53. Mr. DOYLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that he has decided to abolish the Land Value Duties, whether the Department dealing with them is still in existence, and if any steps have been taken to disband the 1889 staff or are positions to be found for them in other Departments; what is the total of such staff; what is the monthly outlay in salaries, offices, etc.; and when he expects the work of disbandment to be completed?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINI regret that the brevity which I felt it necessary to impose upon myself in the Budget Statement has caused a widespread misapprehension which I am anxious to remove.
It has apparently been supposed that the Government, whilst repealing the Land Values Duties, intended to retain the whole staff which had been engaged upon their assessment and collection.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEYou said so.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINNo, I did not. If my hon. Friend will permit me to read my answer, he will ascertain the facts. The facts are that the staff of the Department, which in August, 1914, numbered 4,882, was reduced in November, 1915, to 1,983, and at the present time has been further reduced to 1,292. Of this staff only a small portion, estimated to cost £6,500 out of a total cost of £468,000, is engaged in work connected with Land Values Duties. It will be disbanded as soon as circumstances permit, the date depending largely upon the extent to which taxpayers claim repayment.
Hon. Members will see that this is a very different state of things from the impression unfortunately left by my original statement. But I am not content to leave the matter there. Both the Board of Inland Revenue and I desire that the House should be satisfied that no staff is maintained in excess of that required for the discharge of the duties of the Office. I propose, therefore, to invite the Select Committee on National Expenditure to investigate the expenditure of the Department and if they consent full information both as to the duties of the Department and the staff employed will be laid before them.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEDoes the right hon. Gentleman wish the House to understand that the information he has now given is what he stated in his Budget speech?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINI wish my hon. Friend to understand that it is consistent 1890 with all that I said in my Budget speech, and is an amplification of it, and that he was incorrect in saying that my Budget statement contradicted what I was now stating.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEI suppose I am not allowed to make a personal explanation, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I did not say that what he was going to state would be inconsistent with what he said in his Budget speech, but what I said was that what he said in his Budget speech was not what he was now saying?
§ Mr. HOGGEI suppose nothing will be done till the tax is actually repealed by the Finance Bill?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINThe Department will reduce the staff just as fast as it can. It will not retain any staff redundant to the duties it has to perform.
§ Mr. HOGGEWhat I want to know is that nothing will be done until this House has agreed to the repeal of these duties?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINYes. In the meantime, a staff which has no duties to discharge will not be maintained in idleness until my hon. Friend has an opportunity of raising the question.
Mr. T. THOMSONWill anything in the reduction proposed affect the valuable assistance given by that Department to the Ministry of Health in acquiring land for housing purposes at a saving of £70 per acre and a total saving of over £1,000,000, to the public?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINNo. The hon. Member has another question on the Paper, to which he will get a full answer, I think, but nothing in my statement will affect the services which the Department is already rendering to other Government Departments or to local authorities.
§ Mr. BOTTOMLEYWill the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what work the other members of the staff, representing the difference between £400,000 and £6,000, were engaged upon?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINYes. I have had a statement prepared, a very lengthy one. I did not think a mere statement ex cathedrâ, if I may say so, by myself would carry conviction to the minds of a critical House and a less informed public 1891 outside, and therefore I am going to ask the assistance of the Select Committee on National Expenditure to give an impartial verdict on the matter.
§ Mr. BOTTOMLEYWhy have they kept on a staff if they are not working?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINBecause they have work to do, and that is what I propose to show to the National Expenditure Committee, and if they find that we have clerks for whom there is not work, and valuable work, then they will make a report to the House to that effect. I am quite ready to take their judgment.
66. Mr. THOMSONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the reduction of the duties of the Inland Revenue Valuation Department owing to the repeal of the Land Duties, 1909–10, and in view of the saving of over £1,000,000 to the public effected in the purchase of land by local authorities for housing purposes due to the assistance given to them by the Valuation Department, he can now see his way to extend this assistance to cover the purchase of land by local authorities for all public purposes?
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin)As stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech, it is the intention of the Government that the information obtained by the Valuation Department should be available, under proper limitations, for other public authorities, but the determination of the exact extent of the assistance which the Department can render had better await the inquiry by the Select Committee on National Expenditure into the duties and staff of the Department which my right hon. Friend has to-day invited.