LEAVE. FIRST READING. (Hansard, 11 February 1867)

§ MR. HUNT,
in rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill to provide for a common basis of value for the purposes of Government and Local Taxation, and to promote uniformity in the assessment of Rateable Property in England, said, he hoped, notwithstanding the all-absorbing character of the subject that had just been brought beore the House, that they would consider that this was one of considerable importance, and that they would bear with him whilst he explained, but not at great length, what he considered the evils of our present system of valuation, and how he proposed to remedy it. The evils of the present system had long been felt. In 1850 Sir George Lewis gave evidence before a Committee of the House of Lords on the subject. That Committee made certain recommendations, having reference not only to valuations of local rates, but they recommended, as a principle, that assessments should be made on one uniform and equal relative valuation. In the same year a Bill was brought in by Sir George Lewis and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey), to establish the principle of universal valuation for poor rates throughout the country, and it had occurred to the present Government that that principle might be carried still farther, and that the same valuation might be used both for local and Imperial purposes. What the Government looked to was what in reference to the poor rates answered to the gross estimated rental. The income tax, with regard to real property, was levied on the gross value, whilst the local rates were levied on the rateable or net value of the property; but notwithstanding that difference, the gross value was really the basis of value, because it was from that that certain deductions were made and the rateable value ascertained for local purposes. He would now briefly describe the present system of valuation both for the purpose of taxation and for the purpose of rating. And first with regard to taxation, in which he was most immediately concerned, and on account of which he had been intrusted with the conduct of this measure. The primary assessments were made by local assessors, and then the Government officer and assessor of taxes had the power of reviewing those assessments and making surcharges on persons 251 named in the list. The district Commissioners, who were independent persons, had to decide in cases where the taxpayers did not assent to the surcharges made by the surveyor, and there was no appeal from those Commissioners, except as far as they might state points of law for the decision of the Superior Courts of Law at Westminster. With regard to matters of fact, there was no appeal from their decision. As regarded local taxation, the system was as follows:—The Boards of Guardians annually appointed out of their own body a committee to assess, and that committee consisted of one-third of ex officio guardians—namely, justices of the peace resident in the union, supposing there were any justices resident—and, if not, their places were supplied by the ordinary members of the Board of Guardians. The lists were made out by the parish officers and submitted to the assessment committee, who then made out the assessment upon these lists, with any alterations which they might deem expedient to make after hearing the objections of the persons assessed, or of other persons upon the same lists or residing in the same union. Supposing any dissatisfaction were felt at the decisions of the assessment committee, there was an appeal, which was final, to the quarter sessions. But that was not the only assessment made with regard to local taxation. One would have thought that a system which was good for the purpose of the poor rate, the highway rate, and church rates, would likewise have been good for the county rate; but it would be found that the magistrates at quarter sessions had the power to appoint a committee for the county rating. They might make a new basis, and in practice it was known that they did so. He understood that at the present moment the committees of magistrates and quarter sessions were making a new basis for county rates, notwithstanding that the assessment for the poor rate had only just been completed in their own county. It was true that the quarter sessions committee did not go into the same particulars as the assessment committees, because they only assessed parishes, whereas the assessment committees assessed individual property; but it often happened that the assessment made for the county rate in a parish was wholly different in amount from the poor rate assessment in the same parish. In the case of county rates also there was an appeal to the quarter sessions. But then 252 this extraordinary state of things arose. A man had to watch the assessment on his property for property tax, for poor rates, and for parish and county rates. He might appeal in one case and his appeal might be sustained, but that would not affect any other assessment to which he was assessed. On the contrary, he would have to go through the same process in regard to all the three assessments. All the labour with regard to one valuation was entirely thrown away with regard to the others. He might have gone more into detail in regard to this matter, but he thought he had stated enough to satisfy the House that the existing system was one not creditable to the country. Then the question arose as to what was to be substituted for the three systems without parting with any of the present jurisdictions of the Government, the Poor Law officers, the Boards of Guardians, or the magistrates. If they were to commence entirely afresh, perhaps it would be easy to devise a simple scheme which might serve for all purposes, but the Government had determined to make use of the existing machinery. Before 1862 there was much more inequality in rating than at present, because the parish made out the valuation lists and fixed upon the scale of deductions, the consequence of which was that there might be different scales of deduction in the same union. That system, however, had to a certain extent been modified by the union assessment committees, and therefore within the union itself there was now a uniform scale of deductions. Still the uniformity did not extend beyond the area of the union. The Bills to which he had just now alluded attempted to provide for uniformity as regards counties, and the Bill which he was about to ask leave to introduce also provided for uniformity as regards counties. He proposed to take as the basis of valuation the present system of union assessment, and that the assessment committee should send representatives to a County Valuation Board, to consist of the representatives of all the assessment committees in the county—for the most part two members from each committee—one of such representatives