§
(11.5.) Motion made, and Question proposed,—
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the financial relations between England, Scotland, and Ireland, and to report—
§ (11.7.) MR. SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorgan, Mid)I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes on at such a late period of the evening, and I am afraid I shall have to trespass on the time and attention of the House, some little time at any rate, in order to lay before the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the House the reasons why we say he ought to adopt the Amendment which is down in my name. The appointment of this Committee has been delayed now for a considerable time, I think for two years. The reason for that is that Amendments have been placed down by us; and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we put these Amendments down not in order to delay the Committee and prevent an inquiry being extended to Scotland, Ireland, and England, but because we had a very deep interest in the extension of the inquiry to that other portion of the United Kingdom which up to now has been left outside the purview of the Committee. I should have preferred that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have given some reasons why the Committee should not inquire into the case of Wales as it is inquiring into the case of the other portions of the United Kingdom, because we take our stand first of all upon this—that the onus of proving the propriety of exclusion of that part of the United Kingdom, generally called the Principality of Wales, lies upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, rather than that the onus of proving the right of the inclusion of Wales should lie upon us. I suppose the answer of the 796 Chancellor of the Exchequer—if I may anticipate for a moment—is that up to the present Wales has not been treated separate financial entity of the United Kingdom. We do not say that it should be, nor is it necessary to go to that extent in our deliberations on the operations of this Committee. What we ask is that, inasmuch as the Government have thought fit, at the request of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), to appoint a Committee to consider the financial relations of the various parts of the United Kingdom, we should not be excluded, but that inquiry should be made into the facts as they concern us, as the inquiry will be made into the facts affecting the other portions. But inasmuch as I am driven, by the course which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has thought fit to pursue, to prove to the House that Wales should be included, I shall submit to the House two reasons why we are entitled to be considered upon this Committee. In the first place I shall endeavour to prove that the inclusion of Wales as a separate portion of the United Kingdom is a feasible matter, that there are no insuperable practical difficulties in the way, and that there will not be a very great increase in cost or expense by the inclusion of the Principality. And if I go further and show, as I think I shall be able to show, that Wales is not treated fairly or equitably in the matter of these financial relations with England, I think we shall have made out a case—and a very strong case—in favour of this inquiry being extended. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may be able to dispute the figures which we produce here to-day, and if I may make one answer to any argument which he may use upon that point, it is this: that I do not think, in order to establish our case for the inquiry, it is necessary for us at all to prove that we are unfairly or inequitably treated at the present time. It is one of the objects of this Committee to inquire into the question whether Scotland or Ireland or England is equitably or inequitably treated in the matter of finance. But I think I shall be able to produce such figures as we are able to collect from the Returns which are separately made now, to show that in various matters 797 we are unfairly and inequitably treated. Upon the first point I will endeavour to show that there is no very great difficulty in the way of getting the necessary particulars to inquire into the financial position of Wales any more than there is in ascertaining the financial relations of Scotland or Ireland. For the convenience of the House, I shall take the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer head by head. The first head is this—the Committee are to inquire and to report as to the amount and proportion of Revenue contributed to the Exchequer by the people of England, Scotland, and Ireland. Now, the Revenue of this country is derived from several sources, the principal of which are Customs, Excise, Stamps, Land Tax, House Duty, and Income Tax. I will go shortly through some of these the most important heads of Revenue, in order to show that particulars can be easily and without cost obtained with reference to Wales as well as to other portions of the United Kingdom. Take the head of Customs. The chief sources of revenue under this head are derivable from cocoa, chicory and coffee, dried fruits, foreign spirits, tea, tobacco, and wine. Referring, as I shall have to do a good many times, to a Return