Tilts at Finance Bill

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 374, 7 June 1928, Page 9

Tilts at Finance Bill

SNOWDEN AND SIMON Measure Read Second Time (United P.A.—By Telegraph — Copyright) (Australian P.A.—United Service) LONDON, Wednesday. THE Finance Bill was read a second time to-day in the House of Commons by 322 votes to 125. The Bill was keenly criticised by Mr. Philip Snowden, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Macdonald Cabinet.

Mr. Snowden moved an amendment objecting to the second reading of the Bill because it did not provide for the relief of the workers from their heavy burden of taxation and because it proposed to use the national revenue to give rate relief to particular classes of the community instead of fundamentally reforming the system by levying rates on the site values created by the community. CHANCELLOR IN DEFENCE In reply, Mr. Churchill said he was proposing a constructive scheme following upon the disastrous general strike of last year, when a sum of £80,000,000 was taken from the revenues yielded by four poor years. Mr. Lloyd George had imposed various taxes on land values, but these had yielded only £1,300,000 in 11 years. Mr. Lloyd George was so disgusted with the result that he abandoned them in 1920. Defending his decision to limit rates relief to the productive industries, Mr. Churchill said the Inland Revenue Department had classified 30,000 firms into 15 main trade groups covering all the productive industries except transport, public utilities and agriculture. These 15 groups comprised 8,000,000 workers, who were responsible for 800,000 of the unemployed. The percentage of rates to the profits in the whole of the groups was 7.8 per cent, but six groups had an average of 20 per cent. In mines, wool and cotton, iron and steel, shipbuilding and engineering, bleaching and dyeing and in metals the ratio of rates to profits was three or four times as high as in the other nine groups. They had higher unemployment and showed £25,000,000 less profit last year than in 1925. They were all unsheltered and constituted the main staple of Britain’s exports.

The other nine groups were either sheltered or holding their own. The Government was seeking to relieve the main body of the industries which were lagging behind, but it would be madness to try to hinder the advanceguard industries which were prospering. SIR JOHN SIMON’S VIEWS Sir John Simon, Liberal member for Spen Valley, Yorkshire, criticised Mr. Churchill for collecting money from the petrol tax though he was not spending a penny until after the general election. He said he did not believe the Government’s scheme for the next five years was going to give assistance for that period to the necessitous areas. Mr. Churchill could perfectly well take over £15,000,000 of local burdens at once and meet it with the money from the petrol tax, but he would not do so because he favoured the method of relieving selected individuals under the general head that they belonged to depressed industries. UNSOUND PRINCIPLES Not every member of a depressed industry was depressed. The whole idea of selecting them individually seemed to be utterly contrary to the sound principles of finance. Sir John said it would be a better plan not to wait IS months. Instead the Chancellor could give relief by selecting local burdens which the State could shoulder, and he could define the necessitous areas and give aid to every ratepayer in those areas. This they were justly entitled to expect. Sir Robert Horne, Conservative member for Hillhead, Glasgow, a former Chancellor, said he approved of Mr. Churchill’s proposals for rating relief, hut an attempt should be made to secure equal rates for the industries throughout the country.