNALL: Can the hon. Gentleman say if any provision has been made in this year's estimate for this purpose?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: No, I have already answered that in the negative.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is it proposed to engage an entirely new staff, or to utilise the services of the valuers at present engaged?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I have already explained that the existing staff which is available will be utilised as far as possible.

    MINOR GRADES (REPRESENTATION).
    Commander SOUTHBYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the names of the associations recognised by the Treasury as competent to represent the grade of unestablished messengers and paper and record keepers in the Civil Service; what is the membership of those grades in the recognised associations; whether he has received any representations from any other organisation on behalf of those grades; and, if so, whether recognition will be extended to that organisation?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The representative capacity of the Government Minor Grades Association has been recognised in respect of unestablished messengers outside the London area, and of that association jointly with the Workers' Union in respect of unestablished messengers within the London area and
    540
    of unestablished paper and record keepers generally. An application has been received from the Association of Ex-service Civil Servants to be recognised jointly with the above organisations as representative of this staff, and, in view of this application, the membership of all these organisations amongst the grades concerned is now being examined.
    Commander SOUTHBY: Will the Financial Secretary to the Treasury reply to the last part of my question as to whether recognition will be extended to that organisation?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That is a point which is being examined.

  WASHINGTON HOURS CONVENTION.
  Mr. HERRIOTTSasked the Minister of Labour what steps have been taken by her Department to ratify the Washington Eight Hours Convention; and whether early legislation is in contemplation for this purpose?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Prime Minister to the hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip) on 30th March, of which I am sending him a copy. The convention cannot be ratified until the necessary legislation has been passed.
  Mr. HERRIOTTS: Can the right hon. Lady answer the first part of my question; and, further, can she make a statement as to whether the Government intend, without unnecessary delay, to proceed with the Second Reading of the Hours of Industrial Employment Bill in order to give effect to the Washington Convention?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I can add nothing to the statement made by the Prime Minister.
  Mr. HERRIOTTS: What about the first part of my question?
  Miss BONDFIELD: That is the reply to the first part of the question.
  Mr. MANDER: Is it not a fact that, unless legislation is passed, the Government will make themselves responsible for any lengthening of hours which occurs in this country?

  POLICE (MOTOR DRIVING TESTS).
  Mr. EVERARDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many accidents the mobile police have been involved since thir inauguration; and whther these police have all had prevoius experience in driving motor cars before their appointment?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): There have been 121 such accidents, two-thirds of which were quite trivial. Every driver had had previous experience of driving motor vehicles and his driving capacity was tested before his selection for this duty.
  Mr. EVERARD: As London omnibus drivers have to go through a very careful course of instruction, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the police ought to go through a similar course?
  Mr. CLYNES: They do go through a course which is quite satisfactory for testing purposes, as the terms of my reply indicate.
  Mr. DAY: Has it been found necessary to prosecute any of these men for dangerous driving?
  Mr. CLYNES: I could not answer as to that detail without notice.

  SCOTLAND.

    SILICOSIS.
    Mr. TRAINasked the Home Secretary (1) what sums have been contributed by Scottish quarry masters to the Workmen's Compensation (Silicosis) Fund; and what claims, if any, have been made on the fund from quarrymen in Scotland;
    (2) whether he is aware that after a medical examination by the medical board appointed under the Sandstone Industry Silicosis Scheme, 1929, no case of silicosis has been found among the quarry workers in Scotland; and whether he has taken, or proposes to take, any steps to implement his promise to the Scottish quarry masters that, following on the medical examination, the question of their liability for levies under the scheme would be reviewed?
    Mr. CLYNES: The levies paid by the Scottish quarry masters to the Sand-
    542
    stone Silicosis Fund between 1st April, 1929, and 31st March last, amounted to £3,931. Claims have been made in Scotland on the fund in one case of death, where the workman left dependants, and in two cases of partial incapacity. The promise given to review the rates of levy on completion of the first periodic medical examinations will be duly observed, but the examinations will not he completed for some time yet.
    Mr. TRAIN: Is it true that it is taking twice as much to administer this fund as to pay compensation?
    Mr. CLYNES: That information is not asked for in the question, and I could not give it off-hand.

    CESS.
    Sir PATRICK FORDasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will now give a statement showing such details as are available regarding the incidence and collection of cess in Scotland?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am sending the hon. Member such information as I have been able to obtain in this matter.
    Sir P. FORD: Have the Government taken into consideration any steps to simplify the method and incidence of collection with regard to wiping out the anomaly of the cess tax?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That is a separate question, and if the hon. Member will put it down I will certainly endeavour to give him an answer.

    HOUSING, DUMBARTONSHIRE.
    Mr. BROOKEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses in Duntocher, Dumbartonshire, have been condemned by the county medical authority as being unfit for human habitation?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Westwood): According to the general statement submitted by the county council in terms of Sub-section 2 of Section 22 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930, the number of houses estimated to be required to replace houses unfit for human habitation at Duntocher (including Hardgate) is 24. The Department of Health for Scotland

    543
    are not aware whether any of these houses have yet been condemned by the county medical officer.
    Mr. BROOKEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses the county council of Dumbartonshire propose to build in Duntocher during the next five years in accordance with the provisions of the Housing Act, 1930?
    Mr. WESTWOOD: The number of houses which the county council propose to build at Duntocher during the next three years (the period mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section 22 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930) is 40, of which 20 are to replace houses that are unfit for human habitation.
    Mr. BROOKE: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the number of houses being built?
    Mr. WESTWOOD: We are certainly asking Dumbartonshire to do its very best to meet the requirements under the Housing Act, 1930, and will bring all influence to bear on the respective authorities to carry out their programme.
    Major COLVILLE: Are they also being urged to carry out the Housing (Rural Workers) Act?

    FORESHORE ROAD, BO'NESS—SOUTH QUEENSFERRY.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total acreage owned in Linlithgowshire by the owners of the land required for the proposed road along the foreshore between Bo'ness and South Queensferry; and the rateable value on the valuation roll and the amount of rates paid in respect of it?
    Mr. WESTWOOD: I regret that I do not have the information which would enable me to answer this question, and it is doubtful whether the information can be obtained, but I am making inquiry.

  CHANNEL ISLANDS.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Home Secretary if there are any outstanding matters in dispute with the Channel Islands; and, if so, what course is feeing pursued for settlement?
  Mr. CLYNES: I am not aware that there are any matters in dispute between His Majesty's Government and the authorities in the Channel Islands.

  ROMAN CATHOLIC WITNESSES. (OATH).
  Mr. McELWEEasked the Home Secretary whether he has completed his investigation into the facilities for taking the oath by Catholics in the Manchester Police Court, and if he proposes to make recommendations to the Lord Chancellor thereon; and, if so, will he include one to grant a new trial in the case of J. B. Hudson?
  Mr. CLYNES: Upon inquiry I find that upon being told that there was no Catholic Bible in court a witness asked to be allowed to affirm, an alternative which was not open to him because of his declared religious belief. A Catholic Bible has now been obtained and there are no grounds on which further action in the matter could be taken by me.
  Mr. McELWEE: Will the Home Secretary reconsider this case, in view of the fact that the case went against the man because his chief witness was denied the right to affirm?
  Mr. CLYNES: I think I have given the fullest answer that could be given to the points in the question, but any new point I will of course consider.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are steps being taken to provide Catholic Bibles in all courts?
  Mr. CLYNES: Yes, the latter part of my reply indicates that. If any other instance is brought to my notice I shall be glad to deal with it.
  Mr. PHILIP OLIVER: Was there any ground for refusing the right of affirmation?
  Mr. CLYNES: The only ground I have heard of is that referred to in my answer.
  Mr. OLIVER: Is there any legal justification for that?
  Mr. McELWEE: Will the Home Secretary make representations to the Lord Chancellor as to investigating the fitness of this magistrate to sit on the bench?
  Mr. CLYNES: If my hon. Friend thinks that there are circumstances relating to this particular instance which call for such investigation, and, if he will give me information, I shall be glad to place the matter in the proper quarter.

  TRANSPORT.

    TAXI-CABS, LONDON.
    Mr. DAYasked the Home Secretary the number of taximeter cabs that were licensed by the Metropolitan Police during the year 1930; and the number that were rejected on presentation of various defects or failure to pass the necessary efficiency test?
    Mr. CLYNES: 8,167 taximeter cabs were licensed by the Metropolitan Police during the year 1930. 2,245 were rejected on presentation for licensing on account of various defects or of failure to pass the necessary efficiency tests. All of these were subsequently licensed after the defects had been remedied.
    Mr. HALL-CAINE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider suggesting to the authorities that old taxi-cabs, without four-wheeled brakes, should not De licensed in future?
    Mr. CLYNES: I have come to the conclusion that those who have this matter in hand exercise very great care before licensing cabs, but I will draw attention to that point.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the case of ex-servicemen, many of whom own taxi-cabs?

    LIVERPOOL-EVERTON TUNNEL SCHEME.
    Mr. LOGANasked the Minister of Transport the reasons for the delay in making a Government grant for the £2,000,000 Liverpool - Everton tunnel scheme; and if he can give an assurance that it will be granted at the earliest opportunity?
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Minister of Transport whether the Everton tunnel scheme has been submitted to him in proper order; and if it has been passed for grant?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Parkinson): My right hon. Friend is considering the particulars submitted by
    546
    the Liverpool Corporation relative to the proposed Everton Tunnel, and hopes to be able to make a definite statement thereon at an early date.
    Mr. LOGAN: Can we get to know from the Minister of Transport whether the grant of 60 per cent. is going to be allowed?
    Mr. PARKINSON: I think that my hon. Friend had better wait until the Minister makes his statement.

    FORTH AND CLYDE SHIP CANAL (SURVEY).
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Minister of Transport whether he is prepared to have a geophysical survey of the suggested route of the proposal Forth and Clyde ship canal with a view to ascertaining the cost of such an undertaking?
    Mr. PARKINSON: My right hon. Friend is unable to give any promise as to undertaking such a survey.

  CIVIL PROCESS PRISONERS.
  Mr. FREEMANasked the Home Secretary how many persons were put into prison last year for debt or for refusing to obey an order of a magistrate or a judge to pay a debt, in part or all of it; whether he is satisfied that the present method of treatment of prisoners for debt is satisfactory; and whether he proposes to take any steps towards its alteration?
  Mr. CLYNES: The figures for 1930 are not yet available, but the figures for 1929 were given in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) on 22nd January last. These civil process prisoners are treated under special rules, and are kept apart from other prisoners in accordance with the requirements of the Prison Act, 1898, Section 6 (3). The location of these prisoners in the same prisons as criminal prisoners has obvious disadvantages, but it is impracticable to provide for them numerous separate establishments throughout England and Wales, and if two or three establishments were set apart for this purpose, the conveyance of such persons long distances from their homes usually for short periods would involve not only great expense but also hardship to the prisoners.
  Mr. FREEMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion or how many of the persons imprisoned last year were totally incapable of paying their debts?
  Mr. CLYNES: That point is not covered in the question.
  Mr. MARLEY: Would it not be possible for these men to form themselves into limited liability companies and go into bankruptcy, and so avoid imprisonment?
  Mr. FREEMAN: Will the committee which the right hon. Gentleman recently set up have power to investigate this matter?
  Mr. CLYNES: I think not, but I will inquire.
  Mr. BROCKWAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that imprisonment for debt has been abolished in many continental countries, and is it not possible for the inquiry which is now being conducted to include an examination of the effect of the abolition?
  Mr. CLYNES: I am well aware of the technical position of the law, but we have to consider the position of other people as well as of the debtor who is imprisoned for contempt of court.

  ESTREATED RECOGNISANCES.
  Mr. COMPTONasked the Home Secretary how many persons were committed to prison during the 12 months ended 30th April, 1931, in default of finding the estreated recognisances for accused persons who had absconded on bail?
  Mr. CLYNES: This information is not available, and to collect it specially would entail an expenditure of time and labour out of proportion to the results that could be achieved.

  SEX EQUALITY.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Home Secretary if he will introduce legislation with the object of removing the sex disqualification which prevents women taking their seats in the House of Lords and differentiates them from men in respect of inheritance, contract and restraint on
  548
  anticipation, and other matters, with a view to facilitating a League of Nations convention on equal rights for men and women?
  Mr. CLYNES: The Government could not undertake to introduce legislation on this subject at the present time.
  Mr. MANDER: Do I understand that the Government are not prepared to take steps to give equal rights to men and women?

  EDUCATION.

    CHILDREN, RURAL AREAS (CONVEYANCE).
    Lieut.-Colonel GAULTasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the overcrowding of vehicles provided for the purpose of conveying children in rural areas to and from school; and whether he will have the matter investigated and take the necessary steps to see that county authorities provide adequate accommodation in this respect for the future?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Lees-Smith): No representations have been made to me to suggest that local education authorities do not provide adequate accommodation for the purpose of conveying children to and from school. But if the hon. and gallant Member will give me particulars of any case in which overcrowding is alleged, I will have it investigated.

    TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION (CONTRIBUTIONS).
    Mr. BUCHAN-HEPBURNasked the President of the Board of Education whether he proposes to refund part of the superannuation contributions to those head teachers whose schools have been down-graded through circumstances outside their own control, and who have hitherto been paying superannuation contributions on the salary of a higher grade?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: Under the Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1925, contributions are payable on the salary of the teacher for the time being, and there is no power to refund any part of the contributions on the occurrence of a reduction in salary.

    TEACHERS (ESTABLISHMENT).
    Mr. MORLEYasked the President of the Board of Education the extent of the response of the local education authorities to Administrative Memorandum 82, urging increase in establishments?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: As a large number of authorities have not yet submitted their proposals, I regret that I cannot yet say what the total establishment of teachers for the country as a whole will amount to for the current year.

    SIZE OF CLASSES.
    Mr. MORLEYasked the President of the Board of Education the number of classes with 40 to 50, and 50 to 60 children on the roll in elementary schools, senior and junior, in April, 1930, and the corresponding figures for April, 1931?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: Information for April. 1931, is not yet available. As the answer in regard to April, 1930, involves a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. MORLEY: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there has been a reduction in the large classes in the year?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: I cannot say for certain, but I think that there has been a substantial reduction in the year.
    Following is the answer:

    CLASSES of over 40 and over 50 children respectively, under the various types of department in public elementary schools, on 31st March, 1930.

    Type of Department.

    Over 40 but not over 50.

    Over 50.

    Senior

    …

    1,064

    24

    Junior

    …

    7,915

    1,800

    All ages

    …

    28,002

    4,323

    Infants

    …

    13,499

    3,870

    Total

    …

    50,480

    10,017

    MILK SUPPLY.
    Mr. FREEMANasked the President of the Board of Education what steps he is taking with a view to securing that every child in school shall receive a daily supply of fresh milk?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: I am encouraging the provision of milk for school children both directly by local education authorities and under the scheme of the National Milk Publicity Council. There has been a very considerable increase during the past year in the number of children receiving milk. My hon. Friend is, of course, aware that I have no power to exercise any compulsion in this matter, either on local education authorities or on the parents.
    Mr. SMITHERS: Will the right hon. Gentleman use what powers he has to see that the milk supply is free from tuberculosis?

  HOUSING.

    REGIONAL PLANNING.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Minister of Health whether the committee which is examining the reports of the regional planning committees has yet reported?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Greenwood): An interim report has been made by the committee, and is now being considered.
    Sir K. WOOD: Will the report be available for Members of the House?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: That is under consideration, and I will give an answer if the right hon. Gentleman will put down a question later.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. GOULDasked the Minister of Health the number of houses built under the Housing Acts, 1923 and 1924, during the years 1928, 1929, and 1930, by the urban districts of Frome, Midsomer Norton, and Radstock, respectively?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: No houses were built by these district councils except in the case of Frome, which has built 31.
    Mr. GOULDasked the Minister of Health the number of houses built under the Housing Acts, 1923 and 1924, during the years 1928, 1929 and 1930 by the rural districts of Clutton, Bath, Frome and Keynsham, respectively?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The numbers are eight, none, six and 92, respectively.
    Mr. McSHANE: Will the Minister now use the big stick?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the answer, he would have seen that last year we have done all we can.
    Mr. SORENSENasked the Minister of Health (1) the number of houses built during 1929 and 1930 by the county councils of Middlesex, Suffolk, Kent and Essex, respectively;
    (2) the number of houses proposed to be built by the county councils of Middlesex, Suffolk, Kent and Essex during 1931 and 1932?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The borough and district councils and not the county councils are the authorities for the general provision of houses in counties outside London. Action by the county councils has been limited to the building of houses for their own employés. Of the county councils named, Middlesex built six houses and East Euffolk 18 houses during the past two years. No further proposals are at present before me.

    SLUM CLEARANCE, SOUTHWARK.
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Health the number of houses in the borough of Southwark which are regarded as suitable for demolition under the slum clearance schemes; whether he has any statistics of the number of persons that are housed in these properties; and can he give particulars of any existing schemes either by the London County Council or the Southwark Borough Council for dealing with the housing conditions in certain portions of this borough?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The reply to the first two parts of the question is in the negative. No specific proposals are yet before me, but the London County Council propose in the next five years to clear areas comprising 321 houses, and the borough council to clear areas comprising 46 houses and to demolish 67 further houses. The estimated total number of persons to be displaced is 3,150.
    Mr. DAY: Are these people being rehoused on the new estate in Southwark?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I cannot say without notice.

    NATIONAL HOUSING BOARD.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Minister of Health if he has now given further consideration to the proposal for the institution of a national housing board which would have jurisdiction in relation to State-aided house building; and if he has come to any conclusion upon this proposal?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: As was stated in the Debate of 16th April last, careful consideration is being given to proposals which have been made with a view to meeting the special difficulties of rural housing.
    Sir K. WOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman in view any such proposal as the institution of a national housing board in order to remove the matter from his own jurisdiction?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman had better wait and see.

    SURVEY, ISLINGTON.
    Mr. R. S. YOUNGasked the Minister of Health if the housing survey undertaken by the medical officer of health for Islington, on behalf of the joint committee, has yet commenced; what are the areas to be surveyed; and by what date is the report to be presented?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The areas to be surveyed are areas selected by the joint committee to which my hon. Friend refers and, though no date can be fixed, it is hoped the report of the survey will be presented in the near future.

  ASYLUM OFFICERS (SUPERANNUATION).
  Mr. RAMSBOTHAMasked the Minister of Health if he can now state what action he intends to take in consequence of the actuarial investigation into the superannuation of asylum officers?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a previous question put on 10th March by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Grundy), of which I am sending him a copy. Pending the receipt and consideration of the Government Actuary's report, I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject.
  Commander SOUTHBY: Is it not a fact that a settlement is long overdue, and that common justice demands that the right hon. Gentleman should expedite a settlement?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: As I have explained in the House more than once, the inquiry involved a considerable amount of time. The matter is now in the hands of the Government Actuary, and there will be no unnecessary delay.
  Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is now nearly two years since I first questioned him on this matter; I have repeatedly questioned him since, and can nothing be expected to be done in the course of the two years?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: As I have already informed the House, the report will be in the hands of Members in the next few weeks.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    BREAD.
    Mr. JAMES HALLasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the bread now sold in London is inferior in quality to that sold as first-quality bread prior to the War: and whether he is pre pared to set up an inquiry into the practices of the baking trade in the preparation of bread for sale with a view to inroducing legislation to compel bakers to mark bread as being of either first or second quality?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I am not aware of the inferiority to which my hon. Friend refers, and as at present advised, I do not see any necessity for such an inquiry as is suggested.
    Mr. HALL: Does not the Minister think that as bread is the staple food of the poorest people, steps should be taken to consider the possibility?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of opinion.
    Mr. MATTERSasked the Minister of Health whether any investigation has been made by his Department into the use of chemical substances, known as improvers, in the treatment of flour used for bread-making?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Yes, Sir. The addition of certain so-called "improvers" to flour was discussed in a report made to the Local Government Board in 1911. More recently the whole question of the treatment of flour with chemical substances was the subject of an inquiry by a Departmental Committee which reported to my Department in 1927.
    Mr. MATTERS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since 1927 several improvers have been put on the market, and that there is expert opinion which suggests that they are absolutely destructive of the nutritive value of the bread?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: If my hon. Friend will give me evidence of that, I will ro-consider the whole question.

    SEWAGE SCHEME, BELPER.
    Mr. LEESasked the Minister of Health the reasons for the delay in sanctioning the raising of a loan by the Belper Urban District Council for the proposed sewerage scheme for their district?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to my answer to his question of 5th March. The receipt of the revised plans and estimates from the local authority is still awaited, and until these are received it is not possible to take any action in the matter.
    Mr. LEES: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at a meeting of the council on 29th April, complaint was made that on 8th July last they applied for a grant and have heard nothing further about it beyond a bare acknowledgment of a receipt of the letter? Am I to understand that they have to submit a revised plan and estimates before the question of a grant can be considered?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I think that was the point of a letter I wrote earlier, to which they have not yet taken the trouble to reply.

  WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  Mr. TINKERasked the Minister of Health if he will make known what is the position of the 5,000 widows whose cases have been held up owing to some dispute in the existing Act; and will he say if they will be required to send in fresh

  555
  applications when the amended Act which passed its Third Reading on 30th April is placed on the Statute Book?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: Action on these pension claims is being suspended until the difficulty is removed by legislation. The reply to the second part of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. TINKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman send some intimation to these people that the claims are likely to be recognised, so as to relieve their anxiety?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I think every Member of the House who has raised that point with me has had a reply to that effect, and if I can do anything further I will be very glad to do so.
  Mr. EVERARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell these widows that the Labour party said that all widows in need were to be given a
  pension?

  CENSUS.
  Sir K. WOODasked the Minister of Health whether he can make a general statement as to the taking of the recent Census; if the same has been successfully carried out; whether the work of the enumerators has been satisfactory and the departure from the normal system of recruitment justified; what has been the number of withdrawals and defaults of enumerators before and during the actual course of the operations; whether any previous undertaking was given by such individuals before their appointment was made; and what was the amount and method of their remuneration?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The Census enumeration has now been completely carried out; but with regard to the matters referred to in the earlier part of the question I shall not be in a position for some considerable time to add to the statement thereon contained in my reply of the 30th ultimo to the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Millar). With regard to the latter portion of the question, enumerators become subject on appointment to statutory obligations and are required to sign an affirmation that they are aware of the provisions of the Act and Regulations in this respect and
  556
  undertake to observe them. The scale of payment for Census enumerators consists of a fixed fee of £2, together with a population fee at the rate of 3s. per hundred persons enumerated after the first hundred, a further allowance being made in rural areas in respect of the extra time involved in travelling.
  Sir K. WOOD: Is it true that a large number of enumerators withdrew without notice during the Census or before it was taken?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: No, it is not true that a large number did. As I said last week in the House, 2,000 did before the time and at the time—they are only 5 per cent.—but the number who failed us at the moment was a very, very small fraction indeed.
  Sir K. WOOD: Is it not a fact that in certain districts all the forms have not yet been returned or made available?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: No. I have already said, in the first part of my answer, that the returns are now all complete.
  Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many hours' work these enumerators had to do?
  Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the first preliminary report may be expected?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: In a few weeks.
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Minister of Health whether he has any statement to make to the House with regard to the 2,000 enumerators who defaulted in the middle of their work in connection with the Census; whether the terms and conditions of their employment were explained to them beforehand; and what action is being taken in the matter?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: Full information as to the terms and conditions of service were available to enumerators before finally accepting appointment. The cases of those who made default of their Census duties will be individually considered as soon as full information is available. But I should inform the hon. Member that the figure mentioned by him apparently relates to the number referred to in my reply of the 30th

  557
  ultimo to the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Millar) of withdrawals during the few weeks preceding the Census as well as of defaults during the actual course of the operations, and that the latter represent a very small proportion of that total.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that any persons found to have defaulted or to have withdrawn will not receive unemployment benefit?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: That I could not say without notice.

  DERATING (EXCHEQUER PAYMENTS).
  Sir HERBERT SAMUELasked the Minister of Health what is the amount paid to local authorities from the Exchequer each year as a consequence of the passing of the Derating Act; and the total paid up to date?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The annual amount of the new consolidated grants payable to local authorities in England and Wales from 1st April, 1930, under the Local Government Act, 1929, is estimated at £45,550,000 and includes a sum at present estimated at £22,423,000 in respect of loss of rate income caused by derating. The amount of the grants paid to local authorities from 1st April, 1930, to date is £49,450,000. The transitory grants paid to authorities in respect of loss of rate income caused by derating for the year 1929–30 under the Agricultural Rates Act, 1929, and Section 112 of the Local Government Act, 1929, amount to £13,100,000.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In view of the criticism that large sums are paid to firms who do not need them, is any revision of the law contemplated?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: That is a question of which, I think, the hon. Member might give me notice.
  Sir K. WOOD: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman himself stated several times in this House—
  HON. MEMBERS: Order!
  Major McKENZIE WOOD: May I ask whether those figures include Scotland?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: No, they are for England and Wales.

  NATIONAL PARKS COMMITTEE.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Health what action the Government propose to take on the report of the National Parks Committee?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The report is under consideration, and it is not possible to make any statement at the present time.
  Mr. MANDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that residents of South Staffordshire who are in the habit of visiting Cannock Chase are anxiously awaiting the decision of the Government on this matter?

  NATIONAL INCOME.
  Mr. DAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the most recent figures that he has of the approximate amount of national income for the years 1929 and 1930?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I regret that this is not available.

  AGRICULTURE.

    SUGAR DUTY (REBATES).
    Sir H. SAMUELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total diminution of revenue suffered by the Exchequer, up to the beginning of the present financial year, in consequence of the rebate of taxation allowed to beet sugar grown in the United Kingdom; and what is the estimated amount for this year?
    Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: The approximate diminution of revenue in consequence of the preferential reduction in the rate of duty in favour of homegrown sugar totalled £7,039,000 for the whole period from 1915 up to 31st March, 1931, and the estimated diminution for the present financial year is £1,700,000. This does not include a period from 1922 to 1924 when home-grown sugar was altogether exempted from duty.
    Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the

    559
    amount of revenue actually received by the Chancellor of the Exchequer from the taxation of home-grown sugar?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise out of the answer.

    LAND DRAINAGE SCHEMES (STAFF).
    Mr. WELLSasked the Minister of Agriculture the number of additional staff employed by his Department and the number of additional staff employed by local authorities to carry out schemes under the Land Drainage Act?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): The number of additional staff employed by the Ministry consequent on the passing of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, is six. I have no information as to any additional staff which may have been engaged by local authorities, but as regards catchment boards those which have so far been constituted under the Act have each appointed, or are in the process of appointing a clerk and an engineer, in some cases on a part-time basis. It will be understood, however, that the catchment boards so far constituted have only been in office for a short time.
    Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: Will these new appointments, most of which are those of surveyors, be temporary or permanent?
    Dr. ADDISON: I shall require notice of that question.

    DANISH BACON (CANADIAN EMBARGO).
    Mr. HURDasked the Minister of Agriculture the result of the inquiries he undertook to make as to the pathological or other reasons for the Canadian embargo on Danish bacon?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am not in a position to give any further information.
    Mr. HURD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether inquiries have been made or are being made?
    Dr. ADDISON: Yes, Sir.

    ALLOTMENTS.
    Mr. EDEasked the Minister of Agriculture what decision he has arrived at with regard to the application from the town council of Richmond, Surrey, for his consent, under Section 8 of the
    560
    Allotments Act, 1925, to the appropriation for building purposes of certain land purchased by the council for allotments and known as the Manor Road allotments?
    Dr. ADDISON: After careful consideration of all the circumstances, I decided not to consent to the council's application.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Minister of Agriculture how many applications for allotments under his special scheme for the unemployed have been received in Newcastle-on-Tyne; and how many have been granted?
    Dr. ADDISON: I have ascertained that the town council of Newcastle-on-Tyne have received 73 applications for allotments, but that none have so far been granted, owing to the difficulty in obtaining suitable land. I am glad to say, however, that the Central Allotments Committee has been the means of supplying seeds at reduced prices to 219 unemployed persons who already had allotments.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that steps are taken to provide the facilities which are necessary to meet these requirements?
    Dr. ADDISON: I cannot say without notice.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS.
  Major WOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the hardship caused by the regulation that limits a loan granted by the Public Works Loan Board to half the value of National Savings Certificates purchased within the area of the local authority which applies for the loan; and, seeing that the regulation acts as a discrimination against the smaller local authorities, whether he will consider the advisability of its withdrawal?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The hon. and gallant Member seems to be under a misapprehension. Only a very small part of the loans made by the Public Works Loan Board are made with reference to the sale of savings certificates. The general regulations are so favourable to the smaller authorities that 80 per

  561
  cent. of the total loans are made to authorities with a rateable value of under £200,000 a year.
  Major WOOD: Is it not the case that this provision is imposed in the case of many loans, and will the hon. Gentleman say what is the reason for it?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: There are loans which are granted under general rules, on the one hand, and under special rules relating to savings certificates on the other hand, and if the hon. and gallant Member will take the opportunity of consulting me at some time I think I can explain the point to him.
  Major WOOD: I am quite familiar with the conditions. What I am asking is what is the reason for this provision and at whose instance it was laid down?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The hon. and gallant Member must be under a misapprehension. If he will take the opportunity of consulting me, I think I shall be able to satisfy him that he really does not quite understand the position.

  SILVER.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can make a statement as to the proposal to hold an international conference for the purpose of stabilisng silver; and whether this proposal has been considered by His Majesty's Government with a view to taking the initiative in the calling of such a conference?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers) on 17th February last.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the Secretary to the Treasury reply to the last part of my question?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My answer covers that, and my right hon. Friend point out that he thought the initiative rested with another Government and that he would look further into the position if action were taken.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has the matter been considered?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That was considered.

  WHEAT CONFERENCE.
  Mr. de ROTHSCHILDasked the Minister of Agriculture which of the delegations to the preparatory wheat conference at Rome introduced the question of import organisations?
  Dr. ADDISON: The question of imports organisations as such was not discussed by the conference prior to the submission to the Committee on Production and Trade by its chairman of the draft resolution referred to in my reply to a question on this subject put by the hon. Member on 27th April last. It may be presumed that this draft resolution was the result of a speech made on the previous day by one of the delegates of Czechoslovakia in which he urged the importance of developing co-operative organisations in each country.
  Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: Why did not the British delegate bring before this conference the subject of import boards?
  Dr. ADDISON: If someone else brought up the question it was hardly necessary for him to do so.
  Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: Does that mean that the Government are giving up the policy of import boards?
  Dr. ADDISON: That has no relation whatever to this matter.
  Mr. BROCKWAY: When this question was raised at the conference did the British delegate support it?
  Dr. ADDISON: I should require notice of that question.
  Mr. MACLEANasked the Minister of Agriculture how many representatives of the Government will act as delegates to the wheat conference at Canada House, London, on 18th May; and the names of the delegates?
  Dr. ADDISON: The conference to which my hon. Friend refers is confined to wheat-exporting countries and, consequently, the question of a delegation from this country does not arise.
  Mr. MACLEAN: As this is merely an adjournment of the conference from Rome, and the Government was represented there, may we take it that Great Britain is not going to be represented at this particular conference?
  Dr. ADDISON: This is a matter which arises out of the Rome conference. It is a conference of wheat-exporting countries, and of course this country is not a wheat-exporting country.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Will the British Government be represented at the conference to he held this month at Canada House?
  Dr. ADDISON: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question on the Order Paper.
  Mr. MACLEAN: It is the question on the Paper.
  Dr. ADDISON: I have already answered that we are sending no delegates to this meeting, because we are not a wheat-exporting country.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that wheat-exporting countries were represented at Rome, and that this is merely an adjourned part of that conference?
  Dr. ADDISON: No, my hon. Friend has been misinformed. Many countries were represented at Rome, including our own, which were wheat-importing countries, but this is a special conference asked for by the wheat-exporting countries.

  POST OFFICE.

    TELEPHONE SERVICE.
    Sir JOSEPH LAMBasked the Postmaster-General the number of rural telephone exchanges; how many of them are automatic exchanges; and how many are exchanges with less than 50 subscribers?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Attlee): The figures at 31st March last were 3,361, 379, and 2538, respectively.
    Sir J. LAMBasked the Postmaster-General the number of telephones per head of the population in Jersey and Guernsey, respectively?
    Mr. ATTLEE: On the basis of the population given by the census of 1921, the numbers are 0.074 and 0.109, respectively.

    SORTERS AND POSTMEN (WAGES AND PENSIONS).
    Sir J. LAMBasked the Postmaster-General the average rate of wages of sorters and postmen in London and the provinces, respectively?
    Mr. ATTLEE: The average rates of pay of male sorters and postmen in London are 82s. 1d. and 62s. a week, respectively. There is no grade of male sorters in the provinces; but the average rates of pay of male sorting clerks and telegraphists, the corresponding provincial grade, and of provincial postmen are 71s. and 54s. 7d. a week, respectively.
    Viscount LYMINGTONasked the Postmaster-General the maximum rate of pensions for sorters and postmen in London and the provinces, respectively?
    Mr. ATTLEE: The maximum pension for a London sorter would be £123 a year, and for a member of the corresponding provincial class of sorting clerks and telegraphists, £114 a year. The corresponding figures for postmen would be £90 a year and £82 a year, respectively. In addition to the pension, substantial lump sums would be paid on retirement in each case.

    CROWN OFFICE, MOSSLEY, LANCASHIRE.
    Mr. HERBERT GIBSONasked the Postmaster-General whether he has yet come to a decision to erect a Crown post office in Mossley, Lancashire?
    Mr. ATTLEE: It is my intention to provide a Crown office if suitable premises can be provided at a reasonable cost.
    Mr. GIBSON: Thank you very much.

  MUNITIONS (EXPORTS TO RUSSIA).
  Sir N. G RATTAN-DOYLEasked the President of the Board of Trade what permits have recently been granted for the export of arms or munitions of war to Soviet Russia, stating in what parts of this country such arms or munitions were manufactured?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): Since the beginning of this year, three licences have been issued, authorising the exportation to Soviet Russia of spare parts for tanks of a total value of about

  565
  £2,000, together with a small quantity of ammunition for use with armoured vehicles. I have no information as to the place of manufacture of the material.
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information, direct or indirect, as to the secret manufacture of munitions on the North-East Coast for Soviet Russia?
  Mr. GRAHAM: No; that is really not a matter for my Department, which, as I have previously explained to the House, merely deals with the export of these things.
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say which Department is responsible?
  Captain CROOKSHANK: Are these exports bought for cash, or on credit?
  Mr. GRAHAM: I could not reply on that point; it is a matter of arrangement with the individual firms who make these exports.
  Captain CROOKSHANK: They are not sold under the Export Credits Scheme?

  LEAD ROYALTY FEES, WEARDALE.
  Mr. LAWTHERasked the hon. Member of Central Leeds, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, what is the amount of royalty fees charged on lead mined in Weardale, County Durham, on their estates?
  Mr. DENMAN (Second Church Estates Commissioner): The rate of royalty is a matter of contract between the Commissioners, as owners of the mineral, and their lessees, as the workers thereof; and the Commissioners would not feel at liberty to disclose the terms of a contract affecting not only themselves.
  Mr. LAWTHER: Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that it is a matter of public importance that the amount received should be known?
  Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Is my hon. Friend aware that in some instances the Ecclesiastical Commissioners charge 6d. per ton royalty, as against 4d. charged
  566
  by the Comimssioners of Woods and Forests, in the same seam of coal?
  Mr. MARLEY: If the other parties to the contract agree to the publication of the figures asked for, will the Ecclesiastical Comissioners reconsider their decision and allow publication?
  Mr. DENMAN: I will consider that point when it arises; at present I cannot add to my answer.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: May I ask the Prime Minister what the business will be for next week?
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): Monday: Supply (6th Allotted Day), Committee. The Vote for the Department of Overseas Trade will be taken.
Tuesday: Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill, Committee (6th Allotted Day).
Wednesday: Supply (7th Allotted Day), Committee. The India Office Vote will be put down.
Thursday: Supply (8th Allotted Day), Committee. Air Estimates, Vote 10.
Friday: Second Reading of the Post Office and Telegraph (Money) Bill and of the Pharmacy and Poisons Bill.
On any day, should time permit, other Orders may be taken.
Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: With regard to the Air Estimates, may I ask if this Vote is put down in order to discuss the airship policy of the Government; and will the Government be able to make a statement on the findings of the inquiry into the loss of the R101?
The PRIME MINISTER: The Vote has been put down in order to enable the Committee to discuss airship policy.
Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the Government be able to announce the policy?
Ordered,
"That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[The Prime Minister.]

BILL REPORTED.

  GREY SEALS (PROTECTION) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 146.]

NORTH KILLINGHOLME (ADMIRALTY PIER) BILL.
Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the North Killingholme (Admiralty Pier) Bill with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Mr. James Gardner to act as Chairman of Standing Committee C (in respect of the Consumers' Council Bill).
Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Guildford Gas and Cranleigh Electricity Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the preservation and for restricting the user of certain squares, gardens, and enclosures in the administrative county of London; and for other purposes." [London Squares Preservation Bill [Lords].]

LONDON SQUARES PRESERVATION BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C.: Colonel Clifton Brown, Captain Eden and Sir Philip Pilditch; and had appointed in substitution: Colonel Broadbent, Mr. Skelton and Captain Todd.

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following 30 Members to Standing Committee C. (in respect of the Consumers' Council Bill) Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte, Mr. Alexander, Sir John Sandeman Allen, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Cocks, Major Colfox, Captain Crookshank, Mr. Culverwell, Viscount Elmley, Mr. Charles Gibson, Mr. Herbert Gibson, Mr. Gould, Major Harvey, Mr. Hoffman, Mr. John, Miss Lee, Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, Mr. Longden, Mr. Mander, Mrs. Manning, Major Nathan, Mr. Ramsbotham, Colonel Ruggles-Brise, Mr. Shield, Mr. W. R. Smith, The Solicitor-General, Mr. Tinker, Major Tryon and Earl Winterton.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (PUBLIC OFFICES (SITES) AMENDMENT BILL (JOINT COMMITTEE)).
Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had nominated the following four Members to serve on the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons on the Public Offices (Sites) Amendment Bill: Colonel Gretton, Mr. Reid, Mr. Strauss, and Mr. Vaughan.
Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  REPORT [27TH APRIL].
  Fifth Resolution further considered:

  PAYMENT OF INCOME TAX BY INSTALMENTS.
  "That Sub-section (2) of Section one hundred and fifty-seven of the Income Tax Act, 1918, as amended by Section twenty-one of the Finance Act, 1927, shall be further amended so as to provide that income tax, instead of being paid in two equal instalments, shall, in the cases to which the said Sub-section applies, be paid in two instalments of which the first shall be an amount equal to three-quarters of the tax and the second shall be" an amount equal to one-quarter of the tax."
  Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in line 5, to leave out the word "three-quarters," and to insert instead thereof the word "seven-twelfths."
  It will be remembered that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when making his Budget statement, in dealing with the necessity for changing the tax in this respect, said that the reason for the change was that it was necessary to find some money to tide over the temporary difficulties of the low yield which were largely caused by the failure of the Income Tax to come up to his expectations. In other words, the Income Tax is not giving the yield that he would like, which shows that the incomes of the country are falling, and he then proceeds to shove on an additional amount of taxation in the hope that he will make up his losses in that way. This Amendment would take away two-thirds of his proposed increase, and the loss to the Exchequer would be rather more than £6,500,000. It may be argued by the Chancellor, or whoever replies on his behalf, that we should have put down an Amendment to take away the whole amount, but I am sure that, if that argument is used against us, we shall not hesitate to withdraw the Amendment if the Chancellor will withdraw the whole of this Resolution; and I do not know that, if I went back to some of the speeches that have been made on this subject, I should not be able to find very excellent reasons why that should be done.
  590
  The class of taxpapers who are being mainly hit by this increase—and it is an increase as far as this financial year is concerned—are, in the first place, those who come under Schedule B. Under Schedule B come what little profits there may be to the occupiers of land. In other words, the payers under this Schedule will be the farming community. This Government and previous Governments have expended a vast quantity of money in endeavouring to improve forestry as well as agriculture. I should like to ask whether it is worth, on the one hand, taking the taxpayers' money to increase forestry or the agricultural industry and, on the other hand, directly they show any sign of success to taking it away? I believe this also applies to woodlands, and when you are trying to preserve by every means in your power rural amenities, when you have the burden on these amenities increasing, it is a pity to deal with them in this way.
  When you come to the next Schedule, that is, having to pay Income Tax three-quarters in January and a quarter in July, you come up against a very large number of people who are engaged in professions, such as doctors and others. I see a look on the face of an hon. Member opposite which seems to say that these professional people do not mind. I am not quite sure whether certain professional people come under D or E, but it is conceivable that a very large number of trade union officials may find themselves caught. Before hon. Members go too far in sneering at my request to the Government to give this concession, I would ask them to remember that it is very essential in their party that the good will of these people should be retained by the Government. I would also ask the Government to remember that, if they do this, and by any chance things should mature by about Christmas time, they might be in a very dangerous position. This Schedule even affects the Easter offerings of the clergy, and that is a point that is worth consideration. It shows how far-reaching the effect of these proposals is.
  The real reason why I object most to Schedule D is that a very considerable proportion of the smaller trading companies will have to pay their Income Tax earlier. It is not particularly easy for them to carry on their trade or industry,

  591
  and a very good case can be made out for them merely from the point of view of doing nothing to handicap them. Can the Financial Secretary explain precisely all the reasons why C is left out? The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave some reasons, and, if there are reasons for D and B, surely we should have full reasons for C. Further, I would ask the President of the Board of Trade if it is intended to make any difference in the deduction of Income Tax at the source? I know what the Chancellor has said, but I think we should have full information.
  4.0 p.m.
  As to the people who come in under Schedule E, here you get the ordinary public official and a certain number of people scattered over the country who are in the employment of local authorities. These people, during the last year, in many cases, have had very much heavier burdens placed on their shoulders in the matter of work. They have been very valuable public servants to almost every branch of the community. Many of them are comparatively well off, but there are a good many struggling with families whose feelings towards the Chancellor next Christmas will not be particularly pleasant. I do not think it is quite right to deal with any of these questions in the way they are being dealt with. The most-particular reason why we ought not to give the Government this new increase of taxation is because the whole of it is borrowing and anticipating on next year's revenue. You are not merely borrowing on next year's revenue, but the year after you are borrowing again. The Government will refer me to Income Tax Acts of bygone days when the concession was made of dividing the tax, as it got heavier, between the two periods, 50 per cent. in January and 50 per cent. in July. You are not taking away the whole of the 50 per cent. in July, but I have some reason for thinking that some Members of the Treasury must have had great difficulty in bringing their mind to accept this position. Does the Financial Secretary remember saying four years ago:
  "When that proposal was first put forward, I was inclined to be sympathetic towards it, but after thinking it over I have come to the conclusion that it would cause a great deal of hardship and inconvenience."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1927; col. 1443, Vol. 206.]
  592
  That hardship and inconvenience was to the landlord and to a very much larger class of taxpayers who have greater powers of borrowing than the people with whom you are dealing now. I have no doubt that there will be Members of the Government who will say, as the Chancellor said in his Budget speech, that whatever else happens no Member of the Conservative party can possibly throw stones at the present time. That was the whole gist of the Chancellor's speech. Whatever may be the position of some Members of my party, and although I probably am as loyal a supporter of the Conservative party as any man in this House and do as much for it as most people, in some ways, on that occasion I was the first person to raise my voice against the proposal, and I did so also on the Report stage of the Bill. That entitles me to maintain now that I am justified in asking the Chancellor to give the fullest possible consideration to the matter. My main reason for opposing the proposal was then, and is now, that I consider it thoroughly bad finance. You never "catch up" in your financial year. I see that a certain number of Members of the Liberal party are interested in this question. I hope they will be loyal to the feelings of their leader on this particular occasion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) made the statement:
  "This is an increase of 50 per cent. upon the Income Tax paid by a certain class of people for one year."
  That is putting it in words far better than any I can use. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
  "Pay 50 per cent. more for one year, and next year you will only pay what you did before, and the recording angel will keep the account."
  No one could misjudge that statement for a minute. When one comes to the recording angel it is inevitable that one thinks of the right hon. Member the Leader of the Liberal party. Further he said:
  "That is really not fair … It is really rather too like a trick."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th April, 1927; col. 408, Vol. 205.]
  But that was a case of dealing not with small people only, but with the dukes—it was unfair to the dukes and big landowning people of the country. But here

  593
  we have a very much stronger case. We have a case which affects many of the smallest and most struggling firms, many officials, the very large class of persons who have fixed incomes. Surely there are no Liberals who can possibly support a Resolution of this sort, which savours in many ways of a not very creditable trick on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Let me give a further quotation which is of great value. It is from the present Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. I notice the tendency in the Chancellor's speech the other day to try to make out that this was really not a very great sacrifice. But the right hon. Gentleman said on 12th May, 1927, in referring to a proposal almost similar to this:
  "Those who pay under Schedule A will pay three times in 12 months instead of twice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1927; col. 237, Vol. 205.]
  Here is one more quotation from a speech by the present Chancellor on 28th April, 1927:
  "The objection to this proposal is not so much on principle as upon the nature of injustice that may be involved."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th April, 1927: col. 1125, Vol. 205.]
  That was on an occasion when he was attacking the Government of the day. To-day the right hon. Gentleman is in office and in power, and he is responsible for these transactions. He is deliberately singling out these small people in every class of the community, except certain wage-earners and those who get their income from land or have their fax deducted at the source, and one or two other classes of people. He is taking the professional classes and dealing with them in a way which is grossly unfair. He is making them bear the burden today and is not spreading it fairly over the broadest backs. The average household invariably finds its financial position difficult just about Christmas time. It is a time when the bills come in, and when the head of the household is accustomed to pay a certain amount of Income Tax. This concession of half-yearly payments was given many years ago because of the height of Income Tax. When the tax was 1s. in the £ the full payment did not matter so much, but, as has been pointed out by many hon. Members, when you get an Income Tax of 4s. or 4s. 6d. in the £ the position
  594
  becomes very much more difficult for these people. I ask whether on the ground of common decency to these people, who do very much in the interests of the country, the Chancellor ought not to refrain now from placing an increasing burden on their backs. For these reasons I move the Amendment.
  Sir HUGH O'NEILL: I beg to second the Amendment.
  There is no part of the financial proposals of this year which has aroused wider interest amongst the community generally than this particular increase in Income Tax—because that is really what it amounts to. I suppose there has been no proposal in recent years which has given rise to more mathematical differences of opinion. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade is sufficient of a mathematician to be able to make this matter really clear to the House when he comes to reply. Are people going to pay more or are they not? He will probably tell us that they are not. But one point is absolutely and manifestly clear, and that is that in the financial year ending 31st March, 1932, the persons who come under these particular Schedules will have to pay, not 4s. 6d. in the £, but 5s. 7½d. That is beyond any question or doubt. In the following financial year, ending March, 1933, they will pay the same 4s. 6d. as they paid before. Therefore, there is no doubt whatever that this is a definite increase of taxation to the extent of 1s. 1½d. in this financial year upon a particular class of Income Tax payers.
  What is that class? As my hon. Friend has stated, it is largely a class of professional people whose incomes are not large, who will be very seriously handicapped and hit by this additional impost, coming as it will at a very inconvenient time. I know it is said, as an explanation and palliation of this proposal, that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer did the same thing two years ago. But when we examine it we find that he did not really do the same thing. At least what he did will not have anything like as bad an effect as this proposal. What the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) did was to anticipate the payments of tax by those who came under Schedule A, and everyone knows that on

