VALUATION BILL. (Hansard, 26 April 1904)

§ * THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.)
I rise to ask for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law with respect to valuation authorities and the effect of, and procedure for, making valuation lists and for making certain amendments in the law relating to valuation which are necessary for the purpose of promoting uniformity of valuation as between valuation authorities. The subject is very complicated and very dry, but more important than those Members who have not found it necessary to give their personal attention 1200 to local government may suppose. Both political Parties are committed to the reform of local taxation, but it would be impossible successfully and satisfactorily to carry out that object unless we first deal with the law which governs the valuation of the property upon which local rates fall. I do not think that I need do more than briefly explain the present system. Excluding London, which has a law of its own, there are in all counties two assessment authorities which assess for different purposes—the county authority which assesses for the county rate, and the union authority which assesses for the poor rate. In addition there are powers held by the borough councils, so that there might even be a third assessment authority for the same area. Consequently there are several authorities charged with the duty of assessing, they have no means of consultation and joint action, and thus there are the widest possible variations in practice. The assessments themselves vary in a most remarkable degree, and often in the same county they differ greatly, so that in adjoining unions you may have properties precisely similar in their character and in their surroundings contributing to the similar rates on different assessments. The inequities which have thus resulted led to the appointment of the Royal Commission. In addition, perhaps, I ought to say that these inequities also occur in county and other boroughs. The City of Liverpool embraces three or four unions, the City of Birmingham certainly includes more than one, and thus you have this extraordinary injustice that within the same municipal area where the expenditure is presumably for the same purpose, three or four different valuations are made by different union assessment committees. These are some of the inequities which, as I said, led to the appointment of the Royal Commission.
In the Bill the Government have adopted in the main, with some slight modification, the recommendations of the Royal Commission. The Report of the Commission recommended the application to the rest of the country of the system existing in London with certain alterations. That system is one which has worked with considerable 1201 success, and the Government propose to apply it to the rest of the country, modifying it to suit the needs of different parts of England and Wales, and slightly altering it in London, so as to make the new system uniform. We propose that there should be, in the first place, a single authority for valuation and assessment purposes, instead of the numerous authorities which now exist, and, in the second place, we propose to bring about uniformity of valuation and assessment. We propose that the valuation authorities should be the county council, and in the case of county boroughs, the county borough council. That will give a single valuation authority. In order to secure uniformity, we propose that the Surveyor of Taxes shall have the right to be present at the meetings of the valuation committees, which I will presently refer - to. We propose that the valuation list shall be submitted to him, and if he has reason to believe that the valuation is an improper one he will be entitled to make his own valuation, which will stand unless it can be shown on objection to be unjust and improper.

§ MR. LOUGH (Islington, N.)
Shown to whom?

§ * MR. WALTER LONG
To the valuation Committee Under the London Act there is a scale of deductions. It is desirable that the deductions to be made from gross estimated value should be general and established by this House rather than left to the discretion of local authorities, who view the question from such various standpoints. Therefore we propose to adopt the London system as far as possible. We put in the Bill a schedule of deductions to be made from the gross estimated value, and give power to the valuation authority to vary those deductions only in special cases where exceptional reason can be shown. It will be within the power of the valuation authority to divide their area into districts and to appoint valuation committees for such districts. Those districts will have to include one, or more, urban or rural district, and in certain cases, where local conditions require it, there is power to give representation on the valuation committees to boards of guardians within the area. The Bill proposes that valuation committees shall be appointed for areas containing a population of not less than 50,000, 1202 and in the case of a non-county borough or urban district that a population of 50,000 shall be a separate district area for the purposes of the Act. Probably this question of population will give rise to more difference of opinion than many other provisions of the Bill. While I should be glad to see the number adhered to, I do not regard it as a fundamental part of the Bill, but I ask the House to give it their friendly and careful consideration, having regard to all the circumstances. The majority of the district committee must be representatives of the valuation authorities, and, in the case of county boroughs, they must be members of the town council, but, in the case of a county, the county council may, if they please, select persons to represent them from outside their body. There is an additional power to include the guardians if necessary in certain cases, and for a county to appoint joint committees in adjoining valuation districts. In London the County Council will be the authority and the metropolitan boroughs and the City will be the valuation districts, and the numbers of the committee will be fixed by the County Council. The majority of the members of the district committees will be drawn from the borough councils, and the guardians in London are to be represented on the committees. The valuation and assessment will be quinquennial. The valuation list will be conclusive for all purposes. The deductions will be set out in the schedule to the Bill. The only other two points I need mention are alterations in the law of appeal and the law as regards railways and canals. The appeal to quarter sessions will remain but the appeal to special sessions will be abolished, and the Government propose to deal with railways and canals in a separate measure if necessary and feasible.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law with respect to Valuation Authorities and the effect of, and procedure for, making Valuation Lists, and for making certain amendments in the Law relating to Valuation, which are necessary for the purpose of promoting uniformity of Valuation as between Valuation Authorities."—(Mr. Waller Long.)

§ * SIR HENRY FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)
said that everyone who was interested in the question of local taxation must agree that the first step to be taken was an alteration in the law of assessment. Nothing was more unsatisfactory in our municipal and local government at present than the contradictions, the anomalies, and the inexplicable difficulties which arose with reference to assessment. He had no opposition to offer to the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman had given for an alteration of the law. He hoped that the House would approach the question without Party feeling, as it was a measure of local reform which ought to be carried out. Differences of opinion would doubtless arise as to details, and the progress of the measure through Committee would have to be carefully watched, but in its general principles he thought the House should grant leave for the Bill to be introduced.