HC Deb 23 March 1897 vol 47 cc1224-8
MR. T. LOUGH (Islington, W.)

moved:— That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that a Select Committee be appointed to consider whether the amount annually received by London under grants in aid bears a just proportion to the amount contributed by London to the general taxes of the nation. He said that perhaps the phraseology of the Motion was not perfect in every respect. By "general taxes of tin nation" he meant Imperial taxes as well as local taxes. It was very difficult to find any absolute accurate estimate of how much London paid in Imperial taxation. London was kept separate from the rest of the country in the Income Tax Returns, and it would appear from those that London paid about 7–15ths of the whole. It was not perhaps absolutely fair to quote that figure in support of his argument, because a large amount of the Income Tax paid in London was earned elsewhere. But in the case of the inhabited house duty London was assessed for 2–5ths of as much as the whole country was assessed, which showed the large amount contributed to Imperial Taxation by London. In 1888 the present system of grants in aid was instituted. There was the allocation of licences that might be paid in any given localities to the local purposes of those localities, and there was the allocation out of Excise instead of other grants in aid paid previous to 1888. The loss to London in licences was a growing loss. In 1888–89, the first year of the allocation, London got in licences practically 14 per cent. of the whole amount, while live years afterwards London only received per cent. But the position of London was much worse in regard to the allocation out of Excise instead of other grants. In the first place, the year 1888 was for London the worst year that could have been chosen for the allocation, which had remained since then a more or less permanently fixed grant. If any of the four previous years had been chosen she would have got a larger proportion of the grant. Loudon got only 22½ per cent. of the twos in 1888, whereas if the allocation had occurred in the previous year she would have gut 29 per cent., and in the year before 23 per cent. Before the year 1888 London used to receive from Imperial resources a contribution of 4d. in the pound on the rates towards ate maintenance of the police within the Metropolitan area, and the amount paid in the year 1888 had been given to.London, ever since. But the rates had since increased, and the Commissioners of Police had demanded from the London County Council 4d. in the pound on the growing rates, although the County Council only received front the Imperial Exchequer the amount fixed in 1888. During the past seven years London received £152,00 less towards the maintenance of the police than she would have got if the arrangement in existence before 1888 bad continued. London received only £3,500 for main roads out of a total grant of £500,000 and nothing, at all in aid of sanitation, though a grant of £75,000 a year was Made for that purpose to other parts of the country. To sum up the whole case, London received in these grants in aid 19 per cent. of her total rate, while the rest of the country received between 19 and 20 per cent. He admitted that there was one difficulty in the way of the Government by, his Motion for a Committee of Inquiry, and that was that there was a Royal Commission sitting which was practically inquiring into every point at issue, and which, according to the President of the Local Government Board, would take evidence in regard to the grievance of London. He doubted, however, whether the reference to the Royal Commission would enable the grievance of London to be fully considered; and he, therefore, appealed to the Govermnent to consider the matter in a sympathetic spirit, because the grievance was one which the people of London of all classes felt very much. ["Hear, hear!"]

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK (London University)

said that he had promised to Second the Resolution, but he understood from his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board that this subject would be inquired into and reported on Iv the Royal Commission on Local Taxation which was now sitting. He certainly thought that London was hardly treated in this matter. The question was not, however, so much, as stated in the Amendment, the proportion received; and paid by London, but, what was even More important, whether the proportion allocated to London out of the contribution In the Exchequer in aid of rates was fair in relation to that paid to other parts of the kingdom. He made no complaint either of the present Government or late Government. The position arose front unforeseen circumstances, and all that those who represented London asked for wan that there should be a careful Inquiry into the facts. He understood his right hon. Friend to say that the Royal Commission would do So, and that case he supposed the hon. Member for Islington would not press his Resolution. He would not repeat the details given by the hon. Member. The relief afforded to London in the way of grants in aid of local taxation was less than that of ally other part of the country. The proportion of the Exchequer contribution to the rateable Value was in London 2.3 and in the rest of the country 9.2; the proportion of the Exchequer contribution to the rates levied was in London 12.5 and ill the rest of the country 21.5. In other words, London ought to receive in the first case £160,000 more, and in the second £400,000 more. In fact, London was worse off than any county or county borough in receipt of relief from the Imperial Exchequer. Again, London contributed more to Imperial resources. London paid £655,000 inhabited house duty out of a total of £1,460,000. The skilled advisers of the London County Council considered, he believed, that London ought to receive from £300,000 to £400,000 a year more than she actually did at the present time, and this was a very serious matter for the ratepayers of London. At the same time they made no complaint whatever against his right hon. Friend or his predecessors, as they knew that the circumstances had arisen from the complication of the subject, and they recognised that there was no intention whatever to deal unjustly with London. They, however, asked that the matter should be carefully inquired into, and they understood that the Royal Commission would really investigate the whole question. Under these circumstances his hon. Friend would, perhaps, not think it necessary to press the Resolution to a Division. ["Hear, hear!"]

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,) Lincolnshire, Sleaford

remarked that the hon. Member who moved the Resolution had very truly stated that the question of whether London received an adequate share of the Imperial grants, as compared with other parts of the country, was one which had been frequently raised and discussed both in and out of Parliament, and the Motion under ordinary circumstances would have been a very proper one for discussion by the House. But, in view of the reply which he had given that day to a question addressed to him, it was clear that a Debate was not called for upon this occasion. He gladly recognised the spirit in which both the Mover and Seconder of the Motion had accepted the reply to which he referred, and in which he stated that the question raised by the hon. Member was undoubtedly within the scope of the Inquiry now being conducted by the Royal Commission. This was also the view of the Chairman of the Commission, and therefore he thought it would be quite uncalled for on his part if he were to enter into any debate upon the question. He merely wished, however, to guard himself from being supposed to adhere to the principle which he understood was laid down by the hon. Member that London ought to receive a share of the Imperial grants in proportion to the amount she paid to the general taxes of the nation. That was a view he was not prepared to support, and, having said that much, he thought he had probably said all that was necessary. ["Hear, hear!"]

MR. LOUGH

observed that, after the very satisfactory assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, he would withdraw his Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.