I beg to move, That this House is of opinion that the value of land apart from improvements belongs of right to the whole community and is a proper source of public revenue; requests the Government to make a complete valuation of the land showing its present true market value apart from improvements so that taxation and rating of land values may displace the taxes, obstructive to industry and harmful to trade, that are now levied by Parliament and the local authorities; recognises that this reform has been practically and successfully initiated in other countries; and declares that it is urgently demanded in this country as a just and expedient method for opening new avenues to steady employment, encouraging house building, restoring prosperity to agriculture, and assuring to industry the fruits of industry. Although the time at my disposal to-night is very short, I am glad to have an opportunity of initiating a discussion upon what I venture to describe as one of the most pressing of our domestic problems. The problem of the land is one which cries aloud for solution, and however much we may be entitled to boast of our progress in other directions, I think it may be safely said that our land system does not reflect very great credit upon our sense of social justice. Those who, like myself, have for many years past believed in the principle which is outlined in my Motion, were hoping, in the days when the land campaign was causing angry passions to surge in the breasts of certain Members, that the problem was at last going to be tackled, and, although the Land Duties of the Budget of 1910 were thrown overboard, like so many other proposals by the Coalition Government, there are many of us on these benches who still believe that only by boldly tackling this problem of the land can we do away with many of the difficulties which beset us at the present moment. There are some who ask, "Why treat the land differently from any other commodity?" The answer is, that it differs from everything else in the world. It is here, as it was put here. We cannot add to it, and we cannot take away from it, and surely it is not unfair to suggest that the increase in the value of land, which is brought about by the energy and enterprise of the community, belongs as a right to the community, and is a proper source of public revenue.

It is a remarkable fact that whereas many years ago the land was paying a fair share of local taxation, as the land has become more valuable by the activities of the many for the enrichment of the few, it has been paying less and less of the burdens of local taxation. If there had been, years ago, a general recognition of the principle outlined in the Motion under discussion, I think many of the difficulties, such as housing, unemployment, and the under-cultivation of land, would not have arisen. What does the taxation of land values really mean? It might be described in another way as the exemption of improvements from taxation. A tax upon land values is not a tax upon land at all. It is a tax upon the value of land. This is something which the opponents of this principle have failed, or do not desire, to understand. Indeed, in my own constituency, which is entirely agricultural, my advocacy of this principle was construed as inferring a desire on my part to place still greater burdens on agricultural land, whereas it is not difficult to prove—and I hope I may succeed in doing so before I sit down—that so far from that being the case, the effect would be so beneficial, that very little would be heard in the future of the agitation which is now going on in the agricultural districts as to the unfair incidence of local taxation. The tax would, of course, fall with great severity upon valuable land, not in proportion to the use made of that particular land, but in proportion to its value. It would be a tax on the ownership of land; in other words, the State would take what would otherwise go to the owner. There would be free scope for individual energy and initiative because there would be no taxation as at present upon the results of that energy and initiative; the only value that would be taken into consideration would be the value of the bare land, having regard to its position, public improvements, etc. The farmer, for instance, who was occupying a certain acreage, no matter to what extent he used his brains and employed scientific methods, would be rated exactly on the same basis as would the occupier of a similar amount of land which he kept under-cultivated. The effect would be that there would be no discouragement, as at present, of skilful and scientific farming, but every discouragement to bad farming, because there would be no possibility under this plan of appeals being made, as at present successfully, for reduced taxation based upon the lower assessable value through under-cultivation or other neglect.

The man in a city who erected a building on a certain site and in so doing gave employment, and caused money to be circulated, would be taxed exactly on the same basis as a man who kept a similar site idle. The effect would be that it would not pay a man to withhold land from the community, but if he did, he would have to pay, as I submit he ought to do, for the privilege of so doing. In my opinion ownership of land imposes on the owner sacred obligations, and surely, no system ought to be tolerated in any country which allows a man to withhold land from the community with impunity, as he is able to do at the present time in this country. I submit that a good many of our housing difficulties would not have arisen had it not been for the problem of the land. Many instances have been given in this House of the enormous rise in the value of land owing to the housing necessities of the people. There is no time for me to-night to give many instances, but I think just a few are necessary, not only as a reminder but by way of reinforcing the arguments which I am bringing forward.

The London County Council, for instance, paid £295,544 for housing land at Becontree which was previously assessed at £3,950. They paid £50,339 for a housing site at Bellingham where the assessment was £490. They paid £120,000 for housing land at Roehampton which previously had been assessed at £957. The whole of the 2,450 acres for which the London County Council paid £465,883 were assessed at £5,031. Surely both these valuations cannot be correct? Either the purchase price, calculated upon 20 years' purchase, should have been something in the neighbourhood of £100,000 or the assessment value should have been something like £23,000. In either alternative, I submit that the ratepayers would have had the benefit; but the story is not complete. One has to reckon with the enormous tariff which is levied upon these houses when they are erected. In the case of the 2,450 acres referred to, allowing for the building, say, of 12 houses per acre—and incidentally I hope that no more than 12 houses per acre will be built under the Housing Bill—12 houses per acre, at an assessment of £20 per house, we find that the assessment value would go up from £5,031 to £588,000 per annum. This is some measure of the burden placed at the present time upon the building of houses which, I submit, could be much reduced by the adoption of a plan for the rating and taxing of land values. The prices charged for land in many cases were nothing but an exploitation of the dire needs of the people, and surely there cannot be any injustice in a system which lays down as a cardinal principle that the value attaching to land, as exemplified by the price asked for it when it is required for housing sites, should be the value upon which the owners should pay their contribution to local taxation.

