§ Lord CLAUD HAMILTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether it was by his authority or with his knowledge that Mr. A. Grasemann, of the Inland Revenue, visited the accountant of the Great Eastern Railway and requested him not to pay the company's Income Tax due before 31st March until a week after that date; and, if not, under whose orders Mr. Grasemann so acted?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The officer referred to was acting under the instructions of the Board of Inland Revenue.
§ Lord CLAUD HAMILTONMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman how he reconciles that answer with the reply he gave on the 3rd inst., when he stated that this action had been taken through the mistake of a subordinate officer?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEVery easily. An officer acting under instructions may make a mistake.
§ Lord CLAUD HAMILTONMay I further ask if the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, whom the right hon. Gentleman describes as a subordinate officer, took the step he did with the knowledge of the Treasury, and if not, what object had he in view in sending round these emissaries to the railway companies?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe Noble Lord is under a misapprehension. The subordinate officer referred to was not the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, but another officer acting under instructions of the Chairman of the Board. I have no knowledge, as I have stated in reply to another question, of the circumstances at all.
§ Mr. H. W. FORSTERWill the right hon. Gentleman take steps to acquire knowledge?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe complaint is that sometimes I have too much knowledge.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEWill the right hon. Gentleman now acknowledge official responsibility for the collectors of Income Tax?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI cannot acknowledge any responsibility which I have not got.
§ Sir FREDERICK BANBURYMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the subordinate officer, if he was acting under the instructions of the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, was not freed from responsibility altogether, and that the whole responsibility rests on the Chairman of the Board?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEOf course, in one sense the responsibility rests, and must rest, in the last resort on the Parliamentary representative, who in this case is myself, and the responsibility is one which I have never endeavoured to shirk. But responsibility for the acts of a subordinate to the extent that the head of the Department gave him instructions which were not carried out rests to a minor extent on the head of the Department. The ultimate responsibility rests on the subordinate, but if any one is to blame from the Parliamentary point of view for the action of the subordinate, that person is myself.
§ Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSWill the right hon. Gentleman see that all sums received in the way indicated after 31st March will be restored to the Old Sinking Fund?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEIf I gave that order it would be very properly disobeyed, because I had no authority to give it.
§ Mr. FELLasked the Prime Minister if it is the practice of the Comptroller and Auditor-General to see that the proper sums due are collected by the collectors of Income Tax and duly paid into the Treasury, and to see that the surplus of the sums so collected is paid to the National Debt Commissioners?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe Comptroller and Auditor-General makes a test audit under Section 33 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act, 1866, of the accounts of collectors of Income Tax, and it is his practice to call attention to any undue delay in collection or in the payment of the amounts collected to the Exchequer, which may fee disclosed by such audit. The issues from the Consolidated Fund to the National Debt Commissioners in respect of the Old Sinking Fund are governed by Sections 4 and 5 of the National Debt (Sinking Fund) Act, 1875, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General satisfies himself when the accounts of the Consolidated Fund are before him that the actual issues have corresponded with the amount shown to be payable by the account 22 certified by him under the former section.
§ Mr. FELLMay I ask if the Comptroller had this brought to his notice before he commenced the collection of Income Tax before 31st March?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe Comptroller and Auditor-General is an officer of this House, and he is perfectly capable, and it would be his duty to take notice of all things connected with finance.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONHave any directions been given by the Treasury to collectors as to the delay in the collection of Income Tax?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI have no knowledge of it at all. If they were given they were not given by the Treasury.
§ Mr. WATTWho is responsible for pressing the collection of this tax in one part of the kingdom and delaying it in another?
§ Sir FREDERICK BANBURYasked whether it was owing to the blunder of a subordinate official that demand notes for Income Tax usually sent out in December, and followed by a reminder in January, were in many cases not posted this year until 29th March?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEAs is always the case in a year of revaluation of property, the issue of demand notes suffered some general, but unavoidable, delay last year. Notwithstanding this, however, the demand notes for 1910–11 were actually issued, with but few exceptions, by the end of January last.
§ Sir F. BANBURYWould the right hon. Gentleman answer my question? His answer refers to Schedule A, which is the Schedule under which property is assessed, whereas my question refers to Schedule D, Income Tax on profits and Super-tax.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe question asks whether demand notes for Income Tax are usually sent out in December. There is nothing about Schedule D in the question, but if the hon. Baronet wished to refer specifically to Schedule D it should have been stated in the question.
§ Sir F. BANBURYDoes not Income Tax include all sums levied as Income Tax, and can the answer which relates only to a minor portion of the money raised as Income Tax be said to be an answer to a question which relates to the whole Income Tax?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEIncome Tax naturally represents the whole of the money. If the hon. Baronet desired particular information with regard to Schedule D he would have got exactly the same answer as I have given in reply to the general question of Income Tax. There was no alteration in any way of the usual practice of sending out Income Tax demands at the usual time.
§ Mr. HAYES FISHERasked whether it is now the practice of the collectors of Income Tax to issue their notices and demands and to secure payment of the Income Tax at precisely the same time alike in England and Scotland; whether English payers of Income Tax were much more favourably treated in this respect than Scotch payers prior to 1903; and whether such similarity and simultaneity as now prevail are entirely due to the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the Treasury, and of the Inland Revenue Department in instructing the collectors of Income Tax in England to expedite their collection of that tax?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSESo far as possible the issue of notices, etc., by collectors of taxes is made at the same time in England and Scotland; but inasmuch as such issue is dependent on the delivery of their books, etc., to the collectors by the various bodies of District Commissioners, it is impossible to ensure simultaneous delivery in every division. There has been no alteration in the procedure in either England or Scotland since 1903; and no greater similarity or simultaneity now prevails than in former years.
§ Sir F. BANBURYWill the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI have answered it by saying that there has been no alteration in the procedure in England or Scotland since 1903. In 1903 the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was a private Member of this House.
§ Sir F. BANBURYAm I to understand that the similarity and simultaneity that now prevail are due to the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Treasury, and the Inland Revenue Department?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI cannot answer for the action of the Government of 1903. The hon. Baronet had better consult the Member for East Worcestershire.