§ (i) So much of sub-section (2) of section eighty-eight of the principal Act as provides for the payment of a part of the proceeds of the duties on licences for motor cars in England and Wales into the Exchequer, and for the payment out of the Consolidated Fund to the council of a county or borough of any deficiency in the proceeds of those duties, shall extend to the proceeds of the duties on all carriage licences (whether licences for motor cars or not), and that provision shall be construed accordingly.
§ (2) Notwithstanding anything in section seventeen of the Finance Act, 1907, or in sub-section (1) of section eighty-eight of the principal Act, the sum to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund into the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account in pursuance of sub-section (2) of section seventeen of the Finance Act, 1907, in respect of the proceeds of the duties on carriage licences, shall be the amount of the proceeds of those duties during the year ending the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and nine.
§ (3) Section ninety of the principal Act (which relates to the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of a sum equal to the net proceeds of the duties on motor spirit and motor car licences as the road improvement grant) shall be construed as if a reference to the duties on carriage licences were substituted in that section for the references to the duties on licences for motor cars which were affected by that Act and to the duties payable on licences for motor cars.
§ (4) In this section, the expression "duties on carriage licences" means the duties on all licences for carriages, including any duty charged under sub-section (1) of Section eight of the Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896, and any duty charged under section eighty-six of the principal Act in respect of motor-cars.
§ Mr. HICKS BEACHI beg to move to leave out Sub-section (1).
I have put this Amendment down in order to get a definition of what the Clause 842 means. As I understand it, under the Act of 1910, the local authorities were given power to collect the duties on licences for motor-cars, and any sum collected by them in excess of the amount realised in 1909 was to be handed over to the Treasury in future years. I understand that the same principle is being adopted now. There is an idea that the number of carriages will be reduced in proportion as the use of motor-cars increases. Under the Act of 1910 the local authority was given £40,000 a year towards the expense of collecting the duties on motor-car and carriage licences. That sum was intended to be sufficient for collecting these duties, but as a matter of fact it has cost the local authorities more than £40,000, and although they are collecting an increased revenue from the motor-car duties the profit is not going to them but to the Treasury. I think it is only fair when the local authorities are spending their own money that the Treasury ought to give them a larger grant than the £40,000 which was supposed to cover the expense of collecting the duties. I ask whether, on the Report stage, the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to put down some Amendment on behalf of the Government which would give the local authority a larger sum, or else give them the actual cost of the collection of the duties, the product of which goes to swell the pockets of the Treasury. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give me a satisfactory assurance on that point, and, perhaps, he will inform me whether the interpretation I have put upon the Clause is a right one.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe interpretation which the hon. Member has put upon this Clause is quite accurate. Up to the year 1889 county councils received the amount realisable by the licences upon cars and carriages, and on the 1st January, 1909, they began to collect these duties themselves. Under the Finance Act of 1909–10 the duties upon motor-cars were raised very considerably, and the increased part of the duties so raised was paid to the Road Board. This situation arises. The county councils still get the yield in connection with the motor-car 843 licences up to a certain point, but inasmuch carriages have decreased in popularity as motor-cars have increased, there has been a certain transfer of licences from the side of carriages to the side of motor-cars. If the carriage licences had increased as formerly the whole of it would have gone to the county council. As the increase of yield in motor-car licences was limited, the county councils got no advantage from the increased number of licences taken out by motor-car owners, and they were losing a certain amount of revenue in the case of diminution in the number of carriage licences. We desire to remedy the loss which is being entailed on the county council by the decrease in the number of carriage licences taken out. With regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend opposite, he said that there was an increase in the cost of collection on the part of county councils which entailed upon them a greater burden than that for which they received compensation. I had a Very interesting communication sent to me the other day from the Wiltshire County Council showing that a considerable amount of revenue actually accrued to that county owing to the amount of compensation paid and the small cost of the collection of these licences. Whatever may be the case in some counties there is another side of the picture which is to the advantage of the county councils. Section 2 applies the same treatment to Scotland as is applied by Section 1 to England, the only difference being that in Scotland the collection is made through the agencies of the Post Office and the Customs and Excise Offices. There being no carriage licences in Ireland, the Motor Car Duties there collected go straight to the Exchequer, also through the same agency. There is, therefore, no need to have a section applying it to Ireland. I trust the explanation I have given is clear and satisfactory to the Committee.
§ Mr. PRETYMANDo I understand that the amount which is stereotyped is the lump sum and not the amount per head?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEOh, no.
