HC Deb 13 March 1905 vol 142 cc1210-1
MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN (Kilkenny, N.)

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that by a recent decision in the Court of Appeal in Ireland, in the case of W. J. Armstrong, Shankhill Road, Belfast, with regard to the valuation of his licensed premises by the Commissioners of Valuation, the principle is laid down that licensed public-houses in Ireland may be valued in regard to their licences; and, if so, whether, seeing that the Irish practice is recognised in the Inland Revenue Act of 1880, which was passed for Excise purposes, and that the effect of the judgment of the Court of Appeal would be that a much heavier burden would be laid on the licensed traders of Belfast, he will, in view of the disparity of the taxation and the taxable capacity of England and Ireland, introduce legislation to restore the Irish practice in regard to publicans' licences.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.)

I cannot admit the construction put by the hon. Member on the Inland Revenue Act of 1880. The chief benefit of the increase in rating upheld by the judgment of the Court of Appeal will be conferred on the general body of the ratepayers of Belfast. The practice referred to is identical with that prevailing in England. There is no intention to introduce legislation on the subject.

MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN

Is it not the fact that the ratepayers of Belfast in the city council protested against this; was not a Select Committee appointed to deal with the matter, and did it not object to the system on which the valuation has been based; and will its recommendations be carried into effect?

MR. ATKINSON'S

reply was inaudible.

MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN

The Select Committee in its Report condemned——

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The hon. Member cannot make a statement.

MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN

Well, do the Government intend to carry out the recommendations of the Committee?

MR. ATKINSON

I have said there is no intention to introduce legislation.

MR. CLANCY (Dublin County, N.)

Was Ireland not exceptionally treated by the Act of 1880 by allowing 20 per cent, to be added to the valuation in consequence of the lower valuation under the Act of 1852?

MR. ATKINSON

That was not the question discussed in the Court of Appeal.

MR. CLANCY

pressed for a more definite Answer, but Mr. SPEAKER directed that notice must be given of any further Questions.