§ Sir ROBERT HOBARTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the full effect of the difference between the definition of agricultural land as defined in the Agricultural Rating Act and the definition of agricultural land given in Clause 27 of the Finance Bill; and what is the reason for this differentiation and its intention for the purposes of taxation?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEEvery definition must be considered with reference to the subject-matter of the measure in which it is contained, and it does not follow that the definition of a term in one Act of Parliament must necessarily suit the subject-matter of another Act of Parliament. In point of fact, however, the differences, which I will proceed to enumerate, between the two definitions mentioned by my hon. Friend are very small. (1) Owing to the definition in the Agricultural Rating Act being exhaustive while that in the Finance Bill is inclusive, arable land, which was necessarily specified in the Rating Act, is not referred to in Clause 27 of the Finance 'Bill. Similarly, orchards are not specifically mentioned in Clause 27. (2) Woodland is included in the definition in the Bill, but not in the definition of the Act. (3) Cottage gardens exceeding a quarter of an acre were specifically included in the Agricultural Rates Act, whereas other gardens were specifically excluded. Under the Bill, gardens are treated separately, and any garden not exceeding an acre734W occupied with a dwelling-house is exempt from Undeveloped Land Duty, even where it has a building value. (4) The exclusive part of the definition in the Agricultural Rates Act would not be appropriate to the Bill, as the matters excluded—parks, gardens, recreation grounds, etc.—are dealt with in the Bill by special provisions. I may perhaps point out that the differences between the two definitions are all in the favour of the taxpayer.