§ Mr. CARLILEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would state what amount of Licence Duties in respect of licensed houses due in October, 1910, remains unpaid, and in respect of how many houses; and what steps are being taken to recover the amounts due?
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)I regret that I cannot give the information asked for in the first paragraph of the question. The question of the proper method of arriving at the annual value of licensed premises for the purpose of licence duty has been in dispute, and, pending the decision of the law courts on certain points, the Commissioners of Customs and Excise have in many cases allowed considerable latitude with regard to payment. The difficulty will, I hope, be finally met by the clause which, as has already been announced, I propose to include in the coming Revenue Bill. In cases where the amount of the duty is not in dispute the usual machinery of collection, including, where necessary, legal proceedings, has been employed.
§ Mr. CARLILEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will instruct the Department of Customs and Excise to duly determine, without further delay, appeals under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, in respect of the reduction of monopoly value payments paid in April, 1909, and April, 1910, in accordance with Section 47, Subsection 1, of the Act, seeing that two-years' payments are now under appeal, and that a third payment is due in April, 1911; and is he aware that an appeal entered on 17th September, 1910, has not yet been dealt with?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI do not think that any instructions of mine are necessary. The circumstances which have caused the delay are explained in the answer given to the hon. Member by my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the 37 Treasury on the 14th instant. I may explain that the object of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise has been to safeguard the interests of the licensees affected quite as much as those of the Exchequer.
§ Mr. CARLILEWill the right hon. Gentleman take official steps to do away with the present chaotic condition of the Department's work in reference to these matters?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI can assure the hon. Gentleman the Department is working very hard, and we are getting on with the work. Some more satisfactory basis will be arrived at shortly.
§ Mr. HORNERasked how many copies of the original Form IV. were printed for distribution in Ireland; how many of the 3,068 copies of that original Form which were issued were filled or partly filled and returned; whether a second and amended Form IV. has been prepared for circulation; and, if so, how many copies of it have been printed?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGENo Forms were printed for distribution in Ireland. Of the 3,068 copies of the original Form which have been issued on occasions arising for the assessment of Increment Value Duty, 1,278 have been returned filled or partly filled. I understand that 129 copies of the amended Form have now been issued.
Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now able to say if the rebate on the Petrol Tax will be given to all motor cars which are duly licensed as public vehicles, and which are now debarred from the privileges conferred by the Finance Act through the impossibility of having the said vehicles standing in a public place?
§ Mr LLOYD GEORGEUpon the general position as to the rebate of the Petrol Duty used for motor cars, I may refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to a question asked by him on the 7th March, 1910. As I understand the present question, it refers to motor cars which are duly licensed as public vehicles, and to the impossibility of having the cars standing in a public place. I do not quite realise how this dual position with regard to public vehicles can exist. If the cars are licensed by the local authority, and are subjected by that authority to restrictions as to the fares to be charged and otherwise, it would seem to be only reasonable that the authority should make such 38 arrangements as will render it possible for the cars to stand or ply for hire in public places within the area of the authority. Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me some definite information as to the motor cars to which he refers. I can then make inquiries, and will communicate with him.
§ Mr. ROYDSasked whether, under Subsection 2 of Section 20 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, the amount of rent paid by the working lessee in the last working year (on which the rental value is to be taken) includes rent or arrears of rent paid in such last working year, but attributable to a previous year or years, or only includes rent actually attributable to and payable in respect of the last working year?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEUnder the Subsection referred to, the rental value is taken to be the amount of rent paid by the working lessee in the last working year, and includes rent or arrears of rent paid in such year.
§ Mr. ROYDSasked whether the Commissioners of Inland Revenue claim Mineral Bights Duty under Section 20 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, in respect of minerals worked prior to 1st April, 1909, but the rental value of which minerals was paid after that date?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEYes, Sir. The basis of the charge for the year 1909–10 in respect of minerals which are leased is the amount of rent paid by the working lessees in the last working year—i.e., the year ended the 30th September, 1909.