which was presented to this House on the 10th July, 1891—a very valuable Treasury Minute, No. 329 of the Returns of 1891—I find various particulars with regard to this matter. For instance, I find that although it is impossible now to say exactly what the proportion of revenue derivable in respect of cocoa, chicory and coffee, and dried fruits is from Scotland, Ireland, and from England, the Treasury say that for Treasury purposes it will be sufficiently accurate to take the receipts of revenue in respect of those matters and apportion them according to population. If that is so, of course it is merely an arithmetical problem, which can be worked out in two or three minutes, to ascertain how much revenue is derivable from Wales in respect of those articles which I have named. The next important item of Customs is foreign spirits. Now, with reference to that the Treasury say that since July last permits are necessary for conveying spirits from one place to 798 another in the country. Therefore, they say, that for six months they are able to tell the proportion of foreign spirits consumed in various parts of the United Kingdom, and they say it is sufficient for the purposes of accuracy to base the revenue from foreign spirits as calculated by the Treasury officials for that six months. Therefore, upon the head of foreign spirits, the Treasury have, through the Inland Revenue officers, sufficient information to tell us what proportion of foreign spirits are consumed—they have that information by means of these permits—in Wales. Therefore, upon that head, as well as upon the other sub-heads which I have mentioned, they can give the necessary particulars. The other is the very large item of tea. It appears it is impossible to find out what is the exact proportion, as between England, Scotland, and Ireland, of revenue derivable from tea. The authorities say that the average consumption of tea is very much the same over all portions of the United Kingdom, and that it may be taken according to population. They say that 4.91 pounds of tea per head was consumed all over the United Kingdom in 1889. Therefore, from that source you can say, by means of an arithmetical problem, what portion of the Customs Revenue derivable from tea is derivable from Wales. With reference to tobacco, they say there is some difficulty on account of the raw leaf being sent to Ireland to be manufactured there. But they come to the same conclusion with reference to the consumption of tobacco as with reference to tea. They say that for all practical purposes the consumption is the same all over the United Kingdom—about 4s. 8d. per head per annum. With regard to wine, which is the last item of Customs with which I shall deal, that raises some difficulty. They say that arises from the fact that the duty is collected on the alcoholic strength of wine, and that it is very difficult to say for any part of the United Kingdom how much that duty may be. But they have a very rough and ready method. They average the rates of duty, and they apply the average rates to the quantities conveyed from one part of the country to the other. Therefore, for practical purposes, you can ascertain 799 the necessary particulars with regard to wines. I shall not go into other sources of revenue, but I think I have shown that on all subheads of Customs you can ascertain sufficiently accurately for all practical purposes the amount of revenue derivable from Wales just as you can from Scotland and from Ireland. The next head of revenue is Excise. The subheads in this are four: British spirits, Beer, Licences, and Railway Passenger Duty. With reference to British spirits, I think you can have the same information as with reference to foreign spirits from the permits which the Excise authorities require. And I believe you can have accurate information with regard to the consumption of beer from your collectors of Inland Revenue all over the country. The revenue derivable from licences is divisible into two parts. The first is a small portion of this revenue which goes for Imperial purposes. With that I need not deal because the same considerations apply to England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales. It is not necessary with reference to the Imperial portion of the revenue derivable from licences to have any inquiry into the relations of the different parts of the Kingdom. The second part has reference to local taxation. I wish to inform the House on this head that there are already sufficient particulars in the various Returns to be found in the Library of this House. The amounts of revenue derivable from licences, are entered according to Counties, and therefore we can see what is the amount which goes to the relief of local taxation. I take it that there would be no difficulty in getting the Railway Companies to show how much of the Passenger Duty is payable in Wales and how much in England. With regard to Excise, the record made of domicile on the payment of Death Duties will render it possible to state the proportion paid by the Principality; whilst as to general stamps, the Treasury has struck a percentage which is sufficient to indicate the amount paid within the metropolitan area in respect of the expenditure of persons who reside in other parts of the