§ Mr. PRETYMANThat is where the unfairness comes in. The duty of collecting these licences has been handed over to the county councils, and they have done the work extremely well and have taken immense trouble about it. Acting as they thought for themselves and in the hope of increasing the local revenue, they have 844 created the machinery, and, to the knowledge of every Member of this House, they have exercised great vigilance and activity in obtaining the full sum payable. The local authority, through its local knowledge, can more easily do this than a central authority. Having encouraged them to set the machinery in motion in the hope that they were going to benefit the revenue of the localities for which they were responsible, the Treasury now turn round upon them and say, "We will stereotype the figure which you have actually raised in a single year—1908–9—and we will give you no hope of any future profits." It is like throwing a bone to a dog. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] It is no better. The Treasury say, "We will just give you the actual loss through the reduction in the carriage licences." That is what the Clause does and nothing else. It is giving them an actual loss. Supposing the county council were under the old system, before the Budget was passed, obtaining duties on, say, 1,000 carriages and 500 motor-cars. Two things happen. First of all, the duty on the motor-cars is raised in amount, and, secondly, the carriage licences are rapidly being reduced and the motor licences are rapidly increasing. You would have some case for saying the counties shall take the whole of the old Licence Duty on the increased number of motor-cars; but that is not what you do.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe hon. Member must have reference to the Section of the Principal Act. The amount to be paid in respect of motor licences was stereotyped in that Section as the amount of the proceeds of the licences during 1909, and we now put the carriage licences on exactly the same footing as the motor licences.
§ Mr. PRETYMANUnder Section 88 of the Principal Act the whole of the licences which they collected for motors was to go to them?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSENo; the whole of the carriage licences, but not the whole of the motor licences. There was a falling off in the case of the carriage licences. We tried to put a stop to that and to place local authorities in exactly the same position as they were in in 1908–9, and to put them in exactly the same position as they were in in 1909–10 in respect of motor-cars.
§ Mr. PRETYMANThat was where the injustice was done. This is an amendment of the Principal Act. Before that Act was passed, the whole of the licences collected by the local authorities went to them. 845 When the Act of 1909–10 was passed you stereotyped a certain amount of the motor licences. That in itself is an injustice. Now the county councils are to have all the trouble of collecting the whole of the licences, both for motors and carriages, and they will only receive a fixed sum in return. However the motors in any district may increase, they will receive nothing more than the stereotyped sum fixed by this Clause. The local authorities greatly object to that. I have received communications from the borough of Chelmsford, for instance, in which they give the actual figures they have received and the expenses they have incurred, showing a somewhat serious loss under this Act. Surely, if you appoint an agent to collect your revenue, it is a mere ordinary business principle that his remuneration should bear some proportion to the revenue he succeeds in collecting. I should have thought it would have been in the interests of the Treasury, and would have been a far sounder and fairer principle to have allowed the local authorities some proportion of the licences they collect, especially in the case of motors. I admit Section 1 of Clause 12 is a concession to the local authorities, and I accept it as such, but I protest against a thing being called a concession which is merely a repayment of some loss which was never contemplated when the original legislation was proposed. That is really not a concession; it is merely ordinary justice. If the local authorities had been told at the time the provision was originally made that they were being assigned a falling revenue, the provision would clearly have had to take some other form. It was not contemplated the revenue would be falling, and in this case the revenue is not falling; it is a growing revenue.
Contrast the treatment here with the treatment under the last provision we have been discussing. We were then discussing a falling revenue. When there is a falling revenue the Government share with the local authorities, but, when they come to deal with a rising revenue, then the local authorities are to receive a stereotyped amount and have no share in it. The Treasury deal with local authorities in a very niggardly spirit, and the inequitable character of the burdens borne by the local authorities is generally recognised. This House is constantly forcing increased expenditure upon the local authorities, and the provision the Treasury make to meet that increasing expenditure 846 is grossly insufficient. I hope the Government will further consider this matter and see whether they cannot, on Report, agree to some suggestion by which the local authorities might obtain a share in an increasing revenue they themselves have to collect.
§ Sir RANDOLF BAKERI rise to say a few words in support of the proposal of my hon. Friend in regard to the collection of these Licence Duties. I think it is an increasing burden on the county councils, because, hitherto, they have had to collect on a fixed basis. They are now collecting on a different basis and one which is more expensive. The right hon. Gentleman said he had had a communication from the county of Wiltshire to the effect that they had got additional money as their share of the £4,000 grant in this matter. I have here the figures prepared by the County Councils Association showing the results of the collection for the last year, and I find that only two out of the whole of the counties of England have made any profit upon it. The counties of Wiltshire and Flintshire have done so, but in every other county there has been a loss, and in the case of Somersetshire the cost of collection has involved a loss of something like £1,200. Yet the right hon. Gentleman has referred only to the counties which have made a profit.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI said I was only instancing the case of a county which came to my notice three days ago.
