§ 2.57 p.m.
§ LORD LEATHERLANDMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether local authorities who are negotiating land purchases are being pressed by the Government's district valuers to speed up these negotiations and complete them by April 6, so that betterment levy will not have to be paid by the vendor.]
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, I presume that my noble friend has in mind cases where the local authority is negotiating for the purchase of land by agreement and has not exercised its compulsory powers. If compulsory powers had been exercised and a notice to treat had been served, or a contract for sale had been made, before April 6, 1967, no liability to betterment levy would arise. It is clearly right, therefore, that a landowner should not be prejudiced because he has agreed to enter into negotiations and has not required the local authority to exercise its compulsory powers.
District valuers are drawing the attention of purchasing authorities to cases of this sort, and are inviting the authorities to consider whether they should offer to serve a notice to treat on the vendor (where a compulsory purchase order is in existence) or should suggest that he should enter into a memorandum of agreement for sale as though notice to treat had been served, which would be equivalent to a contract for sale for this purpose.
§ LORD LEATHERLANDMy Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is it understood by him that my Question does not concern compulsory purchase orders, but negotiations that have been going on freely between one party and another? And does he not think that this acceleration may embarrass local authorities, by preventing them from "playing a waiting game" when they are negotiating, and thus compelling them to pay a higher price for land than would 668 be the case if they were able to conduct their negotiations in the way they thought best? Furthermore, is it the duty of Government officials to encourage the avoidance of tax?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, in regard to the latter, I think I should rightly say that it is contrary to the duty of all to encourage people to avoid the payment of tax which they are required to pay. I think that I answered the noble Lord's question quite accurately. I was seeking to point out that we do not believe that a landowner who is seeking to enter into negotiations with the local authority should be put in a worse position than a landowner who is subject to compulsory purchase. In regard to the noble Lord's second supplementary question, I do not believe that it will affect the price of land at all.