country. Of Land Tax and House Tax, every penny paid by Wales can be traced. Different considerations apply 800 to different schedules of the Income Tax and some present difficulties, but they are not insurmountable. As to income derived from national and municipal securities, the Treasury has some data upon which to distinguish incomes derivable within the metropolitan area; and for trades and professions the Returns are made by counties. Of non-tax revenue from the Post Office, the Telegraph Service, and Crown Lands, the amount derived from Wales can be easily distinguished. The same is true of the miscellaneous items. The Returns of Imperial Revenue paid to Local Authorities are already made in counties. As to the amount of money expended upon Civil and Local Government Services, the sub-head does not in my opinion deal with those items of expenditure which are Imperial, but merely has reference to the expenditure in localities, and so inquiry as to how much is incurred in reference to Wales will be very much simplified. As the expenditure on the collection of Revenue is a certain per centage, the amount of money expended upon the collection of Revenue in Wales can also be ascertained. With regard to the amount and proportion of State loans outstanding, and of State liabilities incurred for local purposes, these have been incurred chiefly in reference to Ireland. Wales has not been able to extract any money for this purpose, and therefore the inquiry as to Wales will take no time. From the information which we have been able to extract with difficulty, it appears that Wales is very badly treated in respect to taxation, contribution and expenditure of Revenue, having regard to the population of the country. No doubt there is a difference in the principles various Members would like to apply to the question of the resources of the people; but some little idea is given by the Treasury on page 26 of the Minute which they say may be a guide to the Committee in its deliberations. Having regard to the resources of the people, the Committee might inquire into, first, the Probate Duty payable in the Principality, and as I have dwelt on that I need now say no more upon it. Then the Committee should have regard to the Income Tax payable; and I hope the House will 801 allow me to show, by a few figures, that the resources of the people of Wales are not so great as are the resources of England, and that the wealth of Wales is small in comparison with the larger country. Of course this cuts two ways. The Chancellor of the Exchequer I know will say that if the contribution of Wales to the Exchequer under the head of Income Tax is small, then, of course, Wales ought to expect less in something like the same proportion in the way of subventions. This is not the time to go fully into that matter, but I do not think—and I am prepared to combat the principle on the proper occasion—I do not think it is right to say that a country is only to cost the Imperial Exchequer in proportion to the poverty of that country. I am afraid I do not make myself understood on this point. If a country is poor you have no right to say you will give it less on that account in aid of local taxation, for the need must be greater. Now, on the question, Is Wales poor? let us take a year's Return of the Income Tax. I take figures from Returns which will be found in the Library, and I give the results shortly under the various Schedules. Taking the year 1883 and last year, I find that, under Schedule A of the Income Tax, England, without Monmouth, contributed in 1883 per head £6 4s. 2d. per annum, while Wales, including Monmouth, contributed £4 8s. 1d., a difference of £1 16s. per head. Strange to say, under Schedule B, Income Tax on the rental of agricultural lands, the contribution of Wales is very much more per head of population than the contribution from England; and here, digressing for a moment, let me say the figures establish very clearly the correctness of the contention of my hon. Friend in proposing the Second Reading of the Land Bill for Wales a few days ago that rents are very much higher in Wales than in other portions of the United Kingdom. Under Schedule B, on rentals and agricultural lands, Wales contributed very much more per head than England did, for England contributed £1 16s. 7d., Wales £2 5s. 6d. These, I venture to submit, are very startling figures, and require the careful attention of a deliberative assembly. I need not trouble 802 the House with the figures under Schedule C and I come to Schedule D, Income Tax derived from trades and professions, and held by us to fairly gauge the comparative wealth of a country. Here the result is remarkable. Under Schedule D England contributes the sum of £9 11s. per head, but Wales only £4 7s. 8d., less than one-half what England contributes.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,) St. George's, Hanover SquareWill the hon. Gentleman say where he derives these figures from?
§ MR. S. EVANSFrom Return 25 of the year 1884–85, from Volume 45, No. 269, of that year. I see that these figures have startled even the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ MR. GOSCHENPardon me; I am not startled at all. I only wished to know how the hon. Member arrives at his proportion per head.