Can it be said that the owners of the land have done anything to improve the value of it? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Hon. Members opposite will have an opportunity of showing how it can be said that they have done anything to improve the value of such land. Surely it is the application of labour to land which creates the wealth, and not only has labour been increasing the wealth of the land, but the workers have had to carry an ever-increasing share of the burdens of local taxation. When it is proposed to change any system the question always arises as to whether it is just, but justice is apt at times to assume very distorted proportions, and I cannot help thinking that our sense of justice in this matter has been sadly warped by habit. We should ask, not is it wise, but is it right that the present system should continue. How would the rating of land values affect agriculture. It is generally admitted that the occupiers of agricultural land require for their business an amount of rateable property which is large in accordance with their ability to pay, and as such they have to carry an undue share of the burden of local taxation. The late Lord St. Aldwyn, in giving evidence before a departmental Committee on Local Taxation, said that: The burden of the rates pressed more heavily upon the poorer than the wealthier classes. Surely in no instance is this more exemplified than in the case of the small occupiers of agricultural land. Successful farming depends largely upon individual energy and initiative, and there can be no satisfaction in the conduct of any business which is being constantly penalised for energy and enterprise. The substitution of the present system by a tax upon the site value of the land would in my opinion remove many of the anomalies of which the farming community rightly complain. They say quite rightly at the present moment that they have to bear far too great a share of the cost of education, road maintenance, and the police. What could be fairer than a tax upon site values and the entire elimination of these local charges which are being levied now for national purposes? The taxation of land values would be a tax upon the natural opportunity. A farm with buildings valued at three-fourths of the whole would get relief to the extent of three-fourths of the original assessment, on a farm where buildings were valued at one-half of the whole property a reduction of one-half of the original assessment would be obtained.

The smallholder is penalised under our present system even more. Some years ago a county council not very far away took over 660 acres of land with the very laudable idea of converting it into 27 small holdings. The assessment before the establishment of the small holdings was £150 per annum, but the money expended upon the setting up and equipment of those holdings was made the excuse for increased taxation, and the assessment went up from £150 to £580. In all cases the expenditure of money is made an excuse for imposing extra taxation upon the smallholders whereas we know very well that collectively these smallholders are far less able to pay taxes than the owner of the estate, who, in any case, would have been called upon to pay a much smaller sum. In many successful agricultural countries—and I would like to emphasise this, because it is always argued that this proposal is going to be injurious to agriculture—the taxation of land values is in practical operation. In Queensland, New South Wales, Western Australia, a large part of New Zealand. Denmark, and throughout the western provinces of Canada, the taxation of improvements is unknown. In the Transvaal, many village councils, which correspond to the shires in this country, the authorities have availed themselves of their optional powers to levy a tax upon site values. In Denmark the agitation for the taxation of land values which was incorporated in an Act of Parliament in August of last year, was conducted mainly by the peasant proprietors, to whom the success of agriculture was absolutely vital.

In Canada, which the opponents of this principle very often refer to as an indication of failure, the system has, indeed, most justified the expectations that were held in regard to it. In all of the large towns and cities west of Manitoba, by far the largest proportion of the rate revenue is derived from a tax upon the site value of the land. There is no time to-night, unfortunately, to deal with all the popular arguments against this principle. Its opponents refer to the failure of the land duties in the Budget of 1910. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am very glad to hear that applause, because the answer to that sort of argument is that the Budget of 1910 did not contain, by any stretch of the imagination, the principle which I am asking the House now to affirm. The proposal to tax land values is a proposal to levy a uniform tax upon all land, whether used or not, and to remit a corresponding amount of taxation which is now being levied on improvements and upon trade and industry. There was nothing of this sort in the Budget of 1910. The Land Duties therein incorporated were certain discriminating taxes to be levied upon undeveloped land, with an increment duty in cases where the land was sold or a lease was granted.

I would like to remind the House that many municipal authorities have passed resolutions in support of the Motion which I now have the honour of submitting to the House—such as for instance, Hull, Bradford, Coventry, Darlington, Manchester; and in my own native city of Cardiff, which sends three Members to this House to support the Government—which fact I mention as an indication of its political complexion—the resolution was carried with only one dissentient. The principle embodied in this Motion can be carried out without any fundamental change in the Constitution, and I submit that it can be recommended on the two-fold ground of justice and of wisdom. I ask the House to give its assent to this Motion in order to deal adequately with the difficulties of the land system of this country and to give an earnest of their desire that that which belongs to the people shall rightly be restored to the people.