HC Deb 04 September 1893 vol 16 cc1967-80

[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £139,238, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1894, for Rates and Contributions in lieu of Rates, &c, in respect of Government Property, and for the Salaries and Expenses of the Rating of Government Property Department.

MR. GOSCHEN

I wish now to ask the Government whether they really intend to proceed with the Votes to-night? The Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware we did not intend to oppose the final Motion; but there are certain Amendments we wish to move.

*THE CHAIRMAN

I am afraid it will not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to refer to what has already taken place this evening, or on former occasions.

MR. GOSCHEN

With the indulgence of the House, I wish to make this appeal to the Government. We cannot explain, before the Vote is taken, what attitude we propose to take. [Cries of "Order!"] I appeal to the Government to give mo a little licence.

*THE CHAIRMAN

I am sorry to have to intervene. I do not think this is a matter in which Her Majesty's Government can give any licence. We are bound by the strict Rules of the House, and according to these strict Rules it would be out of Order for the right hon. Gentleman to refer to the incidents of this evening, and especially to the incidents which relate to the Motion the House has just passed.

*MR. HARTLEY

moved to reduce Sub-head A. of the Vote by £100. There were several remarkable points about the Vote. He believed it was only in modern days that rates on Government property had been paid at all. In olden days Government property was largely exempt from rating; but now rates were paid in the locality in which the property was situate. There was one very important exception? The Mercantile Marine Fund, administered by the Board of Trade, paid no rates on its property. For that state of things a more complete reason ought to be given than was given earlier in the Session by the Secretary to the Treasury. But there was one matter which required more direct consideration, and that was the enormous sums for salaries included in this Vote. According to the Estimate the salary of the Treasury Valuer and Inspector of Rates was £600 a year, rising £20 a year to £700; but the gentleman who now occupied that position received £1,000 last year, which had been increased to £1,200 this year. Why was this official receiving double the salary he ought properly to receive? There was another matter which required some explanation. A note to the Estimate stated that the Post Office paid £1,900 a year and the Telegraphs £3,990 a year towards this Vote. He would like to know why these Departments paid these sums, and in what way these items were brought into the account at all? As to the valuer, the Secretary to the Treasury had said a short time ago that the whole of the work of valuing had been completed. That work was chiefly confined to London, and if it was finished it seemed strange that the valuer should be retained. With a view to obtain some elucidation of the matter from the Government, he begged to move the reduction of Item A, which dealt with salaries, by £100.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, Salaries, be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Hartley.)

MR. HANBURY

said, that on the last occasion the Estimates were before the Committee the Secretary to the Treasury had asked the Committee to allow this Vote to pass sub silentio, because, according to the right hon. Gentleman, it had been the rule not to discuss it, and there was nothing new in it. That was no good reason why the Vote should not be discussed now. On the contrary, it was a reason above all others why the Committee should discuss it. This question of the rating of Government property was of the utmost importance. It was in a very unsettled state at present, for even the lawyers were not agreed what property ought to be and what property ought not to be rated. Ambassadors' houses were, he thought, to be rated for the first time, and also the apartments of private individuals in Royal Palaces. For instance, the occupants of Hampton Palace had rates placed upon them for the first time. He thought the Committee were entitled to a clear and distinct statement from the Secretary to the Treasury in respect of the salary of the Treasury Valuer and Inspector of Rates. Of course, it might be said that this salary was only of those salaries so often distinguished on the Votes by an asterisk, and the note "Personal to the present holder." He objected to all salaries personal to the present holders. If a salary was good enough for one holder it was good enough for all. The Vote should not be allowed to pass unless a clear and sufficient reason were given by the Secretary to the Treasury why this gentleman should be treated in this exceptional manner. At any rate, the fact that he was to draw this year a salary nearly double that of the maximum salary of the office entitled them to a declaration as to the work he was doing. How long had he ceased to draw his legitimate salary? He wanted to know upon what rule the Treasury put down salaries of this kind. It was wholly irregular, for the Treasury had no power to grant such salaries. There was no power, so far as he knew, for a Civil servant to draw more than the standard salary fixed for his office. Was this gentleman doing extra work? What was the special work he had to do. He had at least a Second Division clerk and a copyist, and, in addition, he drew travelling expenses of £60 a year. His position was practically a sinecure, inasmuch as when the assessments were once fixed they did not vary very much. He wished to know whether the Secretary to the Treasury would grant a Return similar to that of 1877, which would enable the Committee to form an opinion as to whether the rates on Government property were fairly assessed; and how far the principle was enunciated by this House under the Telegraphs and Fortifications Acts—namely, that Government property should pay the ordinary rates levied upon property belonging to private persons—had been carried out? Although Parliament distinctly laid down that rule, the matter was taken before the Courts of Law, the Government having refused to pay certain rates, and the Court decided that there was no power to force the Government to pay the rates, and the Government did not pay them. This was not fair to the owners of private property. The Government did not pay rates on the same scale as private owners, and this was a matter that he thought should be put right. If an Act was passed that the Government should pay rates, it was only right and fair that the Government should carry out the Acts, both in the letter and spirit. Unless the Committee had a satisfactory answer on these points, he hoped his hon. Friend who raised the discussion would go to a Division.

