HC Deb 25 July 1910 vol 19 cc1859-71
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I have a very short statement to make in reference to a matter which arose in a discussion at Question Time. What I want to ascertain is the ground of the action which is being taken in regard to the administration of the Licensing Clauses of the last Budget in the case of Ireland. In order to make my position plain, I think I must preface it by stating that I have many times stated I thought that the Budget proposals, in relation to licensed houses and licensed property were excessive and oppressive, and I do not complain if the Government see their way to modify them equitably all round. But I think that there is every objection to anything which is in the nature of selection at the will of the Government, and which varies the provisions which Parliament thought it was enacting, not in their general application under certain rules which are applied equally and fairly to licensed property in all parts of the three Kingdoms, but which selects a certain part of the three Kingdoms for special and exceptional treatment. I may observe that the last concession which the Government made in this matter to Ireland is not the only concession which they made. The amount of Licence Duty payable by any house of course depends on the valuation, but it depends upon it subject to certain general principles. One of them was that there should be a minimum in the case of Ireland. The Government saw fit to reduce the minimum to something like one-third of what the minimum is in England or Scotland of similar population. But that was a concession made with the knowledge of this House during the passage of the Bill through the House, and if there was a case for discrimination in that at any rate the House made itself a party to it, and I do not propose to go back on that now. But in the case of Ireland the Bill provided that we should take Griffith's Valuation, with an addition of 20 per cent. The charge in Ireland will be calculated in accordance with Sub-section 7 of Section 43 of the Inland Revenue Act, 1880, which says that in the case of premises in Ireland, the annual value upon which the duty of the licence in respect of the premises is to be charged shall not exceed the amount of the value assigned thereto under the Valuation Act, 1852, that is, I think, Griffith's Valuation, with the addition of 20 per cent. to the amount. That was very favourable to Ireland. You took the old valuation, which, I think, was very little in reference to the real value of the premises to-day, and you said that you should not exceed an addition of 20 per cent. on that valuation.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

That was the maximum.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I quite understand that that would mean that on good cause shown it should not amount to 20 per cent. But that is not, I think, what the Government now says. As I understand—I speak subject to correction, because we have had very little information on the matter, and the information we have has only been obtained in answers to questions at Question Time, and the answers have not always been perfectly consistent—the Government have now provided by an Order in Council——

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

No.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

If not by Order in Council, in some other way, that the valuation is to be Griffiths Valuation, with only 5 per cent. added. If the government can alter the principles of valuation they can alter the taxation, and when the House of Commons thought it was imposing one tax the Chancellor of the Exchequer is taking it upon himself to impose a different tax. If abatement is to be made in the case of Ireland in regard to a tax which the House of Commons thought it was imposing, why is a similar abatement not to be made in the case of England and Scotland? I said at the beginning of my speech that I thought the whole of the provisions in regard to licences were excessive and oppressive. I have no objection to abatements which are made on general principles and which are extended to the whole of the interests affected. But I think it is open to the greatest objection that by administrative act the Government should vary the amount of the tax in particular cases, or for a particular geographical area, while they leave the full burden of the tax to be borne in other places. The answers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer so far as I have heard them give no justification for the distinction now drawn between the case of Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom. I think we have a right to claim that in this matter, as far as taxation depends upon acts of administration, and which is not rigidly laid down by law, that administration should be impar- tial towards every part of the United Kingdom, and the Government should not, under pressure of particular interests or of an organised vote in this House, extend to one portion of the United Kingdom what they refuse to all the others. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I see, accepts that rule, but I wish his action had been in conformity with it. I must say I think it is a reflection upon the Act which the House passed that it should be possible for the Government to take such wide administrative action under it, and so to vary the taxation. At any rate I take this opportunity, as the only one I have in this part of the Session, to invite the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give us a fair explanation and justification of the course of conduct which he has pursued, and which we have not hitherto had in answer to questions across the floor of the House.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I think that the right hon. Gentleman and the House are perfectly entitled to ask for an explanation from the Government of this administrative order; and I shall be very happy to give it. The right hon. Gentleman complains that there is a distinction drawn between the methods of valuation in Ireland and the methods pursued in this country. It is perfectly true, although we are not responsible in the slightest degree. The method of valuation is established by an Act which the right hon. Gentleman very fairly quoted; I forget who was responsible for it. In this country the principle of valuation varies, and the Government has been forced from time to time to consider whether there ought to be some method of national valuation. In Ireland you have got a national valuation. Then came the question how out of that national valuation we were to evolve the value of the public-house. The Act gave power to the Excise to add anything up to 20 per cent. to Griffith's valuation. That 20 per cent. was the maximum. I think it was Mr. Gladstone who was responsible for that Act, and these are the words he used in 1880:— What was proposed was that there should be given power to the authorities in certain cases, according to the merits of each case, to add an amount to Griffith's valuation which would in no circumstances go beyond 20 per cent. For some reason or other that seems to be taken as a direction that 20 per cent. should be added. From time to time towns in Ireland applied to different Governments for the revision of that addition. Belfast, I think, was the first to apply, and there, I think, Griffith's valuation is brought up to date. Griffith's valuation is not the 1852 valuation altogether. In towns like Dublin and other populous centres, the Griffith's valuation is brought up to date. In Belfast it is very much brought up to date, and there is a very considerable grievance in that place that the valuation is so high. They appealed to the Government to knock off the 20 per cent., and I believe Belfast got rid of it altogether. In the country districts of Ireland the Griffith's valuation is more or less a low valuation, but that is not the case in the towns, where there have been constant revisions of the valuation.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

