§ Mr. Graham PageI beg to move, as an Amendment to the words so restored 1715 to the Bill, in page 113, line 24, to leave out from 'incurred' to the end of line 25.
3.0 a.m.
This is an Amendment to that part of the Schedule which is headed "Expenditure on Improvements and Ancillary Rights." The position, as I understand it, is that the net development value on which levy is assessed is calculated by finding the difference between the base value, which is eleven-tenths of current use value, and the market value. But if one has expended something in improving the land then one can deduct that expenditure from the difference between base value and market value and thereby reduce the net development value.
But under paragraph 42 on page 113, the expenditure which can be set against the net development value, or set against the difference between base value and market value in order to find the net development value, must be expenditure made by the chargeable owner or a predecessor. In short it must be made by the owner of the land or possibly by the person who is going to develop the land.
The case has been put to me by a well known firm in Kent whose land is being levelled and filled with ash—I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman knows the case—by the Central Electricity Board. This is perhaps a rather elaborate example, and I would rather give a much simpler one.
I recollect that quite recently my son, who takes scouts on holidays, told me the story of having got his scouts camped on rather uneven ground and one typical London scout was complaining bitterly about the bumps in the land. One of the others, who was a more cheerful soul, told this one to go to sleep and said: "Where there's 'umps there's 'ollows." This is the example I want to use in complaining that this Schedule is unfair.
Let us suppose that there are two adjoining plots, one with 'umps and one with 'ollows, and the gentleman with the hump on his land wishes to level it and approaches his neighbour and says "May I put the earth from the hump on my land into the hollow on yours and we shall both be nicely levelled out?"
1716 Perhaps at his own expense the one with the hump transfers the earth to the one with the hollow. This improves the land of the man who has the hollow. Now had he spent money on buying that earth from somewhere and filling up the hollow he could have deducted that expenditure from the difference between base value and market value and thereby have reduced the net development value on which he pays the levy. But because he himself has spent no money, and it was his neighbour who expended the money in carting the earth from A to B, this expenditure cannot be taken into account in the improvement of the land which previously had the hollow.
Let us take another example, of a gift between members of a family which improves land, a builder who improves his son's house or something of that sort. If the expenditure has not been made by the chargeable owner or his predecessor, the previous owner of the land, then it cannot be taken into account.
This might be said to be fair because the man has not spent the money himself, but surely the principle of the levy is that it is assessed on the increment in value due to the actions of the community. This has been said again and again by the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, and in the White Papers which have been issued. The whole basis of the levy is that a net development value has been created by the actions of the community. In the cases which I have given, it is not the community who have improved the property. It is the neighbour or the relative. Merely because the owner of the property has not had to put his hand in his pocket and find the money, he is unable to take that into account when his levy is assessed.
If we omitted these words in line 24 on page 113—
…by the chargeable owner or a predecessor—we would be left with the words:…any expenditure which has, on or after 1st July. 1948, but before the relevant date, been incurred…It then goes on with several sub-paragraphs which restrict the application of the provision to the land in question; it is expenditure on the carrying out of work on the land, so it is limited to that extent. Unfortunately, it is limited by the existing words to expenditure by the 1717 owner of the land himself. Therefore, the Land Commission gets a benefit out of an expenditure made by—to take my examples—the neighbour or the relative. The Land Commission gets the benefit—and so does the Exchequer eventually—merely because of these words which we seek to delete and not because of the basic principle of the Bill that levy should be charged on some increment in value due to the action of the community.
§ Mr. SkeffingtonIf the hon. Gentleman had in mind providing relief for the sort of "humps and hollows" case that he mentioned, he might have thought of putting down a rather different Amendment. The Amendment which has been moved would enormously widen the scope of this Schedule and make it both meaningless and extremely unfair.
The Government have taken the view —this has been generally acceded to by everybody—that where the chargeable owner or his predecessor has actually expended something upon an improvement, it is proper that it should be taken into calculation in relation to base value. But the Amendment is so wide that if a school were built which was held, as no doubt it would be, to affect the development value, then the whole of the cost of the school would fall within the provisions of paragraph 42(a). As far as I can see, virtually any expenditure anywhere which could remotely be said to affect the land could be brought into the calculations. So one would be providing for a levy to be collected on betterment value on the one hand, and providing that the very values provided by the community on the other hand should completely destroy the development value which was levied. This would make nonsense.
The kind of example which the hon. Gentleman gave certainly might be included within this Amendment, but his Amendment opens the door so wide that it could not be accepted by any Government. The only practical method is to take into account expenditure which the predecessor in title or chargeable owner has incurred himself. That is the fair and practical thing to do. Beyond that, we get into a kind of fairyland which does not match up with reality. If the Amendment is pressed I shall have to ask my hon. Friends to vote against it.
§ Amendment to the words so restored in the Bill negatived.
1718§ Mr. WilleyI beg to move as an Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill, in page 113, line 34, to leave out '21st' and insert '29th'.
As far as I remember, when the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) moved an Amendment on Report he was so surprised that I accepted it that he did not put down consequential Amendments. He called my attention to one point which I dealt with by manuscript Amendment. This Amendment concerns a date we missed.
§ Mr. Graham PageI am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for spotting this. My recollection is that his remark on the previous occasion was that he thought that I was asleep, and found that I was not when I called his attention to the point which he dealt with by the manuscript Amendment. No doubt we were both asleep when we missed this date.
§ Mr. BodyMay I draw your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the fact that there are not 40 Members present?
Mr. Deputy SpeakerThere has been a count of the House fairly recently and I think that we should proceed.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerI was not in the Chair at the time. I was under the impression that it was within the hour, but I am assured that that is not so.
§ Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;
§ House counted, and 40 Members being present—
§ Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill agreed to.