MR. A. C. MORTON (Peterborough)

said, he was glad that hon. Gentlemen opposite had at the eleventh hour come to view this question in its proper light, although when he had over and over again called attention to it when the late Government was in power he had received no assistance from those hon. Members. He was sorry the hon. Member had not moved to reduce the Vote by £500, as he would have been very pleased to "tell" with him. They had had no explanation whatever upon the point. As he understood, the Government fixed the value themselves; there was no appeal against that, and they fixed it much lower than other people in a parish had to pay. Those in the parish always considered that the Government in these matters never paid a fair share of the local rates.

SIR J. T. HIBBERT

pointed out that the observations of the hon. Member had nothing to do with this Vote.

MR. A. C. MORTON

said, that what ho contended was that the work done by this gentleman was only done in a haphazard manner. He received £700 a year for what was done by some second-class clerk, who got nothing for doing the work. It was quite true that the Government never paid their fair share of the local rates, and ho would have great pleasure in voting for the reduction.

SIR J.T. HIBBERT

said, without intending any offence, he thought it was clear that the hon. Member for Peterborough knew very little about the matter. In his opinion the Treasury had power to increase the salary of the Treasury Valuer as well as of other officials. The present Treasury Valuer was the best man for the post in the whole of the United Kingdom, and he had the whole assessment of Government property placed in his hands. In 1869 he was transferred, as Inspector of Rates, from the Poor Law Office to the Office of Works, and the whole assessment of Government property was placed in his hands. At that time he was paid £500 per annum and an extra allowance of £200. When the Government purchased the telegraphs in 1872, owing to the increased work he had to do the salary was raised to £700. Since that time he had been in personal communication with the Local Authorities throughout the country. In 1883, owing to his long service and skill, his salary was raised to something like £1,200, and that was the whole history of his salary. One thing that could be said in this gentleman's favour was this—that at the present moment the Treasury had not a single dispute with any Local Authority.

MR. A. C. MORTON

They cannot dispute it.

SIR J. T. HIBBERT

said, that if they were to look into the valuations they would find that they were in accordance with the valuations passed by the different Assessment Committees. At the Treasury they had had no complaints from the Assessment Committees. He ventured to say that anyone looking into the valuations would find that they compared very favourably with the valuations of private property.

MR. A. C. MORTON

said, he had heard cases of this sort, that when anything was said about having au increase the answer was that it was an act of grace that it was given to them at all, and, therefore, they could not go behind it.

SIR J. T. HIBBERT

said, he would be glad to consider whether a new Return could not be issued. He saw no reason why the Committee and the country should not have full information on a matter of this kind. He hoped that his hon. Friend who raised this discussion would now be satisfied that this gentleman, although he was in receipt of a considerable salary, was not paid more than his deserts. He was specially adapted for the work, and if he retired the whole staff would have to be rearranged, though it was not a very large one. On the grounds he had specified he hoped his hon. Friend would be satisfied as to this question.

