HC Deb 05 March 1875 vol 222 cc1341-7
MR. GOLDSMID

, in rising to call attention to the obnoxious questions now put to the ratepayers of the Metropolis under "The Metropolis Valuation Act, 1869," said, that by that Act it was provided that a valuation of the metropolis was to be made every five years, and certain regulations were laid down with respect to it. Forms of questions were to be sent out to every ratepayer, such as were prescribed by the Income Tax and the Acts amending the same. In 1869 a form of a sufficiently inquisitorial character was prepared, but it was nothing in comparison with the form issued this year, which had caused great discontent, especially amongst the commercial community, from whom he had received several communications on the subject. He very much doubted whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself could answer all the 13 questions contained therein, when addressed to him at his own private residence; indeed, if report spoke truly, three Members of Her Majesty's Government had been unable to return satisfactory answers. If, then, the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not himself answer these questions, how could he expect that an ordinary occupier or shopkeeper should be able to do so? One of the questions was—"At what would your house let from year to year in its uninhabited condition?" There were hundreds of houses in the metropolis with regard to which an occupier would be entirely at a loss to answer this question. Lord Dudley was known to have a magnificent house in Park Lane; but who would give any thing for it as an unfurnished house from year to year, without any certainty of occupation beyond that time? Another question was—"If hold on lease, give the date of lease or agreement, for what term, and whether granted on any and what premium or other consideration than rent." In many cases the occupier of a house was wholly unable to answer such a question. But if the difficulty of answering these questions was great in the case of the ordinary householder, it was still more perplexing and annoying to shopkeepers, who were required to state the name of the landlord, the length of the lease, and various other matters. Now, under the Act any ratepayer might on the the payment of 1s. inspect the Returns, and ascertain the term of lease of the premises of his rivals in trade. He might then, in order, if possible, to damage his rival, obtain from the landlord the reversion of the premises, and thus might destroy his rival's business by compelling him to leave the neighbourhood. In one case, with regard to which he (Mr. Goldsmid) had received information, a tradesman had, in consequence of an attempt of this kind, to pay £4,000 in order to obtain a renewal of his lease, so as not to let his business be ruined. The questions which were put did not, it appeared to them, come under the terms of the Act, and were not necessary to enable the Assessment Committee to estimate the value of the premises. Indeed, as Chairman of an Assessment Committee he must say the valuation of the occupier was about the worst that could be had. He had received information that the vestry of Hackney had had great difficulty in consequence of the form in which the questions were put, and he believed if Her Majesty's Government had given instructions a much simpler form of questions might have been prepared. He therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give directions that the form should be revised, reducing the number of questions, and rendering them less difficult and harrassing to the ratepayers of the metropolis. He begged to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he would state to the House by whose instructions and for what reason the new form of questions was prepared; by whom it was so prepared; and by whom approved?

MR. FORSYTH

said, he, too, had felt strongly that these questions were very difficult to answer, and he should have given Notice to ask for information had not the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid) done so. The questions were puzzling, unsatisfactory, and perplexing, and were not authorized by the Income Tax Acts. The return was required to be made in the form specified in the Income Tax Act, or in such form as the Commissioners of the Treasury might prescribe. Now, as the questions that had been sent out were not in the form prescribed by the Act, they must be in the form prescribed by the Treasury, and he would be glad to know whether they had been sanctioned by the Treasury? These questions did not enable the occupier to give the only information required by the Treasury; and they were not only very unsatisfactory, but also extremely puzzling and difficult to answer. Who could say "the amount of land-tax redeemed, and whether by landlord or tenant?" Next, "the amount of sewers-rate, and whether paid by landlord or tenant." "If the property is subject to tithe, state if commuted or otherwise." "Who could answer these questions? He confessed that he could not, and a distinguished Member of the House had told him that he could not without consulting his lawyer. In the case of building leases the amount of ground-rent would afford no indication of the value of the house, and yet the leaseholder, not being the owner, could not make his return in that capacity. If gentlemen who had some knowledge of the Law found no small difficulty in answering them, they were surely not questions to be put to the whole of the occupiers in the metropolis.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

