§ [Queen's Recommendation signified]
§ Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).
§ [Sir SAMUEL STOREY in the Chair]
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the establishment of a Land Commission, to make provision as to the finances of the Commission and to confer on the Commission powers to acquire, manage and dispose of land, and to impose a betterment levy in respect of land, it is expedient to authorise—
§ 10.15 p.m.
§ Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)Before we pass this Money Resolution, there are one or two questions which it would be appropriate for some representative of the Government to answer. The first paragraph of the Money Resolution sets out a limit to the amounts involved and it is therefore not necessary to pursue that paragraph by way of interrogation.
However, the second paragraph is less detailed and does not give any indication of what moneys provided by Parliament for any expenses incurred by the Commission in consequence of any provision of the Bill are likely to amount to. I take it that what is in issue is the expenses of the Commission which, when the White Paper was published in September, were estimated at £4 million a year. The further expenses in respect of the Valuation Department of the Inland Revenue 826 were similarly estimated at £3 million a year. However, those estimates were made as long ago as last September and further consideration may have enabled the Government to modify or amend those totals
In the course of the Second Reading debate, we were told nothing about the staff required for the Commission, or how many staff it was intended to recruit. Nor have we heard anything whatever about the exceptional steps, for example, by way of salary provision, which will be required in an attempt to attract a sufficient number of valuers. The Committee will be aware that valuers are very scarce and the Government may have been considering whether to make exceptional pay offers, perhaps going beyond the 3½ per cent. which the First Secretary so ineffectively attempts to impose elsewhere, in order to attract valuers to the Commission.
The other matter on which I would be grateful for some elucidation arises on the third paragraph:
any increase attributable to any provision of the said Act in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under any other enactment.Presumably, the Government have in mind some particular enactments under which it is likely or possible that further expenditure will arise as the result of the Bill's being carried into law. It would be interesting to know what other Measures are contemplated and what sums of money it is expected will arise to be expended under those Acts as a result of the Bill.Those of us who were here during the earlier proceedings of the Bill know that so far we have had from the Government only very imprecise indications of the administrative arrangements which are contemplated, and thus of the expenses to be incurred, under paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Money Resolution. Obviously, even the present Government would not have brought the Bill to this stage without having in their own minds some idea of what those figures were. I cannot believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have authorised this or permitted the hon. and learned Gentleman the Financial Secretary to put his name to the Money Resolution in such circumstances. As has been mentioned 827 in the course of today's debate, expenditures other than local authorities are being most rigorously curtailed. It would be helpful if, when considering whether to pass this Money Resolution, either the Parliamentary Secretary or the Financial Secretary or the Minister could give us some indication of what the figures contemplated in sub-paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Money Resolution are likely to be.
§ Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)I would like to reinforce the point made by my right hon. Friend. It is appropriate that on this occasion we should have something of a detailed explanation about this Money Resolution from the Treasury Bench. One cannot refer in any detail to the debate which has just taken place, but one point which came out most clearly was that the success or failure of this Measure depends upon it being administratively possible. The reply of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the debate suggested that he had not sufficient time to give a fully detailed answer, but under the terms of the Money Resolution he can answer in detail and it is appropriate that he should do so. He can say exactly where he is going to recruit the extra staff, the sort of money he is going to pay, and whether that money will be such as to poach other valuers and administrators from other departments. Does it mean that we are going to save on other Departments the money included in this Resolution?
It would be appropriate, too, if in answering the queries of my right hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary would tell us how the local authorities come into this. He said that it was unthinkable that he could make a speech without explaining that. We did not get his explanation and the clock may have been the answer. The Committee should now receive that answer. Where is the Minister going to get the staff from, what rates of salary he is going to pay, and are the figures quoted last year still appropriate today? If we can have a clear answer on these points it would be an appropriate addendum to the speech given earlier.
§ Mr. Peter Bessell (Bodmin)I have no wish to delay the Committee, but there is one further point upon which we ought to have further clarification. The 828 question was raised during the debate of whether the Inland Revenue could not be used to collect the betterment levy. No answer was given to this question in the course of the winding-up speech, and we would be grateful to hear the reasons why the Minister has rejected what appears to many of us to be not only a sensible solution but one which would be very much cheaper to the Exchequer.
§ Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk)I do not want to delay the Committee for more than a moment. I would like to support what the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) has just said about the collecting of the levy. The Committee is entitled to an explanation of the arguments against the collection of this by the Treasury. It is known that there is a shortage of valuers to carry out their present jobs. Is it the intention of the Treasury to recruit a large body of valuers to carry out the procedure under this Bill by poaching from the present inadequate resources of the nation? If this happens, what safeguard is the Minister going to make to see that both sides are equally represented? If, as a result of the Minister offering additional remuneration, so many valuers are attracted into the Ministry that there are not sufficient to act for the other side in these discussions, it would mean that the State is going to have an overwhelming advantage in any valuation argument.
Looking after the interests of the individual in this matter is equally important. One has to be careful that in trying to get this Bill working one does not create an over-weighted system which would work very much to the longer-term disadvantage of the perfectly good arguments that individual owners of land could put forward if they were properly represented. But they could not be properly represented if the Ministry poached all the best valuers. Could the Minister give us some guidance about what the Government propose to do?
§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (Mr. Arthur Skeffington)I welcome the opportunity to try to convey more information on some of the points which undoubtedly arise from the Money Resolution.
Every effort has been made to make our estimates as precise as possible. Until 829 the exercise is begun, we cannot be absolutely certain, but we have used all the modern methods, including the skill known as O and M, and taken advice on this matter from those who have great experience, including the Valuation Office itself.
It should be said—I made some reference to this in my earlier speech—that one reason why the levy has been drawn in the terms in which it has is that wherever possible we are using market terms, thus avoiding a good deal of difficult valuation. The work and burden falling on the valuers will be consequently relieved, although there is no doubt that there will
It is art illusion to imagine that there be an additional burden.
would be some economy in staff if the levy transactions were exclusively performed through the Inland Revenue. The fact is that the same body would be involved with the Inland Revenue as with the Land Commission. It is a valuation department. Therefore, there would be no saving there. If a form of capital gains tax were put in the place of the levy—although, as my right hon. Friend said, the yield would not be so much—there would still have to be additional staff in the Inland Revenue office. Therefore, there would be no saving in staff. That is an illusion, and I am glad to have had the opportunity to put the matter right.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) asked about the phrase" any other enactment" in paragraph (3). I do not know that there will be any expenses incurred in such a way. But this is standard form and covers all the administrative expenses incurred by Government Departments, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows. There might be a minor cost in connection with the Ministry of Public Building and Works in providing accommodation. But this is the safeguarding form so that were there to be expenditure in this connection which could not strictly be said to have arisen from the Act it would be covered by the terms of the resolution.
I was asked whether any salary inducements would be offered. It would be very unwise of me to enter into this matter. Recruitment has been a problem for years in the Valuation Office, as it has been in the profession. It is taking what steps are open to it. This is a rare skill, and it is largely a question of time 830 and of greater training in the establishments rather than of special inducements. There is no provision about which I can make any announcement tonight in that connection. Everyone concerned is taking all steps possible to increase the force by using market valuation where possible and by using staff as economically as possible.
Turning to what the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames and others have said about the first paragraph of the Money Resolution, the estimated administrative costs have not materially altered since the announcement to which the right hon. Gentleman referred earlier. It is estimated that £3 million will be required for the valuation officers to be apportioned between levy work and dealings in land. About £4 million is estimated for the administrative costs attributable to the levy.
It is not possible to be absolutely precise on the question of staff yet, but the Committee will know that the headquarters is to be situated in Newcastle. There will be eleven regional offices in due course. Some have already been secured and others are about to be secured.
§ Sir D. GloverBefore Second Reading?
§ Mr. SkeffingtonCertainly, one earmarks accommodation for these things. Otherwise, I can imagine the hon. Member accusing the Government of not looking ahead, having all these plans and making no provision until the last moment. One sometimes feels that whatever one does the pianist will be shot. I hope that the hon. Member will be fairer than that. If there are any other points which I can answer, I shall be glad to do so, but I think that I have covered most of them.
§ 10.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterI am sure that the Committee is indebted to the Parliamentary Secretary for the further elucidation he has given, but perhaps he can take this a little further. I understand that he still rests on the £4 million a year figure for the cost of the Commission. That, I assume, is the figure for the first year of operation. The hon. Gentleman will, I take it, accept that with the inevitable rise in salaries, the figure would be higher in subsequent years. Secondly, as this figure has twice been put forward 831 and must, therefore, be based upon the usual Departmental calculations, perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell us what numbers of staff it is said to represent. He cannot arrive at £4 million unless he has a figure of staff. Can he let us know what that figure is?
