Schedule 6.— (SUPPLEMENTARY PROVI- SIONS RELATING TO SCHEDULES 4 AND 5.) (Hansard, 25 January 1967)

§ Mr. Willey
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill, in page 134, line 33, at the end to insert:

Mr. Deputy Speaker
If that is convenient to the House.

§ Mr. Willey
These are Government Amendments which permit the costs incurred in the making of valuations required in the computation of the levy to be set off in the market value or compensation, as the case may be. We have followed the precedent of the Finance Act, 1965, and the Amendment to page 173, line 44, is consequential and is designed to bring the provisions relating to death, bankruptcy and winding up into line with this new provision.

§ Mr. Rossi
Because of the lateness of the hour I may not be thinking clearly. What is the significance of deleting the words from line 47 to line 50 on page 173 and incorporating, by reference, paragraph 19, which is being brought into page 134, line 33. The deleting Amendment seems to relate to costs incurred by a person concerned in having the levy assessed, yet that is precisely what the new paragraph 19 appears to do. In other words, what is the significance of deleting three lines and adding 13? This will have quite an effect on the levy, because costs of this kind will be pretty substantial. Those who will have to work in advising on these matters will not do it for nothing and the citizen will have to pay through the nose in operating this Measure.

§ Mr. Eyre
Of course, I am very glad that the Minister has introduced this Amendment even at this late stage, but is the purpose of the allowance to be limited absolutely to the costs of valuation or apportionment? The wording in subparagraph (2) appears to be rather wider: any costs which are reasonably incurred by an appropriate person in connection with that act or event. Is the intention to limit the provision absolutely to valuation costs? Of course, if that were so it would be an improvement on the terribly unfair situation, but it could well be that professional fees other than those for valuation could be incurred leading to the valuation. If so, those extra costs would not be accountancy costs and there would be an unfair restriction. Will the Minister assure us that the purport of the provision is wide enough to cover all professional costs properly incurred in the calculation of this charge?

§ Mr. Willey
We followed precedent in this. The provision we are making has followed discussions with the professions.
I must say in answer to the hon. Member for Hornsey, that this is a bit thick. I do not know what he is endeavouring to do, whether he is threatening that the professions will extort money from their clients. We are making a provision which I think on reflection is a proper provision to make. I say at once that I believe the professions will give the best possible advice to their clients and there will be no question at all of using this as a means of extortion from the clients. It would be quite improper to suggest that.
The hon. Member may have been making his remarks facetiously, but one should not import such a suggestion when we know that the professions will behave properly and these are costs which on reflection we think can be brought in in this way.

§ Mr. Rossi
Of course I am not suggesting that any of the professions would extort on a matter of this kind. That is the last thing I would suggest. All I say is that a tremendous burden of work is being placed on the professions in interpreting these Schedules, advising their clients, making these calculations. The work is of such a complicated and difficult nature that it follows necessarily that the reasonable fee which they will have to charge for the work placed upon them is bound to be a high one. It is bound to be high.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member has made his speech. At this stage he must be brief in his intervention.

§ Mr. Rossi
I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but this is a new paragraph which is being introduced and I am commenting on it in regard to what the Minister said about the professions and advantage being taken of it.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member has spoken already on this Amendment.

§ Mr. Graham Page
The Minister has not answered the question put to him from this side of the House about the costs which are covered by the Clause. He said that he has used precedent. There is no precedent for the Land Commission, thank heaven, and, therefore, 1727 we are cutting entirely new ground and there is a new type of work to be done.
Confusion arises from the fact that this new Clause has come to us at this very last moment. It shocks me that none of us had spotted before, and even I had not noticed—and here I declare an interest as possibly having to charge clients costs in helping them over these matters—that as the Bill stood, these costs could not be set off against market value.
We now have the Clause before us. It is headed Allowance for costs of valuation or apportionment". One immediately thinks of a valuer and the costs of valuation. Can the Minister give a complete assurance that subsection (2), which refers to any costs which are reasonably incurred by an appropriate person in connection with the act or event". include legal and accountancy fees? Am I to consider myself, in my professional capacity, an "appropriate person"? I hope so. I hope that both legal and accountancy costs, as well as the valuer's costs, will be included, but in view of the title of the Clause this is not clear.

§ Mr. Farr
Before the Minister replies, I would like to reinforce the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) which answers the specific remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre).
I am, perhaps, a little less sensitive than some of my colleagues on the subject of fees charged by valuers, architects, accountants and solicitors, because I have no declared interest in any of those professions except to pay them frequently and repeatedly. I know that their existing legitimate scale charges are very heavy. One hesitates to think what they will be if the Clause is incorporated in the Bill without any specific definition from the Minister about whether such heavy fees, legally incurred in connection with an assessment of levy, are subject to recompense by the Land Commission. This is an important point. The Clause is obviously full of good intentions but lacks clarification, and we would like the Minister to say another word or two about it.

§ Mr. Willey
All I can say is that I have followed precedent and that this provision will be subject to the same limitation as the precedent for it.