  595
  the whole people who pay tax under that Schedule are far better able to afford the increase than will be the persons who will be hit by this particular proposal. Because Schedule A Income Tax payers were asked to pay extra in one financial year two years ago, I do not think that is any excuse for the particular proposal which the Government now put forward.
  There is one other point which deserves mention, and that is that the proposal will undoubtedly have some effect upon the trade of the country next Christmas. We all know that nothing probably is more inconvenient to the average person than having to meet In come Tax demands every year. This particular demand will come upon this class of people just at a time when otherwise they would probably be thinking of spending rather more. This year they will have to curtail their Christmas expenditure. I therefore think that the proposal will have some effect upon the trade of the country. From that point of view alone I should have thought that it was hardly worth doing. I have heard it said more than once, "Oh, but it does not really matter, because the taxpayer can borrow this extra money quite easily." Can he? Can the particular class to be affected by this extra imposition easily borrow the extra money? I doubt it very much. Some of them may be able to do so—some of the better circumstanced; but a great many will not be able to do so. It will be a real hardship to them, and one which they will find great difficulty in meeting.
  That is all that I propose to say about the details. The general principle, however, is of great importance—the principle that you are here quite definitely increasing the direct taxation of the country in the current financial year. That in itself is a very grave matter, in view of the trade depression and the general difficulties which lie before us. I wish it had been possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have met his Budget deficit in some other way than by a proposal to which there are so many grave objections.
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: The Chancellor of the Exchequer produced a scheme on Monday for the confiscation of
  596
  land, under the guise of taxation. Here he is imposing taxation under the pretence of the withdrawal of a privilege. I want to point out that this is not really the withdrawal of a privilege, but is fresh taxation. It is beyond controversy that money is to be extracted from the taxpayers as Income Tax that they will never be able to get back. That has gradually been brought home to the intelligence of all thinking people who have studied this proposal. My concern is not for the State, whose resources are supposed to be diminishing, but rather on behalf of the individual who will never get his money back. The only thing that could possibly give the taxpayer any relief would be, either the end of the world or the coming of the Red revolution, and as neither the end of the world nor the millennium of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) is likely, I do not think the taxpayer can look forward to any relief.
  The privilege that the Chancellor intends to withdraw was given as a measure of War relief, when the particular class to whom we are referring, the professional class, had to bear an immensely heavy burden under War taxes, a far greater burden than it had ever borne before, and it was thought only right and proper to give this relief for one year, in order that that class might accustom itself and its finances to the War-time situation. It was acknowledged to be a relief of taxation for that one year, and in the same way it must be acknowledged that this present proposal is an increase of taxation for next year. I object to this tax. It is a furtive tax. It is a specious tax. It is a dishonest tax. It has not got the honesty of explaining that it is a tax. It goes by the name of "withdrawal of relief." It has not the courage to show its ugly face. It comes before us in disguise, in order to conceal its ugly and wicked face, so that it should not arouse too much indignation in the country. That is what it amounts to. It is one of the most unpleasant features of the Budget that the Chancellor has introduced in order to maintain his incorruptibility. With this and the Land Values Tax he comes forward and puts an immensely heavily increased taxation on one class.
  I hate to take myself as an example, but I would like to point out how unwise

  597
  this taxation is. Take myself, as the case of a man who tries to earn his living, and is also a rentier. I would not object so much if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had attacked my position as a rentier, but he has attacked my position as a wage-earner.
  Mr. THORNE: A wage-earner?
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Certainly! What is the result? The result is that if my wages, or the fees or royalties that I earn, are to be taxed, I am thrown back on my position as a rentier. The Chancellor will be putting this increase of 1s. in the £ on my taxation. It would have been far fairer to raise taxation by a much smaller amount all round. This will fall upon the professional people, who really are, in spite of what the hon. Gentleman says, trying to earn their living, as well as being Members of Parliament.
  Mr. THORNE: What are you doing?
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Professional people have to maintain a certain standard of life. They have to face all the vicissitudes of life, without having their occupation or their health insured, unlike many of the supporters of hon. Members opposite, and unlike many of those hon. Members themselves. The illness of a child may come upon them at a very inconvenient moment, and may demand capital expenditure and expenditure from their revenue. Christmas is a most unfortunate time to be extracting this tax. Christmas used to be a season of festivity and of gladness. I think it is becoming a universally dreaded time. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer's demand is allowed to go through without Amendment, the best thing he could do would be to alter the date of Christmas to July.
  This is a fundamental change of policy in our English revenue system. In the old days, or I should say, up to now, collectors have always been under the local commissioners. It is proposed that they should be put under the Revenue Authorities. Why? It is to put the screw on. Under the old system, the local collector would be aware of the conditions of local people, and he might know that upon this trader or that professional man the burden of an immediate tax might be fatal. He will go
  598
  to the commissioners and say: "Look here, I think this tradesman had better be allowed a few weeks' or a few months' grace." If the commissioners were convinced, there the matter would end. Now the unfortunate professional man will have the tax-collector on his doorstep, inspired with the idea that the taxpayer has the money in his waistcoat pocket and ought to hand it over to the revenue officer whenever it is demanded. The beneficent rule of the local commissioners, who know so well what they are able to do through the Fax collectors, and whose efforts have brought relief and benefit to the taxpaying community, would be brought to an end.
  It is said that there is a precedent, in what was done by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). It is fair to draw a distinction between the depredations of the right hon. Member for Epping and those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The real distinction is between ownership of land and the practice of a profession, and that is the distinction between the two classes of people. The landowner has his land, and the worst that can happen to him is that his tenants will be unable to pay. It is true that the landowner has very heavy burdens laid upon him, which it is now the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer grievously to increase. The professional man, and especially the trader, may not only have no money at all, but he may be faced with a very heavy liability. He may not only be unable to pay his taxes, but he may have a very heavy loss on the year. There is machinery, under the Income Tax, for a man to recover taxes which were overpaid or which had been extracted prematurely by the revenue, but that is a process which is always vigorously resisted by the Revenue authorities. It is notoriously difficult to recover money which is overpaid. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider this matter. Is it fair to put the tax—and it is a tax of over £1,000,000—on one particular class? It is only honourable and just to consider all the circumstances. I was told by one member of my own profession, one who is not in a high position and who is not yet known, and who is just able to keep his head above water, that he is putting £l a week into a sinking fund, in order

  599
  that he and his wife shall not have a miserable and cheerless Christmas this year.
  Mr. BENSON: I should not have risen in this Debate but for the rather fantastic speech of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks). He said that this £10,000,000 advancement of Income Tax was increased taxation of 1s. in the £. It is nothing of the kind. It is merely an advance of payment to the Exchequer of £10,000,000 by six months. It asks the taxpayer to find that £10,000,000 six months earlier. It is a perfectly simple sum. The cost to the taxpayer is in loss of interest for six months on £10,000,000. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may smile. If there is anything graver than that, let them explain it. At 5 per cent. the interest on £10,000,000 for six months is £250,000. That sum does not represent an increased burden of 1s. in the £ on the Income Tax. If hon. Gentlemen opposite will work it out, they will find that it represents an increased burden of one-third of a penny in the £. That is the burden that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is throwing upon the Income Tax payers. They will have to pay the money, and it is merely a question of whether they shall pay the money in July or in January. The money must be paid, and would be normally paid on the later date. I repeat that the only burden is the loss of interest on £10,000,000, which works out at one-third of a penny. Possibly, there is also some slight inconvenience in finding the money earlier. So far as the inconvenience goes, it is always inconvenient to find money for the tax collector. We realise that, as much as hon. Gentlemen opposite. In present-day circumstances, surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to be congratulated, when he has cut down the burden to a mere one-third of a penny increase in the Income Tax, and is only asking for a little inconvenience.
  Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I did not intend to intervene in the Debate, but for the fantastic speech of the hon. Member. I was very much surprised at his argument, and I wondered whether the President of the Board of Trade or his chief will agree with his argument. What will become of the whole Income Tax of the land on that basis, I do not
  600
  know. Suppose a Cabinet Minister now getting £5,000 a year, is dismissed from his post next November and he comes back to this House at £400 next year. He will have to pay on the previous year's assessment, that is to say, on £5,000. The hon. Gentleman suggests that the difference between £5,000 a year and £400 a year, for Income Tax purposes, is merely the difference between the interest. I can only describe that as a fantastic argument, as he described the argument of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks).
  I do not think this point has been raised in this Debate. It is a very serious one, and is not to be dismissed in this manner. The Income Tax proposal will put a very heavy burden on many hard-hit working people next January, and will not be in terms of one-third of a penny at all, but too often 25 per cent. more than they would otherwise have had to pay. The three years' average for the whole of our industry having been abolished may possibly now be an advantage to big industrialists, because they can get an accommodation at the banks. The three years' average was by no means a good thing for the professional man or the small trader. For a long time, indeed, his income has been on a descending scale. His £1,000 salary has gone down to £750 and next year down to £600, but each year he has had to pay on the previous year's salary, although he does not get the income. He is paying on the income which he no longer gets. Supposing last year he got a £600 salary, after descending from £1,000. Although his income is only £600, he will have to find, in January next year, 25 per cent. more in Income Tax.
  It is a very serious proposition. Looking through the totals of Schedules B, D and E, I notice that £10,000,000 does not account for a quarter of the sum total of B, D and E which was received last year, showing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury know that they are going to have a great deal more difficulty and hardship in collecting the money than the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested in his speech. The Minister opposite shakes his head I shall be very glad to have the figures. I do not believe that he will get the money as easily as he thinks he will. He is hitting persons very hard by this new

  601
  exercise of ingenuity which makes the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) appear to be not quite as clever as he appeared to be two years ago. There is a great deal of force in the argument behind the Amendment, and it ought not to be brushed aside in a fantastic way by suggesting that the burden will not be felt greatly by the hardworking body of professional men and traders, and, in some cases, small agriculturists.
  Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) twitted my hon. Friend behind about the loss of a few pence in interest. It is a pity that he did not go a little further—I thought I detected that he was being stopped by the hon. Member sitting beside him by his coat tail being pulled—for he might have told us that the true effect of this new legislation was that the taxpayer would actually receive a gift of money from the Treasury. In the days when the Schedule A proposal was brought before the Committee, and when it was suggested that there should be a rearrangement of the payment of taxes such as is now proposed, we studiously avoided touching a re-arrangement in that form. I wish to make it perfectly clear to hon. Gentlemen opposite who may attempt to use the Schedule A example as an excuse for their using this present change in taxation, that we studiously avoided it because we knew that it would injuriously affect people who were least able to bear the tax. My right hon. Friend said—and I feel that it is true—that many of the smaller Income Tax payers will be compelled to borrow. Why should the Government compel those people to borrow? What a shame it is that these small men, shopkeepers and clerks and professional men with small incomes, should be driven to do the very thing they detest—driven to borrow money to pay taxes. They are able to pay their way month after month, but to put them in a position of having to borrow in order to pay the tax is a scandal.
  I heard a right hon. Member the other day talk about the immense amount of thought that had been given to finding out the square root of minus 1. I suspect that as much thought and trouble has been devoted to finding out what this
  602
  rearrangement of the two-fourths and three-fourths of this Income Tax will entail. You may twist or turn it about as you like, but you cannot get away from the fact that the man who lives until next July will pay two-fourths; and in the following January he will pay three-fourths:—five-fourths of the tax in six months. Under this arrangement Income Tax payers will be paying five-fourths between the 1st July, 1931, and the 1st January, 1932. You cannot get away from that fact. Why introduce this fresh confusion to harass and tease the taxpayers.
  There are only 2,250,000 Income Tax payers, of whom 1,750,000 have assessable incomes of under £10 a week. You are going to tease and harass 1,750,000 of the lees well-to-do of our fellow citizens who are troubled enough already with their own businesses and problems. I believe that the mental worry of the Income Tax annoys them more than the paying of it. The Income Tax is full of pitfalls. The law has made such complications for them to work out that, apart from personal allowances, there are now 100 different kinds of relief which they can claim. So much have alleviations and allowances and uncertainties worried taxpayers that during the past year the appeals to special commissioners have jumped up to 7,500, as against. 1,800 before the War. I do not think that the House realises that while there are 1,750,000 taxpayers whose assessed incomes are not over £10 a week no fewer than 1,500,000 last year claimed return of money and got back £50,000,000 sterling from the Revenue. Think of all the further trouble to which you are putting those people and how you will worry them on top of the injustices of exacting £50,000,000 too much. Now you are going to tease them further and even compel them to borrow by making them pay three-fourths of the Income Tax on the 1st January, 1932. It will be a very oppressive collection to work.
  This is how I see the position. Three-fourths of the tax must be paid in January, 1932, and one-fourth in July, 1932. The January, 1932, Income Tax collection is within the current financial year which ends in April, 1932. Consequently reducing the two-fourths balance payable in July, 1932, to one-fourth will not injure the revenue total in this current

  603
  year. I suppose that the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "After me the deluge. I do not mind what happens." But what about the resultant shortage of one-fourth when you get to July, 1932, and have only two-fourths due for collection in January, 1933. What is he going to do about the one-fourth shortage during the year April, 1932–33, in which, in July, 1932, two-fourths ought to be secured? Unless expenditure falls very materially or there is an increase in revenue one of two things must happen. During the April, 1932–33, period either taxation must be increased to make up all or part of the £10,000,000 taken in 1931–32, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have before him the necessity to take, not three-fourths, but the whole of the Income Tax in one instalment after Christmas, 1932, and leave no fourths to collect in July, 1933. In that case—I have not the slightest doubt that it will happen—the Income Tax payer will be in a very disastrous position if he should have to hear this Government's Budget proposals in April, 1933. The Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot have his cake and eat it. He will have to impose increased taxation or take four-fourths on the 1st January, 1933, in order to make up what he has lost—unless revenue increases or expenditure is reduced so as to fill up the gap—if he is in office.
  Why is it necessary to take this £10,000,000 in this manner? It could very easily be got in a very wholesome and proper way, if hon. Gentlemen opposite would face unpleasant facts and seek to amend the admitted abuses of the unemployment dole. There is more than £10,000,000 to be obtained there, if they will only face the position and stop the squandering of money on unforeseen and legal abuses of the dole system. No doubt those who are penalised by this taxation will note the penalty due to the failure of this Government to amend the law in order to stop abuses under the Unemployment Acts. For that reason we ought to do all we can to vote down this proposal and try to defend the smaller taxpayers who will be subjected to penalty quite undeservedly.
  Captain CROOKSHANK: I was very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) quoted the case of the £5,000 a year man because there is a great hardship there as well as a hardship for the smaller man. The £5,000 a year man was an obvious instance because £5,000 a year represents a Cabinet Minister's salary. I have worked out figures in relation to what will be the difference in the Income Tax in respect of a £5,000 a year salary. I do not want to be invidious. I do not mind whether I choose a Cabinet Minister, married, with one child, or a Cabinet Minister who is single, though I am not certain that there are any of the latter category. I will take the case of the Cabinet Minister with £5,000 a year, married, with one child. At present he pays his Income Tax with the regularity which we should expect from those in high office; promptly to the day—£486 13s. 9d. twice a year. I see that many of them shake their heads. Does that mean that they are not paying it. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is taxed at the source!"] The income of a Cabinet Minister may be taxed at the source, but the income of other individuals is not taxed at the source.
  A salary of £5,000 a year is not as much as the Attorney-General gets, so I cannot actually quote the case of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and perhaps it is just as well. As a matter of arithmetic and of fact Cabinet Ministers get £5,000 a year, and other people sometimes manage to achieve that sum by their professional earnings, and the case is, therefore, to that extent, on all fours. The liability under the old basis is £486 13s. 9d. It was paid last January. It is going to be paid this July. Next January comes along and the sum rises to £730 Os. 7d., and then it drops to £243 6s. l1d. In spite of what was said by the hon. Gentleman who spoke from the benches opposite, nothing can detract from the statement that the July and January payments, which come into the Income Tax year period, come to £1,216 14s. 4d., which is a great deal more than £973 7s. 6d., something like £243 more. You cannot get away from the fact that you get a block of 12 months. If you count July 1st, and then January 1st in that year you get a block of 12 months in which five-fourths

  605
  have been paid. It is a very large sum. Naturally the larger the income, the bigger the sum.
  What will happen when the income is less and the Income Tax has to be paid in the ensuing year will, in many cases, be catastrophic. That is a matter which requires really urgent discussion. If you take the six-monthly period going hack to 1928–1929, you have been paying regularly half, half, half, and then you come to this particular year when, instead of going along on your half, half, half, you suddenly go three-quarters and a quarter. There must be two adjacent six months when the change takes place and there is a payment of one-half and three-quarters. That makes five-fourths, and no amount of sophistry from the Government Benches will make any difference to the point of view of the man who has to pay. If it is not so, where will the £10,000,000 come from? That amount must come from somewhere.
  Major HILLS: It does not go back.
  Captain CROOKSHANK: It does not go back. It must come from somewhere, otherwise what is the point of the Resolution?
  Mr. PYBUS: You get it back when you are dead.
  Captain CROOKSHANK: One is fortunate if one gets anything back in these days. We are talking theoretically about what the Treasury expects will be a sum of £10,000,000. That means that someone has to be squeezed to pay for it, and that will be a section of the community who will find it most difficult to pay. The people who will have to pay this complicated extra sum are the very people who are supposed to be making profits out of husbandry and farming. The slogan of the Government during the election was: "Farming must be made to pay." That slogan has been changed to: "Farmers must be made to pay"; and that from a Government who have done nothing to make farming pay or to help farmers to be able to pay! It is a most iniquitous proposal. If we are to have this imposition, we suggest that the Amendment which we intend to propose later would give temporary alleviation. It is no good saying that this arrangement will not cost anybody anything. If that is so, it is a waste of time introducing it, putting it
  606
  into the Budget and saying that we are going to get £10,000,000 out of it.
  Mr. BUTLER: I wish to follow the argument with regard to the farming community and deal with the case from the point of view of the small agriculturist. This Budget attacks in every particular the farming interest. The farmer before he has to pay on his Schedule B profit an extra quarter will already have been paying an extra 2d. on his petrol. Then he will be faced in the future with an extra charge in respect of such sites on his land as may have a possible value under the land values taxation proposals. He will find that if he does make a profit he will be obliged to pay an extra quarter at a peculiarly difficult time in farming economics. That is grossly unfair to an industry which the Government have done nothing to help since they have been in power, despite the specific pledges, which they have not fulfilled. Therefore, we on this side of the House say that on this occasion the farming community under Schedule B should be allowed some concession.
  I will take two cases. One of a farm which is not likely to make a profit and the other of a farm which is fortunate enough to make a profit in the coming farming year. Take the case of the first farm, which will not make a profit, and which I am afraid is the case of so many farms in the arable areas, as can be seen from the returns to Queen Anne's Bounty in connection with tithe, owing to the incidence of depression in the arable areas. It is unlikely that there will be profits on the arable farms. On what basis had the £10,000,000 been calculated and how much it is expected to get from Schedule B from the profits from farms and farm development. I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to tell us what forecast has been made as to the sum that is expected from the farming community out of the £10,000,000. In the case of the farms which are not likely to make a profit, have the Government forecast that there will be sums accruing from farms of that kind? The idea that the sum of £10,000,000 will be raised is fictitious, and we are entitled to know what sum is likely to come from such a source.
  Let me take the case of a farm that has made a profit in the farming year,

  607
  perhaps from selling its sugar beet well or perhaps from having stock or sheep or something on which it has made a slight profit. That farm may be a small mixed farm. I know of one instance in England where on such a farm a profit was made last year. There may be other small profits that would come under Schedule B, with no drawbacks. In that case, the farmer will have to meet an extra quarter's payment on his Income Tax in January. He will, therefore, be obliged to realise on his farm produce at a peculiarly difficult moment. Supposing he wishes to realise on the cereal part of his farm and sells some of his cereals. He will be obliged to do that at a certain moment and to thresh out early in January or even earlier in order to be able to pay the extra quarter of Income Tax.
  Farming economics are not exactly the same as industrial economics. The only hope that the farmer has is to hold up his product until such time as the market is suitable. If, however, he is obliged to thresh out earlier and to realise on some of his farming produce in January instead of waiting for the proper moment when he could get a better price, he will get a much worse price for his produce. That will make it more difficult for him to pay the requisite amount of Income Tax. Therefore, in the case of a farm which may be paying something under Schedule B, we find that this new provision in the Budget is an extra liability on the farmer. It will mean that those farmers who are making a profit will have to sell at an unpropitious moment for the sale of agricultural produce and that will reduce the possibility of their success in the future. In respect of those farms that are making a profit, this burden will mean that they will be reduced to the same state as those farms that are making no profit.
  Some deliciously capitalistic arguments were put forward by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson), a well-known authority on economics on the Government side. He informed us that this money was really only as much as the interest would be if the people who have to pay on these Schedules were able to keep the extra money instead of paying it earlier in Income Tax. He
  608
  told us that they could adopt the capitalistic advice which, fortunately, is very little known in ordinary family England, and that is to borrow. From whom are they to borrow? I refer to the farming community in particular. I suppose he will tell us that they can borrow from the banks. Who is to profit? The only people who will profit are the banks. Is this a deliberate attempt on the part of the Government to bolster up the banks and to give them a particular advantage at the present time? Is this the occasion to encourage farmers, who are already in so many cases so deeply in debt, to borrow further from the banks in order to meet liabilities in the shape of Income Tax, if they are capable of doing so?
  If there are any farmers who have managed in the present depression to carry on without assistance from the banks or from merchants, they will have to resort to what in farming economics is always deplorable, and that is, they will have to borrow. I have always understood that one of the objects of legislation nowadays was to stop farmers from becoming too deeply indebted. The present position of indebtedness is like one of our thick-grown hedges. It is so thick and has so many roots and ramifications that it will be hard to see that there will be a future for farming unless something desperate is done to cut it. This new provision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will only further muddle that thick-set hedge and keep light, air and sun from the fields which ought to produce our crops. I hope that the Financial Secretary will say how much he expects to get from farming profits under Schedule B, and having given us that calculation, I hope he will give us some small allowance in the farming districts to meet what will be a crushing burden on such farms as will probably show a small profit.
  Mr. BROAD: I have listened very carefully to the Debate and I have noticed that hon. Members opposite are very much concerned about the difficulties that will be experienced by those who will have to borrow to pay their Income Tax. The whole assumption seems to be that the Income Tax payers who will have to pay an additional quarter of their Income Tax earlier, will be paying their Income Tax in advance of the receipt of their income. That is not the case.

  609
  The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) gave the illustration of a Minister who is receiving £5,000 this year and who may receive only £400 next year. He said that although he would be receiving only £400, he would have to pay Income Tax on £5,000. Surely, wisdom would dictate to the Minister as a sensible person that in the year in which he received his income he should make reserves for meeting the Income Tax when called upon. If he does not do so, he is very unwise. All that he will lose by paying the extra Income Tax some months earlier, will be the amount of interest that the bank might allow him for that period.
  I am in the unfortunate position that I do not pay Income Tax. My income is so small and my liabilities so great that I do not pay Income Tax. If I received from some source an income this year of £1,000, I should not pay Income Tax on that this year. It would be next year that I should pay the Income Tax on this year's income. Therefore, I should be given credit by the State for an Income Tax due from me on this year's income but which I had not to pay until next year. It is absurd for the hon. Member for Leith to talk about the poor fellow who is cut down from £5,000 to £400 a year and has to pay on the larger income in the year when he is receiving the smaller income. In the following year he will pay Income Tax on the £400, so that no wrong is being done, as the hon. Member seems to suggest. It is the duty of those who pay Income Tax to save sufficient from their income in the year in which they receive the income in order to pay their Income Tax. If a person this year receives £50,000 and next year receives nothing, it is no use his coming and saying: "This year I have no income. Therefore it is unfair to ask me to pay Income Tax on last year's income." A great deal of confusion has been attempted to be raised in regard to what is a very small disability to the individual who, instead of having his money in the bank, has to pay it a little earlier to the Income Tax collector than he would have done otherwise.
  Major LLEWELLIN: I cannot quite follow the arguments of the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Broad). This provision affects everybody who pays Income
  610
  Tax, however low his income may be. According to the hon. Member, everyone has a bank account on which he merely has to draw and the whole thing is all right. To the man who has a large credit at his bank and has merely to pay out a little more in January and a little less in July, this alteration means nothing.
  Mr. THORNE: Hear, hear!
  5.0 p.m.
  Major LLEWELLIN: If the hon. Member who interrupts me is in that position, I congratulate him. This alteration affects every professional man, every trader, and every farmer, and there are very large numbers of them who will find it very difficult to put their hands upon the money for the extra instalment next January. January is one of the worst times of the year to ask for this extra sum. Some hon. Members have already talked about Christmastide and the extra expenses that come on the father of a family —I am not one myself—at that period of the year. It is quite clear also that at that time of the year on the small man comes a quarter's rent, usually an insurance premium. There comes almost certainly, if the man is of such a standing that he owns a car, the whole of his car tax for the year. There comes also if, as is probable, he so arranges his insurance that he gets his insurance certificate under the new Road Traffic Act contemporaneously with his licence, the whole of the car insurance premium. Now he has this extra burden upon the top of all those other burdens which are payable on 1st January every year. It seems to me that this is the very worst time of the year upon which to place this extra burden on this ordinary small professional man who has worked hard for his profit, and who is suddenly called upon at that time of the year to pay a very much larger part in Income Tax.
  The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) seems to make out that all he would lose would be the amount of interest that he otherwise might get on this sum for six months, but the great difficulty is that the man probably has not the money. He has got to go and borrow from somebody, and that is very difficult. The man who is charged for Schedule A must have some land or some security upon which the bank would

  611
  ordinarily lend him money, but the small trader or the professional man very likely has no means of getting this accommodation from his bank, and he will have to sell part of his household goods in order to pay this extra instalment if the Treasury are going to insist that everybody pays it promptly on 1st January. If they are not going to insist on that, then the whole of the matter under discussion falls to the ground, and the whole point of ante-dating this payment falls with it.
  I object to this proposal, first of all on the ground that this burden will be placed on professional men, traders and farmers up and down the country at the very worst time of the year. But I object to it on another ground as well, because this, of course, is merely financial juggling. It is obvious that under this for the next financial year there will only be a quarter to come in July and unless, some ante-dating is made again for the other payment, you will get only your half on 1st January, and so, naturally, only three-quarters of the tax will be obtained in the next financial year. [Interruption.] I am obliged to the hon. Member. I was wrong in that, and the hon. Member reminds me that there will still be the extra three-quarters on the next 1st January, so that there will be a full year's tax. But this means that a man will have paid actually one quarter of the tax in advance for the whole of the year, not only for the six months for which the hon. Member for Chesterfield calculated interest. The man will be paying six months earlier for life; for the whole of his life this interest will be ante-dated at this period.
  I object to this proposal also, because it is quite clear that if you get this financial manoeuvring with a tax like this Chancellors of the Exchequers will be tempted to do this. They will be tempted, for instance, if they are contemplating an election at the beginning of July of one year to say, "No, we will now put hack the whole quarter until the next January," so that there will be no Income Tax demand just on the eve of a General Election. If you start wangling with the changing of the dates in this manner, you may get that sort of thing done, and that would be the worst way of dealing with the nation's finances. I am sorry that
  612
  the Chancellor of the Exchequer has decided, in order to balance his Budget, to come down on this small class of hardworking people in this country for an extra instalment this year. He gets from that one particular class which he has chosen, this extra £10,000,000, and I hope the date will be altered before we finish this discussion this afternoon. I should like to see this idea dropped altogether, because I think it will fall very hardly on all who belong to this class.
  Sir ALFRED LAW: While I was not at all surprised at the method which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has adopted by the payment of this instalment of three-quarters of the tax, yet I am very much surprised at his taking Schedules E, D and B. It has been quite properly pointed out that his predecessor adopted the same system in regard to Schedule A, but that only makes this proposal all the more daring and inconsistent. I suggest that the payment of Schedule E falls harder on those particular taxpayers, because it may be, and it very likely will be, very hard for them to pay three-quarters of the year's Income Tax on 1st January, even if in the following July they are only called upon to pay one-quarter. This proposal means that five-fourths are paid in one year. That is true in the sense that next July there will be the ordinary half of the taxes to pay and the following January there will be three-quarters. Therefore, there will be five-fourths in one year and in the following year matters will right themselves. What I complain about is that the right hon. Gentleman should have chosen Schedules E and B. Those are two Schedules on which people will find it most difficult to pay. This is not a part of the Budget which should take up a very large amount of controversy, but the proposal of my hon. Friend to adopt seven-twelfths instead of three-quarters is a perfectly fair proposal. It meets the Chancellor of the Exchequer half-way. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to adopt this method. It will make it a little easier for payments on Schedule E if a man pays on seven-twelfths instead of three-quarters. Therefore, I hope that an alteration will be made in this part of the Budget.
  Mr. GRAY: I do not propose to detain the House for more than a very few

  613
  minutes in dealing with what is really an exceedingly simple, although apparently a very complicated, subject. It seems most remarkable that there should be any difference of opinion on the simple method of accounting as to whether under this proposal the taxpayer is really being asked to pay an extra Income Tax of 1s. l½d. in the £, or whether he is merely being asked to make payment six months sooner, in which case it is not an increase of 1s. 1½d. in the £, but only whatever extra cost may arise from having to find the money sooner. It is extraordinary that there should be any dispute as to the facts of the case. I think the fallacy arises from Members of the Committee attempting to adjust their own budgets on the same principle as that on which the nation balances its Budget. The nation makes its Budget purely on a cash basis. It takes no account of money owing to it or of money which it owes. It simply considers how much money it has collected and how much money it has paid. I am sure that no private individual balances his budget on that principle. Whenever he strikes a balance sheet, he takes into consideration the amount of money he owes, whether it be to the tradespeople whose accounts he has delayed to pay—a matter of extreme difficulty to a great many tradespeople in this country and one reason why they are rather slow sometimes in paying their Income Tax—or to other people.
  But if we take into account the money we owe the position is clear. We are assessed for payment of Income Tax on the amount of the previous year, but this is an assessment of Income Tax for the current year and it is payable in two instalments, the first half falling due on 1st January and the second half in July. The position of the ordinary taxpayer on March 31st is that he has paid half the tax that he owes by that date and he still owes another half which he pays in July. Under the principle now to be adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the end of March he will have paid three-quarters of his Income Tax for the year, and he will owe only one quarter, and if he takes into account the fact that the money he owes and whatever may happen to him, whether he dies soon or late, he will have to adjust this, or his executors will be liable to the Revenue for the
  614
  amount of the tax on his income up to the date of his death, and his position will simply be that the amount he owes must be taken into account, if you are to get a clear idea of what you are doing under this suggestion.
  The biggest objection to this proposal is plainly that it is using up one of the unseen reserves which we rather criticised the late Chancellor of the Exchequer for doing in the period of the last Government. During the period of that Government the late Chancellor of the Exchequer used up every available unseen reserve. The present Chancellor of the Exchquer is doing exactly the same thing in this Budget as regards £30,000,000 of the amount he has to collect. He has admitted that he did it with considerable reluctance, that he did it purely in the great national emergency in which we are placed. We have heard a great deal about the hardship of the individual taxpayer under these conditions. My hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) did point out what may be a very considerable hardship, and I think it would be worth while for the President of the Board of Trade, or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the case of the man whose income has fallen very considerably and who may really be incommoded by the fact that he has to pay on 1st January an instalment of three-quarters.
  While the House has been sitting I have been interested in working out two illustrations. Take an unmarried man with £500 a year, with no liability and who does not insure his life. That is the man who has the maximum amount of Income Tax to pay on £500 a year. I find that actually he is liable to a tax of £31 12s. He will be called upon to pay an increased amount in January of £7 8s. Instead of having to pay £15 16s., he will pay £23 4s. I do not think a man with £500 a year and no commitments at all ought to find any great difficulty in finding an extra £7 at any period of the year. If he has a wife and family and has insured his life, the amount, of course, will be much less. Take a man with £1,200 a year. The amount he will have to pay will be £43 5s., or £10 16s. 3d. extra. I suggest that a man with £1,200 a year, that is £100 a month, should be able to find £10 16s. 3d. extra at any

  615
  period of the year without any great hardship, and I cannot be induced to work up any great sympathy for the man with over £1,200 a year who says that he cannot find his Income Tax in any proportion or at any time which may be most convenient to the State to collect.
  The object of this Budget is to meet an emergency. What is troubling many of us is not so much the present year as what is going to happen in the following year when we shall not have these extra sources of revenue available. We shall have to meet the next Budget under the same conditions as we have to meet the present Budget. Without any improvement in trade and industry, indeed, without any further depreciation in trade and industry, without any increase in expenditure, we shall have to meet a situation in which we shall have to find £30,000,000 of new taxation in order to balance the Budget. I am not sounding any alarmist note as to the ability of the country to meet its obligations, but I suggest that the question we are now discussing is a perfectly trivial matter as compared with the greater financial issues we shall have to face next year. If hon. Members will examine individual cases they will find that they are forced to this conclusion, either that the amount involved is only a few pounds or that you are dealing with a man whose income is so large that he should have sufficient financial resources to meet the requests of the State in this emergency.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): One of the disadvantages, if it is a disadvantage, of our financial Debates is that we cannot reply on every occasion to the various subjects which are raised in the programme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. During the introductory speeches on the Budget reference was made to this subject, and I will endeavour to reply as briefly and as clearly as I can to the points which hon. Members have brought forward. It is worth while recalling a little of the history of this matter, because it will throw a light on many of the questions which have been asked, and will be, I think, up to a point a fairly good reply. In olden times, up to about 1860, an arrangement was in force for the payment of Income Tax on a quarterly basis, and in that year Mr. Gladstone,
  616
  in making certain changes, brought five-fourths within the financial year. Later on, in 1869, Income Tax payment was placed on the basis which remained in force right up to 1915, that is, the collection in one sum on 1st January.
  Sir BASIL PETO: Does not the right hon. Gentleman mean 1918?
  Mr. GRAHAM: No, 1915. In that year, under Schedules B, D and E, certain changes were made by which one-half of the tax was payable in January and one-half in July, and then in the Finance Act, 1918, Schedule A was brought into this two instalment plan. It is a comparatively accurate picture to say that we then completed, by Section 157 of the Income Tax Act of 1918, where there is a reference to Schedules A, B, D and E, and put the collection on the basis of one-half of the tax in January and another half in the July following. That remained the position until the change made by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) in 1927, when he accelerated the collection of Schedule A payments, that is, the Property Tax, taking the whole amount in one payment in January of each year. Therefore, the change we are making now is really an amendment on comprehensive lines of that Section of the Act of 1918. Payments under Schedules B, D and E are now to be brought forward, not to the extent they were in 1927 in regard to Schedule A, but to the extent of three-quarters in January of each year leaving one-quarter to be paid in the subsequent July. That is within narrow limits an accurate summary of the present situation. The House will observe that it is a partial withdrawal of a concession which has been in force as regards some of these classes of taxpayer from 1915 and as regards all of them from 1918, except as modified by the Act of 1927.
  May I turn to the suggestions which have been made this afternoon with regard to the hardship that is involved by this proposal. It is perfectly fair to remind the House that we are in a year of exceptional financial strain, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not disguise the fact that he does not like devices of this kind. It is plain that a step taken in this emergency to secure a contribution of £10,000,000 towards a

  617
  deficit of £37,500,000, is part of the programme designed to make the minimum change in existing industrial conditions. That is really what is before the House, and if the Amendment is carried it will mean that instead of having that three-quarters in January we shall only get seven-twelfths, which will reduce the receipts of the Exchequer to £3,500,000, leaving us with a deficit of £6,500,000 under this head. So delicately is the Budget balanced that no proposition of that kind can be tolerated for a single moment, and I do not imagine that hon. Members opposite believe that the Amendment should be carried. It is put down, I have no doubt, largely for the purpose of discussing the position.
  Let me turn to some considerations which, I think, can be put in reply. After all, if in a time of financial emergency devices of this kind are necessary we must put them in proper proportion. No one disputes the fact that it affects a considerable section of taxpayers in the country, but the preceding Chancellor of the Exchequer concentrated upon Schedule A, and he estimated for a gain in the accelerated payment" of £15,000,000. In point of fact, the yield was nearly £17,000,000, and over a rather wider field my right hon. Friend, in circumstances which have become much more serious than they were in 1927, is only asking for £10,000,000. That is a perfectly fair point to put in this connection.
  The right hon. Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain), at an earlier stage in our Debates, argued that a special class had been singled out whose voting strength was small, and he seemed to argue that a special injustice was involved as far as they were concerned. I indicated earlier in our proceedings that that argument must be applied to this extent, that a considerable number of people were affected by the change in 1927, and more particularly the large numbers of small owner occupiers of property, whose numbers have been greatly increased by the work of building societies and similar organisations within recent years. But another part of the reply is undoubtedly this, that hon. Members make far too much of the standard rate and forget that the thing which really counts with the great majority of our taxpayers is the effective rate, that is, the rate they pay after the allowances have been accorded
  618
  owing to changes made in recent years. Looking back over the report of the Royal Commission in 1919 I am bound to say that considerable advantages have been given. Taking the year 1915 and comparing it with the present day, a single man in the enjoyment of £500 a year will now pay less Income Tax than he was paying then, and a married man in receipt of £800 a year also pays less. A married man with three children with an income of £1,200 or £1,400 will be in a better position as regards the aggregate amount of the tax he has to pay than he was in 1915.
  Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: Was the rate 4s. 6d. in the £ then?
  Mr. GRAHAM: The rate was 3s. in the £. The change as regards the property tax in 1918 was due to the fact that it had risen to 6s. in the £ owing to war circumstances, which meant that special burdens were involved. It can hardly be suggested that there has been any real hardship in withdrawing part of the concession which was given in 1915, only half of it, and leaving one-fourth to be paid in July, especially when it is fair to suggest that the alternative might have been an increase in the standard rate.
  One or two other questions have been raised. I have been asked what part of this additional burden would fall upon the cultivator of land. It is very difficult to disentangle in these different Schedules the precise amounts which are raised, but I believe that on a very round figure—and the House will understand that it is only a round figure—the extra charge might be about £250,000. In that connection, however, the House will remember, more especially when we are dealing with a charge that nothing has been done for agriculture, that very considerable concessions in tasxation have been given to the agricultural community Agricultural land is to-day, with the exception of dwelling-houses, derated and for a long period the farmer has been assessed for Income Tax on the basis of the annual value of his farm, and if he considers that he is placed at a disadvantage by that basis he can exercise the option to be assessed on the actual profit which he has earned. In any case taking the great bulk of agricultural holdings, more particularly the smaller

  619
  holdings, I am advised that only very small additional sums will have to be found under this head as a result of the accelerated collection. Very much the same thing is true of a great number of the other taxpayers affected, and if that be admitted I cannot conceive that even as regards those who have to find the larger sums any real case of hardship can be proved.
  I dislike a great deal the argument—I do not charge hon. Members particularly with having used it this afternoon—that there is some hardship in having to meet obvious obligations to the State. In far too much of our public argument at the present time the State is always placed in the position of the creditor to be paid last. Why should that be? This is a tax which is due after the income has been earned, and as a matter of fact it was for a long period payable on 1st January of each year. Only part of the concession which has since been made in that respect is now being withdrawn, and there is no mathematical or other reason for saying that the amount of the burden on these people is increased because three quarters is collected within the present financial year and one quarter is passed on to July, and, assuming that there is no change, three quarters in the January of the succeeding year. Of course it is beyond all dispute that an additional sum will be collected from those taxpayers within this financial year, but that is the whole object of the change. The change is being made in order to secure an additional £10,000,000 by the partial withdrawal of a concession within this financial year. That sum the State is definitely and openly taking.
  Sir H. O'NEILL: And the taxpayer will not get it back next year.
  Mr. GRAHAM: I think that much of the confusion which exists in reference to this subject arises from the fact that hon. Members have allowed their arguments to trickle over from one financial year into another. The financial arrangements of the succeeding year are dependent on the Budget of that year. I am dealing with the situation at the present time. For all the reasons which I have mentioned and many other reasons which could be advanced I think that this change is justified under exist-
  620
  ing conditions. It is certainly preferable to any increase in the standard rate, and accordingly I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.
  Major ELLIOT: I am sure that we must all have felt the greatest sympathy with the President of the Board of Trade in the obviously lame and impotent explanation which he has found it necessary to give to the House, and all the more so because he was forced to throw over several of his own supporters—some of whom by speech, and some of whom by applause were attempting to justify the flimsy thesis that the only burden which the Income Tax payer was called upon to bear as a result of this proposal was the 1d. in the £ which he would have to pay to his bank for accommodation. I intended to deal with the fantastic speech of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) but his argument was blown into smithereens by the President of the Board of Trade and it is unnecessary to descant upon it, save to say this: Upon looking up that valuable publication "Dod's Parliamentary Companion," I find that the hon. Member was for many years treasurer of the Independent Labour Party. [HON. MEMBERS: "His father!"] I am corrected and I apologise to the hon. Member for my mistake. I can only say that he must have inherited a certain airiness of manner in regard to financial matters, and, no doubt, he has not yet learned everything in his present position or it would have been unnecessary for the President of the Board of Trade to rise to-day to explain away the speech of a Parliamentary Private Secretary, which is always a very trying thing for a Minister to have to do.
  The President of the Board of Trade made an appeal ad misericordiam. He said that this Budget was so delicately balanced that a puff of wind would blow it over to one side or the other. He said we were asking him to do something which he would have liked to do and for which there was a great deal to be said but with the finances of this Budget to deal with, with the very exceptional strain of an unusual emergency, who could be so unkind as to comment adversely upon the work of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer? But what of the phrases

  621
  with which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was in Opposition, greeted the arguments and calculations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) when that right hon. Gentleman came before the House in a year of real financial strain, with a real emergency to deal with, with great Estimates suddenly thrust upon him? Were they such phrases as the President of the Board of Trade has just indicated? Not at all. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer and indeed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) went into the woods and the forests to find metaphors with which to denounce the "reckless and profligate" proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping. "Jugglery and deceit" were the words of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer on that occasion. They are harsh words and I do not apply them to the President of the Board of Trade. Jugglery perhaps, but deceit, no! Just a little juggling, tossing up three balls and watching them come down again, rubbing the hands twice, and saying "now you see it and now you do not "—and the deficit for the year is gone!
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, who is an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt, in 1927, with many of the points which have been raised to-day by the President of the Board of Trade. We say that this is a tax upon a special class. "Not at all," says the President of the Board of Trade. "Yes it is," says the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs and "it is no use the Chancellor of the Exchequer dismissing it as a good joke." That was in 1927, hut how does that compare with the words of the hon. Member for Mid Bedford (Mr. Milner Gray) in his contribution of this afternoon. That this is an increase of 50 per cent. upon the Income Tax, paid by a certain class of people for one year—that was the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs speaking with the full authority and responsibility of a former Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said:
  "It is an extra tax imposed for one year upon one class and a very much heavier one, and hon. Members will find that when they go to their constituents."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th April, 1927; col. 408, Vol. 205.]
  622
  I should have much pleasure in going to the constituents of the hon. Member for Mid Bedford and pointing out that this imposition, which the right hon. Gentleman regarded as a serious imposition, is, to the hon. Member, a mere triviality, involving a sum which anybody should reasonably be expected to find on any occasion. I come to the next point of accusation against the defence raised by the President of the Board of Trade. He says that this is merely an amendment of the law and, as far as I can make out, it is only an instalment. He said that the whole of the concession had been withdrawn in the case of Schedule A, but that it had not all been withdrawn in the cases of Schedules B, D and E—not yet. But if the rake's progress of the present Government is to continue, it is clear that the arguments which the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have devoted to justifying the exaction of this extra quarter, can also be devoted to justifying the exaction of another quarter. That is a very serious argument for the Income Tax payers who come under those three Schedules. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer when examining the proposals of the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1927, when he got away from the flowers of his oratory such as the references to "jugglery and deceit" and to "profligacy and bankruptcy," and to "the friend of the rich man," and the ordinary small change of his conversation, of which we do not complain, and when he came down to the serious discussion of the matter, said in reference to the 1927 proposal:
  "From the manner in which that has been received in some quarters one would imagine that this sum was a windfall; that it was something that was coming from nowhere and that nobody was going to provide it. But it comes to this: that those who pay Income Tax under Schedule A will pay three times in 12 months instead of twice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1927; col. 237, Vol. 205.]
  Does not the same remark apply precisely to the proposal which is now made by the Government? What are the sums which the hon. Member for Mid Bedford suggests are trivial sums, which any man ought to have at his bank? Those sums are very considerable. Incidentally, I am glad to see the hon. Member for Chesterfield in his place. May I apologise

  623
  to him for having attributed to him an office which I understand was held by his father?
  Mr. BENSON: I have been treasurer.
  Major ELLIOT: Then I have been misled. I made a reference to the hon. Member in connection with the finances of the Independent Labour party and I stood corrected by those who have a much closer personal acquaintance with the hon. Member than I have. Now it appears that I was right, and I can now understand the contempt with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer dismisses his ancient colleagues of the Independent Labour party, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer understands arithmetic and errors in arithmetic rouse him to a fury, to which most of us can only be roused by some of the grosser sins of debauchery or profligacy. Our argument is that this is not merely a forestalment of Income Tax, but that in this present year a heavy additional burden is being laid on the taxpayer. One cannot get away from that argument by saying that it is merely a temporary burden. It is a permanent burden. It is an increase in this year not remitted in any subsequent year.
  What are the sums involved? Take a man with £700 a year. Whereas, under the old budgetary arrangements, he would be liable for £17 18s. in January and £17 18s. in July, or a total of £35 16s., this year, he will be liable to £17 18s. in July and £26 17s. in January, or a total of £44 15s. That is the case of a married man with one child. The single man who was previously liable for two instalments of £34 16s. each, or a total of £69 12s., is now liable to pay £87 within the current year, which is a very considerable increase. It is not enough to say, as the hon. Member for Mid Bedford said in an airy way, that such a man has no responsibilities. Many of such people are maintaining households, maintaining parents or other relations, and in many cases professional people with comparatively small incomes, have very serious burdens laid upon them in that way. In such cases, the whole weight will fall upon the actual wage earner or income maker—the supporter of the home—whoever he or she may be.
  624
  Often the liability runs through a considerable number of people. The man with £1,200 a year paid £129 12s. 6d. under the old basis as a married man with one child, and he will pay £152 this year. A single man who had to pay £163 17s. 6d. in the year, will now have to pay £204 4s. 3d. These are very considerable increases. The man with £2,500 a year who was finding £435 17s. 6d., including his Surtax liability, has now to find £538 l1s. 10d. As a single person, he previously found £469 12s. 6d., and he now has to find £580 15s. 7d. It is clear from these figures that, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said when he comes to curse and not to bless proposals like this, this money does not fall from the heavens; it has to be found by someone and from somewhere. The man with £5,000 a year found before, if he were a married man with one child, £1,279 4s. 6d. in a year, and he has now to find £1,522.
  Who are the people who have to find this money? It is not enough to say that no sympathy is needed for a man with £5,000 a year or for a man with £2,500 a year or with £1,200 a year. These men are more particularly professional and other business men, many of whom are really living upon their own capital, which is their health and strength. Take the people with whose works we are acquainted; take the great correspondents of the newspapers and the pressmen of Fleet Street; take the Gallery men of this very House. They earn considerable sums, but they cannot go on for ever earning these sums. Take the case of the doctor going on year after year with a large panel practice. He earns a considerable sum, but he cannot go on for ever. It was for this reason that these proposals were not put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping. They will fall hardly upon the professional man; on the barrister with a heavy practice, working long hours night and day and very often breaking down under it; on the panel doctor working long hours, and looking forward at a relatively early date to get away from the heavy hammer of an industrial practice, and to get into some country practice where his income will be very much less, but where his health may be expected to last out a good deal longer.