The £3 million extra is for valuation in the Inland Revenue Valuation Department. The hon. Gentleman made the point that it would be the same whether the job was done by the Inland Revenue or by the Land Commission. He said during his remarks, however, that the Valuation Department had been short of staff for years. Indeed, that is commonly known. What assurance can he give the Committee that he will be able to get this extra staff for this job?
The Parliamentary Secretary must recall that under the provisions of the Bill, if these valuation staff are not obtained, great injustice will be done to the citizen; it will be impossible to get proper assessments of the levy and there will be difficulties, no doubt, in assessing compulsory purchase price. The recruitment of sufficient valuers is essential to the scheme ever operating at all, or to its operating without causing the gravest injustice. Can the hon. Gentleman assure the Committee that in the near future he will be able to get £3 million worth of valuers? Perhaps he can tell us how many the £3 million represents.
§ Mr. BessellI am sorry to press the Parliamentary Secretary, and I am grateful for the reply he has given, but I am not yet satisfied that the best way of dealing with this matter is by means of a separate set of valuers in the Land Commission. Surely, where valuers are already operating through the Inland Revenue—experienced, efficient people who are well trained for this kind of work—and when there is a known shortage of such valuers, it makes sense to make use of the existing personnel.
In addition, there would be bound to be economies, in spite of the Parliamentary Secretary's assurances, because much of the work would overlap, particularly when new sites were being developed for the first time, in which case there would in any event be valuation for rating purposes. Surely the two could run in together. A lot of time and 832 money could be saved and, most important of all, there would be a saving of the time of valuers, whose services, we know, are scarce.
§ Sir Harmar NichollsThe Parliamentary Secretary said in answering the first lot of questions that whether the valuers were left in the Inland Revenue or whether they were set up separately under the Land Commission, there would be no difference in the numbers required. He then explained that he is setting up eleven regions with eleven heads. We do not yet have the answer about how many people will be working under those heads in the eleven regions.
Does the hon. Gentleman seriously say that he can set up eleven new regions, with all the paraphernalia of regional offices, and not use more bodies than would be the case if the work were added on to the existing system under the Inland Revenue, when the head of the Revenue Department could be the final arbiter? With a separate grouping, however, there would have to be separate heads. There seems to be a contradiction in the hon. Gentleman's answer to the questions.
§ Mr. SkeffingtonI may not be able to convince the hon. Gentleman, but I would assure him that the volume of work which has to be done on the levy, whether it is done through the Land Commission or whether it is done through the Inland Revenue will, broadly speaking, have to be done by new staff whether or not working in the Valuation Department directly in the Inland Revenue or working in that Department but in cooperation with the Land Commission, and with respect to him I must say that it is an illusion to think there would be a saving.
With regard to the actual persons in the regions, different regions will have different commitments, but we estimate that there will be 100 persons or when they are at full strength, which may take some time to reach—about 150 persons. That is the sort of figure we have had in mind.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterPer region?
§ Mr. SkeffingtonPer region.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterWhat I did ask was the total for the Commission. For £4 million worth of work, as it were, what is the total staff?
§ Mr. SkeffingtonI do not think I can give that equation tonight, and how far it represents valuers for services as well as valuers for other purposes. If the question is capable of an intelligent reply—I am not being offensive; I mean only that it may be couched in terms to which I cannot give the answer the right hon. Gentleman wants—I will certainly give it, but I cannot on the information I have at present.
The final point was, if the Department is short of valuers, will the work be done? Of course, the Valuation Department, for this and other reasons, is being relieved of the revaluation which was to have taken place. This, of course, is a quite considerable relief. The details have been worked out in the Valuation Office. Additional efforts will be made to obtain staff and we are confident that this work can be undertaken.
§ Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)Really, the hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the questions which were put to him by my right hon. Friend and by others on this side of the House. He has quoted a figure of £4 million. I do not know whether it was a slip of the tongue when in his first speech in the Committee he said £4 million was the estimated costs attributable to the levy. Whether he meant this £4 million is in respect of the work of the Commission only in connection with the levy, I do not know; but that cannot, surely, be so. It must be in relation not only to the collection of the levy but also to the compulsory acquisition and sale of the land. It is interesting to find the division of the £4 million between these two duties, the duties under Part II and the duties under the levy Part of the Bill. Can the hon. Gentleman give us any clue as to that?