§ Sir R. BAKERThe right hon. Gentle-man rather led the House to infer that it was the general state of affairs, whereas we know that in nearly every county the collection has been carried on at a heavy loss. If the right hon. Gentleman will only look at the figures he will see that there is a real case made out for a share in this increased grant. There is also the question of the collection on the basis of horse power. That, I suggest, has also proved to be much more expensive. He told us there was no need to do anything with regard to Ireland in this matter. I did not quite gather the exact reason for that, but I understand that he based it on the ground that the English county councils got 2½ per cent. on the total collection, whereas Ireland is getting double that.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThere are no carriage licence duties there.
§ Sir R. BAKERAt any rate I think if the right hon. Gentleman will study these figures he will see that a good case is made out for giving an increased grant to the county councils in this matter in order to remedy a proved injustice.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTI hope that, in fairness to the county council, the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to make some concession, and, therefore, may I throw out some suggestion as to an equitable basis on which such an allowance might be made, and that is that the allowance for collection made to the local authorities should be based on a proportion of the amount collected.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEOn a point of Order. This sum of money to which reference has been made is entirely outside the operation of this Clause, and I submit that we are not entitled to discuss it.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTBut the right hon. Gentleman has already argued the point, and he himself cited the ease of Wiltshire.
The CHAIRMANThe right hon. Gentleman, when he cited that case, specifically stated that he was not sure whether or not the point arose. In regard to the main point I do not think we can discuss details. I do not see my way to rule it entirely out of order, as it does affect the bargain which has been made, and which is one of the considerations to be taken into account.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTI think an equitable way of meeting the existing injustice will be for the Treasury to allow the local authorities some definite proportion of the amount collected by them. I should like to know if the right hon. Gentleman has any objection to such a scheme. I would further draw his attention to the case of a county which is a purely agricultural county in which there are comparatively few rich men with motor-cars. There are, on its borders, large cities and towns, and the tendency is for persons living in the county to take out their licences for motor-cars when they go into those towns for business purposes, and, consequently, these duties are largely lost to the county, and are not taken into account in reckoning the amount contributed by the county. It may happen that in Wiltshire the amount received for collection is rather more than the amount actually expended. I should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman whether he 848 has any objection to putting the matter on a perfectly equitable basis, and to making the grants for this purpose proportionate to the amount collected.
§ Mr. HARRY LAWSONMay I point out that London suffers peculiarly under this Clause. There is not the least doubt that the cost of collection in London has been always large, and will be larger than ever. There is a loss of £8,000 on the collection, and all of that has to be paid out of the rates. It is quite obvious that we are deprived of the natural expansion of revenue on motor-cars which ought to, but does not, go to the relief of the ratepayers. I hope I may again press the right hon. Gentleman to remember that the case of London is peculiarly hard, and that under these circumstances the claims of London will be heard before this unsatisfactory Committee.
§ Dr. HILLIERI think the real objection to this Amendment is that, while it professes to redress grievances on the part of the county councils, it does not really meet the requirements due to the changed conditions of the times. We have the fact that the county councils in very many instances have to meet heavy increased charges in connection with the collection of these licence duties, and that those heavy expenses are likely to increase, while the county councils will derive no advantage from the addition to the revenue. May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the Government should bear its share of the increased charges for the wear and tear of the roads, the upkeep of which is a charge on the ratepayers. This Clause, in common with its predecessors, strikes one more blow at the ratepayers of this country. If the right hon. Gentleman is impervious to all appeals to protect the ratepayers from these inroads, I trust at least the ratepayers of the country themselves will take notice of what the Government are doing in this matter. We find the screw continually put on, although endeavours are made to conceal the actual exercise of that operation in various ways. Nevertheless all these Clauses 10, 11 and 12 do strike blow after blow at the ratepayers of this country. This section is in that respect in accordance with Sections 10 and 11, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will meet us in regard to it.
§ Mr. WALTER LONGI want before we part from this section to say a few words without taking any advantage of the 849 ruling you, Sir, gave, for which I respectfully wish to thank you, and which was to the effect that in these Debates we cannot be confined to the very narrowest possible issue. I would remind the Committee that, in regard to the whole question of local taxation, which involves the expenditure of many millions every year, the only opportunity for consideration by this House is in the Debate which ensues upon the Revenue Bill. When the arrangement was made in 1888 which for the first time set apart certain sources of Imperial revenue for local purposes, it was always intended that we should have presented a local taxation Budget similar to the Imperial Budget, and that upon that there should be given an opportunity for the consideration of this question, both with regard to local and national expenditure and the contributions thereto and their increase and decrease, but these opportunities never have been given, and this is the only opportunity we have of discussing the questions raised directly and incidentally by the Amendment of my hon. Friend below the Gangway. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) carried the Debate a little further, and the right hon. Gentleman suggested that he was carrying it further than ought to be allowed on the Amendment. I am not disputing about that question, but this Amendment is undoubtedly a definite way in which we can discuss this question, however briefly, and nobody can complain that the Debate has been unduly prolonged. What does my hon. Friend suggest? He asks that the Government should consider the present burdens of the local authority. This is not a question which divides the House in its ordinary party complexion, nor is it a question which affects landowners and landlords more than other people. In fact, if it was not for the existence of the composite householder, this question would affect the individual in this country far more closely than any other question, and the grievance would be far greater if it were not for the compound householder.