  625
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for East Rhondda (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan) will be acquainted with the strain under which a panel doctor in a colliery district works, and under which he often breaks down. He will be the first to agree that these men earn every penny they get. When the question of a reduction in panel fees was being considered, the representatives of the workers very often stood out against any proposal for a reduction. I leave out altogether the small shopkeeper and trader or even the farmer. The President of the Board of Trade said it is not very much for the farmer, and that it was only £250,000 a year. Last night the President of the Board of Trade vehemently attacked a proposal that would relieve farmers of £75,000, and said that it was too large a sum to contemplate. Now that £250,000 is to be taken from the farmers, it is a most reasonable and equitable proposal! The right hon. Gentleman piles Pelion on Ossa by suggesting that the farmer can pay £250,000. Leaving out of account altogether the shopkeepers and traders this tax will hit the typist—[Interruption.] There are many confidential stenographers earning £400 a year. It will hit the small clerk, the small business man, and the type of people whose bad debts are piling up, whose professional earnings are going down, and whose salaries are being reduced. These are the people who have been singled out for this impost—the rentier class against whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer has uttered so many denunciations.
  Lieut. - Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: Where would the hon. and gallant Gentleman find £10,000,000 while having regard for the working classes?
  Major ELLIOT: I could wriggle out of that like the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do, by saying that it rests with the Economy Committee to tell us how to do it. But I will not do that. The revenue which the Chancellor is throwing away on gloves, wrapping paper, cutlery and other things, and other revenue of the same kind, would balance the Budget without anything of this nature.
  Captain CAZALET: The sweet reasonableness of the President of the Board of Trade has on this occasion, as on many others, endeavoured to make us
  626
  believe that it ought to give us pleasure to do what is obviously a most unpleasant thing. It is only an extra dose of original sin in ourselves that does not make us pay our contributions to the Exchequer with positive joy. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Gray) gave the impression that it should be a real pleasure for us to pay the various contributions, and the extra severe contributions which the Government are proposing to take in the next 12 months from 1,500,000 people who are among the very hard-pressed members of the community. Yesterday we were discussing a Measure by which we are to have the pleasure of paying extra sums to the Exchequer in two years' time. We were told that it will restore the finances of municipalities and bring prosperity to the countryside. We are now discussing a means by which 1,500,000 people will contribute next year an additional quarter of their Income Tax. If we felt that the additional contributions which the Chancellor is always asking us to pay were to be spent in any constructive Measure, and would find productive work for a single unemployed person, perhaps it would lessen the bitterness with which we pay our contributions.
  An hon. Member opposite, who admitted that he did not pay Income Tax, seemed to think that the paying of Income Tax was a very simple affair. According to him, when people receive their salaries or dividends, they simply put on one side just that amount which the Exchequer will want in course of time. In fact, judging from him, these individuals ought to be almost unable to resist sending the money to the Exchequer as soon as they receive it. Of course, when the day comes to pay, there will be no difficulty at all; the money will be in the bank or in the cash box, carefully docketed, and will be sent with pleasure whenever the Exchequer asks for it. As we all well know, things do not happen like that. What happens is that when you receive your salary, you are very glad to get it to meet present current expenditure. Then other things happen; people fall ill, and perhaps some beloved relative, from whom you expect a useful present, does not come up to expectations. You go cheerily along, and suddenly you get a form and realise that you have to contribute to the expenses of the State by a certain date. You find that there is not

  627
  much in the cash box, and still less perhaps in the bank, and the question arise" whom you should pay, whether it should be the butcher, the baker, or the Exchequer. According to the President of the Board of Trade, we should regard all payments to the State as though it were a privilege to pay them.
  I am certain that the very large majority of these people will be unable to pay their contributions next January. It is all very well to say that £10 or £20 is not very much, but it depends on the state of your finances. There may be moments when it is difficult for anyone to find £5. Dividends, salaries and every other form of income are on the downward trend, and in nine cases out of 10 people will receive next year less than they have received this year. But the Government says, "You are going to receive less, and we are going to charge you a little more on the basis of last year." I am certain a large number of people will be unable to produce in January the sum that is required, and that the Chancellor will be disappointed with the result of this piece of financial jugglery. If the 1,500,000 people who are to pay this extra burden felt that the money would be properly used, they might make some extra attempt to pay it. Because we believe that it will be extravagantly thrown away and dissipated by an extravagant Government, we are particularly grieved that we have to bear this extra burden.
  6.0 p.m.
  Major DAVIES: When hon. Members on this side protest because increases of direct taxation are made, we are told that we are trying to bolster up the rentier class. On this occasion we are voicing the interests of a section of the community which is a much wider section than was appreciated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he brought in this proposition. We have listened to some fatherly advice from the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Broad), who seemed to think that whenever anyone received remuneration, from whatever source it came, he deliberately put by for that unfortunate and rainy day when the demands of the Exchequer came in.
  628
  I wish to emphasise that this demand will fall upon people at a particularly unfortunate time. Though people are taxed on the previous year's income, they actually pay the tax out of the income of the current year, and all those who are not so fortunate as to have so large a banking account that a few thousand pounds more or less in taxation is a matter of no moment, and who have to cut their coat according to the cloth, and, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is doing in this Budget, make no allowance for emergencies, will find their private and domestic arrangements upset. Any unforeseen sickness or any extra expense that crops up will upset their best-laid calculations. Not only are many people suffering from reduced incomes, but they are suffering great anxiety as to whether they can maintain the positions they already have. It is all very well to talk of making arrangements to pay, such as those suggested by the hon. Member for Edmonton, but if a man has not got a job he cannot put aside a portion of his income, and therefore this demand will hit a substantial portion of the community who find themselves in a particularly exposed position.
  The case of the farming community has already been touched upon, but I wish to draw attention to another aspect of it which has not yet been mentioned. The time of year when this extra impost will fall upon the farmer is a particularly unfortunate one. January is a month of outgoings and not of incomings. It is the leanest time of the year. It is the time when produce realises its lowest, and when the bills for seeds and fertilisers begin to come in. Mention has been made of Schedule B, but I would remind the President of the Board of Trade that in many instances the farmer pays the landlord's tax under Schedule A and does not recover that sum until the time comes for him to pay his rent. It is the farmer who will have to find the cash in January for what is an extra windfall from the point of view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though an additional burden on the farmer. Let it be granted that there is an emergency. Judging from the taunts from the benches opposite, hon. Members there would like us to suggest how the money

  629
  could be provided otherwise. It is not for us to make suggestions, nor would it be in order for us to—
  Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member is alluding to me, but I did not taunt anybody at all. I had heard some suggestions from the benches opposite as to how the need for raising the money in this way could be avoided, and I thought the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot), being so eloquent, might tell us definitely where the money could be found.
  Major DAVIES: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member misunderstood my use of the word "taunt." We have heard the observation, "What would you do?" Over a cigarette, sometime, I have thought that there might have been another way, disagreeable as it would be, of producing this money, but I do not want to develop that theme. However we juggle with the facts, as the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) said, this is an extra burden of direct taxation on a substantial portion of the community, and a portion which is particularly defenceless and finds it difficult to raise money. Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer is saying that this is only a sum of £10,000,000, spread over 40,000,000 people, it is a burden which will fall with more intensity than is realised upon small shopkeepers, people in clerical positions, farmers and the professional classes, people who obtain every penny of their income by hard work; it will not affect alone those who are described as "coupon cutters." I think this method of raising the wind on this occasion is a subterfuge, an unwise subterfuge, an unfair subterfuge and a mean subterfuge.
  Lord ERSKINE: I wish to make a few remarks on behalf of the 1,500,000 unfortunate people who come under this particular part of the Budget. They are a large class, and a class who are particularly hard hit nowadays. They are mainly the small people, and I am interested to note that though we are discussing a subject which very closely affects small people not a single Member of the Liberal party is present. I had thought that that party always claimed that it was the main support of the cause of the small men, and I feel that they
  630
  might have shown more interest in the Debate to-day.
  Lieut. - Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: They have a party meeting.
  Lord ERSKINE: I represent a seaside town. Seaside towns have experienced very hard times in the past few years, and last year was probably the worst that many of them have ever known. All the small people there who own shops are to be called upon to pay this extra imposition, and to pay it at a time which is a most unfortunate one from their point of view. They will be very hard hit. Exactly the same argument applies to the farming community. There are a great many smallholders and people who own their farms in the neighbourhood of Weston-super-Mare. They have been exceedingly hard hit, but they too will be called upon to pay an imposition which it will be very hard for them to meet. After the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in April of last year, and his striving after financial rectitude, I never thought he would ever descend to a proposal of this type. If during the last Parliament any of us had told him that one day he would be standing at that Box and submitting to the House such a proposition as this, he would have denied it with all his might. So far from laying this imposition on people able to bear it in the way that many people who pay Income Tax under Schedule A can bear it he has, as the right hon. Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) said, placed it upon the people who find it least easy to pay.
  The President of the Board of Trade seemed to believe that this tax could be easily paid by the people upon whom it is laid. He said it was only a little one, but, after all the £10,000,000 has to be found from somewhere. I was surprised to hear him say that de-rating had been such a good thing for the farming community. During the long Debates on that subject we were told by hon. Members opposite that if we de-rated land all that would happen would be that the money would go into the pockets of the landlords. To-day, apparently, the Government have changed their tune. Now that they are called upon to defend a proposal of this type the President of the Board of Trade says that de-rating was a good thing. Then

  631
  we have had a speech from the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Gray), who seems to think that people can always find any amount of money at any time. The hon. Member may be able to do so, but very few of us are capable of it. Many of his constituents who suffer under this impost will think he has a very odd idea of how to represent their interests.
  As I have said, the £10,000,000 has to come from somewhere, and in these hard times the people who have to find it will be involved in a good deal of hardship. I am sorry the President of the Board of Trade was unable to accept the Amendment we have put down. The arguments from the Government side against it were not convincing. We were met with the taunt, Where else would you find the money? The hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) gave a very good answer to that inquiry. When these Debates are read, and the people realise from whom the Government are taking the money this action on the part of the Government, like most of their other proceedings, will have a very detrimental effect upon their electoral prospects.
  Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: I should like to examine in detail the sources from which this advance of money will be taken. We have been told that it will be taken under Schedules D, E and B. Under Schedule D we are expecting to get this advance of Income Tax from the mining industry, from the transport industry, from profits on businesses, professions and so on. If we consider the position of the mining industry after the effects of the quota system it will be realised, surely, that they must have difficulties in raising this additional portion of Income Tax. The transport companies have to pay an increased duty of 2d. a gallon on petrol, which quite obviously will hit them very hard, yet they, too, will find a great deal of difficulty in paying the Income Tax earlier than usual. We have heard already of the difficulties of the occupiers of land, and another large class who are going to suffer are those who pay under Schedule E, including all salaried officials. The right hon. Gentleman told us in his speech just now that the Budget
  632
  was delicately balanced. If he looked at some of the budgets of the wage earners and people like permanent officials he would find that their budgets also are very delicately balanced at the present time. I think they balance very often on the wrong side.
  It is particularly hard to bring in this advance of the Income Tax at the present time. We have been told that this is purely an emergency measure. That may be so or it may not. The excuse which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) had for adopting the course taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the General Strike, and that was a real emergency. We are now dealing with an ordinary period. Certainly things are bad enough, but I do not think that this year is any more of an emergency than next year is likely to be. This is a very difficult time for all wage-earners, officials, and people with small salaries. It is extremely difficult for them, because they have been going through a very difficult period, and at the end of the year they have to pay various things, such as tailors' and doctors' bills, and insurance of motor cars. At this time of the year we have to pay our licence duties, and very often at the beginning of the year it is the custom to pay life insurance premiums and that sort of thing. Let us imagine one of the wage-earners balancing his budget for this year. Very often he is a person who does not read the newspapers and does not know what has happened in Parliament. Suddenly this wage-earner will find himself next year, not with a demand note for half his Income Tax, but with a demand note for three-quarters of his Income Tax on 1st January.
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: The hon. Member is proceeding under a misapprehension. Wage-earners assessable half-yearly are not affected by the proposal. It only applies under Schedule E to those classes of taxpayers in official or other employment whose Income Tax is not deducted at the source.
  Sir W. BRASS: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation. At any rate these people are badly hit in a certain way. They have to make out their own budgets, which are unbalanced. They are going to re-

  633
  ceive their dividends, and so on, and there will be probably less dividends than there have been in previous years, and they will find it much more difficult to pay this advance of the Income Tax than has been the case in previous years. It has been assumed that this is not an increase of the Income Tax at all, but I do not agree with that argument. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to take from the country an extra £10,000,000, and what he says is that he is merely advancing the payment of the Income Tax, and that next year the same amount of Income Tax will be paid from the same source. I agree that that is the case, but if the right hon. Gentleman is going to collect £10,000,000 in this financial year it must come out of somebody's pocket. If this kind of thing goes on over a period of years the people under that particular schedule of the Income Tax will have actually paid £10,000,000 more than they would have paid during their lifetime if this proposal had not been brought forward. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will admit that that is bound to be the case, although, as one year follows another, the same amount will be collected in every succeeding year.
  There is another point which ought to be made. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has increased the demand for
  the Income Tax by a quarter, and he may follow his own example again next year, and do what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping did with Schedule A, and that is take the whole lot on the 1st January instead of three-quarters, and a quarter on the 1st July. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say that it is probable that there will be another emergency next year, and he may make that the excuse for advancing the whole lot, and taking it on 1st January. I suggest that it is very hard to pay the whole of this amount on the 1st January, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be possible to get in the same amount of money within the financial year before the end of March. It would make the tax a little lighter if people were allowed to pay it, say, on 25th March. That concession would help a great deal. Another suggestion I would like to make is that the right hon. Gentleman might give a certain rebate to those who paid their Income Tax within a week or a fortnight of the date when it was due. With such a rebate I think the right hon. Gentleman would find that he would get in a great deal more money.
  Question put, "That the word 'three-quarters' stand part of the Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 255; Noes, 156.

  Division No. 234.]

  AYES.

  [6.25 p.m.

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

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

  Glassey, A. E.

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

  Chater, Daniel

  Gossling, A. G.

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Clarke, J. S.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

  Cluse, W. S.

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

  Alpass, J. H.

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Gray, Milner

  Angell, Sir Norman

  Compton, Joseph

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

  Arnott, John

  Cove, William G.

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

  Aske, Sir Robert

  Cripps, Sir Stafford

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Daggar, George

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Ayles, Walter

  Dallas, George

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Barnes, Alfred John

  Day, Harry

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

  Barr, James

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

  Batey, Joseph

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

  Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

  Dukes, C.

  Hardie, George D.

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

  Duncan, Charles

  Harris, Percy A.

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

  Ede, James Chuter

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Benson, G.

  Edmunds, J. E.

  Haycock, A. W.

  Birkett, W. Norman

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Hayes, John Henry

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Egan, W. H.

  Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

  Bromfield, William

  England, Colonel A.

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

  Brooke, W.

  Foot, Isaac

  Herriotts, J.

  Brothers, M.

  Freeman, Peter

  Hicks, Ernest George

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

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

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

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

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

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Buchanan, G.

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)

  Hollins, A.

  Burgess, F. G.

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Hopkin, Daniel

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

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

  Horrabin, J. F.

  Cameron, A. G.

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Cape, Thomas

  Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph

  Isaacs, George

  Mills, J. E.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Jenkins, Sir William

  Milner, Major J.

  Simmons, C. J.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Montague, Frederick

  Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

  Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Morley, Ralph

  Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

  Jones, Llewellyn-, F.

  Morris, Rhys Hopkins

  Sinkinson, George

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

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

  Sitch, Charles H

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

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

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Mort, D. L.

  Smith, Lees-, H. B.

  Jewitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

  Muggeridge, H. T.

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

  Murnin, Hugh

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Nathan, Major H. L.

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

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

  Naylor, T. E.

  Sorensen, R.

  Kinley, J.

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Stamford, Thomas W.

  Knight, Helford

  Noel Baker, P. J.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Lang, Gordon

  Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

  Strauss, G. R.

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

  Sullivan, J.

  Lathan, G.

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

  Sutton, J. E.

  Law, Albert (Bolton)

  Palin, John Henry.

  Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

  Law, A. (Rossendale)

  Paling, Wilfrid

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

  Lawrence, Susan

  Palmer, E. T.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Lawson, John James

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Tillett, Ben

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

  Perry, S. F.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Leach, W.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Tout, W. J.

  Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

  Phillips, Dr. Marion

  Townend, A. E.

  Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

  Picton-Turbervill, Edith

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lees, J.

  Pole, Major D. G.

  Vaughan, David

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Potts, John S.

  Viant, S. P.

  Lloyd, C. Ellis

  Price, M. P.

  Walkden, A. G.

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Walker, J.

  Longden, F.

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

  Watkins, F. C.

  Lovat-Frasar, J. A.

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Lunn, William

  Raynes, W. R.

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

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

  Richards, R.

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring).

  Wellock, Wilfred

  McElwee, A.

  Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

  West, F. R.

  McEntee, V. L.

  Ritson, J.

  Westwood, Joseph

  McKinlay, A.

  Romeril, H. G.

  White, H. G.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

  Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

  Rowson, Guy

  Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  McShane, John James

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

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

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

  Sanders, W. S.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

  Sandham, E.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Manning, E. L.

  Sawyer, G. F.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Marcus, M.

  Scurr, John

  Wilson, J. (Oldham)

  Markham, S. F.

  Sexton, Sir James

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Marley, J.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

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

  Marshall, Fred

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Wise, E. F.

  Mathers, George

  Sherwood, G. H.

  Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

  Matters, L. W.

  Shield, George William

  Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

  Maxton, James

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Messer, Fred

  Shillaker, J. F.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Middleton, G.

  Shinwell, E.

  Mr. Thurtle and Mr. Charleton.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

  Albery, Irving James

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

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

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

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

  Colville, Major D. J.

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Berry, Sir George

  Crookshank, Capt H. C.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Betterton, Sir Henry B.

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

  Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

  Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

  Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Boyce, Leslie

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

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

  Bracken, B.

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

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

  Brass, Captain Sir William

  Duckworth, G. A. V.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Broadbent, Colonel J.

  Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

  Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

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

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Buchan, John

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

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

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Ferguson, Sir John

  Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Fermoy, Lord

  Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

  Castle Stewart, Earl of

  Fielden, E. B.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas

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

  Ford, Sir P. J.

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

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  636

  637

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

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

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

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Thompson, Luke

  Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

  Pybus, Percy John

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

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Tinne, J. A.

  Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

  Remer, John R.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Llewellin, Major J. J.

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James

  Todd, Capt. A. J

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

  Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)

  Train, J.

  Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  McConnell, Sir Joseph

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Marjoribanks, Edward

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Vanghan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

  Meller, R. J.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

  Millar, J. D.

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

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

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Wayland, Sir William A.

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

  Skelton, A. N.

  Wells, Sydney R.

  Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

  Muirhead, A. J.

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

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colone George

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

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

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

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

  O'Connor, T. J.

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Womersley, W. J.

  O'Neill, Sir H.

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

  Peake, Captain Osbert

  Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)

  Penny, Sir George

  Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

  Major Sir George Hennessy and

  Sir Frederick Thomson.

  Sir B. PETO: I beg to move, in line 6, at the end, to add the words:
  "and that in the said sub-section, for the first day of January the first day of February shall be substituted."
  I can deal with this question quite shortly, because the President of the Board of Trade, in answering the Amendment upon which we have just divided, franky admitted that there is a charge in the present financial year of an extra quarter of Income Tax upon all Income Tax payers under Schedules B, D and E, excepting those under Schedule D, whose Income Tax is deducted at the source. Therefore, the fact that there will be a great additional charge in one financial year upon these sections of Income Tax payers is admitted. I want by this Amendment to try to temper the wind to the shorn lamb; I want to try to avoid all these claims falling upon one day, and a very inconvenient day in the year, namely, the 1st January. I need not trouble the House with all the arguments that have been so ably put from these benches as to the special claims on the income of every taxpayer just at that time of the year, but it is clear that, if the Government could see their way to make this small concession, they would not be losing any revenue at all, because there would still be two months before the end of the financial year for the collection of the revenue, and the Amendment does not propose any reduction in the amount claimed in the financial year, but only asks that these claims should not all be due for payment on the 1st January. I quite recognise that under
  638
  existing practice many Income Tax payers find it impossible to pay "on the nail" at the very moment when they are asked for the money, but it would be a great relief that this claim should positively not be due to the Government until they had had a month's breathing space after dealing with all the other financial commitments that occur at the end of one year and the beginning of the next.
  That is not the only argument that I want to address to the House. We have heard in the earlier Debates, and earlier this afternoon, frequent references to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1927, withdrew a concession made in 1918 to Income Tax payers under Schedule A, enabling them to pay their Income Tax in two equal half-yearly instalments, and demanded that, as was the case before 1918, they should pay the whole of their Income Tax in one payment on the 1st January. I would ask the House to look at what happened. In 1918, when the Income Tax was raised to 6s. in the £, it was felt that even taxpayers under Schedule A must be given the same concession which, a the President of the Board of Trade pointed out, was given to Income Tax payers under Schedules B, D and E in 1915, when the Income Tax was raised by 40 per cent., from 2s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. in the £. I think it is well that the House should realise exactly what the figures were, and what the circumstances were. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epping said that Income

  639
  Tax payers under Schedule A, who had only come into possession of this privilege of paying in two half-yearly payments nine years before, in the special circumstances surrounding the finances of the country in 1927, must in 1927 pay as before in one instalment, and, as the President of the Board of Trade has pointed out, he estimated for £15,000,000 and he got £17,000,000 by that process. But that is not on all fours with What is proposed under this Resolution.
  This Resolution goes back to a concession that was made in 1915; and I would point out to the House that Income Tax payers under Schedule A are, taking them broad and large, a more permanent body of Income Tax payers than those under Schedules B, D and E, so that there is more probability that the same man who received the concession would be the man who is asked to forego it. In case the President of the Board of Trade should be using the argument that there is really no hardship because he is only taking back one-half of a concession that was made 16 years ago, I would make this answer, that it is no consolation to a professional man who started his career, say, 15 or 16 years ago—it is no consolation to Mr. Smith, who is made to pay five quarters of Income Tax in a single year, that Mr. Jones, or Mr. Brown, or Mr. Robinson had the opportunity of paying only half a year's Income Tax in a single year 16 years before. That is really the proposition. I fully realise what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) made so plain a few minutes ago, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer still has another £10,000,000—another half of this concession—up his sleeve ready for next year. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping, took the whole thing at one bite as far as Schedule A was concerned. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, being a provident man, is leaving half his cherry for the next bite next year.
  What we are proposing is not, however, at all parallel to what was done in 1927. I think I have made it plain that it is not at all the same class of Income Tax payers who are affected.
  640
  This is after an interval of 16 years; the other was after an interval of only nine years; and, moreover, the concession for which I am asking is only a single month's postponement of this extra charge which is now sprung upon this class of Income Tax payers, who had no reason to anticipate that they were the source to which the Chancellor would go for £10,000,000 to balance his nicely balanced Budget, the balance of which has already been upset by matters that we discussed in the earlier days of this week. That being so, whether the President of the Board of Trade was right or wrong in saying that he thought the last Amendment had been moved more with a view to ventilating this question than with any hope of its being conceded, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that so modest is my request in this Amendment that, knowing him to be a tender-hearted man who does not want to impose unnecessary hardship upon probably the most deserving and hard-working class of any in this country—people who have built up a little business for themselves, whether in retail trade or in industry, or people who are earning their living by their own brains at an enormous annual expenditure of those brains, which are their only capital—I feel quite sure he will realise that they have many claims upon them on the 1st January, and that it would be a very small concession to make this new and unexpected claim actually due for payment one month later.
  Various proposals have been put forward on these lines in letters to the Press—for example, that this new exaction should be divided into three parts, one-third being payable on 1st January, one-third on 1st February, and one-third on the 1st March. I do not think that that is a practicable proposal, but the proposal in this Amendment is practicable. The proposal that a portion of the tax should become due for payment as late as the 1st March, within a month of the end of the financial year, is, I think, clearly answered by the statement that it would be impossible, with only one month for collection, to make it even probable that the whole of that Income Tax would be got in within the financial year; but to give the Income Tax Department a clear two months or rather

  641
  more before the end of the financial year in which to collect this three-fourths would not endanger the anticipation of revenue to be derived. On that ground I say also that this is a reasonable Amendment and one which I feel hopefully will be accepted.
  Sir A. POWNALL: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I entirely agree with the reasons my hon. Friend has given with regard to the great difficulty that will be experienced by those who, in addition to heavy bills, will also have to find so much extra Income Tax. There is a further reason why I am in favour of it which will commend itself to such a great administrator as the President of the Board of Trade. The Income Tax offices have a very hard time before Christmas in getting out all their demand notes for 1st January, when the money starts coming in. By this very ingenious proposal, they will reduce the administrative work, because under Schedule A the demand notes go out before Christmas and the money starts coming in as from 1st January, whereas with the other three Schedules, B, D and E, it will not be necessary for the demand notes to go out so quickly and the money will be coming in more in February and March. It ought to save a great deal of overtime in the Income Tax offices, and I commend that as a further reason why the Amendment should be accepted.
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: The hon. Members who have moved and seconded the Amendment have made a very powerful and even a moving appeal. The hon. Baronet appealed to me to temper the wind to the shorn lamb. It is very difficult to resist an argument of that kind, but the lamb that I have to protect is this additional £10,000,000 of revenue due to the accelerated collection of an additional quarter within the financial year. One of the melancholy results of this proposal is that my lamb would disappear altogether, so that I think that with that little explanation hon. Members will see that I cannot possibly accept the Amendment. The effect of it is to postpone until 1st February the collection of the additional quarter, so that at a stroke we are reduced from three months to two months of collection of this additional sum. But I am advised
  642
  that on the other side the effect of the Amendment as drawn would be to postpone until 1st February the collection of the half of the tax which is collected under the present practice, and I should be deprived of that, although I should have the gain of the remaining two months of the additional quarter. The gain on the one side is, I understand, wiped out by the loss on the other, and I am left practically without this £10,000,000. Having given that explanation, the hon. Baronet will see that he does not really temper the wind to the shorn lamb. The additional sum which the Treasury requires within the financial year would practically disappear and, accordingly, I cannot accept the Amendment.
  Major ELLIOT: It becomes clearer and clearer how flimsy is the excuse that no real injury whatever is being done to the Income Tax payer. It seems clear that the Government intend to get in the whole of the money within the three months. I quite agree with the soundness of the right hon. Gentleman's argument that the Amendment would postpone the whole collection of that moiety of the Income Tax which falls due and, if there is any alteration of drafting by which we could make it acceptable, I am sure my hon. Friend would be only too pleased to discuss the matter with him between now and the later stages. But I am sure the President of the Board of Trade would not wish to ride off on a technicality like that. Let us take it that we are not attempting to postpone the payment of the moiety of the Income Tax which is properly due in January. What we are discussing is whether we can temper the wind to the shorn lamb by a postponement, or a slight modification, of that instalment of extra impost which falls due then. The right hon. Gentleman's lamb is a dead lamb while ours is a live one. When it is finished it is done. He is carrying away merely a carcase of mutton. This may never occur again. He is making this impost once for all. We wish, if not to temper the wind to the shorn lamb, at least to put a little artificial heating into the nest of the goose that lays the golden eggs. We wish to preserve the source of his revenue. We are afraid he is going to dry it up altogether.

  643
  These exactions falling upon the Income Tax payer will have the effect either of crippling him financially, so that he is not able to go on and earn as much in future years, or of causing him to realise that much the most profitable exercise of his wits in which anyone can indulge is considering how he can evade paying his Income Tax. It becomes a very serious thing when a man can earn £40 better by paying a lawyer to think out some way of dodging his Income Tax than by earning a little money. The whole of our Income Tax system is based upon the fact that it is so delicately balanced and so graded that on the whole it is easier for a man to pay his Income Tax than not. We have, on the whole, the best and most loyal payers of Income Tax in the world. I am sure the finance Ministers of any Continental Power would be only too glad to reduce their demands by 10, 15 or 20 per cent. if they could get the taxes paid as regularly as in Great Britain.
  This is a small concession. We are asking that the right hon. Gentleman shall cast bread upon the waters which will return again to him. We are admitting the liability. We are not asking for a remission of a penny of the new liability that is placed on the shoulders of the unfortunate Income Tax payers, but we are suggesting that a little of it might be allowed to fall over into the month after 1st January. The small man, especially in the London area, is being hit very heavily this year owing to the Revaluation Bill of last year. The assessments for rating have been increased in many cases and there will be an extra demand for rates. All these demands will fall upon him in this year of depression. We ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider at least the spirit of the appeal that has been made. If he will not meet us in this respect, let him consider whether he cannot afford some crumb of comfort to the Income Tax payer, from whom he is about to raise £10,000,000 on the plea that we are in a year of unexampled depression which is quite as heavy upon the people from whom this levy is to be made as upon any other class of the community.
  Major HARVEY: I should like to add a small voice from a back bench to the
  644
  appeal of my hon. and gallant Friend. I feel that the wind would be tempered to the shorn lamb very considerably if the President of the Board of Trade between this and another stage would draft an Amendment which would carry out the hon. Baronet's intention. I believe it is a fact that in the collection of this tax a good deal of the money that falls due on 1st January never comes into the Exchequer until after February, Will he not take that into consideration and make the taxpayer pay a little more cheerfully by giving him a little law? If the Amendment, or something akin to it, gets on to the Statute Book, I have visions of my hon. Friend going down to history as a public benefactor in the same category as the, people who introduced summer time and the 24-hour clock.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid my slower mind did not grasp the argument of the President of the Board of Trade as rapidly as that of my hon. and gallant Friend beside me. Even now I am unable to follow the argument by which he, apparently, endeavoured to persuade us that, if the Amendment were accepted, he would lose the whole of the £10,000,000 which he expects to get out of this proposal. His arithmetic seems to be almost as remarkable as that of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson), who explained to us that £10,000,000 in the pockets of the Treasury only meant £250,000 out of the pockets of the taxpayers. My hon. Friend is not moving to reduce the amount that is to go to the Exchequer by a penny. There are two ways in which you can envisage the proposal. There is the effect upon the Budget and the effect upon the taxpayer. In this Amendment we are considering the effect upon the taxpayer. What my hon. Friend wants to do is to postpone the time at which the taxpayer is called upon to make this exceptional contribution to the State from a date which is probably the most inconvenient in the whole 12 months to a later period when, without any loss to the Treasury, he will make the same contribution with somewhat greater ease to himself. I am still a little doubtful what is the real number of individuals to whom this change applies. After all, the various Schedules which are concerned comprises a number of different classes of persons. There are not

  645
  only individuals, but there are firms who may be subject to Schedule D. Among those firms there will be some whose particular contribution is quite large. If that be so, then the larger the contribution of the individual firms, the smaller the amount winch must on the average be collected from the whole number. I hope the Financial Secretary will tell us exactly who are the people who come under Schedule D and are affected by this proposal, and how many there are of them. I believe that, if it were only analysed and if we could get some clearer classification of the people affected, we should find that there are a large number of people with small incomes subject to this impost to whom the postponement for one month would be a most valuable concession.
  What was the argument of the President of the Board of Trade? I regret I could not grasp it at the time, but I can only assume that his argument is that, if you postpone the due date of collection by one month, you will lose the whole amount paid into the Treasury, as it will pass into the following year. If I am wrong, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will enlighten us, because that was the only way I could conceive it would be lost, namely, by passing into the following year. I doubt whether that is likely to be the effect of these proposals, because I have the greatest respect for the efficiency of the collectors of revenue and can hardly imagine they would allow all this money to pass through their fingers merely because the date had been postponed by one month. If the date was fixed at 1st February, it would still leave two months for collection. Of course, there is always a certain leakage from one financial year to another, but I can hardly believe that it would be so increased as to make any substantial difference to the Exchequer. I hope, if I have not misrepresented the right hon. Gentleman, that he will reconsider the matter and, if I have in any way misunderstood him, that we may have some further explanation from the Financial Secretary.
  Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: There are two considerations which I would like to put to the right hon. Gentleman before he rises. In the first place, it is a dangerous thing to encourage in any class of the community the feeling that they are unjustly treated in taxation. As an additional
  646
  Commissioner of Income Tax, I have had an opportunity of seeing something of the possibilities of evasion of Income Tax. There is undoubtedly a growing feeling among Income Tax payers that they are the milch cow of the community and are being unfairly treated. That feeling is being strengthened by the hard times, which are intensified by the lavish expenditure of the present Government. The second consideration I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to take into account is the many communities of our people who are settled in various parts of the world, who would be living here and paying Income Tax but who are settled abroad because they cannot afford to pay our Income Tax. If he goes to Victoria, in British Columbia, he will find there a colony of English settlers, men and woman who have been holding appointments in the Colonies and Dominions, who say quite frankly that they cannot come back to live in England because of the taxation. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the amount of revenue we are losing. Let him go to France, and he will find English settlers there for the same reason. He ought to encourage those people to come back and live in England and spend their money here. Those are two considerations which I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to take into account.
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary would have replied, but for the fact that he was out during this part of the Debate, and he has asked me to say an additional word or two in reply to the points put by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. On the two points, the facts are these. The classes who are affected by the addition of this quarter were described in my speech on the preceding Amendment. There is a certain section of taxpayers under Schedule A enjoying an income from property associated with land; a second section under Schedule B, the occupation of land; certain classes of taxpayers under Schedule D—that is, other than companies—and the taxpayers affected there are private firms or individuals whose income is not taxed at the source; and a certain class under Schedule E, officials and others whose income is not taxed at the source. Those are the classes, broadly speaking, who would be affected by the change from one-half to

  647
  three-quarters in January each year. The number, of course, would be considerable, and that at no stage of the Debate has been concealed.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Could the right hon. Gentleman say how many?
  Mr. GRAHAM: No, I could not, but the number undoubtedly would be considerable. On the other point, may I try to give this explanation? The Amendment as proposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) seeks to postpone this change to 1st February in the present financial year. I am advised that the effect of the Amendment, as it is on the Paper, would be also to postpone until that date the collection of the existing half, to which we are entitled on 1st January. That is to say, the period would be pushed back one month for the ordinary collection.
  Sir A. POWNALL: On B, D and E or A as well?
  Mr. GRAHAM: On the usual range of Schedules to which that applies, but that is not the point. I am advised that it would postpone by one month until 1st February the collection which now proceeds, the collection of one-half the Income Tax. The whole three-quarters would become due on 1st February of the current financial year. There is that loss in point of time in regard to one month for the period of collection of the three quarters, which the House has now carried by a majority. The Amendment is so drawn that the loss one way wipes out the prospective gain the other way. I am giving the House advice, which I believe to be perfectly sound, as to the effect of this Amendment. The hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) sought to draw a distinction. He was willing in some way to postpone by one month the collection of the increase, that is to say, to safeguard the collection of the existing half to which we are entitled on 1st January. There is no doubt that, if that were the intention of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, then, of course, the Exchequer would not get the full amount of the £10,000,000, but it would get in the financial year not-very little, as under this Amendment, but some substantial sum. There would be a loss of some part of the £10,000,000,
  648
  but we cannot afford even a partial loss of the amount which would be involved if we accepted an Amendment in the sense which my hon. and gallant Friend suggested.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Having listened to all this Debate carefully, with every fresh explanation the flimsiness of the case becomes clearer and, if I may say so without wishing to be in any way offensive, the meanness of it becomes more apparent, too. Let me take what has now been disclosed. First of all, as to the classes who are hit, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has told us that they are the classes which, I have no doubt, are those contained in Section 157 of the Act. Apart from Schedule A, they are:
  "Any individual or firm under Schedule B in respect of lands occupied for husbandry only, and tax charged on any individual or firm under Schedule D, or the rules thereof, in respect of the profits or gains of any trade or of any profession or vocation, and tax charged on any individual in respect of any office or employment, whether under Schedule D or Schedule E, except individuals whose tax is deducted at definite intervals of less than half a year, and weekly wage-earners."
  That is the class of people who are hit. I would ask the House to mark that the Financial Secretary himself has told us that they are, and must be, a very considerable number now. When we reflect that there are a considerable number of rich firms who probably enjoy this privilege, it means that the number must be greater, because the average amount per person is decreased and the number of poor persons is greater. They are precisely the kind of people who are feeling the brunt of the present circumstances most acutely. The people who are probably feeling the brunt most acutely are the farming population. At an earlier stage, the Financial Secretary alluded to easements of their lot given them as a matter of justice by the late Government, and that these things were to balance out against those easements. Everyone knows that in the last two years their lot has been made infinitely harder, and they are the people who will find it most difficult to produce this extra sum at the earlier stage of the year. The same is true of the others. The professional classes, if they are questioned, will say at once that their business has fallen off and that their receipts are

  649
  probably smaller than at any time during their experience. The Treasury is trying to get a sum of £10,000,000. The whole of the Income Tax received is over £400,000,000, yet the Treasury is getting this £10,000,000 at the expense of the payers of £40,000,000, one-tenth of the whole of the Income Tax paid. As those individuals consist of some of those least able to produce the money at this earlier date, this is a very regrettable provision which the right hon. Gentleman has introduced into his Budget.
  There is another point which my friends and I are completely unable to understand. The Financial Secretary said that if the date is postponed from 1st January to 1st February, the Exchequer will lose the £10,000,000. Let me assume, to start with, that the whole of that three-quarters is postponed, not merely the extra quarter which he is trying to get, but the half which, normally, if the provision were not brought in to the Finance Bill, would have been paid on 1st January. Suppose that the whole three-quarters are postponed from the 1st January to the 1st February. It would be a matter of justice, if nothing else. It would mean that the Income Tax payer would have a postponement of one-half for a month, which would make up just a little to him for the ante-dating of the other quarter by five months. While, as the late Lord Oxford would have said, it is a slight solatium but not compensation for what is happening, it would, nevertheless, make their lot a little less hard. The Financial Secretary says: "Oh, but the Treasury would lose the whole of the £10,000,000." How on earth would it lose £10,000,000? It would have a right to the £10,000,000 on the 1st February, instead of on 1st January. How is the Treasury losing the whole of that £10,000,000? It might be argued that it is losing interest on that money for one month, but it is perfectly clear that it is not losing the right to that £10,000,000 at all.
  The only conceivable statement that could be made in support of that alleged loss is, that because the Treasury have only two months for collection instead of three, before the end of the financial year, the money will not come in. I put that as the best case that can be made for the statement by the Financial Secretary. I believe there can be no other. I do not
  650
  know whether that was the hon. Gentleman's point. I do not think that either he or the President of the Board of Trade will deny that the State would get its right to the whole of the three-quarters on 1st February, instead of on 1st January. It would lose one month for collection, having two months instead of three. As everyone knows, we are dealing with a small Income Tax paying capacity, though it is borne by a number of individuals. Surely, if there was the wish to temper the wind to the shorn lamb, the Revenue authorities could easily concentrate their attention on the far greater number of payers from 1st January, and upon getting more for the first month, in order to see that the collection during the last two months from this unfortunate lot of people should not suffer. I submit that we have had no possible shadow of a case for not granting this slight relief, under which we are endeavouring to secure to the Treasury the very £10,000,000 that they wish to have, while not making people who can ill afford the money suffer the greater hardships that they would under the present proposal.
  Miss RATHBONE: The prospect of this payment on 1st January is weighing heavily on a considerable number of people in a small way of business, and also on professional people with fixed salaries, and I want to add my voice to back up the demand that the President of the Board of Trade or the Financial Secretary should devise some way of making a concession so as to postpone payment of the additional quarter till February. I am not an expert in these matters, and I confess that I found it difficult to understand the explanations that the President of the Board of Trade gave us. A very large proportion of the Income Tax payers use to the utmost the very considerable "rope" that is given to them. They receive three notices. They wait until their 27 days' notice is up, and then they get a notice asking them to pay in seven days. If they do not pay, they then get a notice asking them to pay in three days, and then they pay. The others are the more timid or conscientious people, who do not know what would happen to them if they postponed the payment, and so they pay at once. If there were a little less "rope" allowed, and a little more lati-

  651
  tude to the people who are willing to pay, it would be of great convenience to the people who are in receipt of fixed salaries. They would know, when they received their demand for payment in February, that they were definitely not pledged to pay till the end of the following
  month. I ask the Financial Secretary if he can think the matter over again.
  Question put, "That those words be there added to the Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 177; Noes, 253.

  Division No. 235.]

  AYES.

  [7.20 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

  Ferguson, Sir John

  O'Neill, Sir H.

  Albery, Irving James

  Fielden, E. B.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

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

  Fison, F. G. Clavering

  Peake, Capt. Osbert

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

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Penny, Sir George

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

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

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Balniel, Lord

  Ganzonl, Sir John

  Purbrick, R.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Beaumont, M. W.

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

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Remer, John R.

  Betterton, Sir Henry B.

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James

  Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)

  Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

  Bird, Ernest Roy

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Saimon, Major I.

  Boyce, Leslie

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Bracken, B.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Brass, Captain Sir William

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

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

  Broadbent, Colonel J.

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

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittoms

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

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hailam)

  Buchan, John

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

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

  Bullock, Captain Malcolm

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Castle Stewart, Earl of

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

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

  Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

  Inskip, Sir Thomas

  Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Iveagh, Countess of

  Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

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

  Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Thompson, Luke

  Colville, Major D. J.

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

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

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

  Todd, Capt. A. J.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Train, J.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Llewellin, Major J. J.

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

  Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  McConnell, Sir Joseph

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Dalkeith, Earl of

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

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

  Margesson, Captain H. D.

  Wells, Sydney R.

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

  Marjoribanks, Edward

  Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

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

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Duckworth, G. A. V.

  Millar, J. D.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Dugdale, Capt T. L.

  Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.

  Withers, Sir John James

  Eden, Captain Anthony

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

  Womersley, W. J.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

  England, Colonel A.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

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

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  O'Connor, T. J.

  Major the Marquess of Titchfield and Captain Wallace.

  NOES.

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

  Arnott, John

  Barr, James

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

  Aske, Sir Robert

  Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Ayles, Walter

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

  Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

  Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

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

  Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

  Benson, G.

  Angell, Sir Norman

  Barnes, Alfred John

  Birkett, W. Norman

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Jones, Llewellyn-, F.

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

  Broad, Francis Alfred

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Raynes, W. R.

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

  Richards, R.

  Bromfield, William

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Bromley, J.

  Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

  Brooke, W.

  Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

  Ritson, J.

  Brothers, M.

  Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

  Romeril, H. G.

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

  Kelly, W. T.

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

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

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Rowson, Guy

  Buchanan, G.

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

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Burgess, F. G.

  Kinley, J.

  Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

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

  Knight, Holford

  Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

  Cameron, A. G.

  Lang, Gordon

  Sanders, W. S.

  Cape, Thomas

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Sandham, E.

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

  Lathan, G.

  Sawyer, G. F.

  Chater, Daniel

  Law, Albert (Bolton)

  Scurr, John

  Church, Major A. G.

  Law, A. (Rossendale)

  Sexton, Sir James

  Clarke, J. S.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

  Sherwood, G. H.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Lawson, John James

  Shield, George William

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Compton, Joseph

  Leach, W.

  Shillaker, J. F.

  Cove, William G.

  Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

  Shinwell, E.

  Cripps, Sir Stafford

  Lees, J.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Daggar, George

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Simmons, C. J.

  Dallas, George

  Lloyd, C. Ellis

  Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

  Dalton, Hugh

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Sinkinson, George

  Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

  Longden, F.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Day, Harry

  Lunn, William

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

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

  Smith, Lees-, H. B.

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Dukes, C.

  McElwee, A.

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

  Duncan, Charles

  McEntee, V. L.

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Ede, James Chuter

  McKinlay, A.

  Sorensen, R.

  Edmunds, J. E.

  Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

  Stamford, Thomas W.

  Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Egan, W. H.

  McShane, John James

  Strauss, G. R.

  Foot, Isaac

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

  Sullivan, J.

  Freeman, Peter

  Manning, E. L.

  Sutton, J. E.

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

  Mansfield, W.

  Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

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

  Marcus, M.

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

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Markham, S. P.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Pla stow)

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

  Marley, J.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Marshall, Fred

  Tillett, Ben

  Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

  Mathers, George

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Glassey, A. E.

  Matters, L. W.

  Tout, W. J.

  Gossling, A. G.

  Maxton, James

  Townend, A. E.

  Gould, F.

  Messer, Fred

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Middleton, G.

  Vaughan, David

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

  Mills, J. E.

  Viant, S. P.

  Gray, Milner

  Milner, Major J.

  Walkdan, A. G.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

  Montague, Frederick

  Walker, J.

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

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

  Watkins, F. C.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

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

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Mort, D. L.

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Muggeridge, H. T.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Murnin, Hugh

  West, F. R.

  Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

  Nathan, Major H. L.

  Westwood, Joseph

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

  Naylor, T. E.

  White, H. G.

  Hardie, George D.

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

  Harris, Percy A.

  Noel Baker, P. J.

  Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

  Wilkinson, Ellan C.

  Haycock, A. W.

  Oldfield J. R.

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Hayes, John Henry

  Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

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

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

  Palin, John Henry

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

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

  Paling, Wilfrid

  Wilson, J. (Oldham)

  Herriotts, J.

  Palmer, E. T.

  Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)

  Hicks, Ernest George

  Parkinson, John Allan (Wigan)

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

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

  Perry, S. F.

  Wise, E. F.

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Pethick-Lawrance, F. W.

  Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Phillips, Dr. Marlon

  Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

  Horrabin, J. F.

  Picton-Turbervill, Edith

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Pole, Major D. G.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph

  Potts, John S.

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

  Isaacs, George

  Price, M. P.

  Charleton.

  Jenkins, Sir William

  Pybus, Percy John

  Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in line 6, at the end, to add the words:
  "Provided that this rule shall not apply in respect of any income which falls within

  655
  Case IV of Schedule D, as set out in the First Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1918."
  I will also argue the case of the next Amendment which stands in my name—in line 6, at the end, to add the words:
  "Provided that this rule shall not apply in respect of any income which falls within Case V of Schedule D, as set out in the First Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1918 "
  —as both Amendments cover the same point. As I understand these two cases, Case IV and Case V, they relate to income which is asseesable for Income Tax in this country but which does not arise in this country and therefore cannot be deducted at the source. Presumably they are assessed on the income and they pay direct to the Inland Revenue. It is not deducted at the source. Are those people included under the Government scheme? I ask because there is an arrangement affecting the payment of double Income Tax. Will the arrangement of "three-quarters" and "one-quarter" have any effect upon the arrangements with regard to the question of double Income Tax? If those people are to be assessed under this scheme, the matter will be of some importance in regard to Imperial financial arrangements. I have put down the Amendments in order to obtain an explanation upon the point.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I beg to second the Amendment.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): The answer to the point is somewhat different from that which the hon. and gallant Member has anticipated. This particular class of persons already pay in a lump sum on 1st January because they are not included in the two groups to which the concession was given in 1918. Therefore they are not affected by the proposal of the Government and they
  will continue to do that which they have been doing all this time, which is, to pay in a lump sum on 1st January?
  Sir DENNIS HERBERT: Does that also apply to Case V?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Yes.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Are there any people who come under Case IV affected by Section 157?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Cases IV and V are not among those which were affected by the original Sub-section 157 of the Act of 1918. The relative words giving the concession are three:
  "This sub-section applies in cases of tax charged under No. I or No. II of Schedule A and tax charged on any individual or firm under Schedule B in respect of lands occupied for husbandry only, and tax charged on any individual or firm under Schedule D, or the rules thereof "—
  and these are the important words—
  "in respect of the profits or gains of any trade or of any profession or vocation, and tax charged on any individual in respect of any office or employment, whether under Schedule D or Schedule E, etc."
  That omits Cases IV and V, and therefore the concession did not extend to them.
  Captain BOURNE: Is the Financial Secretary to the Treasury quite clear that people who have property in the Irish Free State would not come in? Perhaps he will consider that point between now and the Finance Bill.
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am prepared to consider it, but I do not think that the question arises.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 253, Noes, 175.

  Division No. 236.]

  AYES.

  [7.36 p.m.

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

  Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

  Brooke, W.

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

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

  Brothers, M.

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

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

  Altchiton, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

  Benson, G.

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

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

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Buchanan, G.

  Angell, Sir Norman

  Birkett, W. Norman

  Burgess, F. G.

  Arnott, John

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

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

  Aske, Sir Robert

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Cameron, A. G.

  Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Broad, Francis Alfred

  Cape, Thomas

  Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

  Brockway, A. Fenner

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

  Barnes, Alfred John

  Bromfeld, William

  Chater, Daniel

  Barr, James

  Bromley, J.

  Church, Major A. G.

  Clarke, J. S.