Is that true of all the towns?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

It is mostly a Dublin case.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

Only part of Dublin.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

It is really a Dublin case. This is not a very big concession. There are only some 800 houses altogether, including Belfast, that are affected by this Order. I have made some inquiries of the officials, and I was assured that although probably in the case of the lower houses the valuation may be still pretty much as it was, yet when you come to the better class of houses of £50, and therefore of a totally different class, the valuation is very much higher. There are two very substantial distinctions between the valuation of public-houses in Ireland and public-houses here. The first is this, that an old valuation here taken fifty years ago would be a valuation taken when the population was 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. less than it is now, while the valuation taken in Ireland in 1852 is a valuation taken when the population was 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. higher than it is now. The population in Ireland has gone down, and I am not sure that the public-houses have not increased.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

Surely the depopulation does not affect Dublin. As to Belfast, there has been a revaluation which has put the full value on the public-houses. Some hon. Members will not give as much as I was giving to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and an hon. Member said the full value is not put on the houses in Belfast.

Mr. DILLON

I said far beyond it.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

Then the full value or beyond it. I take the middle statement and make this admission to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I understand that in the case of Belfast, if the revised value is the full value, that you do not want any percentage on it. I believe the revision has only taken place in Belfast and in a portion of Dublin; so that it does not apply to the major portion of Dublin, and neither does the Chancellor's argument about population, because, whatever may be the case with regard to Ireland generally, the population of Dublin has increased since 1852.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I may be wrong, but I think it means with the new valuation of Dublin, and when there is an increase of population, Griffith's valuation, more or less, goes on. Therefore it does not apply in valuation where there has been an increase. As to the old portions, I should not be surprised if the public-houses of those districts are stationary or gone down.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