At all events, what is it that my hon. Friend says? He says the cost of collection has not decreased, but, on the contrary, it has increased. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said, in 1888, you gave the carriage licences to the local authority, but you did not realise then that carriages would be replaced by motor cars, and since then we have imposed a tax on motor cars, but the right hon. Gentleman loses sight 850 of this point, that when we transferred these revenues in 1888, we not only realised that the cost might increase, but we believed that this revenue would largely grow in value. We believe that with the general increase in prosperity of the country there would be a more general use of carriages of all kinds, and that this revenue would increase. What is it that has prevented this increase? Not the non-increase of vehicles, but the introduction of motor cars. The motor car was liable under an Act of Parliament to special forms of licences covered by regulation for which the Local Government Board is responsible, and subsequently the Government made it a matter for taxation of their own. They transferred a portion of that revenue in order to make up the carriage licence, but they ignored the fact that the whole of the cost of collection is left upon the local authorities, while the revenue is sterilised, and while they are bearing an increased cost of collection, they are not getting the benefit of increase in returns. I regret to have to discuss this point on a Clause which does not directly raise the question, but there is no other way in which we can bring to the attention of the Government and the Committee a question of this kind which goes to the root of the distribution of national and local sources of revenue to the purposes of the State and the localities. I am not going to refer to the inquiry which the Government propose holding, though that is one of the subjects which ought to be very closely inquired into by the Committee, but I hope I may be allowed to say that it came upon me as a revelation that this inquiry was to be conducted by a Departmental Committee. I hope the Government will give us another opportunity of discussing this question, but as far as I am concerned it is a revelation to me that a question of this magnitude, involving such wide issues, should be inquired into in the very limited form suggested.
§ Mr. LONGI apologise. It is extremely difficult, and I am afraid I was trespassing upon your ruling. I was saying that this is the only opportunity upon which we can raise this question of the charges upon the local authorities and the revenues which they enjoy, and that must be a full justification for the Debate which we have had. I do most earnestly hope that this 851 question of the incidences upon the local authorities of the burden of the collection and the return in revenue which they get as the result will be most carefully thought out by the Government before they make any new proposals, because I do assure the Committee that it does constitute a great injustice of a kind which ought not to be met by the tu quoque argument that we did the same thing in regard to taxation so many years ago. This is an important question, and at the present moment the revenue, having regard to the expenditure, is wholly inadequate.
§ Mr. BUTCHERMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. Here is an injustice which is not denied by him, and there is no reason why he should not re-commit the Bill in order to remedy this injustice. Such a course would not destroy the whole financial business of the year, and it seems to me that, having regard to the facts which have been proved that that should be done. The local authorities have not been treated very well. The Land Taxes have been taken from them.
§ Mr. BUTCHERI was only asking if the right hon. Gentleman would recommit the Bill in order to give the local authorities this money, which I think they are entitled to, for the cost of collection. I should like an answer to that.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEWe cannot possibly recommit the Bill at this stage of the proceedings, and I am only sorry the concession I thought we were making to the local authorities has not been received with a better grace.
§ Mr. LONGThe right hon. Gentleman will not get his Bill on quicker by throwing charges of that kind about. The discussion has been a very practical one. My hon. Friend has secured, to a very large extent, one of his objects by the discussion we have had, and I recognise that the sub-section is intended to be a concession. It only goes a short way on the road but under the circumstances I will advise my hon. Friend not to put the House to the trouble of a division.
§ Mr. HICKS BEACHI ask leave to withdraw, as I have the explanation, and I only express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give attention to the figures presented by the County Council 852 Association, showing what the actual cost is in other counties besides Wiltshire.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. HICKS BEACHI beg to move to omit Sub-section 3 in order to ask for an explanation as to its object.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe intention of this sub-section is to apply so much of the motor car licence as is not wanted for the purposes of the Road Board as a subvention to local authorities.