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Ritson, J.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lathan, G.

  Romeril, H. G.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Law, Albert (Bolton)

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Law, A. (Rossendale)

  Rowson, Guy

  Compton, Joseph

  Lawrence, Susan

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Cove, William G.

  Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

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

  Cripps, Sir Stafford

  Lawson, John James

  Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

  Daggar, George

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

  Sanders, W. S.

  Dallas, George

  Leach, W.

  Sandham, E.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

  Sawyer, G. F.

  Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

  Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

  Scurr, John

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lees, J.

  Sexton, Sir James

  Day, Harry

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Lloyd, C. Ellis

  Sherwood, G. H.

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Shield, George William

  Dukes, C.

  Longden, F.

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Duncan, Charles

  Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

  Shillaker, J. F.

  Ede, James Chuter

  Lunn, William

  Shinwell, E.

  Edmunds, J. E.

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

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Simmons, C. J.

  Egan, W. H.

  McElwee, A.

  Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

  England, Colonel A.

  McEntee, V. L

  Sinkinson, George

  Foot, Isaac

  McKinlay, A.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Freeman, Peter

  Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

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

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

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

  McShane, John James

  Smith, Lees-, H. B.

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

  Manning, E. L.

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Mansfield, W.

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

  Marcus, M.

  Sorensen, R.

  Glassey, A. E.

  Markham, S. F.

  Stamford, Thomas W.

  Gossling, A. G.

  Marley, J.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Gould, F.

  Marshall, Fred

  Strauss, G. R.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Mathers, George

  Sullivan, J.

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

  Matters, L. W.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Gray, Milner

  Maxton, James

  Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

  Messer, Fred

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

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

  Middleton, G.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Millar, J. D.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Mills, J. E.

  Tillett, Ben

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Milner, Major J.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Montague, Frederick

  Tout, W. J.

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Morley, Ralph

  Townend, A. E.

  Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

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

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

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

  Vaughan, David

  Hardie, George D.

  Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Viant, S. P.

  Harris, Percy A.

  Mort, D. L.

  Walkden, A. G.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Muggeridge, H. T.

  Walker, J.

  Haycock, A. W.

  Murnin, Hugh

  Watkins, F. C.

  Hayes, John Henry

  Nathan, Major H. L.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

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

  Noel Baker, P. J.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Herriotts, J.

  Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

  West, F. R.

  Hicks, Ernest George

  Oldfield, J. R.

  Westwood, Joseph

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

  Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

  White, H. G.

  Hoffman, P. C.

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

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Palin, John Henry.

  Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

  Horrabin, J. F.

  Paling, Wilfrid

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Palmer, E. T.

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Isaacs, George

  Perry, S. F.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Jenkins, Sir William

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Wilton, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Phillips, Dr. Marion

  Wilson, J. (Oldham)

  Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Picton-Turbervill, Edith

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Potts, John S.

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

  Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Price, M. P.

  Wise, E. F.

  Jowitt Sir W. A. (Preston)

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

  Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

  Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Raynes, W. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

  Richards, R.

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

  Kinley, J.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Charleton.

  Lang, Gordon

  Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Balniel, Lord

  Bird, Ernest Roy

  Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Albery, Irving James

  Beaumont M. W.

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

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

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

  Boyce, Leslie

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

  Betterton, Sir Henry

  Bracken, B.

  Atholl, Duchen of

  Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

  Brass, Captain Sir William

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

  Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

  Broadbent, Colonel J.

  658

  659

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

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Purbrick, R.

  Buchan, John

  Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dalwich)

  Pybus, Percy John

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Bullock, Captain Malcolm

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Remer, John R.

  Butler, R. A.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James

  Campbell, E. T.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)

  Carver, Major W. H.

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

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

  Castle Stewart, Earl of

  Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxfd, Henley)

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Herbert, Sir Dennie (Hertford)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

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

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Salmon, Major I.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

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

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Colville, Major D. J.

  Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

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

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Inskip, Sir Thomas

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Iveagh, Countess of

  Smithers, Waldron

  Cranborne, Viscount

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

  Somorville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Culverwell C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

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

  Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

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

  Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

  Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

  Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)

  Davidson, Rt. Hen. J. (Hartford)

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

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

  Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. P.

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

  Llewellin, Major J. J.

  Thompson, Luke

  Duckworth, G. A. V.

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

  Todd, Capt. A. J.

  Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

  Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)

  Train, J.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  McConnell, Sir Joseph

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

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

  Margesson, Captain H. D.

  Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Marjoribanks, Edward

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Ferguson, Sir John

  Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Fielden, E. B.

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

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Fison, F. G. Clavering

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

  Wells, Sydney R.

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

  Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

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

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

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

  Withers, Sir John James

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  O'Connor, T. J.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

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

  O'Neill, Sir H.

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Penny, Sir George

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Captain Sir George Bowyer and

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Major the Marquess of Titchfield.

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Resolution agreed to.

  REPORT [29TH APRIL].

    AMENDMENT OF LAW.
    Resolution reported,
    "That it is expedient to amend the Law relating to the National Debt, Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise), and to make further provision in connection with Finance."

  REPORT [6TH MAY].

    TAX ON LAND VALUES.
    Resolution reported,
    "That there shall be charged for the financial year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, and for every subsequent financial year, a tax at the rate of one penny for each pound of the land value of every unit of land in Great Britain."
    Resolution read a Second time.
    Sir HENRY BETTERTON: I beg to move, in line 3, after the word "value," to insert the words:
    "excluding such value as may have accrued by reason of any improvements made by the owner thereof or any of his predecessors in title."
    Mr. SPEAKER: I shall have to ask the House to confine itself to the actual question raised in the Amendment. If any hon. Member wants to raise the wider issue of the taxation of land values he must do so when I put the question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker, for the direction you have given us, and, as far as I am concerned, I shall confine myself quite strictly to the Amendment, and beyond pointing out that the only alternative to

    661
    the acceptance of this Amendment is a policy of nationalisation, I shall adhere most strictly to your ruling. We are, of course, in the same difficulty in regard to this Amendment, as we have been during the whole of the Debates of the last three days. We have not the Finance Bill before us and, therefore, do not know the precise terms of the Bill which is to be founded on this Resolution. Nor have we had the help of a White Paper which in normal circumstances would have shown exactly the intentions of the Government. On the other hand, we have had during the last three days, particularly from the Solicitor-General whom I must warmly congratulate, a series of explanations which sometimes were obscure and often contradictory, and I submit that we are therefore entitled to a plain answer to a plain question, and that is whether, in the view of the Government, improvements as such should or should not be taxed?
    Years ago, before I became a Member of the. House, a slogan which was very prevalent was "Untax improvements made by man." So far as I can see, this Resolution and the Bill propose to tax improvements which, quite clearly, are not the gift of the Creator, but are the results of man's work, and paid for by wages. This Amendment, therefore, in my view tests the sincerity of the Government when they say that their object is to secure to the community its share of the site value of land. If that is the object, then they have no alternative but to accept the Amendment. If their contention is something else, not merely to tax site values but also to tax improvements which have been clearly made by man, then all those references to the gifts of the Creator to man become rather nauseating cant. May I remind the House of the declaration of the intention of the Government as contained in the Gracious Speech from the Throne at the beginning of this Parliament? On the face of it it appears perfectly clear. It was:
    "My Ministers propose to introduce legislation to secure for the community its share in the site value of land."
    The burden of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and of the other speeches we have heard from the other side of the House during these Debates, including the speech of the Solicitor-
    662
    General himself, in effect was that where a value is increased by the action of the community that increased value should be taxed. That is the old argument, and no one knows it better than the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. It was the subject of controversy 20 years ago, and has been to some extent ever since. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in support of his argument referred to arterial roads and the accretion of site value of land abutting on arterial roads by reason of the action of the community. He referred also to the tubes, and gave illustrations from Liverpool and the London County Council development at Becontree. I wish to put to the House this perfectly simple proposition. If the community is to take its share in the site value of land increased by the action of the community as a whole, then as a necessary corollary, and as a simple act of elementary justice, the individual should be entitled to retain the fruits of his legitimate expenditure, which expenditure has constituted and is responsible for the value of the land itself. In other words, the builder or the developer shall not be taxed upon the improvements which he himself has moved. That is putting in the simplest possible language, and in the shortest possible way, the point I desire to bring before the House.
    It would be easy to provide many illustrations of the point I have put in this short way, but I know there are many hon. Members who want to take part in the Debate, and I do not propose to occupy the time of the House for many moments. There is, however, a case which I think illustrates the point I desire to make as well as, perhaps better than, any other, and I give it for the one reason that I happen myself to know the place, as I rent a house not far from the site in question, and therefore can speak with some local knowledge of the facts. I refer to the Welwyn Garden City. When I first knew Welwyn, the site of the Welwyn Garden City was agricultural land, and that not of very high quality. It was purchased some years ago at a price which I have ascertained ranged round about £30 an acre—the highest I think was £35 an acre—and it represented a fair agricultural value of the land purchased for the purposes of development. The purchasers

    663
    bought a considerable estate, and they have spent something like £400,000 upon it. They have built houses and roads, and sewers and curbs; and this large plot is now in the process of development. Their object is to develop it. There is no question of holding the land up, because the owners are only too ready that bouses should be built and that the development, which is always of course in advance of the actual buildings, should proceed as rapidly as possible.
    Another object is, of course, to attract to that very beautiful and picturesque hit of country the building not only of houses, but of factories. I have always understood that one of the most effective ways of reducing the pressure in the towns is to induce owners of factories to build them away from the large towns, in places where the workers in the factories can carry on their business under healthy and charming surroundings. I should have thought that it would be the object of any Government to encourage such a project as this and to place no unnecessary obstacle in the path of their development. The right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) told us in his speech the other day when, with engaging candour, he described himself as a reprobate landlord, that
    "If they turn up the Land Valuation Bill of last year they will see what he is proposing now. It was then proposed to exempt agricultural land and minerals and, therefore, I am justified in taking that Bill as the basis of what is going to be proposed when the Finance Bill comes along. Perhaps we shall hear later on whether I am right or wrong in that assumption."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1931; col. 83, Vol. 252.]
    According to my information, if the Valuation Bill is to be the basis of the proposals in the Finance Bill, the effect will be that the developments I have described at Welwyn Garden City will be subject to this tax, and the effect upon that development will be absolutely disastrous. The only answer I have heard to the point I am making now—and it was only made rather grudgingly and by way of an aside—was that given by the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren). He said:
    "If any private individual believes that he can create, by his own individual effort,
    664
    communal value in land, then why does he not go to the Sahara Desert? Why does he not go to the top of Ben Nevis?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1931; col. 422, Vol. 252.]
    Was that an answer? May I put this to the hon. Member for Burslem? If he went into the Sahara Desert and irrigated it, and if he induced his friends to go there with him, would he then expect, as a result of his good services and his enterprise, to be taxed by penal taxation as a recompense for the services he had rendered in irrigating the Sahara Desert? Can it be suggested that the proposal to tax improvements in the circumstances I have described has anything to do with obtaining for the community its share in the site value in land or giving back to the community what the Creator originally gave it?
    8.0 p.m.
    Can it be suggested, after the facts I have mentioned and in the circumstances I have described, that there is any question at all of taxiing what is the gift of the Deity and what is not the work of man? There are many other cases very similar to the one I have described and which I could give to the House, but the illustration I have given is sufficient to meet the point. To tax improvements and developments such as I have described is not merely unjust and unfair, but is in the highest degree contrary to public policy. I thought in my innocence that the view which I am now expressing was the view both of the Labour and the Liberal parties. But last night the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) recommended us to read the Bill which was introduced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) in 1924. This is what he said:
    "May I commend to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he has not already determined on the draft of his Bill, the Bill which was introduced by the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) in 1924. It is a Bill for the Rating of Land Values (No. 2) Bill. He will find there a very simple, very direct, and a very unequivocal definition of land values which are to be the basis of taxation. I earnestly commend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney-General, who I have no doubt will be engaged in the drafting of this Measure, to spend a few minutes in studying the draft of the definition of land values suggested by the right hon. and

    665
    learned Member for Spen Valley as the basis of valuation.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1931; col. 437, Vol. 262.]
    When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was speaking, I went out and got this Bill from the Library. I found that this Bill was ordered to be brought in, and the names upon it are Sir John Simon—I am leaving out the names of hon. Members who are not now in the House—Captain Wedgwood Benn, Mr. Jowett, Mr. Duncan Millar, Mr. Graham White, and Mr. Ernest Simon. I can quite well appreciate the spirit of benevolence which induced the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs to call our attention to a Bill brought in by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley. In this Bill, Section 5 (3) says:
    "The said Commissioners shall proceed forthwith to make a valuation of the capital and annual value of each hereditament."
    When we look at the definition which is commended by the right hon. Gentleman to the Government as worthy of imitation, we find these words:
    "The expression 'capital land value' means the amount of the fee simple which the hereditament may be expected to realise if sold at the time of the valuation by a willing seller in the open market "—
    Mark those words—
    "apart from all buildings or improvements."
    The words which I am proposing in my Amendment are:
    "excluding 6uch value as may have accrued by reason of any improvements made by the owner thereof or any of his predecessors in title."
    What is the attitude to-day of those eminent and distinguished members of the Liberal party who supported that Bill in 1924? What, for instance, is the view of the hon. Member for Withington (Mr. E. D. Simon), whose enthusiasm in the cause of housing and housing development is admired in all quarters of the House? What is the view of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar), who spoke last night, and of the other Liberal Members who supported the Bill in 1924? And what, I ask with even greater emphasis, is the view of the Attorney-General? In 1924, by backing this Bill, he said that in his view improvements should be excluded.
    666
    The Attorney-General cannot be always on every point improvising his life-long convictions. Are we not entitled to know if he has changed his mind, and, if so, why he has changed his mind? If the object of the Government, therefore, is merely to tax site values, as indicated and stated in the King's Speech—
    "to tax values which have been increased by the action of the community "
    —then they should accept this Amendment and exclude improvements'. I am precluded from going into the merits of the alternative, which is nationalisation, and I do not intend to do so, but I would point out that if their object is not what was stated in the King's Speech, and if it was something quite different; if their object is the object which was clearly and bluntly put by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last Monday—
    "By this Measure we assert the right of a community to the ownership of land."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 4th May, 1931; col. 48, Vol. 252.]
    —then we are entitled to say that this pretence that the object is merely to tax the increased site value, is a pretence and nothing more. That that alternative to the present proposal is widely held is notorious. The hon. Member for Burslem said in 1926, and it made a great impression on my mind, that he looked upon private ownership of land as nothing short of immoral; that it was, indeed, a crime against the moral law for any human being to take as private property that which was the common gift of God to the whole of mankind. If it be the intention of the Government to expropriate the owners of land by a tax such as is now proposed, I want to ask what is the protection which we were told on Monday was to be afforded to the owners of the plots of a site value of £120 and under?
    Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Mr. Dunnico): I must be careful not to allow this to develop into a general discussion. This matter does not arise on this Amendment, but it could be discussed on the Motion, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution." I think we must restrict the Debate on this Amendment exclusively to what is contained in the Amendment.
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I have no intention of transgressing the Ruling which

    667
    was given by Mr. Speaker, and I shall content myself with saying that, if that be the policy and object of the Government, then the protection which was supposed to be granted to the small freeholders of £120 and under, is gone. We shall, of course, have other opportunities under more satisfactory conditions when the Bill is before us, and we know exactly what it contains, of discussing it. I will conclude by saying that, so far as I am concerned, I am perfectly certain that if this Amendment is not accepted, it should be clear that the object of the Government will meet with great opposition not only from the large landowners who may object to the Government's proposals, but from the hundreds and hundreds of thousands who have bought the land upon which they live and upon which they work, and who will feel that it is without justification to tax them for the soil upon which they live.
    Sir HILTON YOUNG: The purpose of the Amendment, which has been so clearly expounded to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Sir H. Betterton), is to seek to put the House in the position of knowing the broad lines of the basis of the tax which it is asked to pass. The truth is that, up to the present time, we have been in so much doubt upon the broadest aspects of what that tax is, that there is a danger of a very profound misconception on the part of a large body of opinion in the House. We do not know whether this is the sort of tax that appeals to the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), a tax purely upon site values, or whether it is to be frankly a tax upon general values in land, of a much wider and less discriminating sort. It is clear that the Government cannot oppose the Amendment without at least telling the House what they mean. If they accept the Amendment, it is clear that it is to be, in intention, a tax upon site values which will appeal to the right hon. and gallant Member and his friends. If they reject this Amendment it is equally clear that the pretence about its not being a tax upon industry and capital, and not being to the detriment of housing, completely falls to the ground.
    In order to try to ascertain what the intentions of the Government are, we
    668
    naturally exercise a very careful scrutiny upon the sayings of the responsible Ministers in describing the tax, but I confess that it still leaves me in some doubt. I suppose the most authoritative exponent in recent times was the Solicitor-General, who spoke yesterday. In the Solicitor-General's first and very able contribution to this difficult subject we find a pronouncement which is certainly very remarkable. He gives us the basis of the justification in equity of the tax. He says:
    "The reason for the putting of the tax on the land value at the moment, in whosoever hands it may be, is that it is held that the community have an interest in all the land … It is by reason of the continued expenditure of the community that that value "—
    that is, the value of the land—
    "is preserved to the owner from day to day.… It is for these reasons that the tax is a fair tax; it is a mere acknowledgment by the owner of the land, a gift by him in exchange for a very great benefit which he is hourly receiving from the community."—[OFFICIAI REPORT, 6th May, 1931; cols. 521–2, Vol. 252.]
    They say that a new broom sweeps clean. Certainly in this case the new broom has swept very clean. He has swept away the whole of the argument in favour of a tax on site values. The old argument for a tax on site values—and I thought that it had considerable validity—was justified because it would resume into the hands of the community from one who held it the site value created by the community. That is not the Solicitor-General's justification. With his fresh mind coming to this subject he has made, as fresh minds often do, a most important contribution. He has rediscovered the principle which lies at the basis of all taxation, and it has occurred to him that that applies to this tax as much as to any other. So it does. Let us look at the Solicitor-General's words again:
    "It is for these reasons that the tax is a fair tax; it is a mere acknowledgment by the owner of the land, a gift by him in exchange for a very great benefit which he is hourly receiving from the community."
    All property in the world is due to the action and the expenditure of the community, and it is because that is so that taxes are looked upon, according to the consensus of mankind, as a fair contribution to the community. Let us look at the Solicitor-General's words again:

    669
    "It is by reason of the continued expenditure of the community that that value (the value of the land) is preserved to the owner from day to day."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1931; col. 521, Vol. 252.]
    It is equally true to say that it is by reason of the continued expenditure of the community that the value of the buildings on the land is preserved to the owner from day to day. If it were not for the fact that the community spends money on the maintenance of roads, light, and in keeping the country peaceful through the police, the Army and the Navy, what would be the value of any buildings upon any land? Therefore, when we analyse this remarkable contribution of the Solicitor-General towards the theory of taxation we find that his justification is a justification that would apply just as well to a tax upon the buildings as it would to a tax upon the land.
    I cannot help thinking that the Solicitor-General would have taken ground easier for him to defend if instead of these experiments in the restatement of not unfamiliar general principles he had boldly ranked himself with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who holds the manful theory, apparently, that it is a crime to hold land and that a tax upon land is justified as a punishment or as a fine upon the criminal. If that be so, as the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir H. Betterton) has explained by a most careful analysis, the whole basis in equity of a tax upon site values finds no justification in the scheme before the House. I am inclined to suggest, although I confess there is still great doubt until the Financial Secretary to the Treasury tells us what the intention of the Government is, that behind this dubious phrase of land values there is the intention of the Government not to exempt the improvements on the land but to tax improved values.
    I do not think it is possible to have a clear view upon this matter unless we realise that there are at least four values of the land concerned. I am very much afraid of the difficulties of nomenclature, because everyone calls each of these values by a different name. We know the thing, but there is great confusion owing to the difference in names. The values are, first, the agricultural value, or what the Chancellor of the Exchequer calls the cultivation value.
    670
    That is the value of the land for the purpose of cultivation, sites that could be used for no other purpose. The next value that we have to distinguish is the unimproved site value, that is, the value of the land for the purpose for which it would fetch the highest value in the market in its prairie state, stripped of any improvements due to the expenditure of capital or the work of man. That is an important value for the purpose of the scientific basis of a site values tax. Next, there is the improved site value, that is, the value of the land for the most lucrative purpose for which it can be sold in the market and in its existing state as regards improvements made by main roads, and so on. That I suspect to be what the Government call the land value. We are entitled to a clear statement on the subject as to whether the Government by land value mean the improved or the unimproved site value.
    Lastly, there is the full value, that is, the value of the land with its improvements and the building upon it. A point which I fear may very often escape the attention of one who does not acquaint himself fully with the facts of the case is this, that the difference between the improved and the improved site value is very often due not to the work of the community, not to expenditure by the community, not to the expenditure of public money, but to private enterprise and the investment of private capital. That being so, is it not perfectly clear to anyone who tries to get a clear definition that if the Government intend to tax the improved site value and not the unimproved site value they will be imposing a direct burden of taxation upon the investment of capital and upon enterprise? If that be so, I invite the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) to range himself with us in an attack upon this ridiculous falsification of all the beautiful arguments of his school of site value taxers.
    Let me take a single instance to make clear what I mean. I would like to elaborate the illustration given by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rushcliffe (Sir H. Betterton). I ask the House to consider, first, the case of the very best sort of undertaker, who is going to develop land for the benefit of the

    671
    community—the sort of undertaker whom the community most desires to encourage, the one man who does all that we most desire to see done in the interest of the maintenance of the health of the country and the preservation of its amenities. I ask the House to consider the case of a private enterprise which acquires land in the neighbourhood of a city and proceeds to develop it on the most liberal and advanced lines. It has to lay down branch roads. It may have to do surface drainage. It may have to provide flood prevention works and things of that sort, and, in any case, it must provide branch roads, paths, kerbings and branch sewers. Then, being the model type of developer, it will proceed to spend money on garden plots, public green spaces and, it may be, on benches and fountains and the planting of trees. If the Government reject our Amendment, that will be a declaration on the part of the Government of their intention to put this new tax upon the investment of capital in enterprises of that class. In other words, it will be an expression of an intention on the part of the Government to discourage, precisely, that form of development which is advocated by every advanced and liberal-minded person interested in benefiting the community and preserving the amenities of the country.
    Take the other side of the picture. What is the sort of development which we all most deplore? It is the sort of development which is carried out by the speculative and grasping undertaker with no eye for anything except immediate profit, who acquires a plot of land on a new main road—the minimum plot necessary in order to comply with the local building regulations—who takes advantage of the main road, of the main sewer, of the public footpath, of the public lighting, who spends not one penny in the ways I have indicated, but simply plants his building there. If the Government reject our Amendment, it is a declaration of intention on the part of the Government that that man is to escape the tax and is to be given an advantage in comparison with the man who is carrying out decent development in the interests of the community as a whole. In other words, and in a single phrase, if this tax goes through without
    672
    amendment, we shall have a tax for the promotion of ribbon development.
    This House has, I understand, been struggling for some years now to find ways to prevent ribbon development. At any rate, Members of this House have undertaken great efforts to promote schemes—private Bills, public Bills and Measures of all sorts—to secure adequate powers for local authorities and other authorities to prevent that particularly mischievous form of development. Without the reservation which we desire to impart into it, this scheme, if it is to put a tax on improved site value, as it must necessarily do, will strike a deadly blow at all our efforts for the preservation of amenities and the reasonable development of our cities. It will place a heavy fresh burden precisely upon that class of expenditure which is necessary to provide the amenities and conveniences and advantages which are desired, and to prevent that miserable, ugly, unhealthy form of development with which we are all familiar in the neighbourhood of our great cities.
    If it had not been for the circumstance that the wording of the original Resolution was dubious—because "land values" we know, means nothing—if it had not been for that remarkable experiment in theoretical justification of this tax by the Solicitor-General which turned out to be nothing but a justification for any and every tax; if it had not been for the vigorous onslaught of the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the criminals who have been misled by the laws of their land into investing money in that form of property—if it had not been for these things, I would not have supposed it possible that the Government would have had the effrontery to propose to the House in the present condition of the country a scheme which would involve a tax upon the improvement of land. I should not have thought that they would have had the courage to do it in the face of the instructed opinion of those on their own benches who understand the nature of a site value tax. Lastly, I should not have supposed in view of the experience not only of this country, but of all the world, that they would have ventured to propose a form of valuation which we know to be impossible.

    673
    The actual difficulties in the way of making a valuation on any other basis but that which would be effected by this Amendment will be too great for any practical administration to overcome. I do not underrate the extreme difficulty of making it on the basis which we now suggest. It is because I think that these theoretical valuations of land are impossible that I have given up any hope of this tax. I am, as I have said, one who still thinks that there is a case of theoretical validity for the tax, but I have learned from bitter experience, and from watching the history of land taxes, that the world in which we live is so imperfect that the theoretical beauties of these schemes cannot be realised. It is too difficult a task for the valuers to find these theoretical valuations. That is not the experience of this country only; it is the experience of that favourite example of the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, the United States of America. I learn from the works of extremely experienced experts upon valuation that in those States in which an attempt has been made to differentiate between site value and full value—there are a few States where such an attempt has not been made—the result has shown that the inequalities, absurdities, irregularities and anomalies of valuation are greater where it has been attempted to make that differentiation than they are under the old system.
    It is not our business to try to help the Government about that matter. We know, as regards any of these valuations, that they are difficult, but with regard to the form of valuation which will have to be effected if this Amendment is not adopted—that, we say, is absolutely impossible and unrealisable in a practical way. The simple point and the point which the Government will have to face is this. Here are the site value taxers telling us that this is not a burden on industry at all, that it has the wonderful merit that industry escapes the burden, that land cannot be removed whatever you do, that the land is always there, and that there is always the same amount for the purposes of the community. That is true, but what we say is also true, that capital can be removed and that there is not always the same amount of capital available for the benefit of the community.
    674
    If you could put a tax upon land values only, then that which the land taxers say might be true, but, as a matter of fact, we suspect that what the Government are proposing to do is to put an additional heavy burden upon capital. If they do so, the result will be to drive capital out of housing, to starve development, to substitute for all enlightened forms of development the most unenlightened, and those which we most desire to avoid. The result of the tax, unless this Amendment be accepted, will be to paralyse our efforts for making the country a country which preserves its amenities, and in which it is still possible to live a decent life, and it will impose a heavy burden upon all industry.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I congratulate most heartily His Majesty's Opposition, not merely on this rapid conversion to really sound methods of taxation, but on the development on those benches, after three days, of protagonists of those sound ideas. I had thought that in this three days' Debate on this question, the loss of Captain Pretyman and Harold Cox was irreparable, but I recognise in the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir H. Betterton) an able successor to these able protagonists. The conversion of the Opposition will, I hope, convert those on these benches who do not yet see the light, so that we may have in future a happy united family on these benches. I would not suggest for a moment that this Amendment has not been put down bona fide and that this is not the real intention of the hon. Member for Rushcliffe. I see that we have here a really refreshing desire to impose this tax on pure unadulterated land values.
    I remember that we have had this before. I think by the time that hon. Members opposite have studied the question a little more fully, they will realise that the attack that must necessarily be developed by the old opposition to this scheme must be an attack in the direction of making land values so economically and morally sound, that an actual mundane valuation of that value is quite impossible. We had this Amendment last time. I do not know whether the Government accepted it in this form, because it was only one of a series of Amendments to secure that land valuation should really be of land

    675
    free from any taint of improvement. We excluded hedges, timber, and fruit trees and bushes. We even excluded the grass on the land, and went on to exclude anything that any predecessor in title had done under the ground. It was a bald-headed and a bald-faced attempt, and it was made so satisfactory and so pure a definition of land values, that valuation failed in consequence. I beg the Government not to be led away by suggestions of this sort, even though put forward in perfect good faith by hon. Members opposite who at last see the light.
    One or two points were raised by hon. Members that ought to be corrected. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe kept within the rules of order in a marvellous manner. I congratulate him on that. He dragged in the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), and produced the Bill which was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman two or three years ago to allow local authorities to levy rates on land values. He produced the definition which was advertised by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and he proceeded to say that they wanted the definition of the right hon. Member for Spen Valley. He omitted to notice that the definition in that Bill was not the definition that he has put down here. The definition here goes a good deal further. It excludes
    "such value as may have accrued by reason of any improvements made by the owner thereof or any of his predecessors in title."
    I am afraid that that would cover the value of the improvements without regard to whether those improvements have been exhausted or not. The right hon. Member for Spen Valley left the question of the definition of improvements out, and the hon. Gentleman will be well advised to leave the definition out until we see the Government's Bill and recognise what will be taxed.
    The other point made was that we were including buildings in this value. I am certain, however, that buildings will not be included in the land valuation. We have the Bill which the Government introduced last year; there buildings are excluded, and we may be quite certain that buildings will not be in in this valua-
    676
    tion. The right hon. Member for Seven-oaks (Sir H. Young) seemed to think that if the Government or the local authority ceased to find money for education, policing, roads, lighting and so on, the value of buildings would go down; therefore, he said, taxation was paid at the present time to keep up the value of buildings. That is not so. The value of buildings does not depend in the very least upon the expenditure of Government money on the social services. The expenditure of Government money on those services is reflected directly and solely in the value of land. The value of a building depends, and must depend, upon the cost of replacing that building and upon the cost of producing a similar house elsewhere. That is what regulates the cost of the building, but the value of the site depends directly upon the expenditure of public money. Where a site is built upon, its value is maintained—or increased or decreased perhaps—entirely by the expenditure of public money, and by the demands from the public for the privilege of living on that piece of land.
    Imagine two towns—one where the policing is excellent, where the education of the children is first rate, where the streets are well lit and the roads properly maintained; and the other town, with exactly the same population, where the policing is thoroughly bad, the roads are in holes, the water is polluted, and the same amount of money, perhaps, is spent on keeping the town, but spent unwisely by the town council. We know perfectly well that anybody is prepared to pay more for a site in a well-governed town than for a similar site in a badly-governed town. The additional rent he is prepared to pay for the privilege of living or carrying on his business in the well-governed town is an exact measure of the benefits conferred upon the citizens of that well-governed town by the wise expenditure of the public money. Naturally the man is prepared to pay a little more, because he is getting a little more. Indeed, the system of taxation which I and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have supported is not really a system of taxation at all, but is a system of paying for benefits received. Just as I measure on the meter the gas which I use in my house, and pay for the quantity I use, so here a man pays for

    677
    the amount of benefit he receives by the expenditure of public money in the rent he pays for the plot of land.
    In the last few days we have had nearly all the old saws trotted out. We have had the story of £150 which was invested in land 300 years ago. [Interruption.] We have not yet had the widow and orphan, and we have not yet had the suggestion of a tax on red-headed men, though we shall have it shortly. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken) will bring it up. We have not yet had—and I will present this to hon. Members for future use—the cry that this scheme is a base departure from that sound canon of taxation which says that taxation should be levied according to ability to pay! It is a shocking departure from that principle!
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The right hon. and gallant Member is going far beyond the terms of the Amendment be-fore the House.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I apologise. I agree that what I have been saying has been somewhat wide of the mark, and I do not want to give hon. Members opposite the opportunity to go outside the strict letter of the law to-night. The speeches we have heard so far have kept admirably to the point. Hon. Members opposite want to exclude every atom of improvement. I am with them heartily in their desire, I thoroughly approve of their sentiments, of their morals and of their economics, but I beg them to realise that it is not always possible to get absolute perfection in any Act of Parliament. We have to get what is practical and possible, and what the Government are getting here is what is practical. I hope we shall have the whole-hearted support of hon. Members in pressing the Bill forward, with the realisation that though perfection is not attainable we may get the nearest approach to it.
    Major HILLS: I listened with the very deepest interest to the speech of the right hon. and gallant Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). It took me back 23 years, and if he says that all the old arguments have been brought forward from this side I retort that the arguments on the other side have
    678
    not changed very much in that interval. Though I listened to him with the greatest interest, he left me completely mystified. On the question of improvements, he asked whether it was intended to confine the valuation to unexhausted improvements. Of course exhausted improvements have no value at all, and would not be taken into account. Then he went on to plead for a definition on which Somerset House can make an efficient valuation. I quite agree—but a valuation of what? Does he or does he not mean to include in the valuation the cost of improvements that have been made to the land by the owner or his predecessor in title? He did not say. All he said was that he wanted a workable valuation. I very much think that the right hon. Gentleman has fallen from grace. For the sake of getting a Bill through he is going to compromise with a principle which he has held as long as I have known him, that taxation should be levied only on the site value of land and should not include improvements made by the owner.
    I am afraid that the germ of compromise which emerged from the Liberal benches when the right hon. Gentleman for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) supported the Government in this Resolution, although he had wanted to tax increment value 23 years ago and this Resolution says nothing about increment value, is now spreading to the incorruptible soul of my right hon. and gallant Friend. He did an injustice to himself when he attacked my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young) for saying that taxation is the return made for certain values which the community gives. If I understood him aright he said that all the services which a community gives in the sense of police, sanitation and so forth, inure to the benefit of the site alone. Then he went on to say that the value of a building is the cost of replacement, but the rate at which replacement may be required must come into the calculation. If there is a bad police service and a house is knocked about it has to be replaced more quickly, and the right hon. Member for Seven-oaks was entirely right, and the words used by the Solicitor-General yesterday when he defined what he claimed to be the right of the community to tax land

    679
    were really only a general statement which applies to all taxation on all classes of property.
    I hope that before we go any further the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will ease the minds of those who, though they have disagreed with him, have always respected the convictions which he has held. I have always regarded him as the one bright light in a naughty world. Perhaps his own career has not been benefited by the sincerity of his convictions. He has stood fast m good times and in bad times, and now at last, when the Government propose something which he knows in his heart is wrong, and when we are going to hear, as we shall hear from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, that the Government intend to tax improvements and to tax capital, he is compromising and is taking something which I never suspected he would take. I would rather see him go down fighting for a principle in which he believes, even though that principle were a wrong principle, than see him compromising with the Mammon of unrighteous. I do not believe that in the end he will profit thereby. So great is the assistance that the right hon. Gentleman might get from the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) that I believe if they had stood firm they might have converted the Government to their principles, but by giving way and yielding to influences which I should have suspected would not have moved the soul of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, they have defeated the cause which they have at heart.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. MacLAREN: I must confess that when I looked at this Amendment I concluded that we had on the other side of the House an ingenious and ingenuous generation of gentlemen. As I listened to the discussion on the Amendment I also, like my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) marvelled at the purity of doctrine which emanated from the benches opposite, and I was a little entertained by the sophistry of their arguments. History goes a long way back, and on looking at this Amendment my mind runs even beyond the time of William the Conqueror. If we begin to make deductions of this kind,
    680
    there is no telling where we are going to land. Much of what was said by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir H. Betterton) was if he will not mind my saying so clever padding. The hon. Member asked, if I erected works in the desert and began to plough the sands, would I expect to be compensated? Of course I would, I should not be allowed to go about at large, I should be locked up. This is a point which the hon. Member will have to grasp, that no man is likely to expend any effort or money on any capital development unless the site upon which he is spending the money warrants the undertaking. I would rather pay attention to developments nearer home. I would not be a party in this House to supporting any Government that would bring in a tax upon the value of land if they had at the back of their mind some intention of including within a land value tax some form of tax upon capital or improvements. I would not stand for that. That would be false to the principle for which I have stood for years. Taking the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer into account, there is nothing that warrants such a suspicion as far as I know. Therefore, I think it is very encouraging to those who are moving this Amendment to say that when I am demanding a tax on site values, I am not demanding a tax on the improvements upon the land created at the expense of the owner. When we come to the ingenuous suggestion at the tail end of the Amendment dealing with improvements
    "made by the owner thereof or any of his predecessors in title,"
    that is a matter which has been reviewed in years gone by in this House, and there must be some datum line drawn when you come to consider what "predecessors in title" have done to improve the land. In the past it has been suggested that the tax should be levied upon the land, but not upon any improvements made less than 50 years ago. I might have agreed to this Amendment as it stands if it had contained some limitation in regard to the number of years, that is to say, if they had added to the Amendment:
    "Such improvements as have been effected less than 60 or 25 years ago."

    681
    To leave the period open leaves the proposal quite meaningless, and if I went into the Law Courts with such a defence in front of me, it would reduce the proposition to nonsense, because the person I should be searching for might long since have passed out of existence. I frankly say that I would be willing to accept this Amendment if the hon. Gentleman opposite would put in a line or two providing for a limitation such as I have suggested. If this cannot be done, I must abide by the Government Resolution as it appears on the Paper, and I am as certain as I stand here that the Government will not bring in a Clause or a Valuation Bill which will mislead those of us who have been loyal to the principles in which we firmly believe, that this is a real, honest and definite attempt to segregate from the site value of the land and call upon those who own the site value to contribute in the form of taxation. I think it would be quite unfair for hon. Gentlemen opposite to quote, as has been done by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir H. Betterton), the definition—with which I heartily agree—in the Rating Bill brought into this House by the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), and to attempt at the same time to say that the wording of this Resolution, if it embodied their Amendment, would be on all fours with the quotation which was read in the House this evening. While some of the older Members of this House become retrospective, and begin to think that their youth is recalled as they listen to the old arguments to which we listened 23 years ago, I can assure them that some of us, who followed the discussions quite as keenly in those days, can notice in this innocent-looking Amendment the same old subtle attempt that Mr. Pretyman and Mr. Trustam Eve used to try to work off years ago. We tell hon. Members opposite to take back this Amendment and try to give it some other turn or twist, some other delightful little phrase, and see if they cannot make it more successful than it will be to-night.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: It might be useful if I could contribute some statement with regard to the actual expenses involved in the improvements which we are discussing in connection with this Amendment. We have to consider what
    682
    we are going to tax. The main cost of development is, of course, that of roads and sewers, and it seems to me that we have no right to charge with this special tax the actual work which has been laid down and executed on the land. Sir Thomas Whittaker, a very well-known worker in connection with the land taxation movement, in his book on, "The Ownership and Taxation of Land," laid it down that the cost of developing the land as regards roads and sewers amounted, pre-War, to from £437 to £656—or say an average of £500—per acre. In addition to that, he stated that the owner gave up as much as 25 per cent. of his land for roads. That is rather an excessive estimate, but, nevertheless, the owner does give up a considerable amount for roads, which would not come into development. That has to be considered as being part of the general improvement, and there is no reason why a definite capital outlay like that should be included in the proposed tax.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his original speech on the Resolution, gave the instance of the Becontree Estate of the London County Council, which is, perhaps, the largest area for which one can give actual figures. Yesterday evening, at the last minute, in a naturally restive House, I tried to give the actual figures in regard to Becontree, but, unfortunately, my words did not reach the reporters correctly, and they are reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-day with two noughts left out of the figure. I am surprised that any words reached them at all. I am glad to have an opportunity of giving the actual figures for the improvement costs with regard to Becontree. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave the area as 2,000 acres. It is 2,700 acres. He gave the cost of purchase as £265,000, but as a matter of fact it was £500,000 for the 2,700 acres. In the original statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was most misleading, he used these words, as if he were stating comparable figures:
    "Let me give one particular instance … the London County Council Becontree housing scheme. The London County Council bought just over 2,000 acres. According to the assessment for local rating it was valued at £7,000"—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Have these figures any direct bearing upon the Amendment before us?
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Yes, Sir. The Chancellor said:
    "The assessment for local rating valued it at £7,000. They received for it £295,000."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1931; col. 50, Vol. 252.]
    Those figures were quoted as comparable figures. As a matter of fact, the rateable value was definitely raised by the work of the London County Council; it had been raised by the improvements on the land.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is now entering upon a general Debate. The Amendment before the House is, however, confined to the question of improvements and whether they should be taxed. The hon. and gallant Member must keep to the Amendment.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I will try to confine my remarks more closely to the Amendment. The value stated was taken as the value of the original land, but it was not; it was the value of improved land. The land as bought by the London County Council was improved land. I was very much accused for buying it, because it was bought at the market value.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is now replying to an argument which was raised in Committee, and which has no direct bearing upon the Amendment before the House. The Amendment before the House deals exclusively with the question whether improvements shall be included in the tax on land values.
    Lieut-Colonel FREMANTLE: I want to keep to the point, and I only want to say that the market value of the land when the London County Council bought it already included market gardening. Therefore, it was already considerably improved, and that entered into the price Further improvements were, of course, made afterwards.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The House is not dealing with the question whether the value of any improvement entered into the price paid for a particular plot of land or not. The House is now dealing solely with the question whether improvement value shall be taxed or not in the proposed Bill.
    Sir JOHN SIMON: On a point of Order. Would you be good enough,
    684
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to give a Ruling for the benefit of others in the House? This is the only occasion on which the Report stage of this Resolution will be discussed in the House. Are we to understand that any of us who may want to make a speech on the general proposal would be debarred unless they limited their observations strictly to the terms of this Amendment?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No; my Ruling is altogether different. At the moment we have before the House a definite Amendment. When that Amendment, which raises a particular issue, has been disposed of, the question will be proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," and then general questions can be discussed. But general questions cannot be discussed upon this precise and definite Amendment.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I am afraid that I still do not quite understand why discussing the nature of improvements does not help us to consider whether those improvements should be taxed or not. What I am trying to point out is the nature of the improvements, and to give chapter and verse for them.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member must not ignore my Ruling. He was demonstrating what improvements justified the price paid for certain land by a public authority. That question may be considered in the general Debate, but it does not and cannot arise on this particular Amendment.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Would it be in order if I gave an instance of another estate, saying what was the actual history of the improvements that took place, and discussed the question whether they should be taxed or not? If that would not be in order, I will conclude my remarks.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is very difficult for me to say what is or is not in order until the hon. Member makes his statement. What I am pointing out is that the hon. and gallant Member is entitled to put forward any argument to justify the improvement value not being taxed under the proposed Bill, but he is not entitled to reply to statements made

    685
    yesterday as to the purchase price paid by a particular body in connection with an entirely different matter.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I think that the rest of my argument will be in order. If not, of course, I shall at once accept your Ruling. What were the actual improvements made at Becontree? The main improvements were roads and sewers, and it is necessary to bring home to the House the magnitude of this particular payment when we are considering whether it shall be included or not under this proposal. The London County Council did the actual improvements. On the 1,500 acres, the roads and sewers only had amounted to £987,000. It seems to me to make an enormous difference whether you are going to tax the value of the land including that £987,000 or to tax it minus the £987,000.
    I should like to give a more definite instance of what the development of land means. This is from a firm of valuers in the City of London dealing with two estates. The first case is a recent purchase of 20 acres of land. The question is how has the development taken place. The value of the land to-day is £25,000. On that the capital tax in this case, at a 1d. in the £, would amount to £100. If this land is sold, at once the purchaser proceeds to construct roads, and it will cost £6,400. That is a further development. Is that going to be taxed? As a matter of fact the value of that plot of land would rise from £25,000 to £36,000. The proposal at present is to tax the £36,000. There is a third process. Supposing the taxation is made at present on this £36,000, the next periodical valuation comes round and the roads will have been made up. That is a further improvement which has to be done in the ordinary way of development. That will probably cost another £6,000. You will then have £42,000. Are you going to tax that £42,000 in full, towards which the actual purchasers will have spent out of their pockets £6,000 in making up the roads, or are you going to exclude it, or are you going to exclude the former £6,000, or are you going to go still further and tax the value of the land as it was originally purchased minus its virgin actual value? Let us take an instance of an improvement which is supposed to be due to the
    686
    public convenience of a shopping site. It is 3½acres with a value of £13,000. The purchaser would proceed to construct roads again. Here is an improvement at a cost of £2,200. Then he will sell the land with an improved value for £25,000. If it is sold in plots, it will very likely sell at a considerable price. If the plots came below £120, they would be excused. The owner will have paid a very considerable amount towards the development of the plots and they are going to increase in value. At the next valuation they will have gone up above the £120 and presumably would be taxed. Where is the justice of taxing one or the other according to which part of the development they have actually spent out of their own pocket? I feel that that is a practical difficulty.
    I should like to endorse what seems to me the strongest instance of all, that brought forward by the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young) and the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir H. Betterton). It is that of the garden city. I have been associated both with Letchworth and with Welwyn. There we started with unimproved land at £40 an acre and it has been developed. On an independent valuation one plot of land recently sold, in the very centre of the town, was actually valued at the rate of £40,000 per acre. If you go to Hendon, you will see the same thing. In a garden city the whole improvement has been done voluntarily and out of the very slender resources, and yet it is suggested that that should be taxed. I hope that will appeal to the Government. I am not sure whether under the original statement of the Bill it is not going to be removed, because we have an exception made of public utility corporations. Will that include these bodies that do these public improvements? It does not affect the point that we are dealing with in the Amendment, because those improvements, whether they are done by local authorities or by a garden city, are no different from when they are done by a benevolent landlord. If the benevolent landlord does his duty and is able to do so, he has spent an enormous amount in improvement in exactly the same way as those bodies have done. Is one to be excepted and not the other? I hope all these improvements will be excepted from the very harsh taxation that is proposed. You

    687
    cannot draw a line as to where improvement begins and where it ends. I hope the improvements which can be proved to have been executed in the generation immediately preceding the valuation will be excepted from the tax, otherwise you are going to stop enterprise and to have a deleterious effect upon the development of land of all kinds which I am sure the Government, as well as ourselves, are anxious to prevent.
    Mr. BENRILEY: I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will excuse me if I do not take up the argument he has been using, because I do not find in it any relevance to the issue involved in the Amendment. The criticism I have to make of the Amendment is that it is based upon an assumption for which those who have spoken in support of it have produced no evidence whatever. It is the assumption that, in the proposal with regard to placing a tax on land values, improvements are to be taxed. It is not only that assumption which has been put forward by speaker after speaker, but it has also been assumed, equally without foundation, that we on these Benches who for many years have been identified with the advocacy of the taxation of land values also desire to see improvements taxed. For neither of these assumptions has any evidence whatever been produced. On the contrary, all the evidence that has been before the House during these discussions points in an entirely contrary direction. I have not to-night, or yesterday seen any evidence adduced, or a single statement by the Chancellor or by any supporter of the principle, that there was any intention to place a tax upon improvements at all. On the contrary all the evidence is in the opposite direction.
    Without detaining the House, I want to call attention to the evidence which is available on this subject. I have no desire to anticipate any exposition of the proposals in relation to the question of improvements that may be made by the Financial Secretary or whoever speaks, but there is documentary evidence which is public property. Last year the present Chancellor of the Exchequer brought into the House a Bill called the Land Valuation Bill which was backed also by the Financial Secretary and two other members of the
    688
    Government. In, that Bill he set forth the basis upon which the tax will be-related to improvements. As this Bill was deliberately brought in by the Chancellor and supported by the Government I think we may reasonably assume that these were the conditions attaching to the incidence of the land tax in relation to improvements. It said:
    "The Commissioners of Inland Revenue … shall, as soon as may be after every valuation date, cause a valuation to be made of all land in Great Britain showing, with respect to every piece of land, the land value thereof as at the valuation date, that is to say, the amount which the fee simple in possession might have been expected to realise upon a sale in the open market on that date upon the assumptions—
    (a) that there had not been upon or in the piece of land—

    (i) any buildings;

    (ii) any works except any road and any works executed for the purposes of any public service or for agricultural purposes.

    (iii) anything growing on the land except grass and any heather, gorse or other natural growth, and, in the case of agricultural land, except also hedges and trees other than fruit trees."