SIR J. GORST (Cambridge University)

could not, of course, say anything against the salary which was given to to the Treasury Valuer, because it was given by the late Government; but he entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the present holder of the Office fully deserved the salary paid to him. He was quite willing to admit that this practice of paying a personal salary was a very bad one, and he should ho glad if any way could be discussed in which officers of exceptional merit could have that exceptional merit recognised without this rather objectionable practice of paying personal salaries beyond that which Parliament had sanctioned as the proper remuneration for the particular work performed. In connection with this salary there was one point which the right hon. Gentleman did not notice. The hon. Member for North Islington had asked why that salary had been increased £200 since last year, and for that very substantial increase the right hon. Gentleman did not give any reason whatever.

SIR J. T. HIBBERT

The salary was increased to £1,200 in the year 1882.

SIR J. GORST

said, if that were so, then the Estimates were very wrongly prepared. For the year 1892–3 the salary was put down at £1,000, and in 1893–4 at £1,200. So that, according to the Estimates, the increase had been made in the past year. With reference to the rating of the offices of the Mercantile Marine, the right hon. Gentleman said that they were not rated because the rates would have to be paid out of the Mercantile Marine Fund, which he led the Committee to suppose was contributed by poor seamen, and, therefore, ought not to be touched for such a purpose. As a matter of fact, more than half of that fund; or something like £40,000 a year, was voted by the House of Commons to that fund; and, therefore, there was no reason why Parliament should not contribute a trifle more for the rates of the offices.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE (Rochester)

said, if they were really to understand that the £1,000 which appeared in the Estimates for 1892–3 was an inaccurate figure it throw a terrible doubt on the whole of the volume of Estimates hon. Members had before them. How were they to discuss the Estimates if the very first item was found to be inaccurate?

MR. A. C. MORTON

thought that unless some explanation was given on this matter the Government ought to postpone the Vote. The right hon. Gentleman had practically told the Committee that the Estimates were wrong, and they ought to know who was to blame. With all respect to his right hon. Friend, he was not at all satisfied with his reply. This was not a personal matter, but a question of principle as to the salary. The right hon. Gentleman attempted to explain about the extraordinary duties this gentleman had got to perform. All he could say was that he had to communicate with the Local Authorities. That simply meant sending a communication intimating that the Government would pay so much; they would not listen to anything else, and there was no use protesting. Protests had been tried, but the answer of the Department was—"This is an act of grace; the Government are not obliged to give you anything, and you must take what they offer or nothing." The Local Authorities, therefore, took what they could get. The right hon. Gentleman said that upon the retirement of the present Treasury Valuer the next gentleman who was appointed would have to commence at £600 and would go to a maximum of £700. But the new gentleman would have to write to the Local Authorities as well as the present valuer, therefore the reason for the increase would be as applicable to the new man as to the present one. The right hon. Gentleman had given no reason for this personal salary. He had not told them this gentleman had been to Egypt or anywhere else, or that ho had done any extraordinary thing which entitled him to more than the fair salary of this office. He thought himself that £700 as a maximum was a very high salary, and this system of rushing up salaries from a maximum of £700 to £1,200 on personal grounds was a, bad system and one which ought to be put a stop to. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he (Mr. Morton) was looking after the rates and not the taxes. The right hon. Gentleman was utterly wrong. He was looking after this £500 wrenched out of the pockets of the taxpayers, not of the ratepayers. He know the ratepayers complained that the Government did not assess their property up to the fair value, and did not have it re-assessed every five years like other owners of property. He was entitled to look after that £500 of the taxpayers' money, and he should be doing wrong if he allowed either a Liberal or a Tory Government to plunder the taxpayers of this country to the tune of £500 a year. He hoped, therefore, he should have an opportunity of going to a Division on the question.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, the right hon. Gentleman had told them that this increase of salary was made in 1882.

SIR J. T. HIBBERT

explained that owing to bad eyesight he had read 1882 instead of 1892 as the year in which the valuer's salary was increased to £1,200.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said the only thing the right hon. Gentleman had not told them was why this valuer was necessary at all. He himself had no valuer, and he did not suppose any gentleman present had, but they all paid the rates which were assessed by the properly constituted authorities.