§ Mr. HICKS BEACHIs that an alteration of the Act of 1910? As I understand that Act, the surplus revenue from motor car licences went to road improvements. Does the right hon. Gentleman tell me now that the surplus is not going to the Road Improvement Board?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSENo; it only applies the same treatment in the case of the motor car licences as in the case of the motor and spirit duties.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Lord ALEXANDER THYNNEI beg to move in Sub-section (4), after the word "carriages" ["on all business for carriages"] to insert the words, "other than Hackney carriages."
The CHAIRMANI am not at all clear in my own mind as to whether this means an increased charge or not.
§ Lord ALEXANDER THYNNEI think any increase of charge under my Amendment would be highly hypothetical, so much so as not to be worthy of serious consideration.
The CHAIRMANA hypothetical or even a possible increase of charge is an increase of charge under our rules.
§ 4.0 P. M.
§ Lord ALEXANDER THYNNEI do not think this will involve any increased charge on the Consolidated Fund, because it really refers to a readjustment as between the municipalities of the country and the rural areas. If the Amendment is passed, as I understand the position, the extra charge for the Road Development Board would be met by a similar contribution towards the purposes of the rural authorities. The object of the Amendment is really to prevent these Clauses from neutralising the object which the Bill has in view. As I understand the right hon. Gentleman his object was to remedy a certain injustice in which local authorities would suffer owing to the in- 853 crease in motor vehicles and the decrease in horse vehicles. If the sub-section is left in its present form the Bill will be taking away with one hand what it is giving with the other and neutralising the object it has in view. At the present moment the municipalities of the country are enjoying a growing revenue from the licence duties paid in regard to motor hackney carriages. Those motor hackney carriages were specifically excluded from the Finance Bill of 1909. No increased duty was levied upon them, and it was never contemplated that they should be brought into this particular account. In fact, I might say that this particular Clause, if it is left in its present form, will run contrary to the original intention of the Act of 1909, because in that Act the object was to divide for the purposes of the Local Government Board the new duty, and the only reason the standard year 1908–9 was taken was owing to the mechanical difficulty of separating the new duty from the increment of the old duty. Owing to that mechanical difficulty the munipalities of the country have lost the benefit of the normal increment of the old duty which it was at one time contemplated they should receive. At the time the 1909 Act was passed I understand this question was very carefully considered, and it was decided to leave the duties derived from the hackney carriages to the local authorities. Under the intention of the 1909 Act, as the duties on hackney carriages were not increased, no part of their licence could be devoted to the purposes of the Road Development Board. I hope, as this is merely a drafting Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept it. An additional consideration is that we have, so far, received no definite figures with regard to the standard of 1908–9. We are suffering a good deal of inconvenience owing to the inability of the Treasury to state precisely what that standard of 1909 was and to furnish the municipalities of the country with officially ascertained figures on that point.
§ The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott)I do not know whether the Solicitor-General can assist me on the point of Order, whether this is an increase or not.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir John Simon)I submit that it must be an increase for this reason. I understand the Noble Lord to be proposing the Amendment with the object of relieving in some degree the local authorities from that 854 which they might have to pay if the Clause remains as it stands. So far that is clear. If he is going to relieve the local authorities from some part of their contribution it will follow that the deficiency has to be made up ultimately out of the Consolidated Fund. It is quite true that in the first instance it goes to the Road Board Fund, but the deficiency has ultimately to be met out of the Consolidated Fund, and I should submit, that being so, that this proposal is in point of fact out of order.
§ The CHAIRMANThe question I want to put to the Solicitor-General is this, in order that I may get my mind as clear as possible on this extremely complicated question. The increment now on these hackney carriages goes to the road authorities. How is it a public charge if the Noble Lord's Amendment is made?
§ Sir JOHN SIMONI am not quite sure that I follow what is meant by saying the increment of hackney carriages goes to the local authorities. What the Act of Parliament did, and what this Bill does, is to set up a standard by reference to the year 1908–9, and it is the excess over the year 1908–9 which passes to the Exchequer. The question whether or not that excess will be more or less if you substitute the Noble Lord's standard for the standard of the Bill is a question which no one can answer with assurance, more particularly as I understand from the Noble Lord that no one knows exactly how the existing standard works out.
§ The CHAIRMANI think after hearing the Solicitor-General that what the Noble Lord is trying to do is to make an alteration in the Bill in regard to what is a public charge. In that case I must rule the Amendment out of order.
§ Mr. COURTHOPESurely this cannot be a public charge. The duties on motorcars and hackney carriages were excluded from the arrangement made with the Government, which took to itself the increases in the liquor licences. Therefore the local authorities should receive the benefit of any increment of the duties on motor-cars and hackney carriages due to the increase in their number. Under this Clause, as at present worded, there will be a stereotype placed on the proceeds of the Licence Duties from motors and hackney carriages. I think that was not the intention of the Government. I did not understand from the speech of the Solicitor-General that the Amendment which my Noble Friend has moved proposes to 855 stereotype the licences on motors and hackney carriages. I cannot see that any public charge can possibly be imposed.