    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I did not quite hear the second Sub-section. Did it except roads?
    Mr. RILEY: The second Sub-section refers to there not being upon or in the piece of land any buildings or any works. The right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young) in his speech basing his criticism of the proposal upon this assumption, for which there is no foundation, drew us a picture of what was going to happen after some enterprising person had created new works which, with the tax to be imposed on land values, would also be taxed. This Bill provides expressly for the exclusion of any such improvements of that kind. On these grounds, I submit that so far there has been no evidence advanced in support of the Amendment. The proposal is a tax on site values and not on improvements at all.
    Captain BOURNE: I do not think that anybody in the House will deny that it is the intention of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. B. Riley) and the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) that in the taxation of land values any

    689
    improvements should be included whatever. I have discussed this question many times with the hon. Member for Burslem, and I know he has always stated very clearly that in his opinion improvements should be clear of the tax. The point where we disagree with hon. Members is that it is by no means clear that the Government's proposals do, in point of fact, exclude improvements made either by the owner or by his predecessor to the title. The hon. Member for Dewsbury quoted just now the question of roads being considered in making the valuation, but I would point out that, quite apart from high roads and public-roads, there are a large number of roads maintained by the inhabitants which are private roads and put down by the owner when he is developing the land, and beyond these there are quite a number of service roads in agricultural districts. These, again, are private roads, and presumably roads within the meaning of the proposal, but which are absolutely necessary if the land is to be used for agricultural purposes. I do not think they represent works resulting from pressure by the community about which the Chancellor has talked in such wide terms. There is no value resulting from that which, apparently, the Government want to get at, and I think that is a point to be considered. Then the hon. Member referred to what is upon the land. I can quite understand that for urban purposes grass is grass and nothing but grass, but the hon. Member for Dewsbury is quite well aware that grass is by no means uniform, and that some is pasture and some is grass of another kind.
    Mr. B. RILEY: It is all grass and the word used is grass.
    Captain BOURNE: It may be grass in the way he uses the word, but in some cases if you put cattle on that grass they would very nearly starve, and in other cases they would wax fat. In nearly every case where the cattle would wax fat the value of the grass is not a natural product, but is cultivated grass resulting from being manured and worked on for generations, and is an entirely artificial product.
    Mr. RILEY: The hon. Gentleman will not forget that agricultural land as such is not to bear the tax.
    Captain BOURNE: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I want to point out that one reason why I am supporting the Amendment is because it makes it perfectly clear that all agricultural land is exempt. I listened with great patience to the statement of the Chancellor. I have not his exact words, but it is perfectly clear to me that a very large amount of agricultural land will not escape this tax, irrespective of whether it is land which at the moment is ripe for development or not. I am arguing this particular thing chiefly from that point of view. The argument of the hon. Member for Burslem was somewhat disingenuous. It was that he would support the Amendment if the words "predecessors in title" were not in it. I will agree that if you pursue these words to the utmost capacity, you might find yourself back before the Norman Conquest.
    I ask the hon. Member to look at the Resolution. It is to be a tax on every unit of land. I would point out that the Amendment merely seeks to decide how long the valuers should go back for the improvements and how long they should not. A general Resolution of this kind acts as an instruction to the Committee on the Bill, and it is necessary to draw the phrasing somewhat widely, unless you should find, when you come to work out the details, that you have unnecessarily restricted the Committee in the work that it has to do.
    I should like to refer to one other point made by the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren). He said that if he went into the Sahara Desert and started to bore, in order to sink a well for the purpose of irrigation, he would be looked upon as a lunatic. He must know that people are already trying to irrigate parts of the Sahara Desert by sinking wells. What matters is not so much the site as the capacity of the soil. Perhaps he includes that in the term "site." If he does, then it is a slightly misleading term. I am thinking rather of agricultural land, of which I have had far more experience. In many cases, if you take the fee-simple value of the land and compare it with the capital required to place an improvement on the land, the fee-simple value is a minus quantity. I

    691
    rather forget whether hedges were dealt with under the Valuation Bill or not. It is a little difficult to remember.
    I am not quite certain whether the terms of that Bill are going to be included in the Finance Bill this year. You have to build hedges and gates, and make a surface road for farm buildings and farmhouses, and in many cases the capital value of these improvements far exceeds the present value of the land. You can sell the land very often much more cheaply than you can put up a farmhouse or buildings. The land itself, irrespective of where it is situated, is valueless. What are valuable are the improvements that mankind has put upon it, the capital sunk into it by generations of owners.
    Take a constituency such as mine. Oxford has grown, and is extremely anxious to keep a green belt around it, for amenity purposes. It is a thing we want and badly need. That belt is sterilised for building purposes, and consequently, it having been under a restrictive covenant, the proposed tax will not apply to it. We have to consider the land just outside that belt. If the green belt is to be of much use, it will have to be a mile or so wide, and farther out you will have land which is not sterilised for building, and may be developed, and possibly will be under the town-planning scheme. This land will have a hypothetical building value. It may be a very great many years before that hypothetical value can be turned into a concrete value. For the moment, the only value that land has is as occupation land. Land in that part of the world lets for agricultural purposes at, roughly, £l an acre. A man might be willing to give £30 an acre, or perhaps £35 an acre, as a long-shot speculation, but some day the city of Oxford will extend there, and possibly that land will be sold at £70 an acre. The present proposals will be absolutely bound to put a value on that hypothetical speculative building value. The speculative value may never come off. The owner may gamble, and he is legitimately entitled to do so, and the valuer is bound to take into account the value that the owner places upon the land. If you take the amount of value sunk in the land, in equipment, the manurial value, the hedges, ditches, drains and farm buildings, the
    692
    probability is that the capital value of these will only come to half as much as the capital value of the land. In the far distant future there may be a far greater value for this occupation land.
    I am interested in this Amendment chiefly from the point of view of agricultural land. Any land alongside a main road, such as an important arterial road, acquires a hypothetical building value, although for the moment that could not be realised and the land could not be developed. But if you put in the actual capital sunk in the land, as against the present agricultural land, you will at least safeguard the owners of that land from taxation, until their land is ripe for development and the point of view is somewhat different. In the case of urban land the landlord desires to develop his land by laying out sewers, roads, footpaths, etc., before that land can be sold for building purposes. That is a very necessary development, and one that benefits the community. It is one that is undertaken at the expense of the landlord. The estimated cost of such development is probably taken into account before taxing begins on the site value. To make the site value is work that has to be done by the vendor, and not by the local authority, in the generality of cases. The local authority may take it over, but it does not do the work in the first instance. It seems to me that, in mere equity, these improvements should be allowed to revert to the possessor and the owner of the land, before the tax is charged upon it.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: It is said that when the secrets of all hearts are open, the recording angel will be able quite easily to divide the sheep from the goats. [Interruption.] I think that the merit of this Amendment is that it can divide the sheep from the goats among hon. Members opposite, and that it has divided the sheep from the goats. I regret to say that the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) is classed among the goats and that the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) is classed among the sheep, because he has accepted the principle of the Amendment. The enigma of the Chancellor's speech at the very outset of these Debates, was whether he was out for nationalisation, or out to tax land values

    693
    scientifically. He based his arguments upon justice and equity, although there was little enough justice and equity to be found in his observations. We heard his speech. He began by saying that the Almighty had given the land to the people, and he went on to say that you must render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, which was the most flagrant nonsense I ever heard in my life. He sought to confuse these two—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I cannot allow the hon. Member to develop a general discussion and I must request him to keep more to the point of the Amendment.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I am sorry I offended. I was seeking to make my observations show that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had based his arguments for this taxation upon justice and equity, and I was going to see whether in his simple proposal justice and equity were to be found. One is so used to professions of faith from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that one can only judge finally what he means by his words. It is far different with the horn Gentleman the Member for Burslem. There we have a burning faith, great sentiment, considerable scholarship and comparative youth. One realises the way the hon. Member for Burslem, with his faith, will vote. He has not disappointed me this evening. I think that we were all very much moved by his argument the other day. He told us the story about the pheasant moor in Yorkshire, where the landlord was given every advantage under the law, whereas we were asked to—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member should confine himself to the question before the House. I am rather afraid that if the hon. Member digresses in this manner we shall be led into a general discussion, and that is what I want to avoid.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I am very sorry, but the whole argument of the hon. Member for Burslem was that improvements should not be taxed. That was the whole of his appeal. He went on to talk about the slum landlord and how he was taxed for every improvement he made upon the homes of the people. Therefore, I wish to point out that the Amendment is merely carrying out the main principles enunciated by my hon.
    694
    Friend yesterday. I made the comparison between the moor in Yorkshire and the slum estate in order to show the real principle at which we are driving in this Amendment. We are seeking to avoid taxing the homes of the people, which would inevitably ensue if the proposal now introduced was ever put forward in law. I was very disappointed with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), whom I have always considered to be a great idealist. His attitude, purely and simply, was one of cynicism, or perhaps despair. He wishes to see the proposal put into some legislation, and he is prepared to see an injustice done in order to get his proposal put forward. Not so the hon. Member for Burslem. He said that he is prepared to accept the principle of the Amendment, and I shall be very disappointed if the limitation he proposes is not subsequently included in an Amendment put forward by us at a later stage. At any rate, I think that the principle is right. If you are going to have this sort of thing you must have it on the lines enunciated by the hon. Member for Burslem. The proposal in its naked form would never be welcomed in a court of law, and the hon. Member was right in trying to place some limitation upon it.
    I would ask hon. Members to consider the main principle which is behind the Amendment. Unless you introduce some principle of this kind you will be taxing the homes of the people at large. I am sure that neither the hon. Member for Burslem nor any of his supporters, nor any persons who really care for the welfare of the people, would wish to see within any period of transition people suffer at large as a result of any general taxation. When my hon. Friend was speaking, I seemed to see the shadow of Henry George himself sitting by his side pointing him into the Aye Lobby on this Amendment. I hope that ho will see that we are prepared to accept some limitation of the Amendment, and that he will at least vote for the principle of the matter rather than for cynicism and expediency as proposed by the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. The hon. Member for Burslem talked to us the other day in a way which really moved us. He talked

    695
    about the valuation being the great corner-stone of justice for the people of this country. If he is going to put into the very heart of his corner-stone a principle of flagrant injustice, it will wholly defeat the justice of the Tax and any proposals resulting therefrom.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I think that if we are to have a discussion on the larger issue before we reach a late hour, it will be for the convenience of the House if I intervene at this point in the discussion. In accordance with your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I propose at this stage to deal solely and quite briefly with the Amendment which is before the House. We are used to two types of amendments. There are those which are genuinely put forward to modify and improve an original proposal. There are those which are the equivalent of a direct negative. The Amendment which we have before us to-night is ingeniously chosen, for, while it takes the form of a genuine modification, it is in fact so destructive that were it accepted by this House, the Resolution and any Bill founded upon it would never work. Why? Because the criterion which the right hon. Gentleman who put down this Amendment asked us to adopt is, in fact, quite fantastic. It has no limit either of time or of degree.
    Let me take the question of time first. Hon. Members opposite do not in their Amendment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) said, put down any date beyond which you are not to go. Take, for example, the case of South London. non. Members are probably aware that there was a time when the site of what is now a considerable part of South London was a marsh, subject at high tide to be under the level of the river. What is it which hon. Members who put forward this Amendment suggest we should do with regard to the sites of South London? Quite clearly at some period in history which we cannot specify with any accuracy, the owners of that part of South London spent a certain amount of money in clearing the site of water and making it available for the structures which have been erected upon it. How are you to deal with that? How are you to ascertain such "value as may have accrued by
    696
    reason of any improvements made by the owner thereof or any of his predecessors in title with regard to that land"?
    Quite clearly you could not make that valuation unless you adopted the method suggested by the right hon. and gallant Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson) in his speech yesterday. But why should you stop at the date I have suggested? Why not go back to the time of Queen Boadicea and the London there was in those days? If you were to adopt the criterion of compound interest suggested yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Croydon, you could quite easily show that there was not a single site up and down this country which did not owe its origin to what was done at some time and with regard to which the value of improvement calculated on that basis would entirely exceed any site value to-day. Therefore, from the point of view of time alone, the Amendment in its present form is entirely disastrous.
    Take also the question of degree. I should have thought that hon. Members in every part of the House must realise that there are some things which go by the name of improvements which could not possibly be excluded from the value of the land without destroying the calculation of any value at all. Yet, if the Amendment were to be accepted, the Resolution would impose upon the Bill no possible exception to such exclusion. The hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), who is generally so very clear on constitutional practice, was, in this case, I am afraid, mistaken. I thought he would have recognised that a Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means must be drawn so widely as to cover every possible charge. If the Amendment were accepted and this Resolution were limited accordingly, it would be impossible to widen it beyond the scope of the original Resolution.
    Captain BOURNE: The point that I was dealing with was the point raised by the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren), that if we left in the words "of his predecessors in title," you would subsequently be able to limit the term to 50 years. I was not dealing with the question that the Financial Secretary is now raising. I was not attempting to argue that.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I realise the point the hon. and gallant Member was trying to make and I think he was wrong. If we were in this resolution to exclude from the scope of taxation any improvements even if they were effected prior to 50 years ago we could not afterwards limit the exclusion to those that took place subsequently to 50 years. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not"?] Because of the recognised procedure of this House. While I am referring to the hon. Member for Oxford I will add that he will find, when he sees the text of the Finance Bill, that a great deal of the criticism that he made with regard to agricultural land is not borne out in fact.
    I have no desire to accuse the hon. Member who moved the Amendment of disingenuousness, but the House would be very simple if they did not see through the real object which the promoters of the Amendment have in mind. The hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) quite frankly gave the position away, because referring to the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) he said that he would rather 6ee the right hon. and gallant Member go down fighting for his principles unmodified than to see him compromise and succeed. The hon. Member for Eastbourne thoroughly agreed with that point of view. That is natural, because hon. Members opposite wish to see the whole of this taxation fail, and because they want to see it fail they hope to make the principle so rigid that it would bring the proposal to nothing. Vain is the net set in sight of the bird, and hon. Members on this side are not going to be taken in quite so easily.
    10.0 p.m.
    The hon. Baronet opposite asked me this question. "If you reject our Amendment, what is your solution of this problem? Do you intend to include or exclude improvements in the definition of site value"? That is a very simple question to ask, but it is not quite a simple question to answer, and for the very good reason that improvements cover a great number of entirely diverse things. In the main, I am afraid that I shall have to give the answer which has necessarily been given before, that hon. Members will have to await the text of the Bill. They will not have to wait very
    698
    long. When we have finished this discussion to-night, the Bill will be introduced, and it cannot be very long before its text is before the House.
    Mr. SMITHERS: Can the Financial Secretary say the exact date? Will it be after Whitsuntide?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am afraid that on that matter hon. Members will have to wait, but I can assure them that it will not be very long. When they get the text of the Bill they will find their questions fully answered. I am, however, prepared to say that so far as improvements are of such a kind that their exclusion can be provided for consistently with the preservation of the integrity of the proposal, and with the practicability of its administration, they will be found to be excluded from the Bill. I know that hon. Members opposite would like to see exclusion whether or not it was compatible with practicability, because they do not want practicability.
    Sir H. BETTERTON: Will the Financial Secretary explains what he means by integrity?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It is perfectly clear what I mean. Here is a scheme put forward which has to work. Hon. Members on this side of the House, and hon. Members below the Gangway opposite know perfectly well that the object of hon. Members opposite is to get a scheme, if there is to be a scheme at all, that will not work. Our intention is to have a scheme that will work. What did the Chancellor of the Exchequer say in his opening remarks on this question, on Monday last. He said:
    "In preparing a complicated scheme of taxation of this nature innumerable occasions arise when there is some degree of conflict between abstract theory and administrative practicability. Whenever, in the course of my long preparation of this scheme, this conflict has arisen, I have striven to get as near logicality as was consistent with the simplicity and effectiveness of the scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1931; cols. 56–7, Vol. 252.]
    Those words indicate the policy that will be embodied in the text of the Bill. When we come to the practical scheme we intend to put on the Statute Book, it will be a scheme which will work and achieve its object. With regard to Amendments at later stages of the Bill, they will

    699
    be considered in the same spirit. If they are likely to improve the Bill and make it work more effectively, and more suitably for its purpose, they will be considered with a view to acceptance, but if they are designed or if their effect is calculated to wreck the Bill and to make the scheme unworkable, then we believe that this House, which thoroughly believes in this proposal, will secure their defeat.
    Sir D. HERBERT: I always admire the lucid way in which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is able to put his case, but on the many occasions on which I have heard him reply to a Debate I have never beard him succeed so well as he has done to-night in making no reply whatever. My hon. and gallant Friend who moved this, Amendment quoted a very definite example, that of the case of Welwyn Garden City, and the Financial Secretary has taken no notice of that whatever. What we want to know from the Government may be laid down on this example of Welwyn Garden City. I think we are entitled to expect before this Amendment goes to a Division, a clear answer on that particular point. A large tract of land bought at a price of £30 to £35 an acre is now a flourishing garden city, most of it, or a great part of it, built over with all the necessary open spaces and conveniences. Every vacant plot there at the present time is worth a great deal more than £35 per acre. I should like to know whether the Government consider that any substantial part of that large improvement of the site value of the land of Welwyn Garden City is due to anything else whatever but the foresight, the judgment, the work and the expenditure exercised by the Garden City Company and those whom it brought to the spot to do the work there. It is almost impossible to suggest that in Welwyn Garden City any of that large increment in the value of the land which has taken place during the last few years can in any way be described as unearned increment or as increment which is due to the community as distinct from the immediate community and the owners who have developed it.
    But the interesting thing is this. One can only suppose that the Government do not intend to exclude this improved value which has been brought about by
    700
    the owners of the property, and in those circumstances let us see whither the tax leads us. The tax on every house in Welwyn Garden City, with the exception of some of the very small houses, will be undoubtedly a substantial one. The tax on the company itself, with its interest in the ground rents and the portions which have been let off, and its remaining interest in the still undeveloped or only partially developed part, will obviously be substantial, and I should like to know how it is that the Government can possibly think that they can go on with the tax on those lines without accepting an Amendment of this kind. How can they possibly expect anybody to believe them, when they say that they are supporters of the development of garden cities and that they are supporters of an increase in the housing accommodation of this country?
    The fact of the matter is that the Government quite obviously do not know at the present time what it is they mean to value or on what basis they are going to value it. It may be—I do not know whether it is the case or not—that the Bill is already drawn, but I am perfectly certain that, if it is drawn, the Financial Secretary has not the slightest idea what it means. [Interruption.] If it is otherwise it would be interesting to know, in answer to this case, either from the learned Attorney-General or the learned Solicitor-General, what the proposals are in this respect. My hon. Friend asked just now what was the meaning of the "integrity of the proposals." It is merely laughing at this House to say that you are answering a question, and then to answer it by saying that it is to be in accordance with the integrity of an unknown quantity. The proposals are an unknown quantity. We have tried to get at them the whole time, and the Financial Secretary has professed to answer by giving us answers which are no answers at all.
    One object which we must have in these Debates, at any rate, is to make it quite clear to this House and to our constituents what it is that the Government are doing, and to make it clear that every one of the large number of people in this country who own their own houses, I calculate of any value over £750 or thereabouts, will be hit by this

    701
    particular tax. What we would like to hear is how that can be reconciled with the theory that this tax is intended to be a tax upon people who are holding up the development of the land. The fact of the matter is that, as shown by the discussion on this Amendment tonight, the proposals, whatever they are—we have only the vaguest notions of them—will tax the small landowners and will tax those members of the community who only own that little bit of land on which their own home is erected. [Interruption.] I have heard hon. Members throughout the few words I have been saying making interjections. I do not know whether there is anything in them, no doubt because they do not make them in a manner in which I can hear them.
    Mr. B. RILEY: The smallholders and the small houses are specially exempted, as are also small plots.
    Sir D. HERBERT: That is one item of the proposals about which we have got definite information. It is where the tax would amount to less than 10s. What I said just now was that the owner of every house of the value of probably £750 or a little more would be hit by the tax.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think these remarks had better be made on the Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution." They do not appear to be relevant to the Amendment now before the House.
    Sir D. HERBERT: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if I was led away by interruptions, but if I might reply to the interjection made on the opposite side of the House I would like to do so in a very few words, by saying that we have got a definite statement and we know that the tax will be levied upon the owner of every house, the site value of whose house is anything over £120 capital value. I am sorry if I went beyond the terms of the Amendment. Whatever may be the result of this Amendment and, of course, we know what the result will be in the Division lobby, the Debate at any rate has done something to expose the objects of the Government in these proposals, the integrity of which we have not yet discovered.
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: I am disappointed with the reply of the Financial Secretary because I had hoped that he would have verified the statement of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. B. Riley) that the proposals in the Finance Bill will be on all fours with the proposals in the Valuation Bill of last year. If he had told us that it would have removed a great deal of anxiety from the mind of many people who are very anxious indeed to know what is going to happen as regards their property, upon which they have spent a great deal of money in improvements. The class for which I am speaking at the moment is the shop-keeping class of the country. Quite recently I attended a conference of representatives from every part of England, Wales and the North of Ireland, and I can assure the Financial Secretary that the sooner the Government let the people know what they intend to do as regards improvements effected by the owners of property and their predecessors in title, the better it will be for the Government themselves.
    Shopkeepers are in this position. They have desired legislation by this House to help them in regard to the value they have put by their own efforts into the property they have rented for business purposes. This House passed a Landlord and Tenant Act which definitely laid it down that compensation shall be paid for any improvements made by the tenant or his predecessors in title, when the man had to give up his lease. They argue that if the Government are going to put a value on the property without taking into account the improvements the man himself has effected, it will go in the opposite direction to the Landlord and Tenant Act.
    Mr. MacLAREN: The hon. Member has made a quotation from the Landlord and Tenant Act, to the effect that compensation shall be paid for improvements effected by the tenant and his predecessors in title, but: the Act also stipulates that where compensation is paid nothing shall be paid in regard to anything which may be attributed to site value.
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: We are not asking by this Amendment for anything more than is in the Landlord and Tenant Act. We are not asking for anything in regard to site value. We are asking

    703
    that the improvements effected by the man shall be taken into consideration. The Financial Secretary cannot tell us what is to be in the Finance Bill. He says that until the Resolution has been disposed of the Bill cannot be drafted. We shall have a dummy Bill presented to-night, and the Bill itself will come along in about a fortnight's time. I hope the arguments I am putting forward will induce the Government to include provisions in that Bill which will meet the wishes of the class of people for whom I am now speaking. A few years ago the bulk of these people had to rent their properties because they were not in a position to purchase, or because there was no compulsion to purchase. During the last few years many men have been forced to borrow money from building societies or banks in order to buy their business premises, the reason being that, owing to the severe competition for shop premises, these men were being rack-rented, and they have had to pay prices for their property based on the rack rents.
    Mr. MacLAREN: Hear, hear!
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: I am glad that the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) agrees, at any rate, that these people have had to pay through the nose for the property. Are the Government going to allow something by way of compensation for the improvements which these men have put in, by their own efforts, in building up their businesses? Because they have been rack-rented they have had to pay an extortionate price for the property, and unless the Government do what I suggest, then it is not the man who has charged the extortionate price who will have to pay, but the poor chap who has been charged the extortionate price. If ever there was a case of gross injustice, this is one. In the last two years, we have had a revaluation of property for rating purposes.
    Mr. MacLAREN: Who did it?
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: I do not care who did it. It will not make the thing any better or any worse, whoever did it. The fact of the matter is that shopkeepers who have had to pay these enormous
    704
    prices for their properties have been valued for rateable purposes on the prices which they paid—not on the site value but on the site value plus improvements. What is more—and hon. Members opposite will doubtless cheer this also—they complain very bitterly that they derive no benefit from the De-rating Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Well, I remember that when we were discussing that Act, hon. Members opposite talked about how the poor shopkeeper was going to be penalised. In order to act consistently with the arguments which they used on that occasion they will have to support this Amendment. If they are going to render justice to these people, they must support the Amendment. It is a simple Amendment. I do not consider that it is an attempt to trap the Government—unless it is an attempt to trap them into honest treatment of these people. If the Government say that it is not worded as they would like it, then I wish to know what better form of words they can find. The main point is this. Are they prepared to accept the principle? If you take out the improvements of predecessors in title you are going to deprive a man of a value for which he has already paid because, as hon. Members opposite very well know, in the purchase of a business goodwill is taken into consideration, and the improvements effected by the seller. If you say that merely because a man has bought a business recently, he is not to have the benefit of the improvements previously effected, for which he has paid, you will do him a grave injustice.
    I turn from the case of the shopkeeper because I am satisfied from the expression on the countenance of the Solicitor-General that he is in sympathy with my point and that when we get the Bill we shall find that provision has been made in it for the shopkeepers, as regards improvements in their properties. I should like to deal with another question in connection with expenditure on improvements. We are at present discussing the Town and Country Planning Bill which deals with, among other matters, the question of increased values attaching to land owing to the fact that the community, or a local authority on behalf of a community, has decided on certain improvements. What are the Government going to do, in relation to the tax

    705
    which we are now discussing, with the man who has spent a large sum in improving certain building sites with the object of reaping benefit later on, but has not reaped the benefit? I want to draw the attention of the Solicitor-General to a statement that was made by the chairman of the Trafford Park Estates, Limited, when dealing with this question whether money spent on improvements should be included in the valuation of the estates. He said:
    "Since the estates were purchased, the company had spent more than £1,000,000 in improvement, developing roads, railways, drains, electricity and gas supplies, and so on. These improvements were the means of supporting a population of nearly a quarter of a million people, and have directly increased the rateable value of the district by £266,246."
    Hon. Members who come from that part of the country know very well that the development of the Trafford Park estates has conferred a great benefit on the whole community in that district. I should be glad if people as enterprising as the Trafford Park Estates Company would come to my constituency and develop factory sites there. My constituents would be very grateful. Are such people, who have been enterprising in developing estates on these lines, to be penalised because of their enterprise? Unless this Amendment is accepted, I cannot see how they will be helped. I feel satisfied that even people like the hon. Member for Burslem, who go about the country teaching that all taxation, and even local rates, could be secured by a tax on land values, are not prepared to go so far as to say that the taxation of site value should include all sorts of improvements that have been carried out by the person who owns the land, or by his predecessor in title, and that by his very enterprise he should be penalised even more than the negligent man who has done nothing to his estate.
    When you develop back land, even when it is near a main road, it means the expenditure of a large sum of money on improvements, because people will not begin to build until you have provided streets and sewers, and local authorities will not take charge of the streets until they are made up to their satisfaction. When people have spent large sums of money on that land, and possibly waited many years before reaping any benefit, is it fair that the expenditure of this
    706
    money should not be taken into consideration? If the hon. Gentleman, the Financial Secretary had told us plainly that the Government stood by the provisions that were contained in the Valuation Bill of last year, which were quoted by the hon. Member for Dewsbury, we should have had something concrete to work upon, but it is evident that it is not the intention of the Government to do that, for it would have been very simple for the Financial Secretary to have said so if it were. The Government could easily accept the Amendment; they would place themselves in no difficulty whatever if they did. I heartily support the Amendment on behalf of those people whom I am here to represent.
    Major COLVILLE: I rise to support this Amendment from a particular angle, wishing to put forward the effect which this Resolution will have on industry in the country unless an Amendment such as this is accepted. One can carry on an insurance business or a stockbroker's business from an office table, but those industries which employ most men and are, at the moment, the most depressed, are those for which a large area of land is necessary. To build ships, to produce coal, to quarry stone, to produce iron and steel and textile goods, one needs a considerable amount of land, and in all such cases it must be recognised that the value of the land has been enhanced by the enterprise of those who have set up the factories or works on the sites. We have heard a lot about the community making the land valuable, but surely it must be acknowledged that in the case of factory sites and shipyards the values have been created by the companies. At a time when there are so many unemployed, and when everyone ought to be striving to lower the costs of production, it is monstrous that the Government should propose what is a new direct tax upon industry, and that those industries which need the largest areas of land are to be the most heavily hit.
    I have been looking into the case of a particular works in Glasgow. It is a small place employing between 200 and 300 men, but it stands on a valuable site. Many factories situated in towns have valuable sites. If the tax is applied on the basis suggested, I have calculated that this firm will have to pay an annual tax of £1 per man employed. Is it fair, at a

    707
    time when we are doing our best to give men employment, to add a tax of £l per man employed under the guise of shifting the burden of taxation from one shoulder to another? We have heard it said that this is only a case of a readjustment of burdens, but there is no suggestion here of any readjustment, but merely an addition. If the Amendment were accepted, those who by their enterprise have created the value attaching to sites by putting up factories and giving men employment would be relieved from a new and unfair burden. If the right hon. Gentleman can assure us that there is no intention of adding further direct burdens to industry I shall be much relieved, but in the three days' Debate I have heard nothing to indicate that that will be the case. On the contrary, it has been made clear to me that it is the intention of the Government to levy a tax on all land used for industrial purposes, which will be a direct addition to the cost of production.
    Sir CHARLES OMAN: This Debate has been largely concerned with ethics and morals. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself said that God gave the land to the people, and that the community was now going to take over its rights. I must not go into that question, because that is the general thesis. One must not ask, for instance, "Did God give the United States as they now exist to the Red Indians or to the settlers who came in and displaced the Red Indians?" or "Does Australia properly belong to the black fellows or to the gentlemen who are now giving us so much financial trouble?" That is a general topic, and I am not going into it. The theory has been put forward that the community, or the State, has improved the land, and that the community ought to be entitled to the unearned increment, but I do not think it has been realised that this theory of unearned increment carries with it logically and correspondingly the theory of unearned decrement. If the State interferes and by running an arterial road through what has been a residential estate thereby destroys its quiet amenities and brings down the value of the houses, it is clear that the State ought to compensate all the owners of those houses for what it has taken from them.
    I have not heard anybody bring in the theory of unearned decrement, but it
    708
    seems to me that this Amendment, which prevents the laying of unjust taxation on unearned increment, carries with it logically the right to claim unearned decrement. I cannot see how it can be urged by any one that when the State has destroyed part of the value of a citizen's land the State should not compensate him. I cannot see that there is any arrangement by which, when a district, owing to the action of the State, grows progressively less and less attractive, and less and less full of amenities to the dwellers in the surrounding houses, the assessment of the value of that land should not be brought down progressively as well. The landowner or the house-owner is being made to pay, not on the present value of his unit—though I do not understand what that unit is—it may mean anything, it may relate to Hyde Park or the site of the Bank of England—and I should very much like to know what—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's remarks would be more suited to the Question "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution." The Question before the House is the actual Amendment.
    Sir C. OMAN: I completely bow to your authority, Mr. Speaker. As I have spent five minutes in distracting the attention of the House I will simply content myself with saying that I think this Amendment is the only right and rational way of dealing with the matter.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the end, to add the words "within the last fifty years."
    I rather regret to note from the speech which was addressed to the House by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that his natural kindly mental temperament has been so distorted and embittered by the strain of meeting the arguments addressed to him that he finds in this Amendment some sort of ingenious device or trap to lure an innocent Government into an untenable position. No, sir, if the Government has got into an untenable position it will be of their own volition, and not by reason of anything that has been done on this side of the House. In that the hon. Member is entirely mistaken. This Amendment-has been designed to clarify the situation,

    709
    and to enable us to get a somewhat more accurate idea of what are the purposes in the mind of the Government in making this proposal. There may be, perhaps, a secondary purpose, and that is to ascertain whether these proposals give a clear idea of what they are and whether they are consistent with the reasons put forward by the various speakers on behalf of the Government. When I think that for two whole days we debated in Committee the general proposals in a sort of fog of doubt, and uncertainty, when the Government employed every device of evasion and postponement and downright rudeness—[Interruption.]—to conceal from the Committee what they are proposing to do, it seems to me that it was very necessary that an Amendment of this kind should be put down in order that we might ascertain really where we are trying to go.
    Even hon. Members below the Gangway on this side of the House, apparently, shared in the general ignorance. Some of us on these benches were innocent enough to suppose that, when all those afternoon calls were paid at Downing Street, the subject of discussion was politics; but, after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) yesterday, it is quite clear, of course, that it was only to have a cup of tea and talk of cabbages and kings, and why the sea is boiling hot, and whether pigs have wings; and that nothing that might be done under this Bill ever came on the carpet at all. But we hardly required the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, because his speech itself was sufficient evidence that he was in fact entirely ignorant of the proposals of the Government, for all his arguments were devoted to the grievances aroused by betterment which had been obtained at the expense of public money, and not to the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was not until the end of our discussion in Committee, when the Solicitor-General made that speech which has earned for him so many well deserved compliments, that we began to understand a little more about the matter. He gave us his version of the justification for the proposals that we now have before us, and I should like just to read to the House
    710
    a passage from his speech which I think is very illuminating. He said:
    "The imposition of this tax, coupled with the valuation which must necessarily precede it, is one of the measures which have been long and consistently advocated by those on this side of the House "—
    I leave out a few words which are not germane to the purpose—
    "as a just means of securing to the community as a whole some part of the wealth which that community has created. … Vast sums have been spent by the community in the past in improving the facilities and services connected with the land in this country, and great works are now being carried through at enormous expense, and will in the future be carried through probably upon an ever-increasing scale. It is the expenditure of these moneys in the past by the community which has developed the land throughout the country, and has given it the value which it now has in the hands of the owners. It is the continual expenditure of this money from day to day that upholds and maintains those value for the owners, and it is only common justice that those who own the land which is so benefited, and will be further benefited in the future by the expenditure of the resources of the community, should pay some acknowledgment to the community for those benefits."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1931; cols. 522–3, Vol. 252.]
    The House will see that that statement of the Solicitor-General amounts to this, that all improvements in the value of the land have been solely created by the public expenditure of the community, and that the only thing which keeps those values in operation to-day is the continued expenditure of public money by the community. That appears to me to be a very startling statement, hardly consistent with the common experience of every one of us. Take the common case of a man who buys a piece of land which he thinks is nearly ripe for development. That land has a certain value; it may be that it has a certain potential value; but the person who has bought the land then proceeds to spend a large sum of money on it. He has to make roads, he has to construct sewers, he may have to do a certain amount of drainage, he may have to do a certain amount of levelling, and in the end he has probably spent several times as much money upon the development of his land as he paid for the land itself. What is the result of that upon the value of the land? The value of the land is improved, and it is improved by the expenditure of that man, and not by the action of the community. After all, the community is there all the

    711
    time. The community was there before the man spent money on the land. [Interruption.] I do not understand what the hon. Member is denying. I am assuming that the community is there ail the time. This is land in the neighbourhood of a large town, where the community resides. It is true that the presence of the community gives a certain potential value to the land, but the land does not acquire that value until the owner has come and spent his share of the money. That must be so. The community was there before and it is there after. The community has not changed. Only one thing has changed, and that is the money that is put into the land by the owner. That is the value of the land which has been created by the owner and it is that value which we seek by this Amendment to exclude from the tax.
    In one of the passages in that speech of the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) which has been so much quoted, he suggested that an individual who thought he created value by his own efforts might find, if he went to the Sahara, that those same efforts would not in fact create the value, and from that he argued that, therefore, it was only the community that created the value in the land. But that applies to a great many other things besides land. What would be the value of the "Daily Mail" in the Sahara? What would be the value of the Solicitor-General in the Sahara? If we are to take his words and say that the man who has benefited by the presence of the community must pay his fair acknowledgment for the very great benefit which he is hourly receiving from the community, what is the difference between the position of the man who has put money into the land and the position of the Solicitor-General himself, who owes his value to the fact that he is practising in a large community? Why is he not to pay? What is the pretext for singling out this particular form of capital and saying it shall be subject to a tax which is not inflicted upon any other kind of capital, although all are equally in the same position that they owe a certain amount of their value to the presence of the community in which they live. I think I have established that there is a real value which is created by the expenditure of the owner's money, and we want
    712
    to know what is the attitude of the Government towards those improvements.
    The Financial Secretary, in his speech a little while ago, did not attempt to defend his position on any ground of equity or justice. He defended it simply and solely on the ground that he wished to preserve the integrity of his Bill. That is a poor ground on which to defend an important principle, but I take the question of the integrity of his Bill. What was his objection to the Amendment? He said it was ingeniously devised to make the Bill impracticable because of the question of time. It was not workable. We could not go back into the dim recesses of past history and ascertain for all past time what improvements have been made either by the owner or by any of his predecessors in title. I will agree with him so far that the Amendment is put down to establish the theoretical position, and I am quite prepared to admit that, when you come to practice, you cannot literally carry out your theory in its whole perfection. The Chancellor of the Exchequer takes the view that, when there is some conflict between the practicability and the theory, you must get as close as you can to the theory consonant with the preserving of practicability. I am quite certain that my hon. Friends on this side of the House will follow that course to-night. The hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) suggested that having established the general principle by the Amendment, he would be fully prepared when we came to the Clause in the Finance Bill to accept some limitation to it.
    The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Stafford Cripps)The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Stafford Cripps) indicated dissent.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Solicitor-General shakes his head, no doubt referring to the argument put before us by the Financial Secretary that, according to the procedure of the House, that would be impossible. I grant him that. I want very much to meet the difficulties of the Solicitor-General and the Financial Secretary, and, therefore, with a view to helping the Government I am proposing an Amendment to my hon. Friend's Amendment which will put the limitation that they deem to be necessary into the Amendment now. I am encouraged to do that because I find that such a limitation is actually in practice

    713
    in another country. Here I am indebted to one of those numerous publications in coloured covers which are issued from time to time by the party of hon. Members who sit below the Gangway on this side. In their industrious researches they have discovered that in 1922 in Denmark a land valuation and tax Bill was introduced in which the value of improvements was very properly separated from the value of land, and one of the provisions was that all valuations must show the selling value of the land as if unimproved, and, further, that allowance was to be made for improvements of virgin land which could be proved to have been undertaken in the preceding 30 years.
    Thirty years seems a little short, and I am venturing to put in 50 years, but I do not imagine a difference of 20 years will make the difference between practicability and impracticability. As the integrity of the Bill will not be injured, I must assume that the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment. The decision of the Government in regard to this amending Amendment will really be the acid test of their sincerity in this matter. They claim that their sole purpose is to obtain acknowledgment from the owner of a gift he has received from the community. We are not in this Amendment questioning that principle. All we are doing is to say that where an improvement in the value of the land is not due to the community but demonstrably due to the action of the owner himself, that shall be excluded from the tax which is proposed. We want to know what is going to be the attitude of the Liberal party on this question, because we know very well what their principles are. I have another publication in a different cover, also published by the Liberal party. In this they say:—
    "We are in agreement with the principle of taxing land values in so far as any parcel of land acquires site value as the result of the community's activities and expenditure but to say that all land derives its value from the presence of a community in its neighbourhood is to stretch a literal truth much too far. … We would go further and say that means should be found so to adjust taxation and rating that improvements whether they take the form of buildings or of increasing the capital value of the land itself, will be to the utmost degree encouraged."
    From the principles which they lay down in this publication, I think I can
    714
    fairly claim their support in the Lobby for the Amendment which I have moved.
    Mr. BEAUMONT: I rise to support the Amendment to the Amendment which has just been moved by my right hon. Friend. I do it with a certain amount of regret, because I frankly prefer the original suggestion which was moved earlier in the evening. The Government rejected that, and I am not surprised. [Interruption.] I was not in the least surprised because, as my right hon. Friend has said, it is the acid test of their intention. Our contention is that the Government's intention in this matter is entirely different from what they have professed, during this three days' Debate. My right hon. Friend, in moving the Amendment, has given the Government every opportunity for making their attitude perfectly clear. Either that attitude is a sincere desire to give to the community a portion of that wealth which they claim that the community has created, or it is a scheme to get at the landlords at any cost and by any means. If they reject this Amendment, it is not the least use of the Chancellor of the Exchequer coming down to this House and telling us of the Creator's intentions. I do not know how the Chancellor knew what those intentions were, and, in fact, I do not believe that the Chancellor did know. I decline to accept him as an interpreter for the Creator. [Interruption.]
    It is no use. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] I cannot see that I have said anything which is in the least inconsistent with order or with correct procedure. A Chancellor of the Exchequer is one thing, and a minor prophet is another. Nor can the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), continue to support this tax, with his tongue firmly embedded in his cheek, and with those moving words about the flight of the rural landowner, to which we listened yesterday. The real reason why the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen opposite refused the first Amendment, is that they are not out to get the increment that has been created by the community. They know that such increment is relatively small, and that the major part of the value of land has been created by the work of the owners, past and present.

    715
    They know that if they accepted this Amendment, their Land Act would disappear in smoke.
    There has been some talk in the past few days of the attitude of my party towards this proposal, and suggestions have been made that they might possibly not be as opposed to it as people might previously have been led to suppose. If the Government refuse this Amendment, it is clear that that is not in the least due to their desire to get for the community something which belongs to the community, but that it is an attempt to attack a particular class, because hon. Members know that that class has got too much sense ever to support them. It is pure and unadulterated class legislation, and if this Amendment is refused, it stands so, undisguised and without shame. If this Amendment is refused, and if it is laid down by the Government, and by the Liberal party, that they do not mind who made the increment, who has improved the land, that they do not mind who did the work or put in the capital, or who took the risk, and that because a man owns land, he has to be attacked, then there can be no question that the party to which I belong will fight this Measure at every stage, in every way and with very weapon.
    11.0 p.m.
    The question of an increment tax need not only apply to land. I do not say anything about the attractive possibility of the Solicitor-General's view of the land valuation tax. There are many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in this House who belong to the same profession as the Solicitor-General, and it might very fairly be argued that their value would fail to exist if no law courts had been built by the community. It might equally be said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they had been given by the Creator for the enjoyment of all mankind. This is the acid test, and I would at least pay hon. Members opposite a compliment to which hon. Members below the Gangway are not entitled, namely, that they are unashamed about this matter. They admit, whatever their
    Front Bench say, that this is a class attack. They do not trouble about justice and equity. Their attitude is, "Let us get at them." [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] The cheers that welcomed that remark are a justification of every word I have said. Either the Government propose to tax increment which is the result of public expenditure—if they do they will accept the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend—or they mean to tax the landowner, irrespective of equity and justice, simply because he is a landowner, and in that case they will refuse the Amendment.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am sure it is not necessary for me at this hour to detain the House by saying at any length that this is another snare into which the Government do not intend to fall. The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that they wished to be of assistance by putting down this extra Amendment was a benevolence which was, I think, intended to react for his own benefit and not for the benefit of the Government. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has already explained why such an Amendment as this could not be accepted. The reason is that if the Resolution is put into hard and fast terms, it destroys all possibility of alteration in the Finance Bill. If these words were adopted, whatever they may mean—and I do not know what improvements mean for they are difficult to define, as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite know—it might well be a question when we come to the Finance Bill whether something which was or was not to form a part of the Tax came within the improvements. The question of whether specific improvements are or are not part of the subject matter can be dealt with, I suggest, far more suitably on the Finance Bill, when hon. and right bon. Gentlemen opposite will see how it is to be dealt with in the proposed Bill.
    Question put, "That those words be there added to the proposed Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 149; Noes, 224.

    Division No. 237.]

    AYES.

    11.5 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

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

    Betterton, Sir Henry B.

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

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Beaumont, M. W.

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Bird, Ernest Roy

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

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

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Boyce, Leslie

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Remer, John R.

    Bracken, B.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Broadbent, Colonel J.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

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

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Buchan, John

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.

    Butler, R. A.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Butt, Sir Alfred

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

    Salmon, Major I.

    Campbell, E. T.

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

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Castle Stewart, Earl of

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittom

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Skelton, A. N.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

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

    Inskip, Sir Thomas

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Smithers, Waldron

    Chapman, Sir S.

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

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

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

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Colville, Major D. J.

    Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Llewellin, Major J. J.

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

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Thompson, Luke

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)

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

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

    Lymington, Viscount

    Tinne, J. A.

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

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

    Todd, Capt. A. J.

    Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Margesson, Captain H. D.

    Train, J.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Marjoribanks, Edward

    Turton, Robert Hugh

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

    Meller, R. J.

    Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

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

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

    Dixey, A. C.

    Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Duckworth, G. A. V.

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

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

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

    Wells, Sydney R.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Muirhead, A. J.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

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

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

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

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

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    O'Connor, T. J.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Fermoy, Lord

    O'Neill, Sir H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Fison, F. G. Clavering

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Sir George Penny and Sir Victor

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Peake, Capt. Osbert

    Warrender.

    NOES.

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

    Burgess, F. G.

    Gibson, H. M (Lancs, Mossley)

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

    Burgin, Dr. E. L.

    Glassey, A. E.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Caine, Hall, Derwent

    Gossling, A. G.

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

    Cameron, A. G.

    Gould, F.

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

    Cape, Thomas

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Alpass, J. H.

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

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

    Ammon, Charles George

    Chater, Daniel

    Gray, Milner

    Angell, Sir Norman

    Church, Major A. G.

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

    Arnott, John

    Cluse, W. S.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

    Aske, Sir Robert

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Ayles, Walter

    Compton, Joseph

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Cove, William G.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

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

    Barnes, Alfred John

    Daggar, George

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    Barr, James

    Dalton, Hugh

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

    Batey, Joseph

    Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

    Hardie, George D.

    Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

    Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

    Harris, Percy A.

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

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Haycock, A. W.

    Benson, G.

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Dukes, C.

    Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

    Birkett, W. Norman

    Duncan, Charles

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

    Blindell, James

    Ede, James Chuter

    Herriotts, J.

    Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

    Edmunds, J. E.

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

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

    Broad, Francis Alfred

    Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Egan, W. H.

    Hopkin, Daniel

    Bromley, J.

    Foot, Isaac

    Horrabin, J. F.

    Brooke, W.

    Freeman, Peter

    Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

    Brothers, M.

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

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph

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

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

    Isaacs, George

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

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Buchanan, G.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    718

    719

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Mills, J. E.

    Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

    Jones, Llewellyn-, F.

    Milner, Major J.

    Sinkinson, George

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Montague, Frederick

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Morley, Ralph

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

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

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Kelly, W. T.

    Mort, D. L.

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Muggeridge, H. T.

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Kinley, J.

    Murnin, Hugh

    Sorensen, R.

    Lang, Gordon

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Naylor, T. E.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Lathan, G.

    Noel Baker, P. J.

    Sullivan, J.

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Law, A. (Rossendale)

    Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    Lawrence, Susan

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

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

    Lawson, John James

    Palin, John Henry

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

    Paling, Wilfrid

    Tillett, Ben

    Leach, W.

    Palmer, E. T.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Tout, W. J.

    Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

    Perry, S. F.

    Townend, A. E.

    Lees, J

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Picton-Turbervill, Edith

    Vaughan, David

    Lindley, Fred W.

    Potts, John S.

    Viant, S. P.

    Lloyd, C. Ellis

    Price, M. P.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Walker, J.

    Longden, F.

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Watkins, F. C.

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Raynes, W. R.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Lunn, William

    Richards, R.

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    McElwee, A.

    Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

    Wellock, Wilfred

    McEntee, V. L.

    Ritson, J.

    West, F. R.

    McKinlay, A.

    Romeril, H. G.

    Westwood, Joseph

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    White, H. G.

    Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

    Rowson, Guy

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

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

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    McShane, John James

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Sanders, W. S.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Manning, E. L.

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Mansfield, W.

    Scurr, John

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Marcus, M.

    Sexton, Sir James

    Wilson, J. (Oldham)

    Markham, S. F.

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Marley, J.

    Sherwood, G. H.

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

    Marshall, Fred

    Shield, George William

    Wise, E. F.

    Mathers, George

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

    Matters, L. W.

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

    Maxton, James

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Messer, Fred

    Simmons, C. J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. Hayes and Mr. Charleton.

    Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Resolution."
    Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: The defeat of the last Amendment by the big battalions of the Government has made abundantly clear what has been slowly emerging during the last few days, and that is that the real importance of this Resolution is that in the eyes of the supporters of the Government it will injure their political opponents. We are prepared to admit that a certain amount of the increment value of land may be due to the efforts of the community, but, on the other hand, it is equally clear that a great deal of the increased value of land may be rightly and properly attributed to the efforts of the owner, and in cases like that it is only right and reasonable that the owner should not be subject to this tax. There are innumerable cases in which the value of land has been entirely created by the
    720
    enterprise of the owner or of the pioneers who have developed the land. I take, for instance, the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the effect it has had upon the gigantic Dominion of Canada. Not many years ago the pioneers of the Canadian Pacific Railway threw a frail line of rails across Canada. Who created the value of the land on each side of that line? Was it created by the community, the Red Indian who hunted the bison, or by the pioneers who made the line? On the same line of reasoning, who is entitled to the increment value of the land—the community, the Red Indians, or the shareholders of the company who took the risk of supporting an enterprise of that kind?
    Take the case of a reclamation of which I happen to know, where marsh land of about eight acres, which was valueless, which was swamped at high tides, was reclaimed by a company and turned into very valuable land. A wall

    721
    was driven along the edge of the deep water, and the marsh was filled in, with the result that about 10 acres of building land was reclaimed. Who is entitled to the increment value of that land? Who created its value? Was it the community, or was it the enterprise, the skill and daring, of those who carried out the work. In cases like that it seems to me nothing short of iniquituous that valuable land, created entirely by the owners, should be subject to this tax. On the other hand, where it can be proved that the value of the land has been created
    or largely increased by the efforts of the community, I admit that a certain tax should be payable, and that is my reason for supporting the Amendment. We say, quite clearly, that although the value of the land has been created in many cases by the community in an equal number of cases the value has been created or increased entirely by the efforts of the owners.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Resolution."
    The House divided: Ayes, 148; Noes, 239.

    Division No. 238.]

    AYES.

    [11.20 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Albery, Irving James

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

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

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

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

    Fermoy, Lord

    Ramtbotham, H.

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

    Fison, F. G. Clavering

    Remer, John R.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

    Beaumont, M. W.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Betterton, Sir Henry B.

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

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

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Bird, Ernest Roy

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Salmon, Major I.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

    Boyce, Leslie

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Skelton, A. N.

    Bracken, B.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Brass, Captain Sir William

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

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Broadbent, Colonel J.

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

    Smithers, Waldron

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

    Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Buchan, John

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Butler, R. A.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Campbell, E. T.

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

    Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Castle Stewart, Earl of

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

    Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Thompson, Luke

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

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

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

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Tinne, J. A.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Llewellin, Major J. J.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Todd, Capt. A. J.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

    Lymington, Viscount

    Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

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

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Margesson, Captain H. D.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Marjoribanks, Edward

    Wells, Sydney R.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Meller, R. J.

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Mline, Wardlaw-, J. S.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

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

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Dalkeith, Earl of

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

    Womersley, W. J.

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

    Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

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

    Muirhead, A. J.

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

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Duckworth, G. A. V.

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

    Sir George Penny and Sir Victor

    Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

    O'Connor, T. J.

    Warrender.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    O'Neill, Sir H.

    NOES.

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

    Ammon, Charles George

    Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

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

    Angell, Sir Norman

    Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Arnott, John

    Barnes, Alfred John

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

    Aske, Sir Robert

    Barr, James

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

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Batey, Joseph

    Alpass, J. H.

    Ayles, Walter

    Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Hopkin, Daniel

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Benson, G.

    Horrabin, J. F.

    Picton-Turbervill, Edith

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

    Potts, John S.

    Birkett, W. Norman

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph

    Price, M. P.

    Blindell, James

    Isaacs, George

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Broad, Francis Alfred

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Richards, R.

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Jones, Llewellyn-, F.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Bromley, J.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

    Brooke, W.

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Ritson, J.

    Brothers, M.

    Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

    Romeril, H. G.

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

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

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

    Kelly, W. T.

    Rowson, Guy

    Buchanan, G.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Burgess, F. G.

    Kinley, J.

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

    Burgin, Dr. E. L.

    Lang, Gordon

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Caine, Hall-, Derwent

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Sanders, W. S.

    Cameron, A. G.

    Lathan, G.

    Sawyer, G. F.

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

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Scurr, John

    Chater, Daniel

    Law, A. (Rossendale)

    Sexton, Sir James

    Church, Major A. G.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lawson, John James

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

    Shield, George William

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Leach, W.

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Compton, Joseph

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Cove, William G.

    Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

    Simmons, C. J.

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Lees, J.

    Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

    Daggar, George

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Sinkinson, George

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lindley, Fred W.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

    Lloyd, C. Ellis

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Longden, F.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Lovat-Frater, J. A.

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Lunn, William

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Dukes, C.

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Sorensen, R.

    Duncan, Charles

    McElwee, A.

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Ede, James Chuter

    McEntee, V. L.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Edmunds, J. E.

    McKinlay, A.

    Sullivan, J.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Sutton, J. E.

    Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

    Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    Egan, W. H.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

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

    Foot, Isaas

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Freeman, Peter

    McShane, John James

    Tillett, Ben

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

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Tinker, John Joseph

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

    Manning, E. L.

    Tout, W. J.

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Mansfield, W.

    Townend, A. E.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Marcus, M.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

    Markham, S. F.

    Vaughan, David

    Glassey, A. E.

    Marley, J.

    Viant, S. P.

    Gossling, A. G.

    Marshall, Fred

    Walker, J.

    Gould, F.

    Mathers, George

    Watkins, F. C.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Matters, L. W.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

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

    Maxton, James

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Gray, Milner

    Messer, Fred

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

    Millar, J. D.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

    Mills. J. E.

    West, F. R.

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Milner, Major J.

    Westwood, Joseph

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Montague, Frederick

    White, H. G.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Morley, Ralph

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

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

    Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

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

    Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    Mort, D. L.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

    Murnin, Hugh

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Hardie, George D.

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Harris, Percy A.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Wilson, J. (Oldham)

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Noel Baker, P. J.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Haycock, A. W.

    Oldfield, J. R.

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

    Hayday, Arthur

    Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

    Wise, E. F.

    Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

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

    Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

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

    Palin, John Henry

    Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

    Herriotts, J.

    Paling, Wilfrid

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Palmer, E. T.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Mr. Hayes and Mr. Charleton.

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Perry, S. F.

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Mr. CAMPBELL: I agree with all that has been said by my colleagues to-night in condemnation of these Land Tax proposals,
    and feel that they will work to the detriment of my constituents, but I wish to confine my remarks to the case of playing-fields, sports grounds and commons. I am very keen myself about all forms of sport, and do all I can

    725
    to get facilities for others to enjoy games in the open air. In any constituency there are several dozen clubs—football, cricket, law tennis, bowls and other clubs. Some of them are the property of big banks and private firms, but the majority of them are clubs run by poor clerks and dependent upon the subscriptions of their members, and often maintained only with very great difficulty. Under the Bill as it stands [HON. MEMBERS: "What Bill?"] these clubs will be called on to pay extra taxation on their grounds. Many of these clubs are doing a great deal for the children of the elementary schools, allowing them to play on their grounds on two or three days of the week. They are only too delighted to do so, but if the clubs are to be taxed I rather fancy that another line of thought may arise.
    Are our school play-grounds to be taxed? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It does not say so anywhere in the Bill [HON. MEMBERS: "What Bill?"] I do not know whether hon. Members opposite are in a hurry to go home, but the quieter they are the sooner my speech will be finished. In London there is no less an area than 13,000 acres of public open spaces, and, by a coincidence, the area of private open spaces is exactly the same. According to the Bill [HON. MEMBERS: "What Bill?"] the 13,000 acres of public open spaces will not be taxed, but the private open spaces are to be. Is it the wish of the Government that the 13,000 acres of private open spaces should come into the building market?
    What, I should like to ask the Members, is the site value of a privately owned common? It cannot be enclosed. [Interruption.] I dare say some of the Members of the Government are interested in privately owned commons. Let me suggest that the health value of a privately owned common to the community is far greater than the site value. During the last few years Ministers of Health and Presidents of the Board of Education have supported the playing-fields movement and I am very anxious to know whether the Minister of Health and the President of the Board of Education are going to support this Resolution and allow this movement to be killed by the Bill which is to follow?
    Mr. QUIBELL: On a point of Order, I would like to know whether we are now discussing the Bill which will follow the passing of this Resolution or the Resolution itself?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Resolution before the House authorises the introduction of the Bill, and the hon. Member is quite in order.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: I see that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works is in his place, and he has done a great deal to support the playing-fields movement, and he bas realised that it is for the benefit of the country that we should have as many open spaces as possible. If the Bill foreshadowed by this Resolution becomes law, all these open spaces will be closed. [Laughter.] It is very easy for hon. Members opposite to laugh, but they do not seem to take the slightest interest in the question of providing facilities for the children to enjoy their games and exercises. In my view, money spent upon providing open spaces is a form of economy. I am in favour of trying to keep people in a good state of health, instead of having to send them to hospitals. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Resolution will bear in mind that it is important to realise that there are in Greater London and the rest of the country thousands of acres of private open spaces used as cricket grounds, bowling greens and other forms of sport which are supported by some of the very poorest people in the country. It is not a question of the rich, because in many parts of the country these open spaces are supported and kept up by the boy scouts and boys clubs. [Interruption.]
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I understand that quite a number of speakers wish to take part in the Debate. I do not say that these interruptions are entirely unimportant, but I do say they tend to prolong the Debate.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: I should like to make my humble apologies, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for speaking for more than the 10 minutes to which I promised to confine myself, but, on the other hand, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that although I may have been on my feet for 20 minutes, I have probably not been speaking for more than five.

    727
    It is hon. Gentlemen on the Government Benches who will have the benefit of staying to listen to many more speeches, because, as they know from experience, the more they interrupt, the more speeches they will hear. As repetition is not permitted, I will sum up by saying that I sincerely hope the Government will give attention to the remarks I have made. The Solicitor-General made a few observations last night about playing-fields and school grounds, but he did not go into the facts of the case as I have mentioned them in connection with the many small clubs that are run by a very humble type of young people, who look forward at the week-ends to getting their games. They pan only manage with very great difficulty to keep these clubs going, and, on the top of all that, they are now threatened with extra taxation. I, therefore, implore the Government to take these facts into consideration. I have spoken only of facts which have been given me this afternoon by an authority, and which show that in London and Greater London there are 13,000 acres of private open spaces and 13,000 acres of public open spaces. It would be a crime were this land to be brought under the proposed Bill, so that the owners of it should have to pay this extra taxation.
    Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: It is somewhat unfortunate that technical and complicated matters of this sort have to be discussed at this late hour, but this is the first opportunity the House as a whole has had of discussing this Resolution because the discussion up to recently has been on a very narrow point. I wish to deal with one aspect of the question which comes very intimately to my constituency. I wish to describe the system by which practically all the land in my constituency has been developed during the last 50 years, and to show how the incidence of the tax will fall, the unfairness of the incidence and the effect of such taxation upon unbuilt-on land. I am afraid the explanation will be technical, dry and somewhat lengthy. [AN HON. MEMBER: "And unconvincing."] That we will leave till the end of what I have to say. I am certain that anything that is dry and technical will not be convincing to the hon. Member
    728
    who interrupted. The principle on which the land has been developed is that either the original landowner or some individual or company who has bought the land from him has set out on a development scheme. The first thing he has had to do is to make rough roads and sewers. That having been done, the land has been laid out in plots and offered to private builders upon leases. In recent years the leases have been chiefly for 800 years. The period of 99 years has gone long ago. The builder, having taken, not a lease of the land but a provisional agreement, sets to work to build. As he has built, he has drawn money from financiers in one way or another, and, when the buildings have been practically completed, he has been able to take from the owner on actual lease at a ground rent. Having got the lease, he sells the house, retaining for the time being the ground rent. When he has accumulated a block of ground rents, it has not been to his interest to hold them. He is wanting to use his money for other purposes, so it has been the practice to sell the ground rents in blocks to investors. When Consols were standing at about 117, these ground rents went up to 27 years' purchase. They gradually came down to about 20 years, and I believe they have now fallen below 20. They have been bought, not by land speculators, not by people who are waiting for reversions—who would wait 800 years for a reversion?—but by investors who had bought them in competition with railway debentures, and other market securities.
    What about the incidence of the tax? The Solicitor-General yesterday was very clear and explicit and I am grateful to him for stating what the Government's intentions are. He gave a specific case. I will take a specific case, too. I will take a case where the value of the land was £200 and the ground rent was £10. That land will not have increased in value more than the capital value at the time when the improvement was made and the house was built, and the ground rent will not be worth more to-day than the £200 that it was worth at the time when the individual purchased it. The tax of 200 pennies will come on, and will be collected from the occupant of the house, but, according to the Solicitor-General,

    729
    assuming the two values to be the same—£200 site value and £200 ground rent—the occupier will deduct from the ground rent, when he pays it, 1s. 8d. in the pound. That is an additional tax on that investment of 1s. 8d. in the pound over above his Income Tax, Super-tax and every other tax. Can that be in any way justified? I cannot see there Is any fairness in it whatsoever. I should like to ask Liberal Members, and especially the right hon Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) and the Hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) If there is any justice or fairness in an extra tax of 1s. 8d. in the pound on investments of that sort?
    It is unfair that a ground rent should be so taxed. What is the owner of it going to do? It will become absolutely unsaleable. Nobody is going to purchase it, because he will say that 1s. 8d. is put on it by this Budget, another 1s. 8d. in the next Budget and possibly another 1s. 8d. in the following one. There is no security whatever for the ground rent. Why should that individual and perhaps trustees, who acted on the advice of solicitors, accountants and land agents that these ground rents were well and duly secured, suffer not only the penalty of an immediate tax, but also the obvious fear that the tax may be increased and the whole property may be taken away from them. If you increase the penny to a shilling, everything they have got has gone and the investment disappears. I ask hon. Members is there any sense of justice whatever in it? Why should the man or woman who buys ground rents be penalised in that way, whereas the man who bought Consols or Great Western Debentures is to be free from it? There is no possible justice about it.
    Take another point. Are you going to be able to develop land on this system of leasehold development in the future? I think it will be perfectly impossible to do so. I do not think anybody will create ground rents in future, because nobody will buy them. The only method of development will be the method of selling the freehold right out. Then the burden will fall, certainly, on the purchaser and occupier, but it will smash this principle of the 800 or 900 years' lease. This system has been a most valuable one for development. Hon.
    730
    Members opposite are so fearfully prejudiced by the fact that anybody happens to be a landowner that they regard him as first cousin to Satan and will not give him fair-play. It has been far easier for the builder to work on the leasehold principle, because he does not have to pay cash down for the freehold. Hon. Members who have any knowledge of the work of the building societies know that what I am saying is absolutely true. The whole thing is rank injustice. The principle of the injustice is, that the Government and their supporters take no notice of existing facts and of the changes which have taken place in civilisation.
    When I hear hon. Members opposite saying that God has given the land to the people, I always think what a fatuous sort of remark it is. I would ask them the question: "To whom did God give the land of the United States of America, 'God's own country'?" When they have answered that question, then they will probably see that they have to realise existing facts and circumstances. They will have to realise that the land of the United States of America belongs to the landowners of the United States, and not to the Red Indians. [Interruption.] I am afraid that hon. Members make it rather difficult for me to proceed with rapidity. There is plenty of time before daylight. They refuse to realise existing facts, and they are going to place the whole of this tax upon the people who today happen to be the owners of the land. People have sold it over and over again, and now the Government are going to tax the people who happen at this moment to be the owners. They are, therefore, taking, in the form of an annual tax, a capital confiscation of one-twelfth of the value of the site. That is obviously unjust. Surely, if they want to deal with this matter in any just way, they should draw a datum line in the present, and deal with the future. I think they would find there is not much opposition now to a form of duty on betterment or increment. In the past there might have been, but not so much now, the reason being that everybody has become so hard-up. If we hear of anybody having a little bit of luck, we all look round and say: "He's got a bit of luck. Let the State take some of it." We ought to say: "God bless him. Let him have it." It is a hard-up time. If there is a little bit of luck in

    731
    that way, I do not think there will be great opposition in the future to taxing it, but to seize on the present owner of land and confiscate one-twelfth of the capital value or land in one fell swoop, from people who have bought in the open market, under the sanction of the law, is to penalise that section, to make ground rents unsaleable and to smash entirely the principle of developing land under the leasehold principle.
    It is shaking confidence in the value of land and in the value of everything everywhere, and it is going to make it extraordinarily difficult for people to start developing land or putting money into the making of roads for development. Private enterprise in building will cease, and the only possible builder and householder will be the local authority. If you get rid of the private builder's help in housing, you will cut down very largely the number of houses that can be built. In every respect, this is an entirely retrogade Measure. If it does go through, it will be most damaging to the security and prosperity of the country, to housebuilding and to town-planning. In its present form, it should be resisted in every possible way by the Conservative Opposition.
    Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: My hon. Friend has given the House a very interesting example of the injustice which will be perpetrated if the proposals of the Government become law. He gave the example of the injustice to the owners of ground rents. I would like to draw the attention of the House to a somewhat similar case.
    12 m.
    Take the comparison between two persons who invested the same amount of money at the same time, say in 1920. One man invested £1,000 in land, and the other invested £1,000 in War Loan. Let us examine the position to-day. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite claim that any difference in the value of the land is due to the action of the community. We will assume that both the land which was bought for £1,000 and the War Loan which was bought for £1,000 have appreciated in value to the extent of 30 per cent., the land now being worth £1,300 and the holding in War Loan £1,300. That percentage, as a
    732
    matter of fact, happens approximately to represent the rise in War Loan during the last 11 years, and therefore I take that figure as being an actual one. What has happened in the case of the rise in the value of the land? The owner of the land has probably spent a considerable amount of money in improving the land. Has the holder of War Loan particularly done anything to enhance the value of his holding in War Loan? The community probably has had nothing to do with the rise in the value of the land, but it is possible that the action of the community has had a good deal to do with the rise, or the fall in the value of War Loan. Why has the value of War Loan gone up to that extent? It is the misfortune of the community which has made War Loan rise by most of those points. It is because industry is not able profitably to make use of capital and to pay it out in wages at the present time. Therefore, money is lying ready for investment, not in industrial securities, but in securities of the nature of War Loan, with the result that War Loan is rising. The holder of War Loan has gained because the community has been going through a lean time. What is the justification for the Government saying that land should be selected as the one form of investment to be subjected to a form of penal taxation? The Government have been asked the question several times in the course of this Debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) asked the question of the Government in moving his Amendment this evening. No answer has been vouchsafed by any Government spokesman on the ground of equity. They have made no attempt to justify the selection of land for this particular form of penalty.
    We will consider now the question which was enlarged upon at some length by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) yesterday. He tried to argue that land pays less taxation than does any other form of property. Of course, he was entirely wrong. The House would never be surprised at that. What does the owner of ordinary securities pay by way of taxation? He pays Income Tax, and if he is a wealthy man

    733
    he pays Surtax, and when he dies, his estate pays Death Duties. What does the owner of land pay?
    Land, especially if it is agricultural land, has to pay Income Tax twice. The owner pays once under Schedule A and he pays for the second time as occupier under Schedule B. If the land should happen to be mortgaged, owing to the fact that the rates of mortgage interest have risen from 1½ per cent. to 2 per cent. over pre-war rates, the owner of the land pays the mortgage tax as well, so that the land bears Income Tax three times over. In addition, the land is subject not only to surtax if it is of sufficient value, but Death Duties are levied on it. The Death Duties are a far more heavy burden on land than on any other form of securities. If a man who owns securities, dies, the State is paid a certain amount in cash and it is a comparatively simple operation for his solicitor and broker; but when the owner of land dies his executors have to instruct an estate agent to get out plans, and an auctioneer has to be instructed to advertise the property for sale. Possibly on the day of the sale there are no buyers, and although a great deal of expense has been incurred, no sale materialises and the executors are hard put to it to meet the claims of the State.
    In addition to these forms of taxation, there is Land Tax, not Land Values Tax. Then there is tithe, another very heavy form of taxation. All these things lie very heavily on the land. They lie on no other form of security in the same way. Yet it is land that the Government select for a new form of penal taxation. There is also an indirect form of taxation on landed property and buildings, and that is the Rent Restrictions Act. A large number of owners depend for their livelihood on rents which have been restricted. Although cost of repairs and everything else has gone up, and although the value of neighbouring buildings of exactly the same quality has risen and other houses in the neighbourhood have been let at rents in proportion to the prices ruling to-day, owing to the Rent Restrictions Act, imposed by the State, many owners are deprived of a large part of their income. War Loan and other forms of security are exempt from such burdens.
    734
    The new form of taxation will hit the industry of agriculture. I have read the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer very carefully and I think his explanation of the tax as affecting agricultural land is perfectly straightforward. There seems to be an impression in the minds of some hon. Members on the back benches opposite that agricultural land is going to be exempt from the tax. I can visualise those hon. Members going to their constituencies at the week-end and giving that impression. I sincerely hope that they will do nothing of the kind, because the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are very explicit on the matter. It is curious that at this time the Government should introduce a tax which will be a new burden on agriculture. The tax will hit the farmer, the nurseryman, the market gardener, and the allotment-holders within a certain radius of any centre of population. Why should they be subject to the tax? Is it that they have been making large profits, or is this the first instalment of the Government's new proposals for making farming pay? The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that this proposal will make land available to the community. But my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson) dealt admirably with that point and showed that a whole body of legislation has been passed within the last 12 years which enables local authorities to acquire land which they may require at reasonable price. The Solicitor-General tried to whittle down the effect of that legislation, but he knows that any local authority which wants land can get it at a fair price. The price which the local authority is allowed to pay is fixed by the Government valuer, and if the price is disputed, it is referred to two official arbitrators.
    The present Minister of Agriculture set up a Departmental Committee in 1921 and it reported at a time when everything was at an inflated value, that:
    "Land for housing schemes can be obtained on reasonable terms, and no further economy in the provision of workmen's dwellings can be looked for from that source."
    It is absurd for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put forward as one of the justifications for this new penal tax that it will make land available for the community. Nor will it make the land

    735
    cheaper. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant that the seller will get less for his land, that may be true, but it does not mean that the buyer is to get the land cheaper. He will buy the land subject to a new charge and, if he is a prudent man, he will take into consideration the capitalised value of that charge. A large number of tithe-payers who are in difficulties about the payment of their tithe are told when they complain: "It is your own fault. When you or your forefathers bought the land you or they knew it was subject to the charge of tithe." The man who buys a plot for development will be in exactly the same position. He has to add on to the cost price of the land the capitalised value of the new charge imposed by the State. The effect of that is that when a man buys any land which is ripening for development, he is buying land which has become the copyhold of the State and subject to an annual fine.
    What are the real intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? They are two: First, the Socialist party, baulked of obtaining nationalisation by open means, that is to say, by robbery if no compensation is paid; is attempting to obtain their ambition by this thin end of the wedge. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has argued that land does not pay its fair share of taxation. That argument has been exploded. He has argued that it has not been available for the community. That argument will not bear examination. He says that the community is responsible for improvements. That idea has been exploded a hundred times during the course of these debates. There is nothing whatever in the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman or of any of the spokesmen of the Government which have been put forward in justification of this form of taxation. The fact is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to nationalise the land of this country by stealth. It is only one penny in the pound now, but there are 239 pennies left which he means to have in the end. He will use the thumb-screw of the quinquennial valuation. If he cannot take the pennies off too quickly, he will attain his object by each quinquennial valuation, put up the assessment and get it in that way. His second object is a
    736
    purely political one connected with the party below the Gangway. They have had their fantastic futilities first of "conquering unemployment" and then of "tackling unemployment" turned down. They are more than even a Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer can swallow. At the game time Liberal support has got to be bought. It is vital to the existence of the Government; and the existence of the Government is vital to the Liberal party. Therefore a bargain, an unholy bargain, has had to be struck in order to give the Liberal party an excuse for keeping the Socialist party in office. The land tax is the sop by which the Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer hopes to salve the uneasy conscience of the Liberal party.
    Sir DONALD MACLEAN: It is perfectly clear that the House is under a great disadvantage in discussing this Resolution, because it does not know the terms of the Finance Bill. The Government cannot help that, and this is nothing more than an enabling Resolution. I would suggest that the Goverment should say when they are going to produce the Finance Bill. It is a very reasonable request. We have had three or four days' Debate, and we do not yet know when the Bill will be introduced. Everybody knows that by this time the Finance Bill is pretty well ready, together with the provisions relating to this Resolution. I hope that before the Debate closes, the Financial Secretary will be able to tell the House what it is entitled to know, when the Bill will be produced.
    Mr. J. WILSON: This Debate, however, irrelevant it may have been to the subject of the Resolution, has crystallised the difference between the Opposition and ourselves in relation to the ownership of land. One is constrained to ask why, if the burden of owning land is so onerous, as we are expected to believe, the people who have to discharge the onerous duty of owning land do not give it up. If it is such an onerous duty to own land, why in the name of commonsense do not the owners yield the ownership to someone who would be quite willing to accept—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Question before the House is the taxation of land values, and not the ownership of land.
    Mr. WILSON: I will assent to your Ruling, but I ask you to accept my submission that everything that I have said is quite in consonance with, and in reply to, speeches made on the other side. I submit that I am entitled to reply to speeches that were made when you were not in the Chair.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I can only rule in accordance with my own views of what is in order when a particular Member is speaking. I cannot rule about something I have not heard.
    Mr. WILSON: The simple point I must now make, since you have ruled that I cannot reply to speeches that have been made in your absence—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I did not rule out a reply to speeches that have been made in my absence, but I did rule that nationalisation of land and all that it entails does not come within the Resolution before the House. The hon. Member will understand that if I allow speeches on that subject, I cannot rule out hon. Members opposite who answer them.
    Mr. WILSON: I am not discussing the nationalisation of land. I was merely trying to follow speeches that were made in your absence. We have from the other side of the House a claim that the private ownership of land throws upon the owners some onerous duty which the community ought not to expect private owners to bear. I am merely suggesting to owners of land, if they have a complaint on that account, an easy way out, a way of which the community would be very glad to avail themselves. It would be an easy thing for the private landholder to absolve himself of all responsibility by transferring the ownership of his land to the State.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It appears that I was quite correct in my Ruling.
    Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: The first thing that a Chancellor may be expected to do when he is faced with the merits of some new form of taxation is to consider, first, what the tax would cost to collect, second, what it would yield, and third, what was the experience of other countries that had tried the same method of taxation. I want to call the attention of the House to this proposal in the light of those three considerations.
    738
    The Chancellor told us that some 10,000,000 to 12,000,000 hereditaments would require to be examined. He also estimated the cost at between £1,000,000 and £1,500,000. That works out at about 2s. each on the average, that is, after allowing for the original assessment, for any disputed claims, and for the final decision. I suggest that the estimated cost is so obviously inadequate that it can only mean that the Chancellor was not prepared to take the House into his confidence as to what such a scheme would really cost, and that he deliberately took an extremely optimistic view of the cost. So much so that it is perfectly safe to prophesy that, if this tax is, in fact, imposed, the cost of this valuation will be nearer £5,000,000 than £1,000,000. As to the yield, here the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not even the courage to name a figure at all. Having studied the matter for years, having had the advantage of expert advice at every stage, he has come to the conclusion that the yield will be so grotesquely inadequate to the cost that he is ashamed to name any figure to this House.
    To turn to the third consideration, comparison with similar legislation in other countries, we have heard something during the debates on this Resolution of land taxation in other countries. One or two hon. Members opposite have quoted New Zealand. I wonder if those hon. Members, who so glibly quote New Zealand, have ever taken the trouble to read through the Acts of Parliament passed in New Zealand dealing with land legislation. If they had, they would be struck not by the similarity of the proposal which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is putting before us, but by its dissimilarity at every point. I expect, of course, the Solicitor-General who, I am entitled to assume, has studied these Acts. I want to put a few questions to him about New Zealand and about the land taxation Act of 1923, which is the consolidating Act in New Zealand, and to ask him why, after New Zealand has had some 50 years' experience of land taxation, the Government have deliberately decided in many most important respects to introduce an entirely different system into this country.
    For example, let us take first the period of returns. The Chancellor of the Ex-

    739
    chequer tells us that properties are to be reassessed every five years. As the Solicitor-General no doubt knows, it is provided under this Act that there shall be annual assessments. That is the result of the 50 years' experience in New Zealand that annual reassessments are necessary. That is an important point of difference because, first of all, there is the question of staff. If you have a staff to do your valuation and they take a year and a half or two years to do it, and then you have to wait five years for your next valuation, obviously your staff is dispersed and you have all the difficulty and expense of getting them together again. Can the Solicitor-General tell us why this period of five years has been deliberately chosen instead of the period of one year, which in the experience of New Zealand is necessary?
    With regard to the question of notice of assessment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that, in the first case, the owner of the property would be given notice of the assessment decided upon by the Government valuers, but that in the case of subsequent reassessments no such notice would be given. There, again, the experience of New Zealand is to the contrary. They provide for notice to be given of every assessment. I presume they have found it necessary, so it will be found necessary in this country. That is of importance, because it will obviously affect the cost. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said as much. At any rate, he let it be understood that he did not desire to have these notices sent out every time on the ground of expense. My point is that people who have had practical experience of this kind of taxation find it is, in fact, necessary to send out these notices. With regard to the question of appeals, the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not in all cases contemplate appeals to the Courts. In New Zealand they have found it is necessary to allow an appeal in the first instance to the Register's Court and a further appeal to the Supreme Court, either if a question of law is at issue or if it be a question of fact if the sum in dispute exceeds £200.
    As I understand it, the proposal is to levy this tax on the whole value of the land that comes within the scope of the Bill. That, again, is contrary to what
    740
    has been found practicable and wise in New Zealand. There, if the total property does not exceed £1,500 in value, tax is paid only on £1,000—£500 is deducted—and with larger sums some variations of that kind is allowed. Over and above that, allowance is made for the effect of mortgages and, in addition, discretion is given to the Commissioners who administer this law to allow exemptions in certain cases of hardship. It will be interesting to know from the Solicitor-General whether anything of that kind is contemplated in the Bill, whether the Government really mean to make any deduction of any part of the total before levying the tax, and whether they do not mean to take into consideration the fact of mortgages and do not propose to provide any machinery whereby in cases of hardship the tax may be modified or withdrawn. We have been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of certain classes of land which he proposes to exempt. I was particularly interested to read in this consolidating Act of New Zealand that they have found it wise to make a far wider series of exemptions. I do not imagine I am giving information to the Solicitor-General, but I would like to ask him, having the information in his possession, why it is that the Government have not considered the cases not only of universities and schools, but of land owned by friendly societies, registered building societies, and savings banks? All those classes of land are exempt from land taxation in New Zealand, which is one of those countries which hon. Members opposite have offered to us as an instance of the wisdom of this form of taxation. It would be interesting to know what is the broad consideration that has guided the Government in deciding not to exempt any of these classes of property.
    Neither from the point of view of reasonable cost of collection, nor from the point of view of a substantial yield when collected, nor from the point of view of profiting by the long experience of other countries in this form of legislation has the Chancellor of the Exchequer been very successful in his proposals. We are, therefore, driven to wonder what is the real reason why this Resolution has been brought before the House. I suggest there are two principal reasons. The first is because, as we were

    741
    shown in the Budget and in the Budget Statement, the finances of this country under Free Trade have broken down. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) used a very significant expression in speaking of the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday. He referred to him as "hard pressed." I venture to suggest that, though that description is undoubtedly correct, the reason is due to his own obstinacy and the folly of those who sit behind him through their declining to broaden the basis of taxation by indirect taxation. The other object with which this Resolution has been put before us would appear to be to dangle a bait before the palate of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. I suppose the Government feel that he has been given a little too much stick by his own supporters, and that they ought to reward him. He has had his reward; it is in the Scarborough by election. [Interruption.] I venture to say that, so far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we need not greatly trouble at the strengthening of the alliance between hon. Members opposite and hon. Members below the Gangway, because, the longer hon. Members opposite and hon. Members below the Gangway keep hon. Members in front of us in office, the greater will the collapse be when they go to the country.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am sure that the House will not desire at this time anything in the nature of an extensive speech. There has been considerable debate on this question already, and we shall, as we all know, have many future opportunities of thrashing this matter out, both in principle and in detail. But it is common courtesy to hon. Members who have taken part in this discussion that I should say a few words in reply to the points that they have raised. As regards playing fields, I am not quite sure whether the hon. Member who raised that question was in the House last night when my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General dealt with that question, but if he were not here then, he will find that a good deal of what he has said to-night was answered by the hon. and learned Gentleman. If there are other points which he wishes to bring forward in Committee, they will be considered on their merits.
    742
    The right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) asked me a question with regard to the date on which we shall have the Finance Bill. Since I spoke on that question during the previous discussion I have had an opportunity of making inquiries, and I find that the Bill will be introduced now, and I can confidently say that it will be in the hands of hon. Members not later than Wednesday of next week.
    In the speech made from the back benches opposite in which an hon. Member endeavoured to illustrate the number of burdens that at present fall on the land and to prove that the land was taxed three times over with Income Tax, the hon. Member seemed to be under the impression that Schedule B was taxed on the value of the land, whereas it is merely a form to enable the farmer to do without accounts, and it is assumed that his profits are in the neighbourhood of the accounts. Of course, if the farmer pays a mortgage he takes just as much Income Tax as he pays any other way. Therefore, he is taxed only once. The reason for this tax being imposed is the reason that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General put forward so eloquently last night. Another hon. Member talked about the cost and told us that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was wrong in his estimate, and that it would cost about £5,000,000. He probably bases that statement on the misinformation spread about some days past with regard to the cost of the other valuation. The hon. and learned Solicitor-General pointed out quite clearly last night that it is not the valuation for the last scheme which cost £5,000,000, but that the figure of £2,000,000 was the total of that, and that that valuation was far more complicated than the one now required. The figure adumbrated of about £1,000,000 or £1,500,000 will probably be roughly the amount required. I do not think I need go further into the merits of this Resolution to-night. We have all discussed it, and many opportunities will arise later to go into it again. I hope the House will now come to a decision and give this Resolution its enthusiastic support.
    Captairt HAROLD BALFOUR: In spite of the protests of hon. Members opposite, I have every intention of saying such words as I feel I should in honour say if I endeavour to do my duty to my constituents

    743
    on this matter, before the Finance Bill appears on our breakfast tables and we see the worst before us. I say these few words in the hope that just the balance of logic and common sense may tip the scales in the minds of the Government before this Bill goes to print. In my constituency there is no direction in which this Bill will not hit those who are endeavouring to earn an honest livelihood in the different industries. Playing fields are used in my constituency—[An HON. MEMBER: "We are sick of playing fields."] Hon. Members opposite may be sick of playing fields, but in my constituency they are not, and perhaps these interruptions show the utter contempt of hon. Members opposite for those who use playing fields. [Interruption.] The playing fields in my constituency belong mainly to private schools, and during the holiday periods and the days when they are not occupied by boys playing games during the normal course of their training, they are willingly and freely lent to any society or institution or club that applies for their use. This burden which will now be placed on these schools is not an inconsiderable one in the Isle of Thanet, where all land has a potential site value.
    This tax will undoubtedly prevent their free loan and their free use in the future as has been the case in the past. Charges will have to be made to cover outgoings caused by this tax. Every piece of agricultural land in my constituency, it so happens, is bounded by main arterial roads and main roads leading from one town to another, and yet, because of its geographical position, the Isle of Thanet grows the best barley, wheat and broccoli in the country. It is one of the few districts in which the Government have not succeeded in entirely killing in regard to prospects all agriculture, although they have done their best. By this measure they are going to place a burden directly on the agriculturist. Supporters of the Government say they are opposed to a tax on bread. They will be responsible for a tax on bread if they pass this tax.
    My last point is the question of aerodromes. I am glad to see present the Under-Secretary of State for Air. The Government in this proposal are going to tax the site value of aerodromes, and yet
    744
    every member opposite will say that this new form of transport is all important. We must develop new lines in this country, even although we lose some of our old industries. It may be that our coal industry is dying. Some of our agriculture will never revive. We may have to look to fresh industries for the future of this country. It may be that aircraft and aviation will supply one of these new industries, and yet the Government are to put a crushing burden upon an essential possession of this industry—an aerodrome close to the centre of a town. Around London there are something like six privately-owned aerodromes. The closer to the Metropolis the greater value is an aerodrome to the aircraft industry, and the closer it is the more valuable it is, and the more taxation the Government are going to put on an aerodrome if owned by private enterprise. That is one more example of the illogical attitude of the Government—an attitude of political expediency, of letting everything go to the wall. The Government have brought forward this half-baked Measure, hoping they will bring the electorate to think they are, as far as possible, to restore the land to the people, instead of imposing this crushing levy.
    Mr. J. WILSON: On a point of Order. I desire to ask, Mr. Speaker, since you refused to let me discuss the question of national ownership of the land, whether we are now entitled to do so because of the remarks made by those on the other side.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I understood the hon. Member was dealing with the subject of land values of aerodromes.
    Mr. WILSON: Quite unfair.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Order!
    Captain BALFOUR: I was mentioning what was most needed at the present time if you are to revive industry. This is an attempt to gain votes at the expense of the prosperity of industry in this country. The Government were sent here as trustees by a minority of the electorate. A majority of the electorate will see that they will not come back, but that we on this side will come back.
    Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    The House divided: Ayes, 166; Noes, 94.

    Division No. 239.]

    AYES.

    [12.55 a.m.

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

    Herriotts, J.

    Palin, John Henry

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

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

    Paling, Wilfrid

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

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Alpass, J. H.

    Hopkin, Daniel

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Arnott, John

    Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

    Potts, John S.

    Aske, Sir Robert

    Isaacs, George

    Price, M. P.

    Ayles, Walter

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Barr, James

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Jones, Llewellyn-, F.

    Ritson, J.

    Benson, G.

    Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

    Romeril, H. G.

    Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Rowson, Guy

    Brothers, M.

    Kinley, J.

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

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

    Lang, Gordon

    Sanders, W. S.

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

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Buchanan, G.

    Lathan, G.

    Scurr, John

    Burgess, F. G.

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Caine, Hall-, Derwent

    Law, A. (Rossendale)

    Sherwood, G. H.

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

    Lawrence, Susan

    Shield, George William

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Church, Major A. G.

    Leach, W.

    Simmons, C. J.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

    Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

    Sinkinson, George

    Compton, Joseph

    Lees, J.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Daggar, George

    Lindley, Fred W.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lloyd, C. Ellis

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

    Longden, F.

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Lunn, William

    Sullivan, J.

    Duncan, Charles

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    Ede, James Chuter

    McElwee, A.

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

    Edmunds, J. E.

    McEntee, V. L.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Egan, W. H.

    McShane, John James

    Tout, W. J.

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

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Vaughan, David

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Manning, E. L.

    Viant, S. P.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Mansfield, W.

    Walker, J.

    Glassey, A. E.

    Marcus, M.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Gossling, A. G.

    Markham, S. F.

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Gould, F.

    Marley, J.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Marshall, Fred

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Gray, Milner

    Mathers, George

    Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

    Matters, L. W.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

    Maxton, James

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Messer, Fred

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Milner, Major J.

    Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

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

    Montague, Frederick

    Wilson, J. (Oldham)

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    Morley, Ralph

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Hardie, George D.

    Mort, D. L.

    Wise, E. F.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Murnin, Hugh

    Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Haycock, A. W.

    Noel Baker, P. J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hayday, Arthur

    Oldfield, J. R.

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

    Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

    Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

    Hayes.

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

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

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Ferguson, Sir John

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

    Castle Stewart, Earl of

    Fison, F. G. Clavering

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

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

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Astor, Viscountess

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

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

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Beaumont, M. W.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Betterton, Sir Henry B.

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Bird, Ernest Roy

    Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

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

    Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

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

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Boyce, Leslie

    Duckworth, G. A. V.

    Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

    Bracken, B.

    Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N)

    Broadbent, Colonel J.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Inskip, Sir Thomas

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

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

    Remer, John R.

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

    Llewellin, Major J. J.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Turton, Robert Hugh

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

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

    Margesson, Captain H. D.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Marjoribanks, Edward

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Wells, Sydney R.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

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

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

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

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

    Smithers, Waldron

    Womersley, W. J.

    Muirhead, A. J.

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    O'Connor, T. J.

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    O'Neill, Sir H.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Peake, Capt. Osbert

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Sir George Penny and Captain

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)

    Wallace.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions, and upon the Resolutions reported from the Chairman of Ways and Means, upon the 5th day of May, and agreed to by the House on that day, by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.

    FINANCE BILL,
    "to grant certain duties of Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise), to alter other duties, and to amend the Law relating to Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise) and the National Debt, and to make further provision in connection with finance," pre-
    748
    sented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 147.]
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Six Minutes after One o'Clock.

ROYAL NAVY.
  VICTUALLING DEPARTMENT STOREHOUSEMEN, MALTA.
  VICTUALLING DEPARTMENT STOREHOUSEMEN, MALTA.
  MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.
  MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.
  MEDICAL BOARDS (INVALIDING DISABILITY).
  MEDICAL BOARDS (INVALIDING DISABILITY).
  PETTY OFFICERS (DEPOT MESSES).
  PETTY OFFICERS (DEPOT MESSES).
  MATES (PROMOTION).
  MATES (PROMOTION).
  WELFARE CONFERENCE.
  WELFARE CONFERENCE.
  RUSSIA (EXPORTS TO BRITAIN).
  RUSSIA (EXPORTS TO BRITAIN).
  EX-KHEDIVE ABBAS HILMI.
  EX-KHEDIVE ABBAS HILMI.
  INDUSTRIAL DISEASES (SILICOSIS).
  INDUSTRIAL DISEASES (SILICOSIS).
  JUVENILE OFFENDERS (REMAND HOMES).
  JUVENILE OFFENDERS (REMAND HOMES).
POST OFFICE.
  LETTER DELIVERIES.
  LETTER DELIVERIES.
  TELEPHONE RESEARCH.
  TELEPHONE RESEARCH.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  MOTOR OMNIBUSES (POSTING BOXES).
  MOTOR OMNIBUSES (POSTING BOXES).
  CAPITAL INVESTMENT.
  CAPITAL INVESTMENT.
  SAVINGS BANK DEPOSITS.
  SAVINGS BANK DEPOSITS.
  EDUCATION (SECONDARY SCHOOL PLAYING FIELDS).
  EDUCATION (SECONDARY SCHOOL PLAYING FIELDS).
  CROWN COLONIES (CORPORAL PUNISHMENT).
  CROWN COLONIES (CORPORAL PUNISHMENT).
COAL INDUSTRY.
  PROSECUTIONS.
  PROSECUTIONS.
  SPREAD-OVER OF HOURS.
  SPREAD-OVER OF HOURS.
  ACCIDENTS (SOMERSET).
  ACCIDENTS (SOMERSET).
  WAGES (PURCHASING VALUE).
  WAGES (PURCHASING VALUE).
  IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY WAGES.
  IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY WAGES.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  SNOW-CLEARING.
  SNOW-CLEARING.
  ISLE OF WIGHT (ALLOTMENTS).
  ISLE OF WIGHT (ALLOTMENTS).
  ROAD IMPROVEMENT SCHEME, ELTHAM.
  ROAD IMPROVEMENT SCHEME, ELTHAM.
  ROYAL COMMISSIONS.
  ROYAL COMMISSIONS.
  CABINET MINISTERS (SALARIES).
  CABINET MINISTERS (SALARIES).
AGRICULTURE.
  ARGENTINE BUTTER (BLENDING).
  ARGENTINE BUTTER (BLENDING).
  AGRICULTURAL WAGES (REGULATIONS) Act.
  AGRICULTURAL WAGES (REGULATIONS) Act.
  SMALL-POX.
  SMALL-POX.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (APPROVED SOCIETIES).
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (APPROVED SOCIETIES).
  ISLINGTON.
  ISLINGTON.
HOUSING.
  LEIGH, ATHERTON AND TYLDESLEY.
  LEIGH, ATHERTON AND TYLDESLEY.
  DARLINGTON.
  DARLINGTON.
POOR LAW.
  CASUAL WARDS, LYMINGTON.
  CASUAL WARDS, LYMINGTON.
  LOUGHBOROUGH (TRAMPS).
  LOUGHBOROUGH (TRAMPS).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

GRAND UNION CANAL (LEICESTER CANALS PURCHASE, ETC.).
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, in reference to the Notice on the Paper dealing with the Grand Union Canal, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name.
Moved, That the order made on the 10th of March last, "That this House will not receive any Petition for a Private Bill later than Tuesday the 5th of May next," be dispensed with, and that leave be given to the Grand Union Canal Company to present a Petition for leave to introduce a Bill "to provide for the transfer to the Grand Union Canal Company of the undertakings of the company of proprietors of the Leicester Navigation the company of proprietors of the navigation from the River Trent to the Town of Loughborough and the company of proprietors of the Erewash Canal in the Counties of Derby and Nottingham; to authorise the Grand Union Canal Company to execute works; and for other purposes."—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The said Petition, together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto, read and referred to the Examiners.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (VAUXHALL CROSS IMPROVEMENT) BILL.
Read 2a.
LONDON ELECTRIC, METROPOLITAN DISTRICT, AND CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
Read 2a.
LONDON SQUARES PRESERVATION BILL, [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
GUILDFORD GAS AND CRANLEIGH ELECTRICITY BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WAREHAM EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD MARLEY): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the borough of Ware-ham; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

CROYDON GAS ORDER, 1931.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Orders, as reported from the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday the 28th of April last, be approved.
Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday the 28th of April last, be approved.—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (SAFETY AND LOAD LINE CONVENTIONS) BILL, [H.L.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to give effect to an International Convention for the safety of life at sea, signed in London on the 31st day of May, 1929, to give effect to an International Load Line Convention, signed in London on the 5th day of July, 1930, and to amend the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 1928, relating to passenger steamers, life-saving appliances, wireless telegraphy, load lines, timber cargoes, and other matters affected by the said Conventions; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

AGRICULTURAL LAND (UTILISATION) BILL.
Order of the Day read for receiving the Report of Amendments.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY or THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARE): My Lords, I bog to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, before that Motion is put, I should like in a few words to answer a question which was put to me by the Leader of the Opposition, and to which he desired an answer before the Report stage of this Bill was taken. I want to make it quite clear that my intention in intervening at the present time is not in any way to discuss matters which will come forward on the Report stage. They will be discussed on their merits when in the ordinary course they come before this House. It would, however, be discourteous to the Leader of the Opposition not to give an answer, before the Report stage is taken, to his question whether the Government will or will not advise the House of Commons to waive their Privilege in regard to certain Amendments introduced during the Committee stage of the Bill which will shortly come before your Lordships on Report. The matter, which has been mentioned more than once by the noble and learned Viscount who leads the Opposition, is, I think, very clearly expressed in the following extract:
"What I am asking the Government to do is to give an assurance at some period, certainly not later than Report, as to whether they will or will not advise the House of Commons to waive their Privilege with regard to some Amendments."
Later, on the same occasion, the noble and learned Viscount said:
"All I am proposing to ask the Government is to assure us that, in regard to certain limitations, they will give the House of Commons the advice to make that waiver because, unless they are able to do so, I should not be able to vote for some of the clauses."
I think (and there is no difference between us) what the noble and learned Viscount said is clear. The noble and learned Viscount has made it abundantly clear that the condition of his support in this House on the clause in question
1050
on Report is a pledge that the Government will give an assurance which, if given, would unquestionably be a challenge to the long-recognised rights and privileges of the House of Commons.
The noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, speaking immediately after the noble and learned Viscount, said with great accuracy:
"The House of Commons has frequently waived its Privilege, but I do not remember an occasion when the Government in these circumstances has been asked to pledge it self not to raise the question of Privilege in another place. That is a novelty to which I raise the strongest objection."
I find myself entirely in accordance with the statement of Lord Beauchamp and, having had a search made by experts in Constitutional Law and the librarian, I find he is quite right in regarding a suggestion of this kind as a novelty so far as any record is preserved. I have no doubt myself that the course proposed by the Leader of the Opposition is a novelty—a novelty, in my opinion, inconsistent with the fundamental principles of constitutional practice. In the view of the Government, it is quite impossible to give any other than an un-compromising negative to the assurance asked for by the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the Opposition. I hope that this answer will make further discussion or argument unnecessary, and I must ask the noble and learned Viscount to accept it as final and conclusive.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, far from making any complaint of the fact that the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House has made the statement which he has just made, I am grateful to him for giving a straight answer to a straight question, and I think it is only convenient that we should have had that answer at the earliest possible opportunity. But while I thank him for the fact of his giving the answer, personally I am bound to say that I regret the answer which has been given. It would be hypocrisy to pretend that we have not been prepared by recent speeches in the country for the answer to which we have just listened. The Prime Minister, speaking at the end of last week, said that we should get no such pledge as that which he alleged we had asked for, and he said that the

