§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI beg to move, in page 9, line 20, after the word "shall," to insert the words:
cause a fresh valuation to be made of every such part and shall.
§ This Amendment, which stands in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends, does not cover a very wide field, but it is one of very great importance to those people whom it affects. I do not think that it disturbs the valuation system very much, or over-weights it, or makes it unworkable, or is open to any of those objections about which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is concerned. I want, however, to make sure that where a land unit is sub-divided into parts, there should be a fresh valuation, and that the owners of the new sub-divided land units which are created should, if need be, have power to appeal against the valuation. It is not, as I say, a matter of great extent, but it is of considerable practical importance at the moment to the parties concerned.
§ I would like to take two practical instances which, in the knowledge of Ministers opposite, might occur any day. Take, first of all, a piece of ordinary agricultural land which is just coming into building. You may get there a land unit which covers a considerable number of acres of agricultural land. As soon as that gets developed, it is cut up into different lots. There will be, of course, side roads and new frontages upon the side roads, and the back roads. Everyone who is familiar with new districts which are coming into building is aware that the value of all these different frontages varies enormously. The value of corners where roads intersect is often very considerable. Those are the corners, where a town is spreading, which are reserved for bank premises or other buildings of more or less general communal interest. On the ordinary side roads there will be frontages, it may be, of houses, and these in their turn will be definitely more valuable than those on the back roads.
§ Therefore, it means that if a land unit of this kind is sub-divided, you get a large number of new units created, each 1224 one of which may differ very considerably in value from the other. They, in their turn, are either sold, or, in the case of Scotland, feued to different persons, and therefore the holders of them in the future will be different individuals. Each one of those individuals may, of course, feel that he has not been fairly treated by having an undue proportion of the original land value allocated to him. I am speaking from knowledge of what occurred in such cases. For the individual concerned it will be a matter of importance. That is the case with regard to a suburban area. It is considerably more important when you get to clearance in the middle of towns, where you have an already urban site. Take, for instance, a place like Devonshire House, which was pulled down and blocks of buildings erected, or the Hotel Cecil, which is at present being demolished. I do not know, nor does the Solictor-General probably know, how the site will be covered in future, but it is obvious that where you get a site like that of the Hotel Cecil, which may conceivably be built up and used for different purposes, as the Devonshire House site was, the different new units that will be created may differ enormously from one another in value. One of these units may be vastly more valuable than another which forms part of the land unit which is being split up. What is more, on a site like that of the Hotel Cecil or Devonshire House, which I take as typical of many others such as the Bloomsbury site, of course in those cases any one of these new land units may be of the value of thousands of pounds, and the taxation under these proposals will be very considerable. Therefore, it will be grossly unfair, just because they formed at the last valuation part of one land unit, that after the splitting up the person who wishes to acquire one of these new valuable sites, or a site less valuable, should not have the opportunity of having a valuation placed upon his site against which he can, if necessary, appeal. I put that case to the Ministers opposite, as I do not think it is already covered. [Interruption.] If the Solicitor-General tells me that it is already covered, and, if he can prove that to us, I do not, of course, wish to press the matter further, but, unless it is covered, it strikes me that it ought to be dealt with before the Bill passes.
1225§ The SOLICITOR-GENERALThe point which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman is, I think, fully covered in the Bill, and is really covered in a way which we thought was far more appropriate than the way that he suggests. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the basis of this proposal is a quinquennial valuation, and it is not desired, unless it is necessary in particular cases, to disturb that principle. Therefore, as regards any particular land unit which is subsequently split up, the Bill sticks to the original total value at the beginning of the quinquennium, even if, say two years afterwards, the value has gone up. No increase is put on the aggregate value of all the land units, but provision is made by which, when new land units come into existence, as they will the moment the land is split up, owing to the separate occupations, any persons owning or responsible for these land units can then have an apportionment made of the original aggregate value of the whole, and, if they are discontented with the apportionment, they can appeal to the Commissioners and have it put right. That power is expressly stated in Clause 11, and I think that if, without reading the Clause through, I just draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the proviso to Sub-section (1), he will see that it does cover the case that he has put. The proviso says:
No objection to revised entries"—this will be a revised entry, because it will be subsequent to the original entry in the register during the quinqennium—in respect of any land unit which before the making of the revised entries formed part of a former land unit"—that is where it is split up—shall be entertained under this section except on the ground that the value or values of the former unit have been wrongly apportioned by the Commissioners as between the several parts thereof.Therefore, any owner of a part of an original unit can appeal on the apportionment, but when the apportionment is made the commissioners will not be able to put up the total aggregate value; that cannot be altered. [Interruption.] As regards the cultivation value, Clause 10 provides that that shall beapportioned as at that first day of January as between the several parts thereof according to the respective values of those parts at that date.1226 That is apportionment at that date. There is no provision for a revaluation. The valuation takes place at the beginning of the quinquennium; then the apportionment comes; and the only power of the commissioners as regards the apportionment is to apportion the original valuation—there is no power to revalue. That is made quite clear in Clause 10. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, if he reads it carefully, will see that that is the effect, and that is why, under Clause 11, the appeal is limited to the apportionment, and does not affect the aggregate value.
§ Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSONDoes not the Solicitor-General think that, if that is the intention of the Clause—and I quite agree that it is certainly what one would expect it to be—it would be much plainer to consider the apportionment
as at that first day of January as between the several parts thereof.according to the respective values in the register of those parts at that date? If the words "according to the respective values in the register" were used, I agree that the apparent intention of the Clause would be as the Solicitor-General has stated, but I must say that the words:according to the respective values of those parts at that datelend colour to the belief of some of my hon. Friends that it does mean that the Commissioners are directed to take the values at that date.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERALI am sorry to be at issue with the right hon. Gentleman as to the meaning of these words, but he will have noticed that what is to be apportioned is the value of the unit in the register, while the proportions in which it is to be apportioned are the respective values at that date. That merely gives you your means of apportioning the original sum. Perhaps I may take an instance, because sometimes it is easier to explain these things by a concrete illustration. Let me assume a unit which was valued at the first valuation at, say, £3,000. Assume that it is split up for building purposes into six different plots, one of which is worth £1,000—one of the frontage plots—and five others are worth £600 each. The total new aggregate value of the unit is therefore 1227 £4,000, and not £3,000. The apportionment under this Clause would lead you to take one-fourth for the £1,000 unit, and that would be one-fourth, not of £4,000, but of £3,000, since you apportion the original value of the unit. Therefore, that would come to £750. The apportionment for each of the other five units would be its due proportion, namely, one-fifth of what was left, and that would be £450. If you had a new valuation you would get a total value of £4,000, and not £3,000, so that this provision really saves the owner from having to pay during the quinquennium on any increased value that there is, and, in cases where there is apportionment, the value will almost certainly have gone up.
§ Sir ROBERT HORNEI confess that I think my friends might be reassured on this point. The phraseology to which the Solicitor-General has referred seems to cover their point, because the very words which it is suggested might be incorporated seem to be in terms already in the Clause. Reading Clause 10 shortly, it says that the land value shown by the entries in respect of the former unit shall be apportioned, so that what really is going to be apportioned is shown by the entry. I confess that, instead of using the word "shown" a second time, I would have said, "Contained in the entry," which would have made it a little more clear; but at any rate I think that the phraseology of the Clause itself covers the point raised by my friends on the Front Bench, and that they might be content with the assurance which the Solicitor-General has given.
§ Captain CAZALETIf I understand this matter aright, it is very much the same as an apportionment order under the Rent Restrictions Act. Suppose that a sum is fixed next year as the value of a unit of land. That sum is fixed for five years, and if, in the course of the five years, that unit is split up, it may very well be that, owing to the splitting up, certain parts of it will become more valuable; but, nevertheless, the amount with respect to any one portion of that unit cannot be more than an apportionment of the whole sum that will be fixed next year, until a revaluation takes place five years hence. That is exactly the same as in the case of the Rent Restrictions 1228 Act. When a house is rent-restricted, if a sub-tenant comes in, he can, as I understand, go to the courts and get an apportionment order in proportion to the rental paid by the original tenant to the landlord.
The only point that troubles us is this: Suppose that, instead of the value of the bit apportioned increasing, it decreases. In a country district, it might well be that land outside a small town might just come within the limit of paying a small tax, but that, when it is split up, it might fall below the level of £120, and, therefore, it would not in that ease pay tax at all. I understand that the new owner who has purchased this small property may appeal to the commissioners and point out that its value is not now as much as £120, and in that case he will not have to pay at all.
The commissioners, I presume, will be a permanent body sitting in London, who will either themselves have, or will appoint, valuers in various parts of the country. The only point that troubles us is as to whether the valuers will be permanently allocated to certain districts. It may well be that these matters will take some time to settle. Someone buys a piece of land, and, owing to the change of ownership, has a right of appeal against the tax next year. How long will it take, and what is the exact process? Will he have to appeal to the commissioners in London, or can he appeal to the local authority, who will forward his claim? This is a pure matter of machinery, but perhaps the Solicitor-General will explain, as he did on the last Clause, what actually takes place.
§ Sir W. BRASSThe Solicitor-General has told us that, when land is split up, the different parts of it are going to be apportioned at certain values, and he tells us that he does not want to accept this Amendment, which provides for a fresh valuation of the separate units after the splitting up. How is it possible to split up and apportion the bigger land unit into smaller land units without having some sort of valuation of the different portions into which the land has been split up? Imagine a fairly big site in the City of London, sold in two or three units. On one side of that site there is a fairly low building with "Ancient Lights" on it. That building abuts on to one portion of the split-up unit, and the 1229 fact that a portion of the split-up site looks on to the part where "Ancient Lights" exist will no doubt affect the land site value of that portion of the unit which has been split up. On the other hand, the other side, which might be built up, has no "Ancient Lights" against it. How will that particular larger unit be valued in its split-up form unless a proper valuation is made of the unit after it has been split up?
§ Mr. MARJORIBANKSI have given very careful study to these two Clauses, and I am bound to say that I hold the view which is held by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) as to their meaning. I am still not satisfied, and I still think that the Solicitor-General ought to reconsider these words before we reach the Report stage. I think that the words might possibly bear his construction, but that they could easily bear another construction, and, as we have to send this Bill to a judge to decide, we want to make it clear before the courts. I think that Clause 10 might well be amended. I daresay I take a hostile and unfavourable view of the hon. and learned Gentleman's drafting, but certainly I saw a sinister design, when I read Clauses 10 and 11 in conjunction, in the sentence:
apportioned as at that first day of January as between the several parts thereof according to the respective values of those parts at that date.What could that mean but the increased value of the particular parts of the building at that date? It would not mean the value of the building as a whole unit a short time before. It would mean the new value at that date. I admit that the Amendment will be far less favourable to the owner than the thesis put forward by the Solicitor-General.
§ Whereupon, the GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair.
§ Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.