§ Mr. BUTCHERI understand that the object of my Noble Friend's Amendment is to keep things in statu quo. The Bill proposes to divert these proceeds from the local authorities and hand them over to the Exchequer. If that be the true view, it is perfectly in order for my Noble Friend to oppose the Government's proposal.
§ Sir JOHN SIMONThe matter is necessarily complicated, but it may be brought to a plain point. The local authorities under this Bill are asked to hand over the excess of certain duties as compared with the proceeds of these duties in a previous year. The excess may be so many pounds, and the Noble Lord wishes not to compare the total of the Carriage Duties of the year with that of the standard year, but to compare part of the total duties now with part of the total for the standard year. Whether that will result in more or less money coming to the Treasury is a thing which cannot be determined with certainty until one knows the relation of the parts to the whole. The result may be to bring a less sum to the Treasury. Therefore I say that the Amendment is out of order.
§ The CHAIRMANI do not think it is out of order now that I have considered the point. The matter is very complicated, but according to the Solicitor-General's explanation it appears to be merely a proposal to diminish a contribution from the local authority, and therefore the Committee is dealing with a sum before it comes into the Exchequer. That being the case I cannot rule the Amendment out of order.
§ Mr. POLLOCKI support the Amendment, which proposes to retain the status quo. From the lucid explanation given by the Solicitor-General this Clause is hardly so clear as I have no doubt the Government desire it to be. The point raised by the Amendment is that the status quo should be maintained, leaving open the question whether the duties on these carriages are included or not. The Noble Lord's Amendment makes this point simple and clear. I think it is important that these words should be introduced, and therefore I support the Amendment.
§ Sir JOHN SIMONOn the merits of the proposal I am sorry it does not seem to us possible to accept the suggestion that has 856 been made, and, with great respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, it is not a question whether the Treasury is going to take the excess of a particular kind of licence or not. It is a question of what is the standard sum, the total sum, by reference to which you are to determine what is the contribution that has got to be made. Under the Finance Act of 1909–10 the standard taken was duties on motor cars. Suppose that in the year 1908–9, which was the standard year, the duties on motor cars in a certain area had been £10,000, and suppose that in that same area in the next year the duties on motor ears were £12,000, then there would be an excess of £2,000, and that £2,000 would be handed over. That arrangement was perfectly satisfactory in itself, but it was open to this practical objection, that when you come to ask what was the total sum produced by the taxes on motor cars in a given year, 1908–9, it was extremely difficult to find out. And it was difficult to find out, because a motor car is only one variety of carriage for the purposes of Carriage Duty, and though it might fee possible to separate them up, now we are referring, for standard purposes, to a year before the Finance Act of 1909–10 was passed, and it is extremely difficult, as a practical matter, to find out exactly how much was produced by motor cars and how much was produced by other forms of vehicles, all of which were classed as carriages.
That difficulty is very justly illustrated by what the Noble Lord said when he observed upon the great difficulty of finding out the figures for 1908–9. What the Revenue Bill proposes to do is to substitute a standard which at any rate can be applied. Of course we are still going to-compare like with like. Under the Finance Act of 1909–10 we were comparing the produce of motor-car licences then with their produce now. We find that that is impracticable, because we cannot get the figures. Therefore this Bill proposes to substitute the comparison of the produce of carriage licences then with the produce of carriage licences now, which is a perfectly easy thing to ascertain as a figure. This, as has been pointed out, is no disadvantage from the point of view of some counties, which would otherwise lose the whole benefit when a gentleman gives up a carriage and takes a motor car. What the Noble Lord proposes to do is to say, "we will not apply the standard of the total carriage licences then and compare them with the total carriage 857 licences now." He wants to cut a bit out of the total carriage licences. He wants to cut out hackney carriages. This would reproduce the very difficulty, as the hackney carriage may be drawn by a horse or may be a motor. The four-wheel cab and the hansom cab are hackney carriages, and they pay, I think, 15s., the same amount that is paid for a gentleman's dogcart. It may be just as difficult to segregate these figures as it has been found difficult now; therefore, it is necessary that we should adopt a standard—subject to the observation made by the right hon Gentleman opposite that these things would have to be looked into in order that an adjustment of local and Imperial taxes may be made—which can be applied.
§ Mr. W. R. PEELWho gains by the arrangement, then?
