HC Deb 24 March 1898 vol 55 cc775-81

Considered in Committee:—

[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith), Chairman of Ways and Means, in the Chair.]

(In the Committee.)

Motion made, and Question proposed— That it is expedient to authorise the annual payment, out of the Consolidated Fund, to the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account in pursuance of any Act of the present Session for amending the law relating to Local Government in Ireland, and for other purposes connected therewith—(a) of a sum not exceeding one-half of the amount certified to be taken as having been raised in the whole of Ireland by poor rate and county cess off agricultural land, during the twelve months ending, as regards poor rate, on the 29th September 1897, and us regards county cess on the 30th June, 1897; (b) of a sum not exceeding the amount which may be ascertained to be the proceeds in the previous financial year of certain local taxation licences in Ireland; (c) of a sum of £69,000."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

MR. JOHN DILLON (Mayo, E.)

I think this question was left in the hands of the Government so as to make it impossible for them, even if they should so desire, to so alter the Bill as to make the agricultural grant up to the 31st March next. I should like to know whether that is so. As I understand the Resolution, it is so drafted as to only give authority for the issue of money on the principle that the agricultural grant will begin to accrue from the 29th September, as set forth in the clause, I had not altogether abandoned the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would have altered that clause so as to allow the agricultural grant to begin to accrue from the 31st March next, and provision made in respect of the payment to local bodies during the next six months. What I would ask the hon. Gentleman to do is this: I do not ask him to decide this question now, but I ask him not to bind his hands, and so to alter the wording of the Resolution as to leave it an open question. It will then be open for him to change, if he thinks fit to change, the clause of the Bill. Now, what are the facts of the case? This is the case so far. I lay aside for the moment all question as to the distribution of the agricultural grant in Ireland, and as to the claim of Ireland to get for the agricultural interest in Ireland the same treatment as the agricultural interest in Great Britain, because the Government have abandoned all attempt to resist that claim.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,) Bristol, W.

This Resolution is necessary to enable the financial proposal in the Bill to have effect. No doubt, when the Bill was reached, if Irish members should be able to convince the House that a larger grant should be made, and the Government were to yield to that view, it would be perfectly possible for the Government to propose to the House another Resolution embodying that determination, and for the House to adopt it.

MR. DILLON

I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit the truth of what I am going to say. I do not pretend to be a thorough master of this subject, but I understand that it would be possible for the Government so to draft a Resolution as to obtain the required authority to acquire this money without binding themselves on this particular point. When the Government ask us to pass a Resolution in such words as these, it does seem to me that, so far as this particular Resolution is concerned, it does settle this point.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD W. BALFOUR,) Leeds, Central

I think not. The Resolution reads— A sum not exceeding one-half the amount certified to be taken as having been raised in the whole of Ireland by poor rate and county cess on agricultural land during the twelve months ending 29th September, 1897, and as regards county cess on 30th June, 1897. That fixes the standard year, but it does not prejudice the question.

MR. DILLON

I desire to ask if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give us any assurance that the clause will be altered so as to allow the grant to begin to accrue on 31st March, instead of 29th September, the payments to be made to the local authorities during the next six months?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

It is perfectly clear that what the Resolution authorises is the payment of a sum equal to a whole year's advance. The Resolution is necessary to enable the financial proposals in the Bill to be carried into effect. If when the Bill is reached Irish Members can persuade the House that the grant should begin on 31st March, and the Government yield to that view, it seems to me that it might be done under this Resolution.

MR. DILLON

It is impossible for the Government so to draw a Resolution to acquire the money without binding themselves on this point.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

I think not. The Resolution does not prejudice the question as to whether the grant is to begin on 29th September or any other date.

MR. J. C. FLYNN (Cork, N.)

Irish Members regard with very great suspicion any Resolution which will in any way bind us in advance to a vital clause.

MR. J. J. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)

I desire to ask whether the grant will be estimated by the standard year of 1897, taken by the Government, or an average of years?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

By the standard year; as now proposed it must not exceed the amount of the standard year.

MR. CLANCY

Will this Resolution, if passed, prevent Irish Members proposing in Committee on the Bill an Amendment with a view to arranging for an average of years?

MR. J. MORLEY (Montrose Burghs)

Supposing the Committee on the Bill were to come to the conclusion that the Estimates shall be made, not on a standard year, but on a figure to be arrived at by taking an average for two or three years, will this Resolution preclude us from considering the question whether the figures upon which rents are to be foreclosed have to be arrived at by cess, or upon an estimate of three years?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

I think it would.

