HC Deb 11 August 1913 vol 56 cc2053-4
35. Mr. FREDERICK HALL (Dulwich)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the valuation for the purposes of Increment Duty in respect of the land at Bromley belonging to a working bricklayer named J. Dorling is less than the amount paid by him including interest on the purchase-money, which was paid in instalments; if so, whether, in the event of sale for the amount which the property has cost him, Dorling would be called upon to pay duty on the difference; and whether in these cases, where the interests of persons of the working class are affected, he will consider the possibility of taking special steps to explain their position clearly to them, particularly as regards the question of substituted site value, with a view to their being adequately safeguarded without recourse to legal proceedings beyond their means?


The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, if I may understand the hon. Member to refer to the assessable site value of the land as provisionally fixed. The answer to the second part is in the negative, while as regards the third part, the course indicated is one which the Revenue authorities have taken in Mr. Dorling's case and have sought, as far as possible, to follow in general.


I would like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks the tactics that have been adopted with regard to this valuation are likely to encourage thrift amongst the working classes, and does he think that many of them will understand the enormous number of documents which have been sent them to fill up?


The hon. Member must form his own opinion, and answer his own question.