Really, when one starts to work out these figures of 100 persons per region, what are these persons? Professional men? Or is the hon. Gentleman counting 90 per cent. as clerks and 10 per cent. as professional men? If that is the case he is not going to get through the work, because if the £4 million is divided half and half—half for the compulsory acquisition procedure, and half for the levy—then £2 million will represent the costs of compulsory acquisition and sale of property. Legal costs of the transactions would be about 3 per cent. One 834 would add on about 2 per cent. to the costs of paying the valuers on the other side. There would be about 5 per cent. in costs if that were put through a private firm and not a Government Department. Is the Commission really going to do £40 million worth of such transactions in a year? That means that £2 million would be 5 per cent. of the value of the transactions of the Commission. Is he really going to add £40 million worth of transactions?
And how many solicitors will he take to see this through? Somewhere about 200 or 400? Where will he get them from? The profession is short of solicitors at the moment. It does not only apply to valuers, but to all professional staff who may be concerned in it.
The figures just do not work out, and the hon. Gentleman has not explained to the Committee how he has reached his £4 million or whom he is going to pay with the £4 million.
§ Sir Harmar NichollsI apologise for rising again, but the hon. Gentleman did not give an answer. He attempted to do so and, in the course of it, he said that because they were not having the revaluation there would be people available to carry out the work under the Commission. But the revaluation has had to be called off because there were not enough staff to carry it out. It was postponed for that reason. If the revaluation has been called off because of the shortage of staff, yet the staff who would have carried out the revaluation will be available to do the Commission's work, it seems to me that the whole thing will be a jumble before it starts.
§ Sir D. GloverI am afraid that we cannot let the Minister go on this one. We know already that the Valuation Department of the Inland Revenue is short of staff. We are now going to build up 11 regions with expert staff in each of them to carry out the provisions of the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has pointed out, they will need not only valuation officers but solicitors. All these professional people are already in short supply. If the experts are not recruited for the purposes of the Bill, the whole of its provisions will fall into ruin and chaos.
I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what real estimates the Department 835 has made of the number of specialist people it will require what is its forecast of recruitment, and what will be the total cost. It will certainly be more than £4 million.
§ Mr. SkeffingtonI thought that I had answered hon. Members' questions clearly, but perhaps I should try again. I ask the Committee to bear in mind that this must be the very best estimate that can be made at the present stage. On a careful factual basis—and I am reasonably satisfied that it will work out very much as we imagine—the estimated administrative costs given in the Financial Memorandum are £4 million for the Land Commission and £3 million for the Valuation Office, borne between levy work and dealing with land, including about £2 million on levies. So that the administrative costs of the two departments will be roughly £2 million each on the levy.
I was asked about the categorisation of staff, and obviously I cannot answer that tonight, but overwhelmingly those in the regions are in the clerical and executive grades. The numbers of professional people are comparatively small. With the Valuation Department and others, we are confident, although there may be difficulties in particular places, that the obligations can be met. I would certainly tell the Committee if we had doubts on the matter.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterI am sorry to press the hon. Gentleman, who I know has had a hard day, but he has left the Committee in an unsatisfactory position. Whatever else he has done, he has succeeded in casting the deepest doubt on the accuracy of the £4 million figure. He has told us that it is proposed to have 11 regions, each with a staff, though he could not categories them, of about 100. That is clear.
What I want to know is the total staff proposed for the Commission, and it must surely be the case that the Parliamentary Secretary and his Minister could not give a total of £4 million in the White Paper and repeat it tonight unless they had a pretty close approximation to the idea as to how many staff were covered. Staff and the acommodation for them are, I presume, the major expense of a body like this. Unless the £4 million figure was produced out of a hat, which is quite 836 contrary to the way Whitehall does things, it must be based on the assumption that there would be x staff of different grades.
10.45 p.m.
I hope that in raising this again the hon. Gentleman will not think that I am guilty of any repetition, but it arises from the fact that he has not answered my question. I want to know the staff numbers contained in the £4 million calculation.
The second point is of much less importance. I take it that the £4 million is a first-year cost, and that it is contemplated that the cost will rise in subsequent years with the rise in salaries and costs?
§ Mr. SkeffingtonThe figure of £4 million is likely to be the cost of a complete year's work. This may not be the case in the first calendar 12 months, but when the Commission and all its elements are fully staffed, this is what we expect the figure to be. This is what we expect it to be when the Commission is fully operative.
With regard to the total numbers, I have given the figure for the 11 regions. It is 150, or possibly 160, per region. Altogether, including headquarter staff—I did not give this figure before—it will be under 2,000.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Resolution to be reported.
§ Report to be received Tomorrow.