Clause 44.—(NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LEVY.) (Hansard, 26 October 1966)

§ Mr. Farr
I beg to move Amendment No. 193, in page 46, line 7, at the end to insert: (4) A person who would be liable to pay the levy as a result of a chargeable act or event (if any levy were so payable) may by requisition in writing to the Commission require the Commission to serve upon him within three months of the service of that requisition upon the Commission either a notice of assessment of levy or a certificate that no levy is payable as a result of that chargeable act or event.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
I think that it would be convenient for the House to discuss, with this Amendment, Amendment No. 194, in page 46, line 11, at end add: or more than three months after receipt by the Commission of a requisition under the last preceding subsection (whichever shall be the earlier date)".

§ Mr. Farr
Clause 44 gives the Land Commission a 6-year period in which to make up its mind whether a notice of assessment of levy shall be served. For reasons which I shall briefly outline, we on this side consider that in certain essential instances that period is far too long if certain functions in our life are to continue to operate, regardless of the number of annual chargeable events that are likely to arise.
It is nothing less than disgraceful that 2,000 or 3,000 civil servants will not be able to produce a decision before six years have elapsed. At the last General Election, and the one before that, we heard a lot about the modernisation of Britain and the automation of Britain in the 'seventies with the Socialists, but with all this technological advance cannot this new Land Commission produce a decision more quickly? They produce an answer with a very small staff in Ruritania.
Has the Minister given any thought at all to trying to streamline the mechanism of the Commission? How many computers does he think the Commission will have and operate—or will it still rely on the paper and indiarubber stage. If it does that, I am surprised that it will not need longer than six years to get an assessment. The whole affair is rather a joke, because long before the 6-year period has elapsed a Conservative Government will have returned to office and will have swept away the whole cobwebby structure.
If the right hon. Gentleman is not convinced that he should do something to speed up the mechanism a bit, I will give him two specific cases where his insistence on maintaining the 6-year waiting period, so to speak, could cause very serious inconvenience to the life of the community.
First, there is the developer who is building and selling new houses, which are so badly needed. He has to know what the land has cost him, and he cannot know that unless a fairly rapid notice of assessment has been made. Later, we will come to a Clause which compels a developer to start operations on some land he has acquired for development within a 2-year period, otherwise he runs the risk of having to pay a double charge under Cases A and B or C on the land 1252 he has acquired for that purpose. How can he be expected to carry out operations within a 2-year period when he probably has no assessment given to him and has no idea what to charge those who want to buy the land on which he has built a house?
Another thing which affects everyone in the country is the difficult, if not impossible, task the solicitor will have to wind up the estate of a deceased person. How can he conclude all the already complicated negotiations with the Estate Duty Office if he has to wait for six years to get an answer from this new streamlined Land Commission? Only last week I came across the case of a person in my constituency who about 10 days ago lost her husband. She is about to sell a couple of acres of land and a house on which a certain amount of development is to take place. She may or may not escape the web of this Measure when it becomes an Act. There will be frequent cases where widows wish to move because their husbands have recently died. Their movements will be completely held up while awaiting a decision on the assessment for levy by the Commission.
I am not sure why the Minister has tabled an Amendment to remove subsection (6) of this Clause. That subsection made a requirement to the Commission to furnish an assessment in the case of a deceased owner within three years. It may be that we have already discussed this point under the complicated Clauses 3, 4 and 5 earlier today. If we did, I hope this will serve as an illustration. Although I was present for the whole of the afternoon, I was not aware that this particular point had been discussed. That gives some idea of how complicated these Clauses are.

§ Mr. Willey
The short answer about computers is that we shall have one. I think it better to have one than, as the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) suggested, a mass of them.
I recognise the influential support this Amendment has; but, as a result of the disclosure I have made, the Amendment is not necessary. It is unnecessary because in the vast majority of cases within a few months of being notified of a chargeable act or event, the Commission can serve a notice. The suggestion about six years is quite unwarranted. We are 1253 concerned here with the normal case. In normal house sales there will be no question of levy or further particulars.
The first ground on which I reject the Amendment is that it is unnecessary. Secondly, it would be unhelpful and adverse to the working of the arrangements because it would upset the procedure. Obviously, in some cases there will be complex and difficult questions to resolve by negotiations. It would be unhelpful to have this provision because no one would wish those negotiations to be interrupted. Another case would be where the Commission was waiting information. Again, this would upset the efficiency of these arrangements. The best thing is to leave the arrangements efficient and flexible. If the hon. Member wishes to pursue the matter when the Commission is operating, he will have the opportunity to do so.

§ Mr. Graham Page
This provision has brought more ridicule on the Bill than any other provision. The Commission has the power—it may be that the Commission will not use it—under the Bill to delay an assessment for a matter of six years. It is quite contrary to all other provisions of this sort relating to Estate Duty and Income Tax. The citizen can ask for a clearance: he can apply to the Inland Revenue or the Estate Duty Office for a clearance to say that he no longer owes any tax or Estate Duty, and he is given that clearance within a reasonable time.
If the period which we have put in the Amendment is too short, it can be lengthened, but some time should be given to the citizen to get a clearance to know whether he owes the money. The right hon. Gentleman said that this is unnecessary and that the Commission will normally assess within a reasonable time. One expects that from the Commission. But there may be occasions—and undoubtedly there will be occasions, where there are some complications—on which the machinery gets bogged down in the Commission's office and the unfortunate levy payer has to wait for the assessment.
Earlier this afternoon we discussed an Amendment whereby the levy payer has to pay levy even though he has relief due to him which has not been assessed. This is the sort of case in which he ought to 1254 be able to ask for clearance. If he has put the money into the Commission's pocket when he is entitled to relief from that money, it is preposterous that the Commission should be able to delay it for any length of time. This has brought complete ridicule on the whole machinery of the Land Commission. Surely the Minister can give us some indication that the Commission will be obliged to act in the same way as the normal tax collector and the normal Estate Duty office and give a clearance if the citizen requires it.

§ Mr. Willey
I know that it is getting late but the hon. Member has apparently rested his case on the provision made in respect of Income Tax. There is no provision for a clearance of Income Tax.