Joseph (Joe) Hiley (1902-1989) was Member of Parliament for Pudsey in Yorkshire from 1959 to 1974. He was a member of the Conservative party and of the Conservative Monday Club. He became Lord Mayor of Leeds in 1957.
 |
Joseph Hiley Lord Mayor of Leeds 1957
|
(Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.)
Mr Joseph Hiley (Pudsey)
Pudsey, or, as it is familiarly known in Yorkshire, Pudsa', the constituency which I represent, has always enjoyed a wider and greater fame than its Member of Parliament. Nothing happened last October to invalidate the truth of that assertion. Its renown, however, has been gained, not, as it might have been, by the excellence and variety of its products, but rather because it has produced more first-class cricketers than any other place in the world. Herbert Sutcliffe and Sir Leonard Hutton are household names, but the Borough of Pudsey also gave Yorkshire, and, indeed, England, Halliday, Booth and. for those who can remember, Tunnicliffe.
It may not be as generally known that within the constituency of Pudsey is a place called Rawdon, from whence comes Brian Close and from whence came the late Hedley Verity, who performed as valiantly on the field of battle as he did on the cricket field.
The Pudsey constituency, too, has produced Illingworth, who has recently been with the England team in the West Indies. To assure the Committee that we shall not rest on our laurels, I want hon Members to know that in our present No. 1 in Yorkshire, Brian Stott, we have a man who is ready now to take his place as No. 1 for England. Surely, no place in all the land, including Scotland and Wales as well, has ever produced so many great players of England's grandest game.
I thank hon. Members for the indulgence they have shown so far, because they must be wondering what all this has to do with the Budget. The only connection I can think of is that I realise I am indeed batting on a sticky wicket. I hope that the indulgence of the Committee will be extended a little longer. To pursue the simile, I hope that nobody will walk in front of the sight board for another moment or two.
I have mentioned that the fame of Pudsey might have been gained by the excellence and variety of its products— wool textiles, engineering, dyeing, the making of perambulators and the distribution of food—which come from large numbers of small firms which have been built up during the last 50 or 100 years and which, in the main, are still controlled by the descendants of the founders. By comparison with the large concerns in the country today, they are indeed small, but they make a vital contribution to the economy of the country. In fact, I do not think it would be an exaggeration to say that they make at least an equal contribution to that which is provided by the industrial giants.
Happily for the wool textile trade, the habits of the people are such that they do not encourage it ever to develop in large units, and unless we all dress in uniform, that is not likely to happen. In order to stress that point, I particularly refrained today from wearing my House of Commons uniform. In matters of taxation, private companies are treated the most harshly. I realise that I must not be controversial today, but when I refer to the ploughing back of profits, I believe I shall secure the support of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
I wonder if those hon. Members who advocate the ploughing back of profits realise that the Inland Revenue can, and indeed sometimes does, come along to private companies and make a tax
assessment on the distribution which the tax authorities themselves think ought to have been made. It is quite true that they do not say that the distribution has to be increased, but, by virtue of their authority and their ability to make assessments, it means that a greater distribution will be made, because I have never yet found the human being who, having been taxed, does not make sure that he gets the money on which the tax has to be paid.
The late Sir Stafford Cripps sought to alleviate this evil by restraining the tax authorities from wielding this weapon too vigorously, and I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he, too, might now unfold his umbrella and so consolidate and fortify the resources of private firms. So far as I know—and I am not an economist, but merely one of the little men trying to keep the wheels going round—that is where investment in industry could come from, and that is where those who have been engaged in industry all their lives look for the money with which to fortify their businesses. If the Chancellor takes it all, I cannot see where the investment in industry is to come from.
The ploughing back of profits creates another hazard for the private firm, especially the one which is director controlled. Section 55 of the 1940 Finance Act was particularly severe on private companies. I am not quite sure, from the Chancellor's Budget statement on Tuesday, reported at the top of column 61 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, whether the proposed changes in Estate Duty refer particularly to Section 55, but I hope that it is intended by my right hon. Friend to ensure that wives and families will be preserved from the penal and evil effects of Section 55, as it appears in the 1940 Act.
Many small firms continue to be swallowed up into larger organisations, and this is not good for the country. It is brought about almost entirely by this penal system of high taxation. Sometimes, amalgamations take place, but they are not always possible, and when they do not take place, something even worse could often happen, as indeed it does on occasions. Firms controlled by private companies have closed down as a result of Estate Duty and other forms of high taxation.
I welcome the Estate Duty concessions which have been made by the Chancellor, but the levels are still too high and ought to be lowered. I think that the value to the Exchequer of what the Chancellor secures from Estate Duty is quite insignificant compared with the disruption which it causes to family businesses. So long as Estate Duty remains, I would respectfully suggest to the Chancellor that he should help those in private industry to find ways by which they can make payments easier in order to provide for possible assessment of Estate Duty.
Why should not the Chancellor allow individuals to create during their lifetime funds which would not be subject to aggregation in their estates after death, something on the lines of tax reserves? Insurance could probably assist one in this dilemma of providing funds to meet Estate Duty, but it is expensive. Then, of course, there are some lives which could not possibly be acceptable to the insurance companies. I think it is far better for a man to be able to face this problem during his lifetime with some certainty, rather than leave it behind for his wife and family, who in most cases are far less able to cope with that situation than he is himself.
High taxation has a devastating affect on the private company, and, incidentally, on those employed therein, and if it is not remedied, we shall find owner-management and indeed competition gradually being eliminated. These are absolutely vital characteristics of private enterprise, and, therefore, I hope that the Chancellor will take heed.
 |
A group of mill hands talking to local M.P. Mr Joe Hiley
J B Battye & Co
Yeadon 1959
|
With thanks to Aireborough Historical Society for permission to use the photos. They appear on their website http://www.aireboroughhistoricalsociety.co.uk/default.aspx
No comments:
Post a Comment