HC Deb 26 April 1888 vol 325 cc602-4
SIR ALGERNON BORTHWICK (Kensington, S.)

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can now state whether he proposes to make any modification in the Van and Wheel Tax?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square)

My hon. Friend's Question is almost identical with one which has been put down by the hon. Member for West Southwark (Mr. Causton). The hon. Member for West Southwark and his friends have given me fair notice that nothing will satisfy them but a total withdrawal of the tax; and if I had no one to deal with except opponents of that kind, I should have no choice but to fight the matter out on the proposal as it at present stands. But I have not only to deal with the hon. Member for West Southwark. A number of hon. Members, representing important constituencies, while objecting to the proposal as it at present stands, have been willing to treat it as a whole in a more reasonable spirit. In deference to their representations, and to others which have been made to me from many quarters, I am prepared to offer a compromise, and I will, on Monday, move a Resolution raising the limit of weight and reducing the rate of duty. I shall propose to tax no vehicle under 10 cwt., and to place a duty on all over that weight as follows:—Two wheels, 10s.; four, or more wheels, £1. In order to settle the question, I shall bring this Resolution before the House on Monday next, and in such a form that a distinct issue may be raised between the supporters of the tax as amended and those who are opposed to the tax altogether.

MR. MUNDELLA (Sheffield, Brightside)

I beg to give Notice that when the right hon. Gentleman introduces that Resolution I shall oppose it.

MR. CAUSTON (Southwark, W.)

asked, when the Bill would be in the hands of hon. Members, and on what date the second reading would be taken?

MR. GOSCHEN

It is impossible to state on what day the second reading will be taken; but the Bill will be in the hands of hon. Members as soon as possible. I should certainly desire to bring this matter to as early an issue as possible, in order to relieve hon. Members of the enormous correspondence which has fallen on them, which, however, is quite insignificant compared with that which has rained upon myself.

MR. CAUSTON

asked, with reference to the deputation that waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few days ago, how the number of London vans was ascertained; whether the Return included light and heavy vans; and, whether it was for the whole Metropolitan area?

MR. GOSCHEN

replied that the Return was made by the Excise officers. It included light as well as heavy vans, and covered the Metropolitan area. He accepted the assurance of the Department that the Return had been properly prepared. He should be extremely pleased, however, if the revenue to be derived from the tax proved to be larger than was estimated.

MR. BUCHANAN (Edinburgh, W.)

asked, whether Scotland would be exempted from the tax or not?

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he would endeavour to make a statement to-morrow; but he would prefer to make it on Monday.

MR. STAVELEY HILL (Staffordshire, Kingswinford)

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he has calculated the difference that will be made in the yield of the tax by the alteration he has just given Notice of?

MR. GOSCHEN

I should say rather more than £100,000.

SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE (Kensington, N.)

May I ask my right hon. Friend, whether it would make any considerable difference if the minimum weight were raised from 10 cwt. to 12 cwt., in accordance with a wish that has been very generally expressed?

MR. GOSCHEN

I am afraid that I cannot undertake to make any further modification of the tax.

MR. COCHRANE - BAILLIE (St. Pancras, N.)

On what basis will the allocation be made for local purposes?

MR. GOSCHEN

I must refer the hon. Gentleman to the Local Govern- ment Bill, in which the allocation is given.