to be an ex officio member, and the other an ordinary member. It was proposed to include in the area of the county all the towns lying within it, but the towns were to be represented on the same principle at the Valuation Board. If they already had 253 separate committees they would send members to the Valuation Board, and if they had no committees they might appoint members to serve on the Board. In the event of there being no magistrates who could serve, it was proposed that the Town Councils should nominate members of the Board. The functions of the Valuation Board would have reference almost exclusively to the scale of deductions, and they would have nothing to do with the assessment of gross value except in certain cases. The Valuation Board would have to lay down the scale of deductions to be observed in all the assessment committees throughout the country. It was likewise proposed that the Valuation Board should perform the duties of the assessment committees at the expense of those committees in those cases where the assessment committees delayed to discharge the duties imposed on them by Act of Parliament. The effect of that enactment would, in all probability, be that the assessment committees would perform their duties within the proper time. With regard to gross value, it was proposed that the overseers should make out the valuation lists, as at present. But here a new element would be introduced into the assessment system, for the surveyor of taxes would have a locus standi before the assessment committees, and the power of stating what, in his opinion, was the right sum of the gross value, and consequently of throwing the onus probandi of disproving his statement on the taxpayers and ratepayers. Thus for the first time there would be some one present who would have an interest in putting up the assessment to the right point. That, he believed, would have the effect of preventing too low assessments being made. It was also proposed that when the assessments had been made by the committees they should be sent up to the Valuation Board, who would take care that their instructions with regard to the scale of deductions had been fully carried out. An appeal would be allowed to an assessor, who would be a barrister-at-law, and who would be appointed by the Valuation Board, with the consent of the Treasury. The quarter sessions would thereby be discharged of their present appellate function, and a system, something like that now existing in Ireland, would be adopted. On the application of the parties the assessor would be empowered to order a survey and valuation of any property in 254 respect to which a dispute had arisen. A union might appeal against the assessment of another union, and a parish against the assessment of another parish. The assessor being appointed by the Valuation Board subject to the control of the Treasury, the Imperial interests would be properly guaranteed, and, at the same time, he would be appointed by persons chosen by the ratepayers. These were the main features of the measure which he asked for leave to introduce. It was not proposed to make any change in the incidence of taxation, which, as now, would be based on gross and rateable values, and it was only in the mode of ascertaining the value and assessment that alteration was proposed. Although quarter sessions would be relieved of their functions, the present magisterial element would not be dispensed with; for about one-half the members of the proposed Boards would be justices and members of quarter sessions; and with the exception of the quarter sessions and district Commissioners, it was proposed to retain existing jurisdictions. In Ireland valuations were made by a Government officer for all purposes. There was only one column and that was for the net value, which almost corresponded with our rateable value, and there was a Court of Appeal similar to that proposed for England. The Scotch system, less perfect than the Irish one, was vastly superior to that of England. Commissioners of Supply there made out valuation lists, or employed persons to do so; and if they employed a Government officer, the valuation served for Imperial and local purposes. This system was far preferable to the three systems employed here. It was proposed that the metropolis, owing to its special circumstances, should be exempt from this Bill; but if its principles were agreed to, they might in a future Bill be applied to the metropolis. The valuation under the proposed Bill would extend to Imperial and local taxation. It would also affect the composition of jury lists, election of guardians, licensing, and many other matters, which would make the Bill lengthy and complicated, but he hoped that it would be laid on the table in about a week, and read a second time in about three weeks. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, the Bill necessarily involved so many details that it must be in their hands before they could 255 express their opinions upon its proposals. He was glad that it was introduced, although he looked with jealousy upon the appointment of a large number of appellate barristers.

§ MR. BAXTER
said, that the admirable working of the Scotch system during the last thirteen years had filled Scotch Members with amazement at the continuance of the English system. The assessment in Scotland was not perfect, and it was intended to ask for amendments this Session; but the system worked admirably for taxation and registration.

§ MR. POULETT SCROPE
said, the advantage of an uniform system of valuation was unquestionable; and, therefore, such a system ought to be adopted. Such a measure failed previously in the House of Commons from the conflict of interests in regard to the matter, when public opinion was not so ripe for Reform as now. He regretted that the Bill did not establish a universal system of rating.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he was glad the metropolis was to be excluded from the Bill, not because he objected to the principle, but because its circumstances were different from those of the rest of the country, and the Bill would not have worked in London in the manner proposed for the counties. He hoped in any Bill for the metropolis the authorities would have full power to make investigations as to the real value of each individual property. He thought there was some obscurity as to the manner of descending from a whole parish to separate holdings.

§ MR. HUNT
said, he thought he had explained that the assessment committees would go into the case of every holding. There need be no apprehension as to the number of barristers to be employed; it was not proposed to employ standing assessors, at fixed salaries, but to appoint them from time to time at such remuneration as might be determined upon; and if the scheme were successful, there would hardly ever be an appeal.