Do you revise the valuation in the City of London on the same principle?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I will come later to the question of the City of London. That is a point that has got to be considered. I want to deal now with the difference in the methods of valuation. The old valuation in Ireland represented a state of things where the country, as far as population is concerned and as far as custom of the public-houses is concerned, was more numerous, while, on the other hand, the number of public-houses has gone up. In this country, with an increased population and a diminished number of public-houses, you have a very different state of things. There is another and a much more serious reason. We were face to face in the valuation in Ireland with this fact, that the public-house in the vast majority of cases is not a public-house merely, but carries on a mixed trade. That makes a very serious difference as far as valuation is concerned. I am very doubtful if there was a revaluation, whether we would get any monopoly value at all. I have always thought so. A revaluation in Ireland would probably mean the wiping out of monopoly value in the vast majority of these cases. And I am doubtful if we would get anything out of it. I am perfectly certain that Griffith's valuation, with 5 per cent., represents more than the licensed value of the vast majority of these houses. I do not say all. I have no doubt there may be some very profitable houses. That shows there is nothing comparable in the condition of things in Ireland and in this country. All we have done is that we have carried out a purely administrative order. Supposing we had no licensed provisions this year or last year, what we have done has nothing to do with the Finance Bill. It is purely an application which comes from time to time to every Chancellor of the Exchequer from Ireland in respect of these houses. I must say, upon the facts put to me, that if there had been a discussion here I could not have resisted the application, and I am certain that if the right hon. Gentleman had heard the case he would have supported the application for a reduction of the percentage. It was not intended to be a maximum or that 20 per cent. should be imposed, and all I have done is to exercise a discrimination which Parliament intended I should in these cases, and I think justly.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

The discretion which the right hon. Gentleman exercises may take one or two forms. It may take the form of saying that you are to treat the 20 per cent. as a maximum and only charge where you have reason to charge. I understand that what is being done is not to treat 20 per cent. as a maximum but 5 per cent. as a maximum. Will any house be charged more than 5 per cent. under the administrative order even if the facts would justify it?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I have not treated it as a maximum but as a uniform charge, and that is the only way you could deal with the thing in Ireland, and the way in which it was dealt with by my predecessors. It was not done by taking each individual house and charging 10 per cent. on one and 20 per cent. on another and say that another house was not to be charged a single penny. That, I agree, would be a more scientific method of doing it, but that is not the method adopted by my predecessors. Therefore I simply carried out the principles which have always been applied. Can the right hon. Gentleman give me a single case where there have been discriminations of that kind? It has always been a general order. In Belfast it is said nothing should be charged——

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

Because they had a new valuation on each individual house and there was no necessity. You are applying a general order to cases different in character without any revaluation.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Take the rest of Ireland, where there was no new valuation at all. There was simply some general imposition of a 20 per cent. maximum. I agree it is an unsatisfactory method, but I am dealing with a state of things for which I am not responsible. This is an Act of Parliament which was passed thirty years ago. It has been in operation ever since, and did some sort of rough justice. That is why I have always been impressed with the desirability of a revaluation not only in Ireland but here as well. The only objection to it in Ireland is that we would lose money by it. The right hon. Gentleman referred to this country. The principles of valuation are wholly different here. I do not think the publicans of this country would be satisfied with a general addition of 20 per cent., or 5 per cent. to their maximum. It would be perfectly unfair as between one house and another. You may get a house in this country with a very high valuation; I know of such eases, and where the value of the licence is not one-tenth of that of another house where the assessment is much lower. That, of course, is the unfairness of the present method in this country, and with anything which the right hon. Gentleman states as to the unfairness of the present method of valuation I would agree. That is why I think the sooner there is a revaluation in this country the better. I think there are some publicans who have very hard cases, their premises being very valuable, although the business is not; but, on the other hand, there are houses whose premises are not valuable, but the business is of enormous value, and they do not pay anything like their fair proportion of the Licence Duty. That is why I thought that last year, on the whole, although there may have been criticisms on details, there was a general agreement that there ought to be a revaluation. There may be parts of London where the population has gone down, and in those cases no doubt on a revaluation the publican would gain. The hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Mr. G. Younger) has impressed upon me the desirability of hurrying on the valuation. I agree with him, but it depends very much on the publicans themselves. If they assist in the process of valuation it can be got through in a very short time—at least, I hope so—and the grievances of valuation will be removed not merely here, but in Ireland. There was a general desire for a revaluation in Ireland, and the only people who have reason to complain are the Inland Revenue, because I am certain if there was a revaluation of Irish public houses on the principles which apply in this country it would be quite impossible to charge anything like the Licence Duties charged at the present time. If there is any discrimination between the method of valuation in Ireland and the method here I am not responsible. It was laid down by my predecessor thirty or forty years ago.