§ Sir JOHN SIMONThe Noble Lord told us that it is a drafting Amendment, and, it that be so, obviously nobody will gain except the lawyers who have to interpret the Act of Parliament. If it is something more than a drafting Amendment, then putting it in its most favourabe aspect, it would mean a gain for some parts of the country as against other parts. With the large number of taxi-cabs employed in London, it would mean that, to some extent, London would gain at the expense of other districts. If you are going to set up a standard it must be one of a practical kind, and I think that if the Noble Lord will look into the matter, he will see that there is a practical difficulty in the way of applying the exception which he proposes, and we cannot, therefore, accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. LONGI confess I am in the position of some other Members in finding it absolutely impossible to know what the process of working of the Government proposal will be, but, if it were further complicated by the Amendment of my Noble Friend, then the difficulty would be increased greatly. When the Noble Lord assures the Committee that it is only a drafting Amendment, while the Solicitor-General shows that London might be benefited to the injury of some other part of the country, the question becomes very difficult, and I am not clear that the Amendment might not make matters worse than they are already.
§ Mr. HARRY LAWSONOne thing seems to emerge from the discussion of this enigmatic Amendment, and that is 858 that London loses considerably. I am informed that the London County Council estimated it at about £3,000 per year. I only want to note that this is another point in favour of London, and against the financial arrangement proposed by the Government from the London point of view. I do not know whether that is going to be remedied by the Committee. In London, where the horse carriages are diminishing and the taxi-cabs are increasing we are likely to suffer a serious loss of revenue owing to the course the Government now propose to take.
§ Mr. BUTCHEROf course, we are anxious to vote right on this Amendment, and to enable us to do so can the right hon. Gentleman tell us is the taxation from the motor and other hackney carriages increasing or not, or, in other words, are the proceeds from that source larger to-day than they were, let us say, two years ago?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI am afraid I cannot inform the hon. and learned Gentleman for the reason that the county councils do not make returns to the Local Government Board until some time after they themselves receive the benefit of those licences. Until we get those returns we cannot say what the exact amount is. As the learned Solicitor-General has pointed out they do not distinguish hackney carriages from private carriages.
§ Mr. BUTCHERI quite know that, but I am sure the right hon. Gentleman seek the great difficulty to Members in having financial proposals on which we are asked to vote while we cannot get any information as to how they are going to work out.
§ The CHAIRMANI do not see how that question arises on the Amendment before the Committee. This is a definite proposal to amend and the hon. and learned Member should speak to it.
§ Mr. BUTCHERI will not pursue it further. I am asking merely for information. If the taxation from these hackney vehicles is necessary then the effect of the proposal of the Government would be to benefit the Exchequer at the expense of the local authorities, and if, on the other hand, the amount from that source is a diminishing quantity the effect of the proposal of the Government is to benefit the local authorities. I think it is common knowledge, although the right hon. Gentleman cannot give us the information that motor, hackney vehicles, are increasing ail over the country, and therefore it must be 859 certain that the proceeds of the taxation on those vehicles is increasing. If that be so, the effect of the Government proposal is to take something away from the local authorities and give it to the Exchequer. Feeling that is the effect of the Government proposal, I shall certainly vote for my Noble Friend's Amendment unless it is proved to me I am wrong in my supposition, because there is no reason shown why the local authorities should be deprived of a benefit they already have. I shall certainly vote for the maintenance of the status quo.
§ Lord ALEXANDER THYNNEI do not want the House to be under the impression that I want to benefit the Exchequer of the London County Council at the expense of the cathedral cities. If the Amendment is carried a certain amount of money will go into the exchequer of the London County Council which under ordinary circumstances by this proposal would
§ go to the Road Development Board, but the losers, if it is carried, are not the municipalities and other parts of England, but the Road Development Fund. The people who benefit are not merely those in London, but all the great municipalities which are interested in the licensing of hackney vehicles. There is no mechanical or administrative difficulty involved. I propose to differentiate not between hansom cabs and taxi-cabs, but simply between hackney vehicles, whether horse or motor, and ordinary private vehicles. The Solicitor-General has made a very valuable admission in stating that he cannot furnish any ascertained figures as to the standard year. An easy way of getting over that difficulty would be to substitute for the year 1909–10 the year 1908–9.
§ Question put, "That the proposed words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 109; Noes, 213.