1051
Government would weaken no Privilege of the House of Commons. Dr. Addison wrote a letter to The Times in which he referred to the question I had addressed to the Government as a public challenge to the Commons and a threat of such stark audacity as to raise the very gravest issues. In view of those public statements, the answer to which we have just listened was only to be expected.
But I am bound, I think, to take the very earliest opportunity of disclaiming any such interpretation upon the question which I put as that which the Prime Minister and Dr. Addison seek to fasten upon it. Let me remind your Lordships of the course of events. On the Second Reading of this Bill doubts had been raised by numbers of your Lordships, first of all, as to the operation of the Parliament Act, and, secondly, as to the operation of the rules of Privilege in Committee stage upon the Bill, if it ever reached that stage. When I spoke on the Second Reading the advice which I ventured to tender to your Lordships was to give the Bill a Second Reading. I pointed out that no question of the Parliament Act was raised since it was not a certified Bill, and with regard to the question of Privilege I was careful to point out to your Lordships that I could give no similar assurance because undoubtedly it was true that there were in the Bill such matters that a great many Amendments might touch upon questions of Privilege. I said—I hope your Lordships will excuse me quoting from my own speech, but it is important we should get this right—I said in column 121 of the OFFICIAL REPORT:—
". … it is said, and said truly, that Amendments which deal with the qualifications and limitations and conditions of a grant are matters of Privilege which we cannot insist upon in this House and which are the exclusive prerogative of another place."
I went on to point out, in the following column:
"We know well that, the Privilege being a Privilege of the House of Commons, the House of Commons can and does waive Privilege on proper occasions, and it does so normally on the advice of the Government of the day."
I then went on to ask the Government, in view of the difficulty which was created by the existence of that undoubted rule,
1052
whether or not they would be in a position to assure your Lordships that, with regard to some at least of the Amendments which we were going to discuss, the difficulty of Privilege and the possibility of any conflict would not arise because the Government would be prepared to advise the House of Commons to waive its Privilege.
The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, who was in charge of the Bill, had thought that I was asking him to answer the question at once, and, as will be seen in column 133, I intervened to clear up that misunderstanding. I said this:
"If the noble Earl is referring to me, I did not suggest that His Majesty's Government should to-day on the Second Reading make any such announcement. What I was suggesting was that, when His Majesty's Government have seen the Amendments and had an opportunity of considering them, they should then be in a position to say to this House what attitude they propose to invite the House of Commons to take on the question of Privilege."
I think that I repeated it later on, but not in any different sense. That accurately summarises the invitation which I addressed to the Government. That being so, whether or not the Government choose to give any answer to the question or to give an affirmative or negative answer is of course entirely for them, but it seems to me, with great respect to the learned and noble Lord the Leader of the House, that it is a misuse of language to say that that challenges any Privilege of the House of Commons.
Let me remind your Lordships, because this as an important matter, of what the constitutional position is as I understand it. More than two hundred years ago the House of Commons laid it down by Resolution
"that it is the undoubted and sole right of the Commons to direct, limit, and appoint in such Bills the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of such grants, which ought not to be changed or altered by the House of Lords."
I am quoting from the actual Resolution as stated on page 564 of the thirteenth edition of Sir Erskine May's standard work. The learned author, himself a Clerk of the House of Commons, in the edition from which I quote—that edition was edited by Sir Lonsdale Webster, another Clerk of the House of Commons;

1053
both were men of great experience in these matters—the learned author points out that:
"The responsibility discharged by the Lords in the grant of supplies for the service of the Crown, and in the imposition of taxation, is concurrence, not initiation."
He explains that by that he means that it is undoubtedly within the province of your Lordships to reject a Bill notwithstanding that the Bill contains conditions on which grants may be made.
He goes on further to explain that:
"The right of the Lords to reject a Bill … has been held to include a right to omit provisions creating charges upon the people, when such provisions form a separate subject in a Bill which the Lords are otherwise entitled to amend"
without any infringement of the Privileges of the House of Commons. That will be found laid down on page 575, and there are a. whole series of precedents quoted in which it has actually been done. Further, the learned authors point out on pages 566 and 567 that where an Amendment was made in your Lordships' House which did infringe, the Privileges of the House of Commons, it was always open to the House of Commons, if it saw fit in any particular case, to waive that Privilege in that particular case. A series of instances is given in which it has been done. The form in which the transaction is carried through in the Journals of the Mouse is carefully explained. I do not think anybody in either House of Parliament would challenge the fact that that power is undoubtedly within the competence of the House, and is one which has been frequently exercised by them. Indeed passages are quoted from Mr. Speaker Abercromby, in which he, "speaking as the authorised guardian of the Privileges of the House"—that is the House of Commons—pointed out that
"if the Privileges of this House were strictly pressed in such a case"—
as the particular Bill which he was there dealing with—
"they would almost tend to prevent the House of Peers from taking such a measure into its consideration in a way that might be, on all grounds, advisable."
That, as I conceive it, is the constitutional position.
I have not challenged it. I am not going to challenge it, and I am not going to be misrepresented at having challenged
1054
it, at any rate, without contradiction. The position which I desire to take up is that I accept fully the position that the Privilege of the House of Commons to deal with limitations and conditions and so on is undoubtedly their exclusive Privilege. They have an absolute right to insist on the Privilege in such cases as they think proper. Whether or not a particular Amendment does infringe the Privilege is a matter which the Speaker of the House of Commons, as the guardian of its privileges, acquaints the House of Commons with, and nobody in either House would doubt that that duty is discharged with absolute impartiality and fairness by the Speaker. But, my Lords, that being the position, we have here a Bill which contains a number of clauses with regard to some of which it is at least doubtful whether or not a particular Amendment would or would not be held, technically at least, and perhaps substantially, to infringe the Privileges of the House of Commons. We have no opportunity of making any representation in that matter. The Speaker of the House of Commons must decide it.
It is common knowledge after that debate, that a considerable number of your Lordships regarded the present Bill with very grave misgivings. It is not in the least true to say that those misgivings are confined to my Party. Your Lordships will remember that the rejection of the Bill on Second Reading was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Treowen, who sits on the Liberal Benches. I hope none of my own friends and supporters will misunderstand me if I say that some of the most devastating criticism which was levelled against the Bill on Second Reading was in the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, a prominent member of the Liberal Party. Those misgivings seem to me to have very good foundation. On the other hand I personally am very anxious not to throw out a Bill which has been passed in another place if, by reasonable amendment, it can be made into a reasonably practicable measure. Accordingly the suggestion which I made, which still does not seem to me to be an unreasonable one, was that we should pass the Second Reading, but that when matters arose in Committee with regard to which it might be doubtful whether

1055
Amendments might not be in order, we should ask the Government to tell us that they at any rate would not invite the House of Commons to reject them on the ground of Privilege, but would consider them on their merits.
They were not in the least bound to promise to do anything of the kind. They have seen fit to say that they will not do anything of the kind, and they are perfectly within their rights. The position then, so far as this House is concerned, is that we have to consider the clauses on a basis that if we amend them and pass them we may find that we shall have to treat them as passed in their unamended form, because the Amendments raise, or may be held to raise, a point of Privilege. We know now that we have to deal with these clauses on that hypothesis, and when we come to particular clauses I shall have something to say, on my own judgment, as to the practicability of passing them. But it is quite untrue to say that I have ever asked the Government to give up or weaken in any way any Privilege of the House of Commons. I recognise explicitly and to the full the existence of that Privilege. I recognise that the House of Commons is the only body which can decide whether it will choose to waive its Privilege in any given case or not; and if the Government choose to say that they will not give us any assurance of the kind to which I have alluded they are quite within their rights in so doing. Only then we must proceed on the basis that the risk of Amendments being disallowed on the ground of Privilege is one which must be present to our minds.
I am quite unable to see where any question of challenge to the House of Commons or to its rights can possibly be held to arise. When I made the suggestion, which I quoted, the noble Earl in charge of the Bill was not quite so shocked as I have no doubt he feels now. What he said then—I am quoting from column 134 of the OFFICIAL REPORT—was:
"I admit I did misunderstand the noble Lord and I am sorry for it. We shall see about the Amendments when they are put down. I do not know very much about House of Commons procedure, but I gather that Governments sometimes waive Privilege
1056
with regard to Amendments they like, and do not with regard to those they do not like"—
that is not quite accurate because, of course, it is not the Government which waives Privilege; it can only invite the House of Commons to do so—
"but I can assure your Lordships on this point that we are most anxious to be reasonable."
When he assured your Lordships that the Government are most anxious to be reasonable, what he actually meant was that this was a shocking challenge to the Privilege of the House of Commons to which the Government could only return a most uncompromising negative.
Of course, it is plain, I think, what has happened. The Government know well enough—they would be blind indeed if they did not know after recent by-elections—that when once their record is submitted to the judgment of the constituencies they will find that the constituencies will say what Mr. Lloyd George has been saying, that they are an acknowledged failure, that they have wholly failed to discharge their duties, that they have mismanaged our affairs and that there can be only one verdict—the verdict of condemnation. But if they can be fortunate enough to find some other issue than what they have done that would be a very happy way out for the Government.
I do not think they thought of it themselves. So far as one can judge not only have they failed to solve the problems of the country but they are quite incapable of solving their own problems. They were content to drift on and hope that something would turn, up before the Election which they so eagerly desire to postpone. But lately they have acquired a new adviser in Mr. Lloyd George, and Mr. Lloyd George was able to tell them out of the rich store of his experience, that he had a device which he had successfully used twenty-one years before when he was a member of a Government whose record was not too popular in the country, and which at a General Election might have met with condemnation. Mr. Lloyd George had the happy thought that if, instead of considering what the Government had done, the people were misled into thinking that the issue which they had to try was the People against the Lords

1057
and against the landlords, why then they might get a more satisfactory verdict. Accordingly taxation of land values and the Peers against the People were the battle cries with which they went to the country.
Well, my Lords, that succeeded in 1910. Mr. Lloyd George presents the panacea to the Socialist Government in the hope that it may succeed again, twenty-one years later. All I can say is that I do not think that you can fool all the people all the time. You can do it once but you cannot do it too often. We cannot prevent the Government and their supporters, if they are sufficiently unscrupulous, from saying to the people that there is some tremendous constitutional issue between the Peers and the People. All we can do is to make quite sure that if they say it they shall know that they are saying what is untrue. It is for that purpose that I am making my explanation this afternoon. I read in the same speech of the Prime Minister that he would remind this House that there was such a thing as an Election:
"The House of Lords, like every other anachronistic institution in this country, must be subject to the will, desire and mandate of the electors."
I suppose an anachronistic institution is one which has outlived its usefulness. If that is so, I should think the Government must very well fit that description. I wish they would submit themselves to the will, desire and mandate of the electors.
The Prime Minister, no doubt, never forgets that there is such a thing as an Election. He wishes he could. It is only because there is such a thing as an Election that Mr. Lloyd George keeps him in office. But sooner or later the Election will come. When it comes they will desire to fight on an issue which is not raised. Therefore, I want to make it quite clear here and now that the issue is not raised in any shape or form. This House will discharge its duty to the electors and the people of this country—not merely to the electorate but to the whole people of this country. This House does not desire to challenge the expressed will of the people. But to say that, because it does not wish to do that, therefore it is bound to accept any measure which a minority Government, by any disreputable bargaining and
1058
gerrymandering in another place, can squeeze through the House of Commons, is a perversion of the truth which I do not think will deceive the electors. I am obliged to the noble Lord for the explanation he has given. I have, as he will observe, postponed any discussion of the merits of particular Amendments until we come to them, but I have, I hope, made clear—at any rate to everyone who desires that it should be made clear—what the position is which I have sought to adopt, and that that position involves no such challenge as the Government would only too gladly fasten upon this House.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, there is really very little I can add to what I had the honour of saying to your Lordships when this matter last arose in Committee of this House. I hope that in what I say I shall in no way misrepresent what was said by the noble and learned Viscount who has just sat down. I accept fully, wholly and entirely his quotations from Sir Erskine May and the interpretation he put upon them. The distinction I want to make, which he carefully avoided making himself, is that it is the House of Commons, and the House of Commons alone, that has the right to waive their Privilege, and that it is impossible for this House to do so, or that the Government in this House should be asked in advance to pledge the Government in another place to ask the House of Commons to waive their Privilege. This is a right, not of a political Party, but of the House of Commons as a whole. It is not the right of any Government. No Government can possibly pledge itself in this House to act in this unprecedented way.
I noticed with pleasure that, although the noble and learned Viscount has been at great pains to examine constitutional authority, he is not able to produce a single occasion upon which this has been done before in the history of either House of Parliament. Not only has there been no occasion on which it has been done, but it has never been asked for. That seems to me to be a very strong point. I must confess that, when he began to speak of Mr. Lloyd George and to place a wreath of laurel leaves upon his head, I was rather hoping that he would spare a leaf or two for me, for

1059
I have lost no opportunity in the Committee stage of expressing my dissent from the action which the noble and learned Viscount proposed to take, and I have been very much comforted to see that the same point of view has been taken by such followers of the noble and learned Viscount as The Times. It is only necessary—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Followers?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: It generally follows. It very usually follows, but on this occasion it has abstained entirely from expressing any approval, and I am quite sure that this action will be followed by a number of members of his own Party in another place. The fact of the matter really seems to me to go rather deep. When there is a Labour Government in office you must expect Labour legislation to be presented to this House, and not only presented to this House; it must be passed. Amendments, no doubt, may be made; but that a Bill should be transformed into a Conservative measure is an action which no self-respecting Liberal or Labour Government could possibly accept. This House did it before. They began it in 1906, when one Bill after another, introduced by the Liberal Government of which I had the honour to be a member, was either rejected outright or entirely transformed by this House. We know what happened in the end. I am in no consultation with noble Lords opposite and I have no idea what may be in their mind, but it will not surprise me if they ask for an amendment of the Parliament Act reducing still further the period of delay which your Lordships' House may-interpose between the introduction of a Bill and its passage. If your Lordships proceed in the same kind of way in regard to legislation introduced by a Labour Government as you did in regard to that introduced by the Liberal Government in 1906, and onwards until the passage of the Parliament Act, I am afraid that your Lordships will meet with one more rebuff at the hands of the people of this country.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, there necessarily is no Motion before your Lordships' House, and discussion upon the statement made by the noble and learned Lord, the Leader of the
1060
House, really resolves itself into an expression of personal opinion. I should, therefore, apologise to your Lordships for making even the shortest statement about my own opinion, and my only excuse must be the reference which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hails-ham, made to me in the speech that he has just delivered. I cannot help thinking that we are liable to get confused, in our remarks upon this point, between the merits of the Bill as originally under discussion and the circumstance that has given rise to the statement of the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House. It is quite true that I did my best to criticise this Bill on Second Reading, and I advanced what I believe to be powerful arguments against many of its provisions. One advantage of reasonable arguments is that, unless the reasons on which they are based are answered, both the reasons and the arguments remain, and as I have not found a single one of my reasons properly answered in regard to the Second Beading, my position is exactly as it was before.
That position was that, though I disliked a great many of the provisions of this Bill and did my best to get them extirpated, yet I thought it was impossible, having regard to the fact that the Bill definitely dealt both with allotments and with small holdings, for this House to take the strong course of rejecting it altogether. I mention that merely to show what my position was and is in regard to this Bill. But the real difficulty that has arisen is far more important. Many of your Lordships were anxious to reject the Bill as a whole. The noble and learned Viscount may have been misunderstood, but what he led many people to believe was that he asked the Government to make a bargain with him, and that the terms of his assent to the Second Reading were that the Government should promise that the House of Commons should waive their Privilege with regard to Amendments.
I say without hesitation that such a bargain is one that no person could possibly make, and, were it made here, it would be rejected, as I believe, unanimously in another place. Nobody in this House can bargain away the rights of the House of Commons. Nobody can promise that the House of Commons will waive their Privilege, and to say

1061
that you will advise them to do so, unless it is meant that the advice is going to be accepted, is, of course, an idle thing. It is no use advising in the air. You must advise with the intention that the advice shall be carried out. I cannot help thinking that, in making any such request to the Government, the noble Viscount did, I regret to say, a very unwise and a very perilous thing. It might even now jeopardise this House in the struggle which must lie ahead, and to which the noble Viscount looks forward with greater hope than I can possibly feel.
I only wish to say in conclusion that I think it is a profound mistake to imagine that, because of the return of a majority in opposition to the action of this House in 1909 and because, after twenty-one years have passed, the Labour Party, which was then a mere handful, has grown to be a Government, you will find that the verdict will be reversed to-day. The chance is that the verdict will be repeated with emphasis. I am not at all prepared to avoid the quarrel when the quarrel comes, but I have said once, and I beg to be allowed to repeat, that when that quarrel does take place it should take place upon ground carefully selected by ourselves, on which we can say that we are not making any attempt to invade the Privilege of the House of Commons but that our action is an assertion of the rights of the people.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Amendments reported accordingly.
Part I [Promotion of better utilisation of agricultural land in Great Britain]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved to leave out Part I of the Bill. The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, the first Amendment which I have to move this afternoon, and indeed the only one apart from consequential Amendments, is to leave out Part I of this Bill. In moving it I feel that it is necessary and due to your Lordships that I should give some explanation of what has induced me to take that course. Your Lordships will remember that the Bill in its original form contained in Part I what I believe to be four separate subject matters. First of all it had a provision for setting up large-scale farms. Secondly, it had a provision in Clause 2
1062
for demonstration holdings. Thirdly, it had in subsection (1) of Clause 3, proposals with regard to acquiring land by agreement for the purpose of reclamation. Finally, in subsection (2) of Clause 3, there was a provision for giving notice requiring land in a grossly neglected condition to be put in order, with compulsory powers for its acquisition in case of default. In the Committee stage your Lordships thought it right to reject Clauses 1 and 2, and, with regard to Clause 3, to make certain Amendments.
In the first part of the clause your Lordships inserted the word "economically," the Government professing to be quite unable to understand its meaning. In the second part of the clause, which deals with compulsory powers, the Amendments went a little further, because in addition to inserting that word "economically," there were two substantial alterations made. One was that the person called upon to investigate must be satisfied that the land was in a grossly neglected condition, and that by reason of that fact it could not be satisfactorily and economically used for agricultural purposes, instead of the Minister being the person to be so satisfied. Secondly, your Lordships inserted a provision that one of the objections which could be taken to a notice requiring the execution of works of maintenance on the land, was that the requirements were unreasonable having regard in particular to the cost of the works of maintenance, and the return that might be expected from that expenditure. I am not going to re-argue the merits of these proposals, but I think it is important that we should bear in mind what the suggestions were. The suggestions were, first, that the reporter should be satisfied that the land could be properly used if put right, and secondly, that one of the relevant factors in the notice which had to be given should be that the requirements should not be unreasonable having regard to their cost.
I have said that I believe those four subject matters are separate, but I cannot tell your Lordships that I am quite certain that they would be regarded as separate subjects. For instance, Clauses 2 and 3 have later on in the Bill only one joint expenditure—namely, £1,000,000—and there are other arguments which

1063
might be used for dove-tailing the proposals together. Further than that, as to the reasonableness of the notice with regard to its cost, it is a matter which probably deals with the condition, or may be held to deal with the condition, of a grant. The Government have told us quite frankly that if it should be held in any of these respects that a question of Privilege was involved, they would be unable to advise the House of Commons to waive Privilege. I agree with Lord Buckmaster that whether the House of Commons accept the Government advice is a matter for them, and them only, but we have the fact that the advice to waive Privilege will not be given.
We have, therefore, to consider Part I having regard to the fact that we may have to come into conflict with another place or else see Part I passed wholly or partly in its original form, and in its original form Clause 3 allows the Minister to give any notices, however extravagant and however impossible to justify economically, and, in default of compliance with the notices, compulsorily to acquire the land and then proceed himself to spend money which could not possibly be a remunerative or economic investment. I am not prepared to give this Government or any Government, but certainly not this Government and this Minister, that particular power, and I am less prepared to give him that power because I have had the privilege of reading his speech upon our Amendments. I do not know whether your Lordships have studied the report in The Times newspaper, which I beg to assure the noble Earl is not a follower of mine or of my Party. He will, however, find in The Times, in the very accurate reports which that newspaper generally furnishes, a report of what Dr. Addison thought it right to tell his constituents with regard to our Amendments.
The report appeared in The Times of Saturday, April 25. Dr. Addison said this:
"I must say that, more than once, listening to the debate and hearing more than one backwoodsman bleating out his prejudices and objections, evidently scarcely having any understanding of what the thing was really about, and knowing the months of labour and effort by a large number of people of good, will that have gone to the fashioning of these proposals and piloting them through the House of Commons,
1064
I felt that this picturesque pantomime was a discredit to an intelligent community."
I wonder whether the noble Earl in charge of the Bill thinks that that is a fair description of our discussions in Committee. I am speaking in the presence of the bulk of your Lordships who were present during the Committee stage. I am not going to mention names, but you will remember that those who took part in that debate included men who had been Ministers of Agriculture, men who had been Chairmen of county councils, men who had taken a leading part in our great experimental studies in farming and agriculture, men who, if Dr. Addison had chosen to consult anyone who knew what he was talking about, he would have been told that they were the leading authorities on agriculture in this country. When Dr. Addison talks of "more than one backwoodsman bleating out his prejudices and objections" and "scarcely having any understanding of what the thing was really about," I say, without hesitation, that either Dr. Addison when he said that said what he knew to be untrue, or else his ignorance of the subject which he professes to administer is so great as to show that he is absolutely unfitted to continue to be allowed to administer it. He can choose whichever form of the dilemma he likes, but a man who says what he has said is a man either so ignorant or so dishonest that he cannot be trusted to administer agricultural affairs at all.
There is another passage in the speech to which I would like to call attention. Dr. Addison was referring to the Amendments to Clause 3, and he said this:
"This clause has been so encumbered with qualifying Amendments that, as it stands, it is practically unworkable, for it would appear that the Minister of Agriculture might have to prove in advance that he or somebody else would derive a profit from what was done, and the person who is to have the final word on this matter is not to be the Minister, or Parliament, but some outside arbitrator."
Dr. Addison regards that as a very shocking state of affairs. That he, the Minister of Agriculture, should be called on to consider whether or not the alterations which he commends are economically reasonable seems to him to render the whole clause unworkable; that he should

1065
be called upon to justify to some independent and qualified person the giving of those notices seems to him such an outrage as to destroy the whole value of the clause. If that is so, then I do not think he is fit to be trusted with the powers in the clause without those limitations. And, so far as I am concerned, having given the matter the very best consideration I can, it seems to me that, since we are confronted with the alternative of rejecting the clause as it originally was, or of accepting it as it originally was the alternative must be in favour of its rejection.
I would only add this, that your Lordships have, at some considerable pains, amended the clause into such a condition as to render it—not without misgiving, but still in tie opinion of most members of this House—a clause which could safely be passed. It is still open to the Government, if they see fit, to make such Amendments, in answer to our rejection of this Part of the Bill, as to bring it into conformity with its present condition. Whether or not they choose to do it, do not let them say that I am challenging the Government or the House of Commons. It is entirely a matter for them whether they will propose such Amendments. It is open for them to do it if they wish. If they do not, if they prefer to say that we have to take or leave Part I as it originally stood, then I, for my part, say unhesitatingly that I feel bound to give my vote in favour of its rejection. Having come to that conclusion, it seemed to me to be my clear duty, since I feel that there rested on me some responsibility at least for the Second Reading of the Bill being passed In this House, to put down the Amendment which stands in my name and to ask your Lordships to agree to leave out Part I of the Bill in its present form.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SANKEY): The Motion is to leave out Part I of the Bill. In order to save other Amendments the Question I will put is that Clause 1, as far as the word "selling" in line 15, page 1, stand part of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, leave out all words from the beginning to ("feuing") in line 15.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I do not intend to follow the noble and learned Viscount in his speeches anticipating, as they do, the General Election, nor into the personal abuse with which he has been so lavish in regard to my right hon. friend Dr. Addison. I am only relieved that he so far kept control of himself that he did not suggest that Dr. Addison should share the fate of others with whom he disagrees, and be shot in the back in the street. I think what perhaps we should have been interested to hear from the noble and learned Viscount is what has happened since the Committee stage of this Bill which has caused him to change his mind about Clause 3. On that occasion, after a very long discussion, we found ourselves in this House in very general agreement on the principle contained in that clause—namely, that, somehow or other, it was necessary to devise machinery whereby the thousands and hundreds of thousands of acres—I think the noble Lord, Lord Ernie, on the Second Reading said over a million acres—of derelict and neglected land in this country should be brought hack into a proper condition of cultivation. On that general contention, and indeed on the general machinery which this Government have adopted to deal with the situation, there was complete agreement not only by your Lordships in general but by the noble and learned Viscount.
I remember, as ho stood up at that box, how I envied him the eloquence and the fervour with which he argued the case for Clause 3 as it stood then, and as it stands now. Let me repeat some of his words:
"If we refuse to pass this clause, then all we are, in fact, doing is to say that we will not allow the Minister, where he ran acquire land by agreement which can be economically reclaimed, to do so, and that we will not allow these people whose land is grossly neglected, and which can be put right by financially sound expenditure to be interfered with, and that we will not allow that land to be put right by buying it at a fair price when people will not put it right themselves."
And he went on—and I will ask your Lordships to excuse my making such a long quotation, because these are very important words—to say:
"I think that if we were to take up the position of championing these few black sheep among the vast land-owning community

1067
it would be a position that would be a very unfortunate one to adopt, and one which does not in the least agree with the practice or theory of the great hulk of your Lordships' House."
And later on he concluded:
"I hope your Lordships will now pass this amended clause, because I believe it would be a mistake to throw it out."
What has happened since then to change the noble and learned Viscount's mind f One thing has happened, and one thing only, and that is that the Government have refused to bargain away in this House the Privileges of the House of Commons. Surely the noble and learned Viscount has not changed his mind about the black sheep. Surely he has not changed his mind in so short a time in thinking that it is right for your Lordships to refuse to allow the Minister, where he can acquire land by agreement which requires to be reclaimed, to do so. No, one thing has happened, and one thing only, to change his mind, and that it is that it is now clear that this Government in this House are not prepared to take any action which will impinge upon the Privileges of the House of Commons. This, therefore, must quite clearly be the cause.
The noble and learned Viscount made perfectly clear in his speech the reason for his change of attitude. He threatened it in Committee, and he is carrying out that threat by moving the deletion of this Part of the Bill. He said in Committee quite definitely:—
"If there is any risk of that"—
"that" being that the House of Commons should not waive their Privileges—
"I shall put down an Amendment to leave out Part I of this Bill on Report."
That is to say "Unless you, the Government, undertake to use your influence to compel the Commons to waive their Privileges you will not have these clauses." I want to make it quite clear that the debate at the present moment is not upon the merits of this clause. Your Lordships have already approved the principle of this clause. A vote in the noble and learned Viscount's favour will quite definitely be a vote for reopening the whole issue of House of Commons control over finance. It is a challenge which, as a Government, we are perfectly prepared to accept; but I would suggest
1068
to the noble and learned Viscount that it is a barren and reactionary issue to raise at the present moment, and an issue that can lead to no productive result, either for this House or the nation as a whole. For this reason, apart altogether from the merits of the clause, on which the noble and learned Viscount has already pronounced, I ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, this Bill has one disadvantage. I think the more closely you examine it the less likely you are to approve of its provisions. But this House did unquestionably approve of Clause 3 in Committee after prolonged discussion, and is now being asked to undo what it then accomplished. I must say that for the first time in the whole of this debate, I have heard a statement from the Government Bench with which I am in agreement. I think that the only explanation can be that this is the action which the noble and learned Viscount thinks must be taken since the Government have refused to accept the offer he made, and I find myself unable in those circumstances to vote in support of his Amendment which, without those considerations, I should have felt strongly inclined to support. I think it is very important that we should leave this Bill now as it left us in Committee, subject to any necessary Amendments that have been overlooked or matters to make its provisions more effective.
Every drastic step that we take now can only be attributed to the failure of this offer which the noble and learned Viscount made to the Government and which they refused. Surely, that is the most dangerous ground on which you can possibly tread. Leaving the Bill as it is. Clauses 1 and 2 as originally drafted are excised. I am bound to say that I should be prepared to accept at any time and in any place a challenge upon our action in that respect. It seems to me incredible that people do not realise that what we did then was done not only not in the interest of members of this House, but directly against the interest of a very large number of those of your Lordships who are privileged to hold land, and for this reason. You could not possibly have been injured by having £1,000,000 spent in attempts to make farms. That could not have hurt you. But the people who

1069
were going to buy were always, to the extent of two-fifths or four-fifths and only to that extent, people who knew anything about what they were buying. The remaining people might have come from anywhere and you, whose land had been bought, would be in the position of selling to people half of whom only were experts, and who were dealing not with their own cash but with the nation's money in making the purchase and to whom, if there was any failure, no responsibility would attach. I cannot help thinking that your Lordships and your agents would be able to make extremely good bargains in those circumstances, and no one can by any possible suggestion say that your Lordships acted in your own interests in throwing out Clause 1.
I agree that your action has been criticised. It has been called an antisocial act, but I do not think the Minister who used that expression knew any more than. I do what it meant. As far as I can gather, it is swept from the threshing floor of Russia and means something there for which you can be sent to prison. Over here it has no meaning at all. We have been subjected, no doubt, and shall be again, to misrepresentation, to misunderstanding and even to positive falsehood with regard to what we did. None the less, I am satisfied that there we are on sound ground. But I am not satisfied that we should be on sound ground if we now rejected this clause. I think the ground would be most unsound, and I would humbly suggest that your Lordships would be acting most imprudently if you were now on this stage of the Bill to undo what you did on the Committee stage, when nothing has happened in between excepting that the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House has definitely turned down the bargain which was offered to him by the noble and learned Viscount.
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, the noble Earl, speaking for the Government, and the noble and learned Lord from the Liberal Benches have ascribed the Motion of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, as due to the fact that certain suggestions which he made across the floor of the House were turned down by the Government. I do not for one moment believe that to be the case. I believe that his Motion is due to the fact
1070
that if you leave in the Bill one half of a Part of the Bill, the rules of Privilege will apply to the whole of the Part and the whole Part will be returned to you in exactly the same condition as it formerly reached your Lordships' House.
The noble and learned Lord has told us that he objects very strongly indeed to Clauses 1 and 2, but desires us to pass Clause 3. With that I should absolutely agree if it were possible; but is the noble and learned Lord prepared to accept as the price of passing Clause 3, the retention of Clauses 1 and 2? That I believe to be the position which we have to face and it puts me in an extraordinarily difficult position, because I am anxious to retain Clause 3, or Clause 1 as it is in the Bill as it stands. It is the only clause in that Part of the Bill which has anything to do with employment. The operations under the first subsection will certainly mean the employment of labour in the country districts, and although I know it cannot be a large amount of labour, yet I would not for one moment oppose anything which helped the rural labourer, whose position in the depressed state of agriculture must be one of difficulty in the future. But are we as the price of that to retain the original Clause 1, which is the very reverse of Clause 3 because it will actually reduce the number of labourers? If your Lordship; could be persuaded that we could retain our present Clause 1 without having also the earlier Clause 1 forced upon us, I should really not vote for the Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount; but so long as the reverse is the case I shall be bound to support him in the Lobby.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I intervene with considerable diffidence, but it seems to me that we are drifting into an unnecessary squabble and one which I think must become increasingly bitter. I agree with the observations which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, made just now, that if this relatively small squabble to-day were to drift along and increase and magnify, and if eventually we found ourselves embroiled in a General Election, the verdict and the result of that Election might in the opinion of most of your Lordships he exceedingly disastrous. I have said that I think we are drifting into an unnecessary squabble because when I

1071
listened to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Earl on the other side, it seemed to me that there was a misunderstanding.
I understood the noble and learned Viscount to say that in his opinion the Government have refused to waive the question of Privilege in another place and, therefore, we shall have the original clause back again. As I understood the statement from the Government Benches it was that they could not promise to ask the House of Commons to waive Privilege. The Government refused to disclose the nature of its action and the advice it would offer in another place. But as I understand it the Government might accept Amendments either here today or in another place. In fact, I notice that there is on the Paper an Amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, as well as one standing in the name of the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, and others which I am convinced would make this clause better than it has already been made in its passage through Committee.
I venture to point out that we may easily land ourselves in an exceedingly difficult position. If we carry this Amendment now, we shall be knocking seven pages out of the Bill. It is true that they all refer to one point, but we shall be knocking out three clauses over and above the three clauses which we have already taken out of the Bill. I myself reluctantly shall be bound to vote for the retention of Part 1. If we reject Part 1 what are the alternatives? Either the Government return this particular clause in an amended form, something on the present lines, in which case we shall not be better off than we are now, or they can send back not only the original clause but the whole original Bill. They might turn nasty. I am afraid that the position—and that is what I have in mind—then might be very serious. Either we should have to accept the original Bill, which I agree entirely with your Lordships was a far worse Bill than the Bill as it has now been amended, or we have to hold it up under the Parliament Act. The effect of that, it seems to me, might be far-reaching. It would be in the nature of a red herring right across the political arena. The public mind, which is not now being devoted as seriously and whole-
1072
heartedly as it should be to the great economic and international problems which are awaiting solution, would be confused by the cry, which would undoubtedly be raised, of "the Peers against the People" and the old cries about the land.
It seems to me there is one thing which the Government are anxious to have, and that is some alternative topic for the electors to talk about other than the failure of the Government to deal with unemployment. I have no doubt, if we were to have an Election to-morrow, the great issue would be the failure of the Government to carry out their pledges to deal with unemployment. If, however, we throw out any considerable number of the clauses of this Bill, and if the Bill comes back in its original form, and we do not feel we can pass it in that form and we hold it up, undoubtedly at the next Election, whether it comes this year, or next year, or two years hence, the public mind will be confused by the cry of "the Peers against the People," and the old cries that we have heard before. It is no good living in the clouds. It is no good shirking the fact that there would be a great deal of unnecessary misrepresentation. The Government think that they lost the last Election by the Zinoviev letter, what. they call the "Red letter." Do not let us enable them to win the coming Election by giving them a red herring.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, speaking as one of the "bleating backwoodsmen" who must have been described by the right hon. gentleman (Dr. Addison) when he occupied and ornamented the steps of the Throne, I would like, if I may, to give some evidence that the terms of this measure are of deep interest to me by supporting, so far as I am able, the wise words, if I may be permitted to say so, that fell from my noble friend Lord Clinton. To those of your Lordships who deeply desire an improvement not only in agricultural conditions but in the conditions which apply only too often to agricultural land, it is a fact that the old Clause 3, the now amended Clause 1, is a clause which would be very acceptable to us, and it is a matter of regret that it is impossible under present conditions to retain that clause in the Bill.

1073
Before elaborating that, I would like, if I may, to deprecate and disown the attribution which was made to agricultural landlords by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, who appeared to think, if only for a moment, that we were in some way animated, either now or at any time, by considerations of the value to ourselves of any clause that might appear in a measure put forward by a Socialist or by any other Government. I readily and most gladly admit that the noble and learned Lord was at pains to point out to your Lordships' House that no accusation could rest upon the agricultural landlords amongst your Lordships, that rejection of that clause was in any way in your own interests. I admit that gladly, but I think it somewhat unfortunate that the subject itself should even have been mentioned, because never within my recollection has any consideration of personal interest entered into any action taken by your Lordships while I have had the honour of a seat in this House.
But passing from that, is it not yet possible, when this Part of the Bill has been rejected, as rejected it must be, that the Government, as many of us do, would wish to insert the standing Clause 1 by way of amendment in another place? If they are so overwrought by partisan spirit as to prefer that the useful provisions of that clause should go by the board, it is for them to say, but if they should choose to reinsert the clause as we have amended it, or in some such form, in another place, and bring it back to us in due course, I feel quite confident that the majority of your Lordships would welcome that action, and would be glad to see that clause form part of the Bill. I am not entitled to speak for anyone but myself, but, having been encouraged by what has already fallen from my noble friend Lord Clinton, I could speak for agricultural Peers in giving that undertaking for what it is worth. It is a matter of regret that the new Clause 1 has to be sacrificed, but I cannot think that there would be any noble Lord sitting on this side of the House, or many noble Lords sitting upon the Liberal Benches, who could contemplate the reinsertion of the original Clause 1. That clause is one which was riddled with objections. and received the very minimum of support. Barely did it
1074
get much explanation. We cannot have that clause back in the Bill. Unfortunately, the old Clause 3 has now to go, but it remains always in the power of His Majesty's Government to bring back this clause by way of amendment, and I sincerely hope that on reflection that will be the action they will take.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, as a not very experienced member of this House, I confess I become more and more mystified by the arguments to which I have been listening. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, how he thinks that by rejecting this clause you are going to prevent the reintroduction of Clauses 1 and 2. It is perfectly clear to me that if you reject Clause 3, or Clause 1 as it now is, you are gratuitously offering the very chance to the Government which your Lordships know that they are seeking. It would surely be infinitely more wise to return to the House of Commons the amended and improved Clause 3 than to reject it altogether. I cannot see that you will gain any advantage whatever in taking the course which is suggested. You are simply gratuitously issuing a challenge which is exactly what the Government want. If you pass this clause in an amended form there is some chance of the Government accepting some of the Amendments and returning the clause in a form in which it might be accepted. By rejecting it altogether, it will come back with the original Clauses 1 and 2 re-inserted by the Commons purely on the ground of Privilege, and raising an issue in the country. I urge your Lordships to pass this clause in its amended form and so avoid the challenge which, in my judgment, every member of the House seeks to avoid.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am only going to say a few words and I say them because I think there is a misunderstanding in some of your Lordships' minds Owing to the necessary intricacy of the question of procedure. The noble Lord who just sat down said that he could not understand why my noble friend Lord Clinton said that by rejecting the amended Clause 1, originally Clause 3, it would prevent the reintroduction of Clauses 1 and 2. Of course, it would not, but you would prevent their reintroduction on the ground of Privilege. If your Lordships will bear with me while I venture

1075
on rather a technical explanation, it is quite clear, I think, beyond argument that your Lordships can quite safely reject Part I of the Bill without infringing any Privilege of the House of Commons. I do not think there is any possibility of the House of Commons being otherwise advised by the Speaker. It may be that we can reject one or other clause of Part I without infringing the question of Privilege; but it is by no means certain that we can. They all form part of Part I of the Bill. The financial clauses are dovetailed together and Part I of the Schedule covers the whole of Part I.
It is at least arguable, it is at least a possible view, that you cannot amend Part I. Reject it you certainly can. Amending it may be held to be a breach of Privilege. My noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster said he was prepared anywhere to face the challenge of the action of this House in rejecting Clauses 1 and 2 as they originally stood, but I wonder whether he would be prepared to face the challenge of the Government and of another place of our having infringed the Privilege of the House of Commons by rejecting those two clauses? Your Lordships will appreciate that if you pass Clause 3 and reject Clauses 1 and 2 you may be infringing the Privilege of the House of Commons, or may be said to be infringing the Privilege of the House of Commons, because it may be said that you are amending what is one subject matter—namely, Part I. That you cannot do. If, therefore, you pass Clause 3 and reject Clauses 1 and 2—certainly if you pass Clause 3 in its amended form—you may very well find that the answer comes from another place: "We hope you will not insist on rejecting Clauses 1 and 2 because that is a breach of the Privilege of the House of Commons." What would the noble and learned Lord do then? Would he take up the challenge, of a breach of Privilege? I hope he would not. I certainly would not.
My noble friend Viscount Astor said the Government may send back the original Clause 3 in its present form, and he said if they do that we are no better off than we are now. He is quite right in saying they may send it back in that form, but I hope he will forgive me for saying that I think he is profoundly
1076
wrong in saying that we should be no better off. If they were to do that and we then accepted that suggestion, the Amendment of Part I will have been made in another place where obviously it cannot give rise to any question of Privilege. We can then accept the proposed Amendment without risk of any question of Privilege being raised. I had hoped that we might have reached the same position by a short cut by getting the assurance which I asked the Government to give. They have not seen their way to give it, and, as I have said, I make no complaint of that.
It seems to me that there are only two alternatives before your Lordships' House. Either you pass Clause 3 as it now stands—the present Clause 1—with the risk that thereby you are compelled to accept Part I as it originally stood or else to quarrel with the House of Commons on the ground of Privilege, or you reject Part I as it now stands, in which ease it is still open to the Government, if they think fit, to put it back in its original form. If they prefer to lose the Bill they are at liberty to insist on the original Part I and to compel your Lordships either to agree or disagree with that insistence on pain of losing the Bill. I hope I have made the position clear in what is rather a technical matter. I hope I have answered the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, when I point out that if the Government in another place reinstate Part I the position is not the same as it is to-day, because in that event it is the Government which is amending the original Clauses 1 and 2 and not this House. Therefore, there can fie no question of this House having infringed any Privilege of another place by having struck out part of Part I and not the whole.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I should be glad if the noble and learned Viscount will explain something that I cannot understand. I cannot understand why the question of Privilege arises if you reject Clauses 1 and 2 and does not arise if you reject Clauses 1, 2 and 3. I cannot understand why the question of Privilege varies.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord and I will try to answer him. The rule, as I understand it, is that your Lord-

1077
ships' House cannot amend provisions relating to the limitation of the grant. You can reject such provisions altogether. If there are in the Bill different subject matters which are wholly separate your Lordships can reject any one but you cannot amend any one.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Then you can reject Clause 1?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: It might be held in another place, by Mr. Speaker when he has to decide, that Clause 1 is a wholly separate subject matter from the rest of the Bill. I am inclined to think that he may probably say so, but
Resolved in the negative and Amendmant agreed to accordingly.
I am not confident that he would. Clauses 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 together form Part I of this Bill. If they are separate subject matters we can throw out one, but if not—the decision rests with the Speaker—we cannot throw out one without throwing out the Whole. I hope, at any rate, I have made my position clear. It is because of that risk that I have been constrained to take up the attitude that I have taken to-day.
On Question, Whether Part I of the Bill as far as ("feuing") in line 15 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided—Contents, 31; Not-Contents, 82.

CONTENTS.

Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Buckmaster, L.

Monkswell, L.

Darling, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Dickinson, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Rathereedan, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Remnant, L.

Buxton, E.

Gainford, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

De La Warr, E.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Harrowby, E.

Sanderson, L.

Heneage, L.

Sandys, L.

Astor, V.

Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

Snell, L.

Mersey, V.

Kirkley, L.

Stanmore, L.

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Wargrave, L.

Arnold, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Bedford, D.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Harris, L.

Sutherland, D.

Bridgeman, V.

Hastings, L.

Wellington, D.

Churchill, V.

Hothfield, L.

Hailsham, V.

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.

Camden, M.

Plumer, V.

Jessel, L.

Exeter, M.

Scarsdale, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Lamington, L.

Zetland, M.

Addington, L.

Latymer, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Lawrence, L.

Balfour, E.

Bayford, L.

Leigh, L.

Bradford, E.

Biddulph, L.

Middleton, L.

Cawdor, E.

Chesham, L.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Denbigh, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Mountgarret, L. (F. Mountgarret.)

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

Phillimore, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Clinton, L.

Queen borough, L.

Lindsey, E.

Conyvers, L.

Rayleigh, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Cornwallis, L.

Redesdale, L.

Midleton, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Sackville, L.

Morton, E.

Cranworth, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Mount Edgcumbe. E.

Cushendun, L.

Southampton, L.

Peel, E.

Danesforf, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Poulett, E.

Desborough, L.

Sandwich, E.

Dynevor, L.

Templemore, L.

Selborne, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Teynham, L.

Stanhope, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Trenchard, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

fairhaven, L.

Treowen, L.

Yarborough, E.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Wavertree, L.

Faringdon. L.

Wharton, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Wynford, L.

On Question remainder of Part. I disagreed to.
Clause 4:
Power of Minister to provide small holdings with financial assistance for unemployed persons.
4.—(1) If the Minister is satisfied that any person—
(c) is able and has the necessary practical experience to enable him to cultivate the holding properly; and
(e) in the opinion of the council of the county concerned, expressed in a report made to the Minister as respects each holding, may reasonably be expected to earn a livelihood on the holding proposed, the Minister shall have power to provide a small holding, other than a cottage holding, for that person and lease it to him:
Provided that no compensation shall be payable under Section forty-three of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, or under the provisions of this Act relating to compensation for loss of employment, to any person for whom a small holding is provided under this section.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (1), (a), to leave out "and has the necessary practical experience to enable him." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this concerns an Amendment that was discussed in Committee and was inserted without the Government accepting it, but on the promise of further consideration. We have looked into the matter and we find that it is necessary to ask your Lordships to take out the words that have been inserted—namely, "and has the necessary practical experience to enable him"—because those words cut across subsection (5), which deals with training. It is quite obvious that we shall not want powers for training men who have the necessary practical experience, and for that reason I would ask your Lordships to consent to omit these words.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 10, leave out from ("able") to ("to") in line 11.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, is it not a fact that the training that it is proposed to give to these men would provide them with just the experience which the terms of the Bill require that they should have? I am sure that this was in the mind of the noble Lord who moved the original Amendment. It was not intended by any manner of means to exclude from the occupation of small holdings persons who in the first instance
1080
had no practical training, but merely to exclude them until they had received practical training. I shall be very glad to hear what the noble Earl has to say on that point, because a great deal depends on it.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I am informed that the effect of the words is as I have said, and that the noble Lord's point is covered by the words "is able." Many of these men will not be able to cultivate holdings until they have been through a course of training. The clause as it stands does undoubtedly preclude the Minister from training men who have not already obtained practical experience.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl opposite will look at this again before the next stage. I am very doubtful whether the word "able" goes as far as he thinks. Surely it might merely mean that anybody who was physically able qualified for a holding. I do not know what the legal interpretation is, but I am doubtful whether any definition of the word "able" goes as far as he thinks. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Lauderdale, who moved the Amendment in Committee, had the same intention as the noble Earl, which was that we should not put a person on a holding until he has sufficient training to make it a success. This made it a duty of the Minister to keep a man at his training until he is satisfied the man has had sufficient training to make a success of it. It may well be that those words do not carry out the effect which is intended, in which case I am certain that my noble friend would be quite willing to accept other words at a later stage of the Bill; but I think it requires a little more consideration than the noble Earl has given it, for otherwise we may be leaving out something which will be useful.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, as I moved this Amendment, and the noble Earl in charge said he would reconsider it, perhaps I may speak on the matter. I understand that he has modified it slightly. My only object was that no man should be put on the land who was unfitted to go there. If he had had sufficient training it would meet the purpose, but if he goes there without any knowledge of farming he is unlikely to be a success.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I think the disagreement between us lies in this—that while noble Lords opposite are saying it is a matter of principle, I am saying it is a matter of drafting. We have been into this matter very carefully with our legal advisers, and these are the conclusions that we have come to. We think that the word "able" does cover the point raised by Lord Stanhope. If you consent to drop these words, I will reconsider the matter and, if desired, we can have further discussions between now and the next stage; but I must say that the matter has been very fully discussed with our advisers, and we are satisfied that the words as they stand do have the meaning which I say, and that the word "able" does meet the point.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not know whether the discussion mentioned by the noble Earl has included discussion with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. May I suggest that the noble Earl should be good enough to include in his further counsels the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, if he has not already done so? Without pretending to have gone into the matter deeply, it does look to me as if the words of subsection (5) must mean that the one qualification which they do not possess is that mentioned in paragraph (c) of subsection (1). I do not wish to express any concluded opinion, but I venture to suggest to my noble friends that we should accept the Amendment, accepting also the noble Earl's assurance that he will go a little further into the matter, in order to satisfy our doubts.
EARL DE LA WARR: I will certainly do so. I had myself raised the point, and that is why I was sure of it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (e). The noble Lord said: My Lords, you will remember that in the Committee stage I moved paragraph (e) in somewhat different words, and the noble Earl said he objected to paragraph (e) because he thought that it threw on the county council the duty of "vetting" the man as well as the land. The Amendment, therefore, was slightly changed and the words "as respects each holding" substituted for "in each case." I under-
1082
stand that having looked into this, the noble Earl is still of opinion that this paragraph (e) does still cast upon the county council the duty of "vetting" the man as well as the land. I think possibly he may be right, and therefore I have ventured to suggest to the noble Earl,, and to your Lordships, that what we wish to effect by paragraph (e) is effected by the words of my next Amendment, and I am also legally advised to the effect that should that be passed it is quite certain that the county councils will only have the "vetting" of the man and nothing to do with the choosing of the land. This Amendment is moved solely with a view to the clause being a success. One of my objects was to prevent the wasting of money and another the breaking of the heart of a man by putting him on a holding which he could not possibly make a success. May I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will accept my Amendment in the spirit in which it is offered, and will agree, if paragraph (e) is removed, to accept the words which appear in. my next Amendment?
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 16, leave out paragraph (e).—(Lord Cranworth.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot give the noble Earl the assurance that he asks for. We fully realise that this Amendment, although we feel most strongly about it, is not designed as a wrecking Amendment, but does express a real desire to make the clause more workable. For that reason I hope your Lordships will permit me rather to raise again the whole question of the principle of this Amendment, because we do regard it as a most vital question of principle which goes to the very root of what remains of the Bill. I think we should remember that no extensive effort has been made in this country to settle unemployed people on the land until now, and as the bulk of the unemployed reside in towns, where the local authorities have no experience of this work, and as the county councils in their various small holdings powers have not been called upon to carry out this work, it seems natural that it must be carried out as part of a national effort by the Government itself.

