§ 39. Mr. LANE-FOXasked whether in the sum of £140,000, additional cost of the Land Valuation Department for the years 1910–11 and 1912–13, is included the cost of Ordnance maps; and, if not, what was the cost of them?
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman)The sum mentioned includes the cost of the special maps supplied for the use of the Land Valuation Department. It does not include the cost of the ordinary Ordnance maps, the preparation of which is part of the normal work of the Ordnance Survey Department.
§ Mr. LANE-FOXCan the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea of what the approximate cost of the particular work of the land valuation service will be?
§ Mr. MASTERMANI am afraid I cannot give it without notice. This is not particular work that can be attributed to the Valuation Department. It is the ordinary work of the Valuation Department.
§ Mr. LANE-FOXHas there not been extra work?
§ Mr. MASTERMANThere has been a certain amount of acceleration, but no extra work.
§ 41. Mr. STANIERasked whether, when agricultural land is being valued, the valuers do or do not include the value of the growing crops as on 30th April, 1909?
§ Mr. MASTERMANIt is not the practice to include in the value of agricultural land the value of growing crops which would enure to the benefit of the tenant if the land were let.
§ 44. Mr. CASSELasked whether the Inland Revenue Commissioners, in assessing Increment Value Duty, have hitherto allowed 10 per cent. of the original assessable site value under Section 3 (5) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, or 10 per cent. of the original full site value; whether the method adopted has been in accordance with the recent judgment in the House of Lords; and, if not, whether it is proposed to rectify the error?
§ 57. Mr. PRETYMANasked whether, in view of the interpretation of Section 3 (5) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, contained in the judgments of Lords Haldane and Moulton in the case of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Herberts and others, to the effect that the 10 per cent. allowance before charging Increment Value Duty is not 10 per cent of the original assessable site value, but 10 per cent. of some other value, it is the intention of the Commissioners to amend those claims for Increment Value Duty in which the 10 per cent. allowance has been made from the assessable site value?
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)The Commissioners have hitherto allowed 10 per cent. of the original assessable site value. The effect of the dicta, contained in the judgment upholding the Commissioners' contention as to minus site values on the interpretation of the Section quoted, is under consideration; but I am not yet in a position to state what course the Commissioners may be advised to take in the matter.
§ Mr. CASSELIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that it makes a very large difference in many cases if this principle is adopted, and that Increment Value Duty would not have to be paid?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEWe are taking the whole thing into consideration.
§ Sir GEORGE YOUNGERMay I ask whether it is a fact that in cases where there has been a minus valuation there must have been an overcharge, and, if so, will the money be refunded?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI do not accept the conclusion come to by the hon. Baronet. We are considering this question.
§ Mr. LANE-FOXIf there has been an overcharge, will the right hon. Gentleman see that it is repaid?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe hon. Gentleman is putting a hypothetical question to me.
80. Mr. FREDERICK HALL (Dulwich)asked what steps are taken to ensure the adoption of uniform procedure by the land valuers employed by the Government in different parts of the country; whether he can state the total number of appeals against valuations in the years 1911 and 2030 1912 and how many of these were successful; and what action is taken to keep the staff of the Land Valuation Department informed of legal decisions which upset methods of valuation previously adopted?
§ Mr. MASTERMANInstructions to secure uniformity of procedure are issued from time to time to all responsible valuers. With the same object the chief valuer holds periodical conferences with the superintending valuers; each superintending valuer holds similar conferences with his district valuers; and each district valuer holds similar conferences with the responsible valuers on his staff. Visits of inspection are also made to all district offices by the chief valuer, deputy-chief valuer, and superintending valuer. Appeals against provisional valuations were lodged in Great Britain up to 31st December, 1912, in 606 cases. Thirty-two cases were heard by Referees, twenty-one of these were won by the Commissioners, and in six others they were partially successful. In 224 cases the notices of appeal were withdrawn, and 350 cases remained to be dealt with. A copy of the Referee's decision on each appeal has been supplied to every district valuer.
Mr. F. HALLMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been drawn to the contradiction of the statement made recently with regard to the Land Union, and will he withdraw the statement made?
§ Mr. MASTERMANI have no idea in the least to what the hon. Gentleman refers.
Mr. F. HALLIt was in reply to a question on Monday last with regard to the union in which the right hon. Gentleman said that a report had been withdrawn.
§ Mr. MASTERMANIt has nothing whatever to do with the question.