§ Mr. HARMOOD-BANNERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government contemplate making provision to meet the additional expenditure which will be entailed by the local authorities in respect of the extra work which will be cast upon them in levying the increased taxes on motor cars?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI am not aware that additional expenditure will be entailed on local authorities, but in the event of such expenditure being incurred I shall be glad to consider the matter.
§ Mr. HARMOOD-BANNERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the fact that, out of a total revenue of £2,833 received by the Liverpool City Council from Motor Car Duties for the year ending 31st March, 1910, only £872 was in respect of purely Motor Car Duties, the remaining £1,951 being Carriage Duties payable on such motor cars, and to the fact that it is proposed to repeal the Carriage Tax hitherto paid on motor cars, the Government will give an assurance that, in calculating the amount to be paid to the county borough 599W councils under Clause 88 (1) of the Finance (1909–10) Bill, 1910, the revenue derived from both classes of duty, carriage and motor car, will be taken into account in order to obviate a loss to the ratepayers, representing in the case of the city of Liverpool a sum of £2,013 per annum?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe Bill does not repeal the Carriage Duty on motor vehicles, but substitutes for the ordinary Carriage Duty, and the existing additional duties in respect of certain motor vehicles, the duties specified in the Schedule. The amounts to be retained by local authorities under Section 88 will thus include the proceeds of the ordinary Carriage Duty in respect of motor vehicles for 1908–9 as well as of the additional duties. I have therefore no hesitation in giving the assurance which the hon. Member desires.