CLAUSE 15— (Properties liable to contribution.) (Hansard, 25 February 1941)

§ Captain Crookshank
I beg to move, in page 13, line 14, at the end, to insert: Provided that a property shall not be treated for the purposes of this Part of this Act as a contributory property if the conditions specified in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this Sub-section are satisfied as respects the property by reason only of the use of any land for the exhibition of advertisements or for the erection of any hoarding, frame, post, wall or structure used for the exhibition of advertisements. This proviso has to deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), who told us of the difficulties which were bound to arise under the Bill as it then stood in regard to advertisement hoardings and the like. We have had an opportunity since then of discussing the matter very fully at his suggestion, or by arrangement with him, with representatives of the advertising industry who explained to us some of the points they had in mind. The Amendment which I move is designed to exclude from contribution any cases where the contributory property is an advertising station and nothing else. For example, the hoarding on a vacant building site. That really does meet precisely the point that my hon. Friend made, but he added another suggestion however that the hoardings themselves should be made insurable under the business scheme since otherwise they would fall between two stools. We pro- 411 pose to deal with that by amending the definition of "land" in Clause 51, to exclude hoardings from Part I of the Bill, so that as a result of their being definitely excluded from Part I they will fall under Part II which will meet the second part of his desire.

§ Sir Herbert Williams (Croydon, South)
I am very grateful to the Financial Secretary for what he has said and for the efforts that have been "made to meet what is obviously a very difficult problem, but I am sorry to have to say that apparently the problem is not quite met. The billposters, who had had long discussions with the Inland Revenue, came to see me yesterday and explained that about 70 per cent, of the stations are not on hoardings constructed for the purpose but on buildings which exist for other purposes. The result is that the building that has hoardings on it has an increased Schedule A valuation attached to it, but there is no physical addition to the value. Apparently in 70 per cent. of the cases these people would be paying 2s. in the £ on that part of Schedule A valuation which arises out of the use of the structure for billposting, and in the event of demolition there could be no compensation at all because what would have gone, would be merely the surface. The physical structure belongs to the owner of the property.
While, as I have said, I am grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what has been done, the issue is not yet adequately met, and the effect may be adverse. The industry is very much depressed at the moment owing to shortage of paper. The landlord in the first place would be called upon to make payment, and he could get out of it only by giving notice of the termination of the agreement with the billposter, and I believe that the effect would be that a large number of these agreements would be terminated. Therefore, the Chancellor will collect a great deal less income, and on the grounds of revenue, and not merely to meet the regard of what may be called the selfish interest of this industry, I ask that this matter shall be further looked into, so that when the Bill goes to another place an Amendment may be made to spread it a little wider.
412 I realise that there would be certain administrative difficulties, because it means splitting the Schedule A valuation, but that should not be too difficult, because I am told that bill-posting sites are rated separately. Therefore, in most cases there is a known value, and further valuation arising from the use of a bill-posting station could, in fact, be dealt with. I believe the matter could be put right by the insertion in line 5, after "erection," of "or use." I understand that if an Amendment of this kind was moved in another place, it would not raise a question of Privilege, because it does not involve a charge, but even if it did, no doubt Privilege could be waived. Although the Chancellor's intentions are good, they leave 70 per cent. of the problem unsolved, so I am told, and therefore on account of the complex situation I ask that the matter should be looked at again.

§ Captain Crookshank
I am afraid I cannot say on behalf of my right hon. Friend that we can go any further. We have gone a long way to meet this point, and although I appreciate my hon. Friend's anxiety with regard to the revenue, I am sure that he appreciates that my right hon. Friend's anxiety is even greater. We have gone as far as we reasonably can to exclude contributions where the properties in question are advertising stations and nothing else. If you went further you would get into difficulties in trying to divide up how much was or was not due to advertising and there would be further difficulties in regard to corner sites which' people might say could be potential advertising sites. I hope my hon. Friend will leave the matter where it is.

§ Sir H. Williams
I put. this point forward very reasonably, and the answer does not meet my complaint. An attempt to solve a legitimate problem which leaves 70 per cent. of the problem untouched is no attempt at all. In rating advertisements their separate value is established. The facts are capable of ascertainment, and the administrative problem is quite easy. It seems to me that it is on purely legalistic grounds that this matter is being resisted, and I ask that it should be further reconsidered.

§ The Attorney-General
I beg to move, in page 14, line 1, after "more," to insert: "or (b) A property which, in the opinion of the. Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries consisted throughout the risk period of waste land or land valuable only for the purpose of taking fish, game or other animals fit for human consumption or land whose value for other purposes is small in comparison with its value for the said purpose, but the property comprised a dwelling-house. This Amendment and the following Amendment and five Amendments on Clause 16 all deal with the same point raised in Committee, which was this: It was suggested that the sixpenny rate should be extended to waste land used for sporting purposes, commercial fisheries and so on. It was pointed out that if a bomb falls in the sea, the cost of putting the sea back in the condition in which it was before the bomb fell is negligible, and the same thing applies to the Cairngorms. The Amendments are a little complicated, but I hope they meet the points raised and cover the cases which were put forward. I think the Committee will agree that they are obviously fair. We have made provision that in connection with a sporting estate a dwelling-house or shooting lodge will pay the 2s. rate, but so far as land or water and other accessories, covered by these Amendments, are concerned, it seems reasonable that they should pay the sixpenny rate.

§ Captain Crookshank
I beg to move, in page 14, line 13, after" 1936,"to insert: and less any sums on which relief would have been allowable in respect of an annuity under Section four of the Tithe Act, 1918, or of payments in respect of the redemption or reduction of an annuity under the Tithe Act, 1936, if relief in respect of so much of such an annuity or such payments as represents interest were in all cases given by way of reduction of an assessment under Schedule A in lien of being given by a right of deduction of tax. This Amendment covers the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Mem- 414 ber for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown) with regard to the complications of annuities under the Tithe Act. It is a very technical point, but in the case of compulsory redemption of annuities under the Act of 1936 the interest portion of the annuity is allowable as deduction in arriving at the Schedule A assessment. On the other hand, the payer of an annuity under the Act of 1918 gets relief in another way—by deduction of tax on the interest portion and not by an allowance of the interest in arriving at the Schedule A assessment. It is clear that these two different methods of relief should be dealt with in the same sort of way for these purposes. My hon. and gallant Friend pointed out that the second of these methods is too high, and so the present Amendment corrects that inequality by providing for an allowance of the interest portion. It is only a small and technical point, but it is worth making in the interests of justice.