§ MR. MACDONALDasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If his attention has been drawn to the following paragraph in the Report of the Select Committee on the Railway Passenger Duty, which states:—
Your Committee regret that for so long a period no steps were taken to obtain an authoritative legal decision on a point so critical and important, especially as by this omission a considerable sum has been lost to the Public Revenue;whether the sum there mentioned amounts to several millions sterling; whether it was with the authority of the Treasury that the Board of Inland Revenue did not collect the money that became due as Railway Passenger duty by the judgment of the House of Lords; whether the Commissioners of Inland Revenue did not overstep their duty when they took upon themselves to remit and rebate taxes legally due; and, if any steps have been taken by the Government to ensure that there will be no remission of taxes without the consent of Parliament?
§ MR. MACDONALDalso asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If it be the intention of the Government to take any action this Session on the recommendations contained in the Report of the Select Committee on the Railway Passenger Duty which has been presented to the House; and, if not, if the present mode of assessment of the Duty is to be 1475 continued, or if the Duty is to be assessed in accordance with the judgment of the House of Lords; and, whether the inspection and audit of the accounts of the Railway Companies of Great Britain, as carried on for the last seven years by an accountant of the Inland Revenue Department, as stated in the evidence of Mr. Rickman before the Select Committee, is still being carried on by that office; if not, what is being done in the matter?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, his attention had been called to the paragraph in the Report of the Select Committee on the Railway Passenger Duty, from which a passage was quoted in the Question of the hon. Member. The paragraph as it appeared in the Report of the Committee was fuller than that introduced by the hon. Member into his Question, for it ran thus—
Especially as by this omission either a considerable sum had been lost to the public revenue, or Parliament had been deprived of an earlier opportunity of dealing with the subject.He observed that these words were adopted not unanimously, but no doubt by a considerable majority of the Committee. He had not yet had the opportunity of seeing the evidence on which the paragraph was founded, and he apprehended it would be impossible for him to give a positive answer or to discuss the question until they saw the evidence. With regard to the second Question, he was unable to say whether any public money could properly be said to have been lost at all. Certainly he was unable to say, if any sum had been lost, that it amounted to several millions sterling. He believed the fact shortly was this—some 30 years ago an exception was granted from railway duty to railway passenger trains fulfilling certain conditions. There was no idea for many years that those conditions were not fulfilled by trains failing to stop at every station. From the year 1844 to 1867 the tax was remitted on a number of trains only. If the tax had been exacted from all trains, no doubt the duty would have amounted to a considerable sum; but he was informed that the amount which might under any circumstances have been received would not in any case have amounted to the sum the hon. Member seemed to suppose. He asked— 1476Whether it was with the authority of the Treasury that the Board of Inland Revenue did not collect the money that became due as Railway Passenger Duty by the judgment of the House of Lords?The Board of Inland Revenue were advised that they had no power to collect that duty; at all events, they never asked the authority of the Treasury on the subject. Certainly, whatever might be the legal point in question, it would be inequitable to call on shareholders of the present day to pay money that might possibly have been demanded from shareholders some years before. With regard to the intentions of the Government, they waited till they saw the evidence and had time to consider it; but as to the question whether the present mode of assessing the duty was to be continued or a mode in accordance with the judgment of the House of Lords, he had to say that the present mode of assessment was not inconsistent with the judgment of the House of Lords. He was unable to give any answer to the latter part of the hon. Member's last Question. He did not know what evidence Mr. Rickman had given.