SIR J. T. HIBBERT

The properly constituted authorities employ a valuer.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said that if it was alleged there was any economy in employing a Government Valuer ho would point out that this official cost 1 per cent, of the total amount of rates paid by the Government. He said that such a state of affairs was perfectly monstrous. He did not know how this gentleman's salary had crept up from £500 to £1,200 a year. The assertion that this was in consequence of extra duties which had been put upon him would go to prove he had not enough to do before. As far as he could see this gentleman must have been some favourite. [Sir J. T. HIBBEHT: He has 30 years' service]. He expected the gentleman must be an auctioneer from the insidious way in which the salary had crept up from £500 to £700 and then from £700 to £1,200 a year. This official had three assistants, and the Government paid 1 per cent. on their rates of valuation. He (Mr. Gibson Bowles) would do it for l–8th percent. Possibly somebody more reasonable would do it for l–16th per cent. [Mr. A. C. MORTON: Hear, hear!] The hon. Member for Peterborough would do it for l–20th per cent. In fact, it did not require any doing at all. The Government ought to submit to a valuation made by the proper authority and then pay the amount so assessed. It did not require any person to oversee their cheques. These four gentlemen were taking £2,028 a year for what ought to be done by a third-class or fourth-class Treasury clerk. He did not say this was a job, but it was an which could be reasonably knocked off. If they cut off the whole of these four gentlemen as regarded salary, and discharged them into the world with a pension to earn an honest livelihood in some other way, the Public Service would be in no way prejudiced.

*COLONEL HUGHES (Woolwich)

observed that the reason Government property was not valued in the same way as other property was because the Government did not pay rates, but made a contribution in lieu of rates. He held the opinion that the Government ought to pay rates the same as other people. They ought to submit to the ordinary jurisdiction of the Assessment Committee, with the right to appeal and have their property fairly valued the same as other people. As a matter of fact, the Government had buildings to a considerable extent erected at Government works, and the Treasury would not have them valued for years after they were erected, and until very considerable additions were made, whereas if a private owner were to put an additional storey to a building he would be at once pounced upon by the Local Authorities. Having the power entirely in their own hands, it was a voluntary matter with the Government so far as to what the value should be. There was no appeal against the Government valuation. He thought, however, that a better official than the gentleman who filled the post of Treasury Valuer could not be obtained, for not only did he make an extremely favourable valuation for the Government, but he persuaded the Assessment Committee that the Government valuation was a fair one. He hoped the time would come when the present system would be abolished, and the Government would allow their property to be rated in the ordinary way.

MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)

said the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Gibson Bowles) was a great economist, but he could assure that hon. Gentleman that if all these officers were disestablished and disendowed, and the assessment of Government properties handed over to the Assessment Committees, although the salaries of these four officers would be saved, the charge upon the Exchequer would be much bigger. The Secretary to the Treasury said that, in his judgment, the public were entitled to the fullest information with regard to the valuation of Government properties. He was glad to hear that, because he had been in communication with the right hon. Gentleman in order to procure a Return of the nature indicated by one hon. Gentleman opposite. A slight difference, however, had arisen between himself and the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the form. The Secretary to the Treasury was willing in this Return to give in a lump sum the total valuation for all Government property in each parish. That was obviously not sufficient. It would not enable them accurately to gauge whether any particular piece of property was properly valued or not. What he wanted was that each particular property which was separately assessed should be separately entered in the Return, and it was only in this way the public could have that full information which the right hon. Gentleman said he desired to give. He was willing to make a deal with the right hon. Gentleman. If he would give the Return in the form in which it had been asked, he should have pleasure in voting for him; if he declined, he was afraid he must vote against him.