§ MR. S. EVANSIt is a simple question of arithmetic. I have gone carefully into the figures, and have no hesitation in saying my results are correct. The proportion per head is, as I have said, England, £9 11s.; Wales, £4 7s. 8d., or, in other words, to put it plainly in respect of Income Tax, under Schedules A, B, and D, taken together, England contributed 8s. 1d., at the rate of 6½d. in the £1, and Wales paid 4s. 2d., or about one-half of England's contribution, in the year I refer to. Then I will give very shortly the last figures I have from Return 39 of the year 1892. The result is practically the same. This Return, dealing with the financial year 1889–90, shows per head of population—Schedule A, England, £5 14s. 10¾d.; Wales, £4 6s. 9¾d. Schedule B, England, £1 8s. 3¾d., for incomes from agricultural lands; Wales, £2 1s. 2d. Schedule D, England, £10 1s. 3½d.; Wales, £4 18s. 1d. Given shortly, the result is that, in respect of Income Tax, England contributed at the rate of 6d. in the £1 in the year 1889–90, 7s. 5d. per head, and Wales 3s. 11¾d. per head. These figures have an important bearing on the consideration of the question of the comparative resources and contributions to revenue in the two countries. Then we can ascertain from another source the comparative resources of the two 803 countries. The gross rental of England, including the Metropolis, is £6.31 per head of the population, and the rateable value £5.27 per head; whereas the gross rental of Wales is only £5.13 per head, and the rateable value £4.43. Hero exactly the same contrast is shown as in the Income Tax Returns. That is as far as I have gone in the estimate of the resources of the two countries, and now let me say a word on the amounts of Treasury subventions paid from the Exchequer in aid of the poor rates. The amount per head of the poor rate paid in Wales is higher than in England. In the Principality the proportion is 10s. 11¼d. per head, in England it is 10s. 3¾d. per head. The Treasury subventions in aid in the year 1888–89 were to England, total £803,668, to Wales £36,624. Now these figures are very difficult to follow, but the House may be interested to know how they work out per head of population. You have in England assistance from the Treasury at the rate of 7¼d. per head, and in Wales 5¼d. per head, a difference of twopence on every head of population. I have the figures in reference to the licence duties collected, but I will not go into these, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer may say the amount goes back in aid of local taxation, and the figures should be discarded as having no reference to this present matter; but I will give the figures in respect to the share of Probate Duty under the Act of 1888. I take the financial year ending 31st March, 1890. The total amount of England's share of the Probate Duty was £1,742,226, that of Wales £69,295. This share of the Probate Duty was given back in aid of local taxation notwithstanding certain arguments of ours to the contrary based upon the proportion of grants made in times gone by. But, without going into that matter, let me give the figures per head. England gets as her share of the Probate Duty 1s. 3½d., Wales 9¾d. I have not been able to verify my surmise in reference to this matter; but I think I am right in saying that Wales generally contributes almost as largely in respect to Probate Duty as England does, and, if so, is it not monstrously unfair that we should have only 9¾d. per head as our share, and that England should get 6d. 804 per head more? In the following year, 1891, England had for her share of the Probate Duty £1,857,071, and Wales £73,863; in other words, England received 1s. 4¼d. per head, Wales 11½d. The difference is not so great as in the year before, but is still considerable. In other words, if we were entitled to this Probate Duty according to population, which I think is the right principle, we should receive exactly 1s. 4d. per head, and should have been in receipt last year of £101,260, while we actually received £73,863. If we are right in our claim as to what we ought to have had as our share of the Probate Duty, there was a deficit last year of £27,397. We should have this amount annually to meet our wants for intermediate education and our Universities if the Probate Duty were more justly distributed. And now I apply the test of the Beer Duty, the additional duty laid on the country in 1890, 91, and I take the figures from Return 373 of 1891. The share England had of the new tax was £712,054, and Wales had £28,321. England received per head 6¼d. and Wales a fraction over 4¼d.—that is to say, 33 per cent. more went to England than to Wales in proportion to population. One observation I may make on this point. We must admit, and we do so with a blush, that the contribution of Wales in respect to the Beer Duty and Spirit Duty has in late years been quite equal in proportion to population to the contribution from England. If that is so, then it is wrong that we should have only 4¼d. per head of this, while England receives 6¼d. On a fair distribution we should be entitled to 6⅛d. per head, amounting to £38,760 for last year, while we actually received £28,321 under the head of Beer and Spirit Duties, having lost £10,440. Having gone through these figures, let me in a few words give a résumé of the result. In the first place, if a Committee were appointed to inquire into the financial relations of the different parts of the Kingdom, Wales should not be excluded. I have shown that the facts as regards Wales can be ascertained without much difficulty and at very little extra expense. If it had been—which it was not, for the object of the Committee is 805 inquiry—necessary for me to show that Wales has been inequitably treated in past financial arrangements, I think, having regard to the resources of the two countries, that that could be established. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has up to now been adamant in excluding Wales from this inquiry. I am told that the Committee can do little in the short time remaining for the present Parliament; but I do ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that in this first appointment of the Committee Wales shall be included. The onus of proving the exclusion of Wales lies with him.