Mr. LONSDALE

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what influence caused him to make this subtle distinction in Ireland?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I know exactly what the hon. Gentleman has in mind, and nothing I could say would convince him. He has got a rigid theory about this particular matter, and it is no use arguing with anyone who is so thoroughly partisan as that. Nothing would convince the hon. Member, who is a thoroughly reasonable man, outside Irish questions, but once he gets on a matter of this sort, he lets go all that moderation which characterises him in other spheres of life. That is really the whole explanation. I think justice is done in a general way, after very careful inquiry into the value of these public-houses.

Mr. H. T. BARRIE

I have heard of this latest concession to the liquor trade in Ireland with not a little surprise, and I think the real test of the value of the statement just made is the way in which the concession is viewed and emphasised on political platforms in Ireland. Our Friends below the Gangway have been unanimous in hailing this as another concession. I remember that previous concessions were also minimised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this House. I think, in answer to a question, he stated that the last concession to Irish publicans cost the Revenue about £26,000 per annum, but on Irish platforms people engaged in the liquor trade were told that the concession was worth nearly £100,000. Thus, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House of Commons wisely minimises his concessions to the liquor interest, they are interpreted by the trade in Ireland to be immensely more valuable than they really are. With reference to the Belfast valuation, I recall that in connection with the recent valuation in Ireland the united liquor interest there urged that they were being overvalued or severely valued, and it will hardly be contested by hon. Members below the Gangway that under that revaluation the value of licences in Belfast went up on an average 400 per cent. The same valuation is long overdue for Dublin. The hon. Member for North Fermanagh has asked dozens of times in the last four years why that valuation has not been proceeded with in the ordinary course, and the reply has always been that the Government valuation staff was insufficient to cope with it. But many of us who are acquainted to some extent with the circumstances in Dublin know that the interest in the liquor trade there is most powerful and influential, and every obstacle has been thrown in the way of that long overdue valuation, with the result that at the present moment, in the older parts of Dublin particularly, that valuation has made no progress. Public-houses modernised and brought up to date now appear on the valuation roll at a rental utterly out of keeping with their value in the open market. It is to that class that the present concession is so valuable. It is said that there are in Ireland only 800 public-houses of over £50 valuation. While that explanation is largely true, if we had a modern valuation in Dublin, Cork, and one or two other of the larger cities, the possibilities of revenue would be very much greater than the right hon. Gentleman has led the House to believe. I speak as one who has no connection with the trade, and who opposed on principle the concession made last year, when the right hon. Gentleman refused to raise liquor licences in Ireland in the same way as he raised them in England and Scotland because I believe that by that refusal he did a great deal against the temperance cause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will not deny that he had resolutions of protest from every temperance organisation in Ireland when that proposition became public. We have 17,000 public-houses in Ireland, against only 6,000 in Scotland, where there is a larger population. If a moderate increase had been applied to the smaller licences, many of those which are now found most troublesome to supervise would have been wiped out, and nobody would have been anything the worse, but the trade would have been greatly improved. I feel that this is another concession done in a most circuitous and irregular manner at the demand of our Friends below the Gangway. I can only regret that, wrapped up so skilfully and minimised, as it has been, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the fact remains that the liquor trade has, from this temperance Chancellor of the Exchequer, received another concession, while the trade in England and Scotland is left to bear the full brunt of last year's Finance Act.

Sir F. BANBURY

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not say that I am not open to argument. I trust I am always prepared to vote on whichever side of the House advances what, to my mind, are the most reasonable arguments on the point at issue. I do not know that I have any particular knowledge of Ireland.

Mr. DILLON

Come over and spend the summer in Ireland.

