§ Mr. ROYDSasked whether the valuation of land is still proceeding on the basis that, for the purpose of arriving at site value, no deduction is made in respect of stone walls and dykes, but is made in respect of live fences?
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman)Subject to possible exceptions in cases where the stone walls or dykes are appurtenant to or used in connection with a building the answer to the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative.
§ Mr. ROYDSWill the hon. Gentleman say why properties of precisely the 1868 same value are for the purposes of the Finance Act being valued at entirely different amounts?
§ Mr. MASTERMANWe are only carrying out the law under Section 25, Sub-section (2), of the Budget, 1910.
§ Mr. PRETYMANasked whether, where the original site values are minus quantities, no 10 per cent, allowance is given; and, if so, can he state the ground on which owners of this class of property are thus penalised?
§ Mr. MASTERMANThe answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; as regards the second part, the amount of the allowance must of necessity vary indefinitely according to the circumstances of the case, and will be reduced to a negligible quantity where the original site value is very small; the position of an owner of such land is no more favourable than that of an owner of land having a minus site value, but it is not true that in either case the owner is penalised.
§ Mr. ROYDSDoes not the hon. Gentleman consider that, to value any considerable part of the land of the United Kingdom as a minus quantity is a farce?
§ Mr. MASTERMANNo. No land has been valued as a minus quantity. I am dealing with assessable site values. I am considering the question as to the necessity of registering minus values.
§ Mr. MASTERMANAssessable site value is the value of the site.
§ Mr. PRETYMANMay we assume that assessable site value is a purely imaginary figure?
§ Mr. MASTERMANNo; it is a figure arrived at by certain calculations, and from which certain other calculations being made have to be taken in order that the tax may be calculated.
§ Mr. PRETYMANasked whether, having regard to the referee's decision in the Palmer's Green case, he will give instructions that no further demands for duty shall be made where there has in fact been no rise in the value of the site?
§ Mr. MASTERMANThe question at issue in the Palmer's Green case is common to several other cases which are 1869 the subjects of appeal, and no doubt the legal point involved will have to be decided by the High Court. My right hon. Friend does not, therefore, propose to give such instructions as the hon. Member suggests.
§ Mr. PRETYMANWill the hon. Gentleman see that a statement is made upon the form to the effect that the matter is still sub judice.
§ Mr. MASTERMANI cannot answer that off-hand. I will see what can be done.
§ Mr. PRETYMANWill he bear in mind this case was held without any publicity and that the public have no chance of getting information unless it is given by the Government?
§ Mr. MASTERMANI shall bear that in mind.
§ Mr. PRETYMANasked whether, in view of the referee's decision in the Richmond case that the valuation was incorrect by nearly 20 per cent., and also having regard to the official evidence that this valuation was checked with additional care, he will issue instructions that all the valuations already made shall be revised?
§ Mr. MASTERMANMy right hon. Friend is unable to accept the hon. Member's suggestion.