NEW CLAUSE—(Amendment of Rule No. 1 (General rule for estimating the annual value of lands, etc.) of Schedule A of 8 and 9 Geo. V, c, 40.) (Hansard, 7 July 1930)

§ Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause has been necessitated by recent legislation, and is only to make sure that the same system at present existing is carried out. I should like to point out how the necessity for it arose. If the Financial Secretary will look at the words of the proviso, he will see that they are taken straight from Section 4 of the Rating Act, 1874, and have always formed the basis of rating assessments. When the Rating and Apportionment Act, 1928, was brought in, that included land used for a plantation or a wood or for the growth of saleable underwood in the definition of agricultural land. By the same Act agricultural land is de-rated altogether. When the Local Government Act, 1929, was brought in, it was therefore repealed, and the Act provides that in subsequent valuation lists to that now in operation, no particulars shall appear with respect to agricultural land. It was not absolutely necessary for the Inland Revenue authorities to take the rating assessments, but, as a matter of fact, they always did and, those rating assessments having disappeared, the necessity arises, if you are going to carry on what has always been the practice, of having something for the Inland Revenue authorities to go by. If that basis of assessing woodland at its praries value is not to be kept in operation, the only alternative for the Inland Revenue authorities is to assess the land under Schedule A, which makes a very great difference. Under Schedule A it will be assessed at the full rental value 117 of the land and trees growing upon it, which is quite a revolution in the assessment of woodlands as carried out hitherto.
Having regard to the depletion of woodland areas in the War and to what was said quite recently in this House in debate on the serious shortage of woodland to which we have to look forward in this country, everyone wants to encourage the growing of timber. If this annual assessment is to be increased to Schedule A instead of leaving it at the prarie value, it will discourage owners and even the Forestry Commissioners themselves, who have to rent land and do not want to pay more than the woodland rent. Assessment on that value will not be conducive to landowners to undertake more planting. It is with that object that I propose this Clause either for incorporation in the Bill as appears here, or in order to get an undertaking that the latter will be looked into and the prarie value still be maintained.

§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
I am sorry not to be able to accept the view put forward by the hon. and gallant Member. We estimate property generally on its annual value, and, so long as we take all the property of the country on that same basis, we are dealing equitably with the different classes of interests involved. But the moment we single out one particular species of property for differential treatment, however deserving it may be or whatever grounds there may appear to be for that distinction, we are adopting a new line—

Brigadier-General BROWN
This kind of property has always been treated differently.

§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman quite correctly states the position. We have hitherto had a rating which has formed a value which could be used by the Income Tax authorities in arriving at their value, but they have not been bound by that value. They have, in fact, been bound by the rule for estimating the annual value for the purposes of Income Tax and I fear that if we departed from the rule in one case, we would be making a discrimination which could not be upheld. If we discriminate in favour of certain taxpayers, we are discriminating 118 against others. In the circumstances we cannot possibly accept the proposed new Clause.

§ Colonel LANE FOX
The object of this proposal is to secure that there will be no worse treatment of woodlands in this respect in the future, than there has been in the past. If the hon. Gentleman gives us an assurance that there is no intention of starting fresh or heavier taxation on woodlands, particularly on newly-planted woodlands, then our object will be achieved. I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises that any action taken by the Treasury, at this stage in the history of timber production in this country, would be very unfortunate if it had the effect of increasing the burden on this class of property, or starting a new system of taxation in relation to it which has not existed hitherto. I think the hon. Gentleman is not quite right in saying that there has been no differentiation in the past. I think he will find that there has been an inclination to treat woodlands lightly in this respect because of what has been so thoroughly recognised by previous Governments and by the authorities, namely, the desirability of not doing anything which would discourage the planting and maintenance of woodlands. All we want is an assurance that there is no intention on the part of the Government to discriminate against woodlands or to put on to them fresh burdens of taxation. If that were done, many people would not consider it worth while to start planting woodlands again and the effect would be disastrous. But I am sure that such is not the intention of the Treasury.

§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
There is no intention to make any drive for any additional sum of money. Of course, as the result of the change in the system of rating a greater burden of responsibility is put upon the commissioners to determine the value, but there is no intention as I say of starting a new drive or anything of that kind in order to increase assessments.

§ Sir B. PETO
I hope that the hon. Gentleman in considering this question will bear in mind the great risk which people run, in planting woodlands, in the event of a season such as was experienced last winter, when great quantities of half-grown timber were struck down 119 wholesale by gales, involving owners in enormous liability, even to get the ground cleared for replanting, so as to start the whole process over again. That condition ought to be taken into account in assessing the value of these woodlands. It is easy to calculate that, say in 70 years, a larch will be ripe for cutting down; but there is no certainty that in 30 years' time the whole of the larches in that woodland will not be swept away by a single gale.