1083
This has nothing to do with Clause 10 of the old Act, but is entirely new work. The success of the county councils' efforts in the past has really been due largely to the knowledge of their own applicants, coming from their own areas, but the problem of settling the unemployed is a totally new problem. For example, an unemployed man in Newcastle may come from agricultural stock in Yorkshire. He may have kept poultry, or have cultivated an allotment, and therefore show signs of being the type of man required. The Government are of opinion that there should be no geographical limitation to this scheme, and that men should be provided with holdings in whatever district it is felt that they will have the best chance of success. In the case of poultry holdings, efforts will be made to group the small holdings round centres of population, or round an egg-packing station. Many packing stations already exist. Similarly in the case of market garden holdings, land will be required for the most part outside towns, where the produce can find a ready sale. Holdings will be grouped, and every endeavour will be made to secure that produce is marketed in the most efficient manner. It is intended to arrange, wherever practicable, for special stores to be opened at local markets in connection with existing local bodies, women's institutes, and so on.
I have gone into the subject at some length, because the more one goes into it and the more one discusses the type of scheme that is likely to be put into operation, the more one realises how little it has to do with the county councils, with their experience, or with any experience of any form of settlement they have had in the past. Not only have they not dealt with the unemployed from the towns, but on the whole it is perfectly fair to say that they really have not settled men to any extent at all on this system of group planning. I think, therefore, we really ought to ask ourselves once again whether it is reasonable to say that the Minister shall not take action under this clause unless the county council—which, as I have already said, has no knowledge of handling the unemployed, and practically no experience of co-operative group settlement—is willing, as it must be under this Amendment, to share the responsi-
1084
bility with the Minister by making a report as to the creation of each individual holding.
I think we ought to ask ourselves really how the requirements set out in this proviso are going to work in practice. Quite clearly the holding is not to be created until a report is received, yet the council has to know all about the holding before it is able to make a report. The noble Lord shakes his head. That is how it must work out in practice. The noble Lord surely would not suggest that the Minister should invest a great deal of national capital in a holding, and then have it turned down afterwards by the county council as unsuitable. The only practical way is that the consent should be obtained before the money is expended. I think your Lordships must admit that either of these suggestions is absurd, and yet one of those suggestions has got to be carried out under this new proviso. If the holding does not yet exist, how can the county council express an opinion upon it?
What is to happen? Is the Minister to write to a county council and say: "I am thinking of buying such-and-such a farm for settlement? Will you please tell me before I do so whether a man might be able to make a living on a selected five acres of this land"? Is that how we have to proceed? What will be the effect? We all of us know that purchasing land is always a difficult matter, and the greater the machinery of inquiry the more expensive that land will be. The owner of the land will know about it, and it is very possible that the Minister will have to give an increased price for it. And, if the report of the county council is favourable, of course the price of the land will go up immediately. On the other hand the county council could say: "How can we judge what sort of holdings this farm is going to split up into until we have actually either seen the holdings or all your plans and specifications"?
Therefore you come to this position, that the Minister has to have all his plans and specifications approved by a county council, which has no responsibility whatever for the policy. Apart from the impossibility and undesirability of making national policy dependent on the whim of a local body, there is nothing

1085
more likely to bring about friction between the Minister and the county council. If this proviso were adopted it would lead to the most extreme cases of division of responsibility. Delay would occur with regard to every acquisition, and all opportunities of private negotiation with owners would disappear. The cost of every piece of land would probably be increased, and the scheme unnecessarily enlarged. For that reason, as I know that the noble Lord does want this scheme to be a workable scheme, I would ask him to recognise that this is a part of a national effort for which the Minister who is responsible to Parliament must be officially responsible in all the aspects of the scheme.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, the noble Earl has made out the best case he could for the refusal of this Amendment, and he asks your Lordships to visualise how the matter is worked out as between the Minister and the county council concerned. The noble Earl himself has told the House that these new small holdings will be established almost entirely on the group system. That, of course, is well understood. It is not suggested by the noble Earl surely, nor would it hardly be believed by the House even if he did suggest it, that the Minister will have to ask the county council in respect of any individual holding, for the very good reason that the Minister is not going to take any one individual miner and move him across the country and deposit him upon one individual holding in some other county. Of course not. He is going to move his people in groups. How, then, would the Minister proceed? The noble Earl asked, could be not create the holding before communicating with the county council Of course he could not. Why should he? All he has to do is to write to the county council and say: "My Ministry propose to establish one hundred small holdings of poultry farmers in a particular area. Can you please recommend to us the best land on which they could be established?" The county council then go out to look, not for the best grazing or vegetable land, but for nice, light land, with a certain amount of grit that will do the fowls good, and they recommend that. When the noble Earl talks about the price going up, surely he knows that these matters are
1086
settled by the local valuation officers. They always have been, and they always will be. There is no question of the local landowner being able to put up his price against the Ministry. The Ministry have their remedy, and they will apply that remedy.
No, the whole purpose of this Amendment is not to interfere in any way with the powers of the Minister or the success of the scheme; its purpose is to help the scheme. A very large number of officials have to be created, necessarily created, to implement this scheme. They cannot be possessed of the knowledge that the county councils already possess—are, indeed, almost in painful possession of, because nearly all of them have made mistakes. Nobody does anything much without making mistakes first. They have found out where their errors are arid they are now in a position to give to the Ministry of Agriculture the benefit of their previous errors. And if there could be any question of its being proposed to establish a one-man holding, and so hanging up the Minister and irritating the county council, of course we should not press this Amendment. But the very fact that the noble Earl has impressed upon the House that the system will be one of group settlements is surely the strongest possible argument that could be used for the Amendment. I hope the noble Earl will realise that there is no intention on the part of any noble Lord to make it more difficult for the Minister to give effect to his scheme.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, might I reinforce what my noble friend has so well said? There is no question of trying to block the scheme at all. I think the noble Earl rather got swept away by the arguments put before him, with the result that he sometimes rather answered his own arguments which he had put earlier against this Amendment. For instance, at one moment he talked about the question of group settlement, and said that no county council has ever done anything of the kind before. That is quite true; but from the way he put it he obviously implied that the county councils would be brought in to consider the question of the individual. There is no question of the individual under the Amendment of the noble Lord at all. It is a question of the site. When the

1087
noble Earl says that the county councils have had no experience of this kind of settlement, we admit it; but has the Minister? The Minister has had no experience of these things at all. The county councils at any rate have had very considerable experience of small holdings, and some of them have put small holders in groups in various parts of the country and have, therefore, had great experience of how group settlement works.
There is a further very strong argument. The noble Earl suggested that there was a difficulty about the Minister sending the plans to the county council. Why? When the Minister decides to set up a group of small holdings, surely he will make up his mind whether he is going to have poultry holdings, ordinary general small holdings, fruit small holdings, or whatever it may be. The county councils have had experience of all those types of holdings. If he decides that he wants to have a certain number of poultry farms in a certain county, are not the county council able to tell him that the best land for the purpose an the county is in such a district? They can tell him more than that. They can tell him that the market for poultry for that part of the county is already well supplied; that if any further poultry small holders are placed there they will flood the market and make it more difficult for the existing small holders to live; and that there will be no chance for the new and inexperienced men to come in successfully. The county council has great experience not only of poultry small holdings but with regard to fruit and other things and the possibility as to markets. The same is true of their officers. But the officers of the Ministry have not had experience either of that land or the markets, nor will the new men appointed by the Minister to carry out this work have anything like the experience of the other officers. I suggest to the noble Earl that if he really wants to make a success of this thing, he will use the county councils for all he is worth, and make them responsible for finding the site for him and seeing that the plans are sent down to them so that they shall have full consideration before he plunges in and spends public money.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, your Lordships are obviously so keen not to upset this scheme that I rather insist
1088
upon trying to persuade you not to insert this Amendment. I think you are under a slight misconception, because noble Lords have spoken as though our officials will never get into contact with the county councils unless there is some compulsory provision in the Bill. The contact is already of the very closest, and obviously we are going to avail ourselves of all the experience of the county councils with regard to the land in their area which they are able and willing to give us. But that is a different matter from putting it in the power of the county councils to say, as they really would be able to do under this proviso, that they will not have any settlement in the county at all.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will forgive me for interrupting him, but in giving power to the county councils he would also give power to the Minister which he would not have of making the county councils do what he wants them to do unless those words were in.
EARL DE LA WARR: I do not know whether I quite appreciate that point for the moment. What I was going to say was that supposing there is a county council that is not at all necessarily hostile to the principle of this scheme, but feels that it does not want to accept any responsibility for more settlements in its area: possibly its members are local farmers who think that they have enough small holdings in the county and are not going to have any more. Perhaps your Lordships think it is right that they should have that power. But for what might turn out to be semi-political reasons, a county council might actually refuse to give consent to any scheme, and definitely there is that power in the Amendment. I would say that we do intend to act in the very closest cooperation with the county officials and the county councils, but I would ask your Lordships not to make the initiation of a scheme dependent, as this proviso does, on the consent of the county council.
LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, I find myself put in a rather difficult position by what the noble Earl has said. If I accede to his wish and keep in paragraph (e), the county councils will have all the power that they are given under this Amendment and more. I think the

1089
noble Earl is perfectly right in what I understood to be his apprehension that under paragraph (e) they have the right to "vet" the man. But if the noble Earl would prefer paragraph (e) with all that it implies, it is not for me to deny it to him. I must, therefore, ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, which I do with great reluctance because I wish to meet the noble Earl in a helpful spirit as I said before.
The LORD SPEAKER (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): Does the noble Lord withdraw his Amendment?
LORD CRANWORTH: I am not quite sure of the position of the noble Earl. I would prefer to stick to the Amendment. But if I have to withdraw it I shall move to substitute the words which are on the Paper. I understood him to say that he would prefer paragraph (e). Perhaps he would tell me which he prefers.
EARL DE LA WARR: We would like the noble Lord to leave out paragraph (e) and not to make the new insertion. That was the point of my speech. But if the noble Lord will not do that, it is a matter of indifference which he puts in, but I think on the whole that his new insertion is better.
LORD CRANWORTH: I take it that the noble Earl, not perhaps very graciously, accedes to my endeavour to help him in what he formerly said was his wish. I, therefore, will not withdraw my Amendment, but will stick to it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (1), immediately before the proviso, to insert:
"Provided that no holding shall be provided under this section unless the council of the county report to the Minister in writing in respect of each holding that a person possessing in the opinion of the Minister the qualifications mentioned in paragraph (c) of this subsection may reasonably be expected to earn a livelihood on that holding."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the insertion of this proviso about which we have already spoken at some length.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 23, after ("him") insert the said new proviso.—(Lord Cranworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, leave out lines 24 to 29.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Power of Minister to provide small holdings with financial assistance for agricultural workers]:
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR moved to leave out "as a member or ex-member of His Majesty's Forces, who" and to insert "being or having been a member of His Majesty's Forces." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a purely drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 3, leave out from ("who") to ("has") in line 4 and insert (", being or having been a member of His Majesty's Forces,").—(Viscount Astor.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, we have already accepted the principle of this Amendment and our position remains the same.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Power of Minister to dispose of or utilise land not required for unemployed persons or demonstration holdings]:
LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH had given Notice to move to leave out "but is needed for the purposes of small holdings." The noble Lord said: My Lords, since I placed this Amendment on the Paper I have received a letter from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill explaining, to my satisfaction at all events, the reason why these words are in the measure. It is not my intention, therefore, to move this Amendment.
Clause 8:
Application of Small Holdings and Allotments Acts to powers of Minister.
8. For the purpose of exercising the powers conferred on, him by the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act, the Minister shall have the like powers as may be exercised by a county council with respect to small holdings under the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, and the provisions of those Acts relating to the acquisition, use or disposal of land by a county council and to small holdings provided by a county council shall apply with the neces-

1091
sary adaptations to the acquisition, use and disposal of land by the Minister and to small holdings provided by him under this Part of this Act, but subject to the modifications that the Minister may sell, or let for other purposes any land acquired by him for small holdings which is in his opinion not needed for the purposes of small holdings, or exchange any such land for land more suitable for small holdings, and may pay or receive money for equality of exchange, and paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (1) of Section twelve of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, shall not apply with respect to any such land.
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR moved to leave out "other purposes" and insert "purposes prescribed by regulations under this Part of this Act." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I might remind the House that on Committee stage I had the same words on the Paper, but my noble friend Lord Clinton had an Amendment on the same lines, and I thought his Amendment was much better than mine. Therefore I did not move mine. There was a considerable discussion on my noble friend's Amendment, but it was not pressed. Therefore, as I did not move my Amendment then, I have put it down again now. This Amendment refers to small holdings, and when we come to the allotment question in Clause 11 I have a similar Amendment which I am proposing to move then as regards allotments.
As the Bill stands, land acquired by the Minister for small holdings might be sold by him for any other purpose, say, for a factory. The Amendment will enable the Department, by regulations which, under Clause 17, have to be laid before Parliament, to specify the purposes for which the Minister really requires power for the disposal of the land. As the Bill stands, the Minister could sell all the surplus land, not only to companies for private purposes, but for purposes which might be most objectionable to the countryside. I assume that he might do so also to a Government Department who wanted a site for their purpose, which might destroy the amenities of the countryside. If the Minister, as I propose, has to specify, by regulations laid before Parliament, the purpose for which he requires power for the disposal of the land, there would be some opportunity to raise objections. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 7, leave out ("other purposes") and insert ("purposes prescribed by regulations under this Part of this Act.")—(Lord Dynevor.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, this clause, as drafted, proposes to give the same powers to the Minister as the county councils at present possess in regard to dealing with land which they have acquired for small holding purposes. The purpose of this Amendment, as the noble Lord has informed your Lordships, is to restrict the power of the Minister to selling the land, to letting it, or dealing with it in such a manner as is prescribed by regulation. It is quite impossible to prescribe in advance the best and the most economic manner in which to deal with the small parcel of land that may not be required. The reply to this point is very much the same reply as we gave to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, on his Amendment. You cannot prescribe. It may be, as frequently happens now with county councils, that possibly a large farmhouse, or even a mansion house, may have to be purchased in buying an estate for small holdings, and you cannot prescribe exactly to what use those buildings are to be put. It depends in every case on the merits of the particular buildings. You might let them as a school, or private hotel, or as a private residence.
One does not know ahead; but, surely the noble Lord would agree that what is really necessary is that the Minister, as the representative of the Government and as the guardian of the taxpayer, should be in a position to get the best economic return for the land or for the building that is possible. It is most surprising to have from Lord Dynevor, who has been so much concerned all through with economy, or what he has considered the lack of economy, in this Bill, limitations on the Minister as regards the most economic disposal of land or buildings. I do hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. The county councils have had this power since 1908. Surely there is no reason for refusing to entrust the Minister with such power as the county councils have now exercised for over twenty-two years.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved to add the following proviso:—
"Provided that if, after a local inquiry has been held in accordance with the said provisions with respect to any order whereby the Minister proposes to acquire land compulsorily, any objection to the order which has been presented is not withdrawn, the order shall not be confirmed except by means of a Provisional Order made by the Minister and confirmed by Parliament, and for that purpose the Minister may submit a Bill to Parliament for the confirmation of any such Provisional Order."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is one of some substance. It was agreed generally by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that in certain circumstances provision must be made for appeal from the Minister to some person other than the Minister himself. It was also agreed that the words which were then put down were somewhat clumsy, and I am glad to say that agreement has now been reached whereby words have been found which, I believe, will commend themselves to noble Lords on this side of the House, and equally commend themselves to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. I am happy to think these words are satisfactory to all parties, and meet what is certainly a matter of some urgency. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 14, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Hastings.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, in accepting this Amendment, I think I might say that we are still of opinion that the demand for its insertion rests upon a case that is more theoretical than real. At the same time, we are quite prepared to accept the Amendment.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, the noble Earl having given expression to that opinion, I must add another word, and that is, I hope the noble Earl and his Minister in the House of Commons are going to keep these words in the Bill when it gets there.
EARL DE LA WARR: If I accept an Amendment, naturally we stand by it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, after Clause 10, to insert the following new clause:—
". Before proceeding with the erection of any dwelling-houses or buildings under
1094
this Act or approving the erection of any such dwelling-houses or buildings, the Minister or county council shall be satisfied that the design of the proposed buildings and the materials to be used for their construction are, so far as practicable, such as will be appropriate for the site and harmonious with the surroundings."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, on the Committee stage I indicated that on the Report stage I would move an Amendment dealing with a point which we then discussed. The object of my Amendment is to see that when colonies of small holdings are made in any part of the country due regard shall be had to the surroundings and to local amenities; that the small holdings should as far as possible be in harmony with the surroundings. We want to avoid anything like a stereotyped style of building being planted down in the country. I regret to say that too often we find municipal housing schemes give us an example of what should be avoided. I do not want in any way to suggest that the Ministry themselves have not considered amenities. One of the best lots of small holdings which I visited last winter was in the ownership of, and had been developed by, the Ministry. I do not want to take up your Lordships' time in explaining the Amendment. I hope my object is quite clear, and I hope the Government will agree to the Amendment and that your Lordships will support me if they do not.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 10 insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Astor.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, as I said in Committee the Government are in full sympathy with the idea behind this Amendment. There is another Amendment dealing with the same point standing on the Paper in the name of Viscount Gage and perhaps I might mention that at the same time. The effect of this Amendment would be to provide that one type of land equipped by a Government Department should be dealt with in a particular way. Obviously if there is a problem with regard to Government buildings on Crown land it ought to be dealt with on a general basis. Therefore I suggest that as there is another Bill, the Town and Country Planning Bill, which we hope will shortly come before your Lordships' House,

1095
which contains general provisions for dealing with Crown lands and the buildings thereon, it would be much better, if your Lordships are not satisfied, to move Amendments to that Bill rather than try to deal with the matter by a side-wind on a very small point with regard to buildings belonging to the Ministry of Agriculture. My only reason for opposing this Amendment is really that the point is not applicable to this particular Bill, and that there is a Bill coming before your Lordships very shortly when the matter can be dealt with.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 11:
Power of Minister to provide allotments not exceeding one acre for unemployed persons.
11.—(1) The Minister shall have power, without prejudice to the powers and duties of the council of any borough, urban district, or parish, or of any county council acting in default of such a council as aforesaid, to provide allotments not exceeding one acre in extent for unemployed persons, and for that purpose the Minister shall have the like powers as may be exercised by any such council with respect to allotments under the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts and the provisions of those Acts relating to the acquisition, use or disposal of land by any such council and to allotments provided by any such council (except subsections (1) and (2) of Section sixteen of the Allotments Act, 1922, and Section four of the Allotments Act, 1925), shall apply with the necessary adaptations to the acquisition, use and disposal of land by the Minister and to allotments provided by him under this section, but subject to the modifications that the Minister may sell or let for other purposes any land acquired by him for allotments which is in his opinion not needed for the purposes of allotments, or exchange any such land for land more suitable for allotments, and may pay or receive money for equalty of exchange, and Section thirty-two of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, and Section eight of the Allotments Act, 1925, shall not apply with respect to any such land.
(2) The powers conferred on the Minister by the last foregoing subsection shall include power to provide allotment gardens for persons who are not in full time employment as well as for those who are wholly unemployed.
(5) Any of the powers and duties conferred on the Minister by this section, except the power of acquiring land or of disposing of it otherwise than for use as allotments, may, by arrangement between him and the council of any county, or of any borough, urban district or parish, or with any society
1096
having as its object or one of its objects the provision or the profitable working of allotments, be exercised and performed by the council or society as agents for the Minister.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "allotments not exceeding one acre in extent" and to insert "allotment gardens." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have again put down the same Amendment that stood on the Paper in my name on the Committee stage. I have not followed it up by putting down consequential Amendments, because my purpose in putting it down was to afford opportunity for a discussion more than anything else. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill has been good enough to correspond with me on a very large number of points raised in debate at the Committee stage and this matter really can be brought down to one point. If this Amendment is passed and inserted in the Bill the effect would be that neither the Minister nor any local authority—we are not concerned now with local authorities, so I will confine myself to the position of the Minister—will be able to supply any applicant with any land ranging between a quarter of an acre in extent and one acre in extent. That is to say he would be limited to supplying applicants with what is statutorily defined as an allotment garden, that is up to one quarter of an acre, or, under the small holdings scheme, to supplying applicants with from one to fifty acres. It would definitely cut out land between one quarter of an acre and one acre in extent. That, I think, puts the Ministerial side fairly.
On the other hand, if you give the Minister of Agriculture authority to supply land between the areas of one quarter of an acre and one acre you at once establish a new class of market gardeners with a certain degree of State aid. That is really the whole issue. Is it better to prevent the Minister from supplying anybody with land between a quarter of an acre and one acre in extent, or is it better to run the risk of interfering with the existing class of market gardeners, which could be done, and would be done to a certain extent, by permitting the extension of allotments to one acre as is proposed in the Bill? That is really the whole issue. It is hardly to be wondered at that the existing class of market gardeners do fear that their livelihood will be made less easy—or should I put

1097
it that it will be made snore difficult?—than it is now by reason of the establishment of a new class of competing market gardeners. They point out that this new class, although not strictly speaking subsidised, is yet put in a position of entering upon land under more easy conditions than those which prevailed when the sitting class of market gardeners entered upon their land. They would undoubtedly enjoy some measure of State support. That is really the issue. Is it better to prevent the Minister from establishing this class of market gardener, or is it better that he should have a free hand in supplying any area of land? I will not press the matter either way. The noble Earl and I have debated it through the post. We understand the situation perfectly well, and I think the noble Earl will agree that I have endeavoured to put his point of view as well as my own. I leave it entirely to your Lordships. If you think better to supply any area I will withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 22, leave out ("allotments not exceeding one acre in extent") and insert ("allotment gardens").—(Lord Hastings.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I do not think I need detain you long because the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has put the matter so very clearly and so very fairly and completely before your Lordships. The real point is the question of possible unfair competition with existing holdings. I would suggest to the noble Lord that he has chosen a particular class of holdings where there is the least danger of competition, because it is on land between one and five acres in extent that you would really get State-aided competition. There, I think, undoubtedly we have to face the fact that there is that risk. We have to choose between taking that risk and leaving these men to go on living on unemployment benefit and not giving them a chance to make good. We believe in the Ministry that, with the co-operation of local authorities, it should be possible to find parts of the country—we know one or two now—where industrial areas are getting poor supplies of vegetables, and that we could find parts of the country where the question of competition would not arise to any great extent. There-
1098
fore, I ask your Lordships not to make this gap in the scheme, because that is what it would do. We attach a certain amount of importance to this not because of the number of men we want to put on these holdings—we do not believe it would be very great—but because we believe that in some cases (and I am speaking from a certain amount of experience) this type of small holding would be very useful in training men and testing men. We should like, therefore, to have this in our scheme.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I think, on the whole, that I rather agree with the noble Earl opposite. I quite see the point about competition, but I must confess that we are only touching the fringe of the question if we knock out allotments between a quarter of an acre and one acre, because, as the noble Earl said, there is more competition in the country between holders of from one to five acres. We have had to face throughout the whole of the Bill the fact that the Government are going to make a specialised class of small holding and allotment holder, and it will be all the more specialised when we realise that only the holdings on private lands will probably he liable to the new tax proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whereas the new ones will probably be exempted.
LORD HASTINGS: With your Lordships' permission, I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (1), after "have" ["the Minister shall have the like powers"], to insert "(subject as hereinafter in this section mentioned)." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this and the following Amendments are new and did not appear on the Paper on the Committee stage. They have been put down in response to a degree of representation which almost surprised me in its volume and extent. They look complicated, but I can explain their purpose very easily. Under the Bill at present the Minister of Agriculture takes power to acquire land for allotments by voluntary purchase, by voluntary hiring, by compulsory purchase and by compulsory hiring. The purpose of my Amendments is to cut out compulsory purchase, leaving the

1099
Minister the power to acquire by agreement land on purchase, or to hire by agreement, or to hire by compulsion. He will not have power to purchase by compulsion. I think a very great deal can be said in favour of depriving the Minister of that particular power. In the first instance, he is likely to want to use it very seldom, because it is inconceivable that, if he were offered land voluntarily, he would proceed to take powers of compulsion. That is a ridiculous supposition. It is also exceedingly unlikely that the Minister will be desirous of compulsorily purchasing land when he has the power of compulsorily hiring. It is not impossible, but it is unlikely. The landowner, knowing that the Minister has the power of compulsorily hiring, is not likely on many occasions to make it necessary that this compulsory power should be exercised.
This question really touches only the fringes of growing towns. Is it considered desirable that the Minister should have the power of compulsorily acquiring land on the fringe of such towns, upon which to establish allotments in perpetuity? Having to purchase land for the establishment of allotments, he is obviously going to be subjected to tremendous pressure by the sitting allotment holders never to part with that land, and this power might very well create a fringe of permanent allotments round land which, for the moment and perhaps for some years to come, might be best put to that purpose, but which, if they were established in perpetuity, would react to the immense disadvantage, not of landowners or anybody of that kind, but of the corporation in charge of the town, who would not be able to develop in the direction that they desired.
It must also be remembered that, if land has been compulsorily purchased at the price which such land is worth to-day, it will possibly not be built over for twenty or twenty-five years, thus withholding the long-deferred expectation of betterment and, when the time arose that the increased value accrued to the land, provided always that the Minister was able to hold it for allotments in perpetuity, he would be placed in the position of himself profiteering in land, just as other landowners have been accused of doing for a period, if not of centuries, at least of years. That is not an alto-
1100
gether desirable position in which to place a Minister. I do not think that the Minister, in the propagation of his allotment schemes, can possibly suffer any disadvantage through the passing of these Amendments. He has ample power of compulsorily hiring, and cannot be held up in the establishment of allotments. I do think—and this is impressed upon me by large sections of persons who have given considerable thought to the matter—that to invest the Minister with compulsory powers of purchase would react to the disadvantage of towns in the neighbourhood of which these allotments would be established. I do not think that I can explain the matter any further, however long I speak. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 24, after ("have") insert ("(subject as hereinafter in this section mentioned)").—(Lord, Hastings.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the noble Lord put the matter to your Lordships very clearly. He has told you that he has received a great number of representations on the matter, but I am not sure whether he realises what a hornet's nest he is rousing on this question of the purchase of land and the security or otherwise of the allotment holder. I rather dread to think of the sort of interview that we should have to have with allotment societies if the Government accepted this Amendment. Throughout the country the one thing that the allotment holder really feels bitterly about is the question of security. He feels—and I have a great deal of sympathy with him—that the one way in which he can be secure in the holding of his allotment is that the authority supplying that allotment should have purchased it.
The noble Lord holds up certain dangers to your Lordships of the land being required for other purposes later, and the allotment holders being able to exercise pressure on the authorities against their eviction. For my part I again find myself rather in sympathy with the allotment holders. I hope very much that, if they get established, they will exercise pressure against being turned out, unless, of course, the local authority, as they always could, provided them with other suitable land. The noble Lord also mentioned the question of increased value. I know that we are touch-

1101
ing a matter that will be dealt with much more completely at a later date, but I would say that all objection to betterment and the increased value is obviously removed if the public authority and the public who created that value receive value in return when it comes to fruition. But I think that is really a side point. The real question is the best means of starting these schemes and seeing to it that there is full security of tenure for the allotment holders. We attach great importance to this power of purchasing the freehold of the land, as being the best means whereby that security can be given.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HASTINGS: The next Amendments in my name to this clause are consequential, and the first Amendment having been withdrawn it is unnecessary to move the others.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved to insert the following proviso in subsection (1):—
"Provided that if, after a local inquiry has been held in accordance with the said provisions with respect to any order whereby the Minister proposes to acquire land compulsorily, any objection to the order which has been presented is not withdrawn, the order shall not be confirmed except by means of a Provisional Order made by the Minister and confirmed by Parliament, and for that purpose the Minister may submit a Bill to Parliament for the confirmation of any such Provisional Order."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is the same as one which I moved in the previous clause, and which the noble Earl accepted on behalf of the Government.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 43, at end, insert the said proviso.—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Amendments at page 14, lines 2 and 15, are consequential upon others which have been withdrawn, and I therefore do not move them.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE moved, in subsection (5), before "object," to insert "main." The noble Earl said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lindsay brought this question forward in Committee, and the noble Earl in charge of the Bill was rather sympathetic towards it, but instanced the fact that the Society of Friends would be affected.
1102
There is no reason why the Society of Friends should not form a society within itself. Of course these societies are provided with funds by the Government, and we cannot be too particular in having the right class of society dealing with this matter. Otherwise, we shall have a large number of mushroom societies cropping up.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 18, after ("its") insert ("main").—(The Earl of Lauderdale.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, there is no fear of mushroom societies cropping up. Obviously, it is for the Minister to decide which societies he will deal with. I think we owe a great deal to the Society of Friends, and I do not see why we should impose upon them an obligation to form another society. We dealt with the matter fairly fully in Committee, and I hope your Lordships will not go back upon your decision.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 14:
Power of Minister to make grants for assisting in the provision of seeds, fertilisers and equipment for unemployed persons.
(2) The Minister may constitute a committee, of whose members at least one shall be a woman, for the purpose of advising him as to the exercise and performance of his powers and duties under this section and for the purpose of performing such other functions in connection with those powers and duties as he may direct, and the expenses of the committee (including the remuneration of any officers of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries appointed to assist the committee) shall, up to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Minister with the approval of the Treasury, be defrayed as part of the expenses of the Minister under this Act.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME, on behalf of the Earl of Iddesleigh, moved in subsection (2), to leave out "of whose members at least one shall be a woman." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, neither Parliament, county councils, nor juries, nor suchlike bodies, are compelled to have even one woman member, and. I do not see why this Committee should be forced to have at least one woman; member. No doubt Lord Astor's motive is to give equality to the sexes, but this gives a special right to women. I have also consulted masters of the English

1103
language, and I am advised that the clause, as amended in Committee, is not good English, and it is one of your Lordships' proud boasts that Bills must leave this House in English which is as impeccable as possible. I hope, for the reasons that I have stated, that you will strike out these words.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 14, leave out ("of whose members at least one shall be a woman)."—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: The clause as it stands compels the Minister to appoint at least one woman on this committee, which is going to deal with finance, and the purchasing of manure, and of seeds and fertilisers, not one of them a very proper subject for women to decide. Presuming these words are left out, there is nothing to prevent the Minister from appointing a whole committee of women, but why should the Minister be told that he must appoint at least one woman? The whole thing seems to me to be absurd, but probably it emanates from the Women's Equal Eights Association, or some nonsense of that sort, and I hope your Lordships will accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I am not going to work myself up in the way in which Lord Banbury has done. The Amendment really is not a vital one, one way or another. I was asked to put it forward in Committee by people who have no organisation, but who have been very much interested in and concerned with allotments and small holdings, and so forth. I understand there are already, as a matter of fact, two ladies on this committee, and so there is nothing very unreasonable in the Amendment. The reasons which induced me to put the Amendment forward in Committee was that, as a matter of fact, these ladies have been of great help in the matter of allotments. As to the point that my Amendment was not grammatical, it seems to me that the proper way of dealing with it was not to reject it altogether but to put it into good grammar.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: As I am not in favour of the noble Viscount's proposal, I am not proposing to do his drafting for him.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think this is a matter for a free vote of the House, but as I accepted Lord Astor's Amendment in Committee, if the matter goes to a Division I shall vote for the retention of these words.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18:
Duration of powers of Minister.
18. The powers conferred on the Minister by this Part of this Act may be exercised by him during the period of four years from the commencement of this Act and no longer:
Provided that the expiry of such powers shall not—

(a) affect the previous exercise thereof or of anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or

(b) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred thereunder; or

(c) affect any legal proceeding, arbitration, remedy or investigation in respect of such right, privilege, obligation or liability as aforesaid;

and any such legal proceeding, arbitration, remedy or investigation may be instituted, enforced or continued as if the powers aforesaid had not expired.
LORD BAYFORD LORD BAYFORD moved to leave out "powers conferred on the Minister by this part of this Act may be exercised by him during" and to insert "provisions of Sections four, five, and six of this Act, and, so far as they confer power upon the Minister to provide allotments or to acquire land therefor, of Section eleven of this Act, shall have effect for." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this and the following Amendments are merely drafting Amendments of a clause that was put in on my Motion.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 10, leave out from the first ("The") to ("the") in line 11, and insert the said words.—(Lord Bayford.)
EARL DE LA WARR: As this is drafting, we raise no points, on the clear understanding that we do not admit the principle.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 18, line 14, leave out ("such powers") and insert ("the said provisions")
page 18, line 15, leave out ("exercise") and insert ("operation")
page 18, line 24, leave out ("powers") and insert ("provisions").—(Lord Bayford.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 20 [Compensation for loss of employment by labourers]:
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved to add the following subsection:
"(2) No compensation shall be payable under Section forty-three of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, or under the foregoing provisions of this section, to any person for whore a small holding is provided under Part II of this Act."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is consequential on a former Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 22, at end insert the said subsection.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21:
Financial provisions.
21.—(1) The Treasury may, subject to such conditions as they may determine, issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or the growing produce thereof—

(a) such sums as may be required by the Minister for the purchase of land acquired by him under Section one of this Act and for such other expenses under those sections as may be agreed by the Treasury and the Minister to be capital expenditure not exceeding, unless and until Parliament otherwise determines, five million pounds;

(b) such sums as may be required by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland for the purchase of land acquired by them under Section one of this Act and for such other expenses under those sections as may be agreed by the Treasury and the said Department to be capital expenditure not exceeding, unless and until Parliament otherwise determines, seven hundred thousand pounds;

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraphs (a) and (b). The noble Viscount said: My Lords this is consequential on what has been done already.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 27, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b).—(Viscount Hailsham)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE had on the Paper an Amendment to move after Clause 21, to insert the following new clause:
Application of Town Planning Acts to land acquired by the Minister.
". Land acquired by the Minister under this Act shall be subject to the provisions of the Town Planning Act, 1925, and any enactment amending that Act in the same manner and to the same extent as if the land had not been acquired by the Minister."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this point has been answered by the noble Earl on Clause 10. I understand that it raises a legal question which would perhaps not be suitable for discussion on this Bill, but nevertheless perhaps the noble Earl would give me an assurance that the Minister, in carrying out any of these schemes, will conform as far as possible to town planning regulations that may be enforced locally, because nothing sets a worse example to landlords generally than infringement of what has been approved by a Minister or Government Department.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I certainly appreciate the point which has been raised, and will willingly give the assurance asked for.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I do not move.
Clause 22 [Treasury concurrence]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 20, leave out ("one").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23:
Application, to Scotland.
(e) Subsection (1) of Section four and Section five of this Act shall not apply, but the department shall have power to provide, in accordance with the provisions of the Small Holdings Colonies Acts, 1916 and 1918, or of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1919, on land belonging to the department, a holding for an unemployed person within the meaning of the said subsection (1) or for an agricultural worker, notwithstanding that such unemployed person or agricultural worker would be unable to cultivate the holding unless the facilities set forth in subsection (2) of the said Section four were extended to him.
(j) Subsections (8) and (9) of Section one, and Sections six, seven, eight, ten and fifteen, and Section nine so far as it re-

1107
lates to small holdings, and paragraph (c) of Part I of the First Schedule shall not apply.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, this, again, is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 31, leave out from ("Department") to the end of line 36.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 3, at end insert ("and any reference to selling includes a reference to feuing").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 4, leave out paragraph (b).—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the next Amendment is also consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 37, leave out paragraph (d).—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the next two Amendments, in paragraph (e), are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 23, line 20, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("subsections").
page 23, line 20, after ("(1)") and insert ("and (4)").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in paragraph (e), after, "1919", to insert "either". The noble Earl said: My Lords, this was a point which your Lordships dealt with in Committee, and I raise it again because I find that considerable importance is placed upon the principle that is embodied in your Lordships' Amendment. I ask your Lordships, therefore, to reverse your decision. Since the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911, became law, the Department of Agriculture for Scotland have had power to constitute small holdings on the lands of private proprietors. This power has therefore been in operation for twenty years. With the exception of
1108
certain powers of acquisition conferred upon the Congested Districts Board for schemes in the congested districts of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, it was not until the passing of the Small Holding (Colonies) Act of 1916 that any other method was suggested, and the full alternative policy of purchase of land by the Department for small holdings schemes was not authorised by Parliament until 1919, by the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, and even this Act contained provisions for the continuance of the 1911 Act procedure adjusted to secure expeditious and effective action by the Department side by side with the Colonies Act procedure. Accordingly the Department of Agriculture have always proceeded with schemes on the lands of private proprietors and in recent years with schemes under both codes of procedure. Machinery being thus set up for procedure under both codes, it follows that the maximum result in the minimum time can be achieved by using this machinery as it is being used now.
It is possible that the movers of the Amendment had not considered the full extent to which a landlord is protected by the 1911 Act. The following provisions are important in this connection. First, a new holder shall not be duly qualified for registration as a small holder otherwise than by agreement (that is, agreement with the landlord) unless he satisfies the Board as to his ability to fulfil the obligations incumbent on him. Secondly, the Board shall give reasonable consideration to objections stated by a landlord to any applicant for a new holding, and ceteris paribus shall give a preference to applicants preferred by the landlord. Those two items, I think it will be agreed, give considerable protection to the interest of the landlord. Accordingly if the Amendment is allowed to stand it is really attacking the policy agreed to by the House of Lords in 1911 and confirmed by them in 1919. At present the Department are not debarred from settling unemployed persons or agricultural workers on private estates so long as they comply with the provisions already quoted. I want to make it quite clear that they have to comply with those provisions. The Bill as originally drafted did not add to the Department's statutory powers, but merely made provision under which certain applicants at present

1109
barred because of lack of capital would become qualified by grants of initial capital.
The Amendment carried in Committee reduces the Department's powers to settle applicants who may become qualified by removing one of the two methods now open to them under Statute. The argument of the movers of the Amendment suggested that the terms of the Bill represented a departure from previous practice inasmuch as it authorised the settlement on the lands of private proprietors of a new type of applicant without experience of agriculture. That is not so, because the Act of 1919 was primarily for the settlement of ex-Servicemen of all occupations. Many instances could be given of men with no experience whatever of agriculture who were actually settled under the 1919 Act. In this respect, the Bill now under consideration contains no departure whatsoever from the Act of 1919.
Apart from those considerations, it is obvious that the same amount of initial capital expenditure will settle more men on private estates than on Government-purchased estates. It is true in the long run that the subsequent rental receipts On Government-owned estates bring the valued cost of schemes under both codes very near to equality; but with the present difficulty of raising money the amount of initial capital expenditure per man is, undoubtedly, of some considerable importance. If this is removed from the Bill, undoubtedly the initial expenditure per man will have to be increased in Scotland. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will consent to the insertion of this Amendment, which I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 25, after ("1919") insert ("either").—(Earl De La Wary.)
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, if I understood the noble Earl, he said that the landlord would be consulted before any unemployed small holders were put on his land, and there would be some power of objection on the part of the landlord.
EARL DE LA WARR: Yes, the same statutory power as is contained in the Act of 1911 in respect of all applicants.
LORD LAMINGTON: No greater power than that?
EARL DE LA WARR: That is a pretty full power.
LORD LAMINGTON: The noble Earl really based his arguments for this Amendment on the fact that for twenty years the Government has had power to instal small holders on private property. He quoted the fact also that ex-Service men without previous experience of agriculture had been put on to land. I understood that all those ex-Service men had practically been failures, and I do not think that is an example to be quoted in support of any extension of the principle. I may be wrong, but I am under the impression that they have turned out to be useless as farmers. I would also like to ask why, if this power to put small holders on private land is to be given in respect of Scotland, it should not obtain also in England. One great disadvantage to landowners of such a scheme was mentioned by my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch in Committee. Supposing the land becomes derelict and the buildings useless, the liability rests on the landlord. I had one of my own farms taken for the purposes of small holdings. If those holdings are deserted, I am saddled with the liability for the buildings upon them and have to make good to the Government the money spent upon them. It seems very unfair that such a burden should be placed on a landowner. I would also point out that a Committee which sat in 1927 reported adversely to any extension of small holdings in the Lowlands of Scotland. Therefore, I do not see why these powers should be sought. If the Government want to acquire land for this purpose it seems to me that they should acquire it and not inflict new burdens on landowners.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: My Lords, may I point out in regard to the Small Holdings Act that, whether this Amendment is accepted or not, the Department can go on taking land in the same way as before. The Committee which enquired into the matter reported strongly against this system of small holdings, and there is a Bill in your Lordships' House at the present time which embodies a considerable number of the recommendations of that Committee. I cannot see why the Government should not accept their recommendation in this respect as well. As I have said, the

1111
Amendment does not affect the Small Holdings Act, so I think the noble Earl's argument falls to the ground and that the Department can go on in the same way as in the past.
No case has been made out as to why land should be taken under one system in Scotland and another in England, and if under the powers of the Bill small holdings are to be constituted in one way in England, they can equally well be constituted in the same way in Scotland. If they are to be constituted on this large scale, it ought to be at the public expense and not at the expense of the private owner. Your Lordships may not be acquainted with the fact that the safeguards to which the noble Earl alluded are really illusory. In fact, they are not safeguards at all. A landowner agrees with the Board of Agriculture that certain land shall be taken by the Board. The landowner thinks it is all right, that he will get his rent and there will be no trouble. Not a bit of it. The Department of Agriculture proceeds to erect buildings and carry out other works on those small holdings without asking his leave. The holdings are then let to tenants, but the assumption is that the Department has not paid for the buildings but has lent the money to those tenants. That is a perfect farce, though unfortunately it is legally correct.
In one case with which I am aquainted, buildings were put up by the Board, but the owner of the estate objected on the ground that they were much worse than any buildings that had been erected on the estate for the last fifty years. The matter went to the Land Court, and the Court expressed sympathy with the owner because, although they considered that the buildings were fit for use, they were obviously inferior to what it had been the custom of the estate to erect. These buildings are not built to last, and there is a very small sinking fund on them. If the holding is given up by the smallholder, the landlord becomes responsible to the Board for the whole of the money expended on those buildings, which the Board regards as having been lent to the holder and has not been repaid when the smallholder goes out.
1112
It really means that this land is taken from him, the buildings are erected upon it without asking his leave. They may spoil it or they may improve it; but he has nothing whatever to say in the matter; and if, in the end, it is a failure, it is thrown back upon his hands and he has to pay the expenses. Is that a system which should be extended? If the Bill remains as it is, it does not affect the small holdings so far as concerns what is done by the Department of Agriculture under past Acts, and there is no reason why this excessive burden should be put upon one class of landowner in Great Britain any more than it should be put on those in the southern part of England. I beg to support my noble friend, and hope your Lordships will allow these words to be inserted.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, may I say a few words in reply? The case of the noble Duke is based on the Report of the Nairne Committee. This clause deals with the whole of Scotland. The recommendation of the Nairne Committee only deals with the Lowlands.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I am sorry to interrupt but I think the Land Report deals with the whole small holdings question in Scotland.
EARL DE LA WARR.: Quite so, but their recommendation is clear. It reads:
"That the creation by the State of small holdings on privately-owned estates should be discontinued in the Lowlands and in other districts of Scotland where conditions are akin to those of the Lowlands."
If this Amendment is not inserted then the implication of the Report will not be carried out, and undoubtedly there will be taken away from the Department of Agriculture powers which it has worked upon for a considerable time, thereby decreasing the Department's power to provide small holdings and increasing the capital expenses. I cannot say more than that. I would, therefore, ask your Lordships to insert this Amendment to enable the Department of Agriculture to go on with its work.
On Question, Whether the word "either" shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 9; Not-Contents, 36.

CONTENTS.

De La Warr, E.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]

Passfield, L.

Sanderson, L.

Gainford, L.

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Snell, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Treowen, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Wellington, D.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Poulett, E.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Exeter, M.

Powis, E.

Faringdon, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Stanhope, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Zetland, M.

Hastings, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Heneage, L.

Cawdor, E.

Hailsham, V.

Jessel, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) [Teller.]

Kinnaird, L.

Addington, L.

Lamington, L. [Teller.]

Harrowby, E.

Bayford, L.

Latymer, L.

Iveagh, E.

Biddulph, L.

Lawrence, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Mountgarret, L. (V. Mountgarret.)

Lucan, E.

Morton, E.

Dynevor, L.

Phillimore, L.

Southampton, L.

Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR moved to add to paragraph (e) "or for a person who, being or having been a member of His Majesty's Forces, has had a suitable course of training for agriculture." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment and the others following in my name are consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 28, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 23, line 30, leave out ("or")
Page 23, line 30, after ("worker") insert ("or other person")
Page 23, line 42, after ("worker") insert ("or a person who, being or having been a member of His Majesty's Forces, has had a suitable course of training for agriculture").—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the first Amendment standing in my name is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 30, leave out line 30.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I wish to move the next Amendment which stands in my name in a different form than that which appears on the Paper. There has been a printing error or some mistake of mine in putting down the Amendment. What I wish to propose is to leave out the words in paragraph (j)
1114
after "holdings" to the word "shall." It is necessary to leave in the last words in the paragraph—"shall not apply"—in order to make sense. The Amendment is consequential, but unfortunately it is printed wrongly on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 33, leave out from ("holdings") to ("shall") in line 34.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Short title, citation and extent]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, there are two consequential amendments to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 24, line 36, leave out ("Part II of")
page 24, line 39, leave out ("the said Part II") and insert ("this Act").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
First Schedule:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved to leave out the First Schedule. The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Leave out the First Schedule.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, it has been suggested that the Third Reading of this Bill should be put down for June 9. A considerable amount of redrafting will be needed.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am much obliged to the noble Earl. That sounds a convenient date.

BETHLEM HOSPITAL (AMEND MENT) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm certain agreements entered into by the Commissioners of Works with a view to the acquisition for the purposes of the Imperial War Museum of a part of the premises vested by the Bethlem Hospital Act, 1926, in the London County Council as an open space, and to authorise the
1116
retention and adaptation of certain of the existing buildings on the said premises, and for purposes consequential thereon; and to move that the Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.
House adjourned at a quarter before eight o'clock.

LOWESTOFT WATER AND GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
ROYSTON AND BRODSWORTH GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

GRAVESEND ELECTRICITY (EX TENSION) ORDER, 1931.
Special Order in respect of the parish of Chalk, in the rural district of Strood, in the County of Kent:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

WIGTOWNSHIRE ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1931.
Special Order in respect of the County of Wigtown:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.