HC Deb 19 February 1948 vol 447 cc1443-5

Amendment made: In page 22, line 11, leave out from "person" to "who," in line 13.—[Mr. J. Edwards.]

Mr. O. Poole

I beg to move, in page 22, line 13, at the end, to insert, "in relation to any hereditament."

If I quite briefly make the point which I wish to make on this Amendment, and three consequential Amendments, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friend could give me an answer. This is a point which has not been given very much attention in our deliberations up to date. If an objection or an appeal against assessment cannot be made on the ground that comparable hereditaments are assessed lower, then the aggrieved person can only make a proposal to increase the assessment on those other hereditaments. It is obvious that many ratepayers would be very unwilling to make that point. They would desire to get their own rates lowered, and not to get their friends' assessments increased. Therefore, many ratepayers, rather than incur local obloquy and unpopularity by attempting to get their neighbours' assessments raised, would prefer to remain quiet.

Mr. Turton

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Bevan

A very considerable number of Amendments have been moved in Committee which have been accepted, and there are on the Order Paper many Amendments on Report which are in pursuance of promises made in Committee. Therefore, it is inevitable that there might arise at any time a certain amount of confusion. The Amendment which my hon. Friend has just moved and which was accepted, in page 22, line 11, actually meets the point which the hon. Member has in mind—namely, that any aggrieved person can lodge an objection.

Mr. O. Poole

If I may have