MR. J. MORLEY

If we pass this Resolution it will not preclude us from altering the standard year—that is, the figure upon which the rent is to be adjusted, or to take an average of three years, from 1895 to 1898, for instance.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

The Committee authorises, as a grant, an amount corresponding to the amount for the particular year. I apprehend that if the Bill is altered in the sense the hon. Member for the Montrose Burghs desires a further Resolution would be necessary before it could be proceeded with.

MR. J. MORLEY

I have no such desire.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

As the right hon. Member suggests.

MR. M. HEALY (Cork)

Will the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer give some assurance that, whatever the form of this Resolution, the question of whether it should be a standard year or an average year would not be debarred from further consideration?

MR. J. C. FLYNN

Will it be possible, in the subsequent stages of the Bill, to move an Amendment to Clause 34, which differs altogether from the idea of a standard year being fixed?

THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS

I could not give an opinion without seeing the Amendment, but I should think that no Amendment would be possible in the sense the hon. Member mentions, because that might lead to the grant being greater than the House may now agree to give. So long as the grant is less than that which the House is now considering, of course any means of arriving at that grant can be inserted in the Bill, but no means can be inserted of arriving at a grant which might be greater than that proposed by this Resolution.

MR. J. MORLEY

It seems to me that, if we adopt this Resolution, we should not be able to move an Amendment providing that the figure should be arrived at, not by one year, but by any three years that might be chosen.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

It would be impossible for the Government to give information as to whether the average year would be larger or smaller than the amount of the standard year.

MR. J. MORLEY

I wish to point out that hon. Members from Ireland might contend that it would be fairer to the tenants that the figure to which the rents shall be adjusted—the figure in the minds of the Land Commissioners—should be, not the figure suggested in the Resolution before the Committee, but another figure, arrived at upon an average of years. Is it clear we may not move an Amendment substituting a three years' average for the standard year?

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

I should imagine that it would be possible to move an Amendment that a year, or an average of years, should be taken for the purpose of fixing the standard rent, but it would not be possible under the terms of the Resolution to move an Amendment which would have the effect of increasing the amount of the Agricultural Grant

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)

The right hon. Member the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that if, in the course of discussion on the Bill, it should appear necessary to move a new Resolution, which would cover a larger amount, that might be done. But, as I understand it, that could not be done, because we could not have a discussion in the House upon anything which would require a Resolution for a larger grant, and, therefore, there can be no discussion which would result in the moving of a new Resolution. But the objection taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland is still stronger, because he says, "I cannot tell what the amount will be." Therefore, I imagine an Amendment would be out of order if it is uncertain whether the result of that Amendment would be to give a larger grant than that which the Resolution covers. It, therefore, comes to this: that this Resolution practically stereotypes the grant; so, at least, I gather from the answers given by the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

MR. M. HEALY

According to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, if the Resolution passes in its present form it practically decides this question, because the mere possibility, as I understand it, of an Amendment to the grant proposed by the Resolution would invalidate the Resolution. As the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has said, it is impossible for him to give us any exact information as to the figures months hence, and impossible to know whether any Amendment will be necessary, and it follows that any Resolution proposing an alteration in the method is to be calculated, whether by standard year or an average of years, would be out of order. But, observe the difficulty in which the Committee is placed. This Resolution we are now discussing has not appeared on the Paper; we have not the exact terms before us, and it is impossible for us to examine or discuss it. I have not made up my mind on the question of whether a standard year or an average of years would be better, but I think all sections of the House will agree with me that it is a matter for open discussion. All we ask is some undertaking that the question will remain open to us, and apparently, by the Chairman's ruling, that opportunity will not be given to us if the Resolution is passed in its present form.

MR. DILLON

The hon. Member for Cork has pointed out that this Resolution was not on the Notice Paper, but I can go a step further and point out that when I found it was not on the Paper I went to the clerks and asked for the terms, but I was unable to obtain a copy. By this Resolution, as far as I can understand it, the Government are tying their own hands.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

When the order for taking this Resolution was put on the Paper yesterday it was not thought that it would require any lengthened Debate. I confess I am not qualified to interpret points of order, and I do not desire to shut out discussion of points which hon. Members desired to raise. At the same time I feel bound to say that we adopted the year named, a single year, as the period upon which the calculations should be based, because we believe that these proposals were absolutely in accordance with the provisions of the English Act, and we should not feel justified in departing from those provisions, so as to give Ireland more favourable terms than Parliament has already given to England. That, possibly, may require that a discussion should be raised on the Resolution, instead of in Committee, on the Bill, and I think it would be best that we should not proceed with this matter now but postpone it for a time in order to consider when the discussion should be raised. It may be right to make the Resolution wider; it may be, on the contrary, more in accordance with our own convictions that the Resolution should be narrowed; and if hon. Members object to it, then the Debate should be taken on the Resolution rather than on the Bill. I will, therefore, move to report Progress.

Motion made, and Question put— That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

Agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.