Sir F. BANBURY

If the hon. Gentleman can arrange that there will be no Autumn Session, perhaps I might come to Ireland. There seemed to be a little difference of opinion between my hon. Friend on my left (Mr. Barrie) and the supporters of the temperance party, who appear to be rather dumb on this occasion. I see the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Charles Roberts) making notes. I presume he is prepared to get up and say that this concession to Ireland will conduce to temperance there, and that that is the reason that has actuated him in supporting the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. I listened to the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman with a desire to be convinced, if possible. The right hon. Gentleman advanced three arguments. First, he said that there were only 800 public-houses in Ireland which would be affected by this concession. To that I would answer that I have always been brought up to see that it does not matter whether you are going to do wrong to three or four only, it still remains that the wrong is being done. And if you are going to do wrong it does not alter the question whether the number is 800, 8,000, or 8. I was sceptical of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments, and the thought flashed across my mind that the right hon. Gentleman had a bad case, or he would not have advanced so exceedingly foolish an argument as that. The right hon. Gentleman dealt with the valuation of 1852, saying that it took place when the population was larger than now. Therefore, he said, in all probability, the majority of publicans would not be dissatisfied with the valuation taken on that basis. I presume the right hon. Gentleman means that as the real value of the public-houses in Ireland at the present time is much greater than in 1852, therefore there is no argument to deduce from the fact if the valuation went back as far as 1852. There are, however, other causes besides a decrease in population which affect the value of public-houses. If the right hon. Gentleman reads the "Daily Telegraph" of to-day he will see an announcement of a sale of public-houses in the City of London. The "Three Kingdoms" public-house, with a free lease for sixty and a half years—I commend this to the hon. Baronet the Member for Lincoln—a free lease, not leased from a brewery company, with a yearly rental of £305 0s. 10d., sold, with possession, for £1,150. Twelve years ago it fetched £28,000. Is that owing to the decrease of population in the City of London, or is it owing to other causes? Then there is "The Grapes." Here there was a free lease of thirty-six and a half years, and the rental was £150 a year. It was sold for £700. Two or three years ago it realised £22,000. I think I have shown that there are other reasons besides depopulation which conduce to alteration in the value of these houses. The point of my argument is this, that if there is a case for concession because of the decrease in population, and therefore a decrease in valuation—if there is to be a concession to be given to the Irish for that reason, then there should be a concession given to the publicans in England because there is a decrease in value for reasons over which they have no control. The right hon. Gentleman says "Hear, hear," at that. It is no satisfaction to the publican who has only got £1,150 to-day for what fetched £28,000 a few years ago that the right hon. Gentleman says "Hear, hear," and if he will instruct his right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury to say he is going to make some concession in his Regulations to the English publican then on this side we shall not regret the concessions made to hon. Members from Ireland below the Gangway. It is an extremely important question, because publicans all over the country, whether in Ireland, Scotland, or England, ought to be considered on the same basis. They may be regarded as engaged in a nefarious trade—some hon. Members opposite think that they are—but if they are—and I do not admit it—there is no reason why an Irishman engaged in a nefarious trade should be treated different from an Englishman or a Scotchman engaged in the same trade. I should like to hear some argument advanced by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway to show us the reason for this concession. We are told that for the future argument is to weigh in this House. I should like to hear some argument to convince me that there is some justice in this concession to hon. Members from Ireland.

On this side of the House some of us think that all these Regulations made by the right hon. Gentleman should be made by Parliament, and not by a Department. Here we have an instance of a Department using its powers to make these Regulations—I do not want to impute motives—in favour of hon. Members who support him in the Division Lobby. That is a curious coincidence, and it shows the danger of the thing. These Regulations should be made by the House of Commons, and not by a Minister, however talented he may be. I hope we shall have some statement or pledge from the right hon. Gentleman that he will give the same concessions to Englishmen that he is giving to Irishmen, and I trust if that is so, hon. Members sitting upon this side will maintain the justice of the case and support the right hon. Gentleman in his course. If he does not do so, we shall have our eyes opened to the dangers of allowing Ministers and Departments the power to favour one side of the House against another.