, referring to the word "obnoxious" in the Question, doubted whether it was quite in order to put epithets into Questions of that sort. Having received an intimation that a series of questions was to be put to him on the subject, he must frankly own he was afraid it was the series on these forms that he was expected to answer. He was rather pleased to find that they were interrogatories of a very different character, and he was quite ready to give the hon. Member such information as he was able on the subject. These questions were prepared in pursuance of the Act of Parliament of 1869, the object of which was to provide for a common basis of value for the purposes of local government and taxation, and to promote uniformity in the assessment of rateable property in the metropolis. The Act proposed that an Assessment Committee should be appointed, which should make a valuation of all the property in the metropolis, and, in order to make that valuation upon a proper basis, not only for local but for Imperial purposes, it was provided that the Surveyor of Taxes should be consulted, and that the valuation made should be subject to his revision. That was the reason for which it was provided that returns should from time to time be made in order to assist the Assessment Committee to make these valuations, and the Act, contained a provision that such valuations should be made once in every five years. [Mr. GOLDSMID: Not a new form of question every five years?] The returns were to be in such form as the Income Tax Act prescribed, or the Lords of the Treasury directed. When the first form of questions were drafted they were sent out in a different and simpler form from the present one, and, so far as the Treasury and the officers of Inland Revenue were concerned, they were quite satisfied with the form originally prescribed. But between the quinquennial valuations the local authorities were charged with the duty of putting certain questions in order to obtain certain information. The new form was prepared by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and approved by the Treasury. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue, however, found that in the interval since the last quinquennial valuation, the local authorities had put out forms of questions of their own, embracing other matters than those which had originally been required, and as it was necessary to frame a form of questions which would suit the purposes both of Imperial and local valuation, they endeavoured in framing their new form of questions to meet the wishes of the local authorities. He certainly agreed with his hon. Friends that these questions were puzzling and difficult, and he frankly owned that he could not answer them all himself, and was glad to find that he was not singular in that respect. But at all events if the individual could not answer them, he had simply to say so, and it would be so much the worse for the Assessment Committee, who would consequently have more trouble in making out their Assessment. The much more serious objections were, that to answer some of the questions it would be necessary to state what would be very annoying for persons to disclose. The question as to who was the owner of the property, and when the lease would terminate were those to which the most objection had been raised. With regard to the first, he really thought that a strange delicacy existed in the matter, and that owners generally had somewhat more consideration for persons holding leases of their property; therefore, it was hardly likely, as an ordinary rule, that an occupier would have his house bought over his head at the termination of his lease without his knowledge. As regarded the period of the termination of the lease, he thought that was immaterial to the officers of Inland Revenue, and, so far as they were concerned, they would take no exception to any return because it did not disclose that fact. At the same time, the length of the lease was an important consideration in determining the value of the property. "With regard to the question as to who was the owner of the property, that was a question always asked, and which must always be asked, under the Income Tax Act; and as long as an income tax was maintained, he did not see how that question was to be avoided. With regard to the Schedule generally, it did not follow that tenants were bound to answer questions on which they were not informed; but it did seem to him fair to put the question to the occupier, and to require him to answer it if he could. He did not know that the occupiers need take extraordinary pains to obtain information on points they were not informed on, and he did not think that the questions were really open to the charge of being unnecessarily vexatious. The desire of the Treasury certainly was not unduly to press them, and the officers of Inland Revenue had received instructions not to reject any return which failed to disclose the name of the owner. There was every desire to make the thing as little vexatious as possible. It must be borne in mind, however, that the main object of these questions was to ensure that the rating should be fair, and in order to effect that it was absolutely necessary that certain information should be got in order that one man might not be rated, proportionately, more than another, and the unwillingness to give it arose often from an unreasonable squeamishness.

MR. RAMSAY

said, he was of opinion that such questions as those in the Schedule could not be avoided, unless we were to ignore altogether the claim of the ratepayers to have the rates equally levied on all descriptions of property, according to its true annual value. That was the principle of the Act for the valuation of heritable property of all kinds in Scotland. A difficulty which had been urged in regard to leaseholders whose leases ran it might be for 99 years was obviated in Scotland by the statute which placed leaseholders for more than 21 years in the position—so far as taxes were concerned—of owners. The system worked very well, and he thought this was one respect in which the laws of the two countries might well be assimilated.

SIR. WILLIAM FRASER

said, that since he had looked at the examination paper for his degree at Oxford, he had seen nothing so puzzling as this paper: there was hardly a question which he could answer without giving his lawyer a fee. He doubted whether the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, that there would be no pressure where there was an inability to give the information, would serve as a sufficient protection against the penalty, not exceeding £5, which one became liable to who did not fill up and send in the return within 21 days.

MR. COLLINS

feared that injustice might arise from the circumstance that the form of the return was in some respects misleading.