HANSARD 1803–2005 → 1910s → 1913 → July 1913 → 9 July 1913 → Commons Sitting → BRITISH ARMY.
Land Valuation.
HC Deb 09 July 1913 vol 55 cc401-5 401
§ 34. Mr. GARDNER
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in making a demand for payment of Undeveloped Land Duty, attached thereto should be a statement clearly indicating the land in respect of which such demand is made, and the amount thereon charged with duty?
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)
So far as I am aware, demands for payment for Undeveloped Land Duty contain a clear reference to the notice of assessment, on which or accompanying which is a full description of the land and the amount of duty payable.
§ Mr. GARDNER
Would the right hon. Gentleman be surprised to know that the demands do not include this information?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
If the hon. Gentleman will kindly supply me with information I will inquire.
§ 36. Mr. WEIGALL
asked how many of the provisional valuations, amounting to 4,500,000, already served are for agricultural land; and to how many of these objections have been lodged by owners?
The information desired by the hon. Member is not available, and cannot be obtained except at an excessive cost of time and labour.
asked whether the value of tenant right has been included in the total site value of the provisional valuations already served; and whether valuers in future valuations have received any instructions as to inclusion or exclusion of tenant right values in view of the recent decision of the referee in the Norton Malreward case?
No specific sum has been included, either in the total value or the site value of provisional valuations of agricultural land for seeds sown, unexhausted manurial values or acts of husbandry performed in anticipation of an ensuing crop, in respect of which an outgoing tenant would be entitled to claim compensation. Pending an authoritative decision of the Courts, which will be obtained as soon as possible, the referee's decision, which governs only the case to which it is directed, does not call for the issue of fresh instructions.
§ Mr. WEIGALL
Is it desirable to proceed with these valuations until the right hon. Gentleman has succeeded in obtaining a decided opinion from the highest Court? Is it not almost fallacious to assume that that opinion will be in his favour?
I am not assuming anything of the kind. I am only following the usual practice when cases are sub judice.
If the decision of the highest Court is the same as that of the referee, will not the valuations now being carried out be invalid?
I cannot say that without investigation.
Will they not be invalid for the purposes of the State?
I cannot say that.
asked when the capital expenditure on the National Land Valuation will cease and the cost of the valuation department be deemed an income expenditure?
Capital expenditure on the National Land Valuation as now being undertaken should cease in the course of the financial year 1915–16. It is hoped that the cost of the valuation department will then approximate that to its permanent annual level.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the annual cost will be?
I certainly cannot, without notice.
§ 39. Mr. CHARLES BATHURST
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the inconvenience and uncertainty occasioned to all agricultural landowners by doubt as to the validity of the deduction of tenant right from the total value, and the inclusion of grass in assessments of the full site value of agricultural land pending the hearing by the High Court of the appeal of the Crown from the referee in the Norton Malreward case, he will take steps to accelerate the hearing of such appeal before the Courts rise for the long vacation?
I will endeavour to accelerate the hearing of this appeal as far as possible.
§ Mr. C. BATHURST
Does that mean the right hon. Gentleman will have application made on his behalf to the Court to have the case taken before the Long Vacation?
There is a good deal to be said for that.
That is the meaning of my question.
asked what security there is, seeing that no further payments can, under the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, be made by the Treasury into the Development Fund, and that it is proposed not to capitalise any part of the unexpended residue of the fund, that the 404 whole cost of upkeep of farm institutes and other like projects which are being embarked upon on the strength of the assurance that half the cost of their annual maintenance will be provided by Grants from the fund will not fall ultimately upon the ratepayers?
There is no security, in the sense in which the hon. Member apparently uses the term, for any of the charges ordinarily borne from Votes of Parliament being met in future years, as it is a principle of the national financial system that the expenditure of each year is met by Parliamentary provision in that year.
How is it possible for the Treasury to promise a Grant out of the Development Fund for the maintenance of farm institutes when in fact there is nothing further corning from the fund, and nothing further can come without further legislation?
There is a sum voted out of the Estimates every year, and that amount is fixed to meet the necessities of the year.
But was it not stated that the Grants for these institutes should be made out of the fund and not out of the Treasury?
There is nothing to prevent Parliament voting the money.
§ 41. Sir GEORGE YOUNGER
asked if the first periodical valuation of agricultural and other=undeveloped land will be made in the year 1914, although the original valuation will not then have been completed?
I hope to deal with this question in the Revenue Bill shortly to be introduced.
§ 42. Mr. FITZROY
asked whether an estimate could be given of the number of owners of land in the United Kingdom and the annual cost to them of the national land valuation apart from the annual cost of £680,000 to the State?
The answer is in the negative.
§ 43. Mr. ROYDS
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue originally served a provisional valuation in respect of grazing land situated in Killiney, county Dublin, belonging to 405 George Bower, placing the agricultural value at £720, and subsequently reduced this amount to £37 on the ground that a statutory fee farm grant subject to a rent and tithe rent-charge should be deducted; and whether he will state under what Section of the Finance Act the Commissioners claim to deduct the capital value of these fixed charges from the agricultural value?
The provisional valuation was reduced on its being found that there were certain fixed charges which the owner had not disclosed, although he was served with Form IV. As regards the second portion of the question, I beg to refer to the answer given to the hon. Member for Enfield on the 1st instant.
asked if the referee in the ease of Smyth v. the Commissioners of Inland Revenue reduced the site value of Norton Malreward farm from £8,909, as given in the official valuation, to £4,143, which latter sum includes the value attributable to stone walls, water supply, and agricultural drains; and whether the Revenue Bill will contain provisions requiring the exclusion from site value of all owners' and tenants' improvements?
The Commissioners amended estimate of assessable site value of the land was £7,534. Although the Referee in fixing the assessable site value at £4,143 included therein, as did the Commissioners in their valuation, the value attributable to the factors mentioned, he assumed the land to be divested of a road and of the grass, the values attributable to which were comprised in the official estimate. I am considering the point raised in the last part of the question.
§ 55. Mr. WILLIAM YOUNG
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Board of Inland Revenue is prepared to recognise fellows of the Faculty of Surveyors of Scotland on an equal footing for appointments in the Valuation Department with Fellows of the Surveyors' Institution (England); and, if not, is there any reason why this should not be done?
The Board of Inland Revenue have under their con-consideration the question raised by my hon. Friend.
Back to ARTILLERY (RECENT CHANGES).
Forward to Consols.