861| Division No. 80.] | AYES. | [4.26 p.m. |
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Forster, Henry William | Perkins, Walter Frank |
| Archer-Shee, Major M. | Gardner, Ernest | Peto, Basil Edward |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Goldman, Charles Sydney | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Ashley, Wilfrid W. | Goldsmith, Frank | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Astor, Waldorf | Gretton, John | Quilter, William Eley C. |
| Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J. | Hall, Fred (Dulwich) | Rawilnson, John Frederick Peel |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Harris, Henry Percy | Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan |
| Balcarres, Lord | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Helmsley, Viscount | Rolleston, Sir John |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon) | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Baring, Capt. Hon. Guy Victor | Hill, Sir Clement L. | Rothschild, Lionel de |
| Barnston, H. | Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Hills, John Waller | Sanders, Robert Arthur |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Hoare, Samuel John Gurney | Sanderson, Lancelot |
| Bonn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells) |
| Boyten, James | Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath) | Spear, John Ward |
| Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell | Ingleby, Holcombe | Stanier, Beville |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Butcher, John George | Kerry, Earl of | Tobin, Alfred Aspinall |
| Cassel, Felix | Kimber, Sir Henry | Valentia, Viscount |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Kirkwood, John H. M. | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Cave, George | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Lowe, Sir F. W. (Edgbaston) | Weigall, Capt. A. G. |
| Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | MacCaw, W. J. M. | White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Malcolm, Ian | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Courthope, George Loyd | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Mount, William Arthur | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Neville, Reginald J. N. | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon) |
| Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Newman, John R. P. | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Newton, Harry Kottingham | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian | Nield, Herbert | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart |
| Croft, Henry Page | O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Orde-Powiett, Hon. W. G. A. | Yate, Colonel C. E. |
| Doughty, Sir George | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | Younger, George |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Paget, Aimeric Hugh | |
| Fisher, William Hayes | Peel, Capt R. F. (Woodbridge) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Lord A. Thynne and Mr. H. Lawsen. |
| Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. | Peel, Hon. W. R W. (Taunton) | |
| Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Baker, H. T. (Accrington) | Benn, W. (T. H'mts., St. George) |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Bentham, G. J |
| Alden, Percy | Barnes, George N. | Boland, John Plus |
| Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire) | Barran, Sir John N, (Hawick) | Booth, Frederick Handel |
| Alien, Charles Peter (Stroud) | Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.) | Brace, William |
| Anderson, Andrew Macbeth | Beale, W. P. | Brady, Patrick Joseph |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Beauchamp, Edward | Brunner, John F. L. |
| Bryce, John Annan | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan) | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel | Radford, George Heynes |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) | Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire) | Raffan, Peter wilson |
| Byles, William Pollard | Johnson, W. | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) |
| Cameron, Robert | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Carr-Gomm, H W. | Jowett, Frederick William | Reddy, Michael |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Joyce, Michael | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Keating, Matthew | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Kellaway, Frederick George | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | King, Joseph (Somerset, North) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Lambert, George (S. Moulton) | Roberts, George H. (Norwich) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Roberts, Sir J H. (Denbighs.) |
| Corbett, A. Cameron | Lansbury, George | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Lewis, John Herbert | Robinson, Sidney |
| Crawshay, Williams, Eliot | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| Crooks, William | Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) | Roche, John (Galway, E.) |
| Crumley, Patrick | Lundon, Thomas | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) | Lyell, Charles Henry | Rowlands, James |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Lynch, Arthur Alfred | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Dawes, J. A. | MacGhee, Richard | Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Maclean, Donald | Sheehy, David |
| Dickinson, W H. | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Shortt, Edward |
| Dillon, John | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook |
| Donelan, Captain A. | M'Callum, John M. | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Doris, William | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding) | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Sutherland, John E. |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Marks, George Croydon | Sutton, John E. |
| Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of | Meagher, Michael | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Elverston, Harold | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Tennant, Harold John |
| Esmonde, Dr John (Tipperary, N.) | Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) | Thomas, James Henry (Derby) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Molteno, Percy Alport | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Money, L. G Chiozza | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Mooney, John J. | Wadsworth, J. |
| Fenwick, Charles | Morgan, George Hay | Walters, John Tudor |
| Ferens, Thomas Robinson | Morrell, Philip | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Ffrcnch, Peter | Muldoon, John | Wardle, G. J. |
| Field, William | Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. | Waring, Waiter |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Neilson, Francis | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Gill, A. H. | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Glanville, Harold James | Nolan, Joseph | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Goldstone, Frank | Norman, Sir Henry | Watt, Henry A. |
| Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) | Norton, Captain Cecil W. | Webb, H. |
| Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Hackett, John | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Hall, Frederick (Normanton) | O'Dowd, John | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Hancock, John George | Ogden, Fred | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | O'Grady, James | Whyte, A. F |
| Harmsworth, R. Leicester | O'Malley, William | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Williams, John (Glamorgan) |
| Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | O'Shee, James John | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Palmer, Godfrey Mark | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Parker, James (Halifax) | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Henry, Sir Charles S. | Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow) |
| Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Young, William (Perth, E). |
| Higham, John Sharp | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Pointer, Joseph | |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Gulland and Mr. Dudley Ward. |
| Hudson, Walter | Price, Sir Robert J. |
Question put, and agreed to.