*SIR R. TEMPLE

said, the question really was whether the sum of £250,000 was properly sufficient in discharge of the debt which the nation owed to the various Local Authorities of the United Kingdom, who were already over-burdened with rates for their local improvements. He knew it was not possible for a private Member to move that a Vote be increased in amount, but he was entitled to press upon the Government whether that amount was fair and just as between the general Treasury and the various local treasuries which had to bear so many public burdens. That was a matter of principle. The Secretary to the Treasury, if he understood him rightly, said that the amount upon the Government buildings all over the country was assessed upon the same principle as the various private properties. But the fact was the Government were not paying rates exactly the same as the owners of private properties. They were compounding and paying a composition for the rates which were due by them to the various Local Authorities. The question really was how this amount was ascertained? It was ascertained by an official valuation made by an official valuer. But was not the Government here acting as the judge in its own case? The Government owned the property, paid the composition for the rates, and yet had the value on which these rates were fixed assessed by its own valuer. Was it not clear that this amount ought to be assessed, not by a Treasury Valuer, but by an independent valuer, by somebody entirely independent both of the Government and the Local Authority, and who should act as judge or assessor between the two parties—that was to say, between the Treasury who was to pay and the Local Authorities who were to receive payment? He submitted that the question was not one as to whether this Vote should be smaller or larger, but one as to what was just as between the Treasury and the Local Authorities. He did not want to enter into whether it was a local or an Imperial question; but he could speak on the subject from his experience in connection with Education Boards, and he thought that such authorities as made the quinquennial valuation or the London valuation, amounting to £33,500,000 annually, would judge properly between the Treasury and the various Vestries that made the rates. The authorities who valued the entire land and houses in London for the Metropolitan rates could estimate the rateable value of the Government buildings within that area in the most trustworthy and independent manner. If so, they did not want a Treasury Valuer at all. They were trustees for the taxpayers, but they were bound to see that justice was done to the Local Authorities also, and it was on this ground that he ventured to trouble the House.

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

said, he would like to know whether rates were paid in Ireland upon both military and police barracks, and whether any distinction was drawn when barracks were unoccupied or temporarily occupied? He would also ask, was it the same person who valued both for England and Ireland? He hoped these questions would be answered.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. A. C. Morton) blamed hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House because they did not support him on that question before. If they did not support him it was his own fault. He had listened to the hon. Member, and he was bound to say that he did not think he previously understood the matter properly. Now, however, the matter had been explained.

SIR W. HAECOURT

No, no!

MR. MACARTNEY

said, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would allow him to finish what he was about to say. He was bound to say that, having heard the matter explained, ho would vote upon the particular merits of the question, and not against the Government itself. The Secretary to the Treasury had shown that the salary now being paid to the valuer was a salary to which he was fully entitled. The hon. Baronet who had just spoken had referred to the transfer of the rate question to the Local Authorities. He (Mr. Macartney) did not think anything could be more foolish. He did not believe that the Local Authorities could be trusted to make the assessments on Government buildings. They would be inclined to throw as heavy a burden as they could upon the Government, and lighten the charge upon the ratepayers at the expense of the general taxpayers of the Kingdom. He objected to any Government yielding to that suggestion.

*SIR R. TEMPLE

said, he did not recommend that it should be made over to the Local Authorities, but that the Local Authorities should be independent of the Government.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, yes—if such authority could be discovered. He did not think it could. As between the local and the general taxpayer, the former was entitled to consideration; but they should be prepared to allow some preference in the case of the general taxpayer of the Kingdom. With regard to special salaries, they ought to be carefully scrutinised, but not abolished—he would treat the salaries generally as such salaries might be treated by a private firm. A charge of a grave character had been made with regard to the assessments, and he did not think it should have been made, as there was no evidence to support it.

MR. A. C. MORTON

said, he did not expect any Tory to vote with him; he did not think they would have sufficient courage to do so. He maintained, not- withstanding what the hon. Member (Mr. Macartney) had said, that these properties were purposely undervalued. He hoped they would allow the Local Authorities to value them. He thought a fair case had been made out for the consideration of the question, so that Local Authorities might be fairly treated. The present system was not fair. They had not a fair explanation in the Paper before them, and it was but right that they should have.

THE CHAIRMAN

was about to put the question.

COLONEL NOLAN

said his question had not been answered.

*SIR J. T. HIBBERT

said, in reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, ho had only to say that the same system was adopted in Ireland as existed in England and Wales. Dissatisfaction had been expressed in the House with the method of valuing this class of property, but he understood that no complaints had been received from the country.

MR. A. C. MORTON

It is no good complaining.

*SIR J. T. HIBBERT

said, objection had been taken under various Governments; but each Government refused to allow Government property to be dealt with in the same way as other property. They gave contributions to Local Authorities; and, so long as the rating was fair and equal, he did not think they could do anything.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 58; Noes 147.—(Division List, No. 289.)

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £142,176, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1894, for the Erection, Repairs, and Maintenance of Public Buildings in Ireland, for the Maintenance of certain Parks and Public Works, and for Drainage Works on the Rivers Shannon and Suck.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.