§ Amendment proposed, in line 2, after the word "England," to insert the word "Wales."
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'Wales' be there inserted."
§ *(11.51.) MR. GOSCHENThe hon. Member has left me about as much time for my reply to him as he has occupied with his preliminaries and the résumé at the end of his speech. I am sure he will not think me wanting in courtesy to him if I condense my remarks into the briefest possible space. Pleasantly and plausibly the hon. Member has spoken, and he has made out the best case his materials would admit of; but in the same pleasant and plausible way he has slurred over all difficulties and made light of most serious objections to his proposal. The hon. Member says—and I might rest my case on that—that the onus of proof with regard to the exclusion of Wales lies with the Government, and those who oppose his Amendment. Now, I say distinctly the onus of showing why Wales should be separately treated lies with the hon. Gentleman. He did not offer in his long and interesting statement one single argument why Wales should be treated differently from any other part of the country. Wales is excluded from the inquiry, says the hon. Gentleman; but Wales is not excluded. Wales stands in the inquiry side by side with England, as she has stood by the side of England throughout the Whole of her fiscal history, in all her fiscal arrangements. I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman can think there is greater cause for treating Wales separately than there 806 is for treating Lancashire separately or Yorkshire separately, or, as an hon. Member opposite suggests, for treating Ulster separately from the rest of Ireland. (An hon. MEMBER: Or London.) Yes; it would be quite as reasonable a proposal to treat the Metropolis separately, and when treating London separately there would be an equal claim for treating Glasgow separately from Scotland and Belfast from Ireland. Then we might have an inquiry, which should range over all counties, to determine which are the richer counties and which the poorer, and which contributes more and which less to the Imperial Revenue; and when we have done that, when we have arrived at the result, when we have the information if we could get it, what then is to be done? Are we to have a separate fiscal system for each county? How would it be possible to raise our taxation or analyse our expenditure if every comparatively small division should have a right to claim to be separately treated? If Wales has a grievance, is it more severe than that of any of the poorer counties in England, Scotland, or Ireland? Is it possible to adjust taxation and expenditure throughout the United Kingdom in such a manner that each county or group of counties shall contribute equally to and receive equally from the Imperial Exchequer? You cannot do this; you would destroy the whole unity of our fiscal system. I will not follow the hon. Member through his discussion of the means of meeting the difficulties of collecting the information which he desires. I do not deny that it might be possible to procure much interesting information on a good many of the points suggested by the hon. Gentleman. I do not deny that as regards some articles of consumption—I make full admission, and say as regards the main articles of consumption taxed—it would be possible to arrive at some result; but when we come to the Income Tax, the difficulties will be much greater. The hon. Member has tried to minimise those difficulties to a scarcely justifiable extent. I do not see how the hon. Member knows how much per head is paid for Income Tax in Wales, for the way in which Schedule D is assessed 807 makes it difficult to localise it so distinctly as to say precisely how much is paid in each part of the country.
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANSThe Returns are given county by county.
§ *MR. GOSCHENYes, I am aware that the counties are given in which Income Tax is paid, but that does not represent the amount arising in each county. For instance, a wealthy man dies at Bristol, but he has property scattered all over the Kingdom. I do not see how the tax can be localised. From want of time I cannot follow the hon. Member through his speech. (An hon. MEMBER! Adjourn.) No, if we adjourn I do not know when we can resume. We cannot agree to accept Wales in this inquiry as a separate financial entity in our fiscal system. On this broad ground I must resist the Amendment, and I hope, now that the hon. Member has had the opportunity of making his excellent speech, he will not further stand in the way of the appointment of this Committee, whose labours may result, I hope, in the collection of much interesting information and furnish valuable materials for the study of future Chancellors of the Exchequer.
§ *(12.0.) MR. THOMAS ELLIS (Merionethshire)I think no case was ever made out more clearly and irresistibly than that made by my hon. Friend to-night, and I will venture to say no Minister ever made so poor a reply as the right hon. Gentleman has just made. At every turn my hon. Friend supported his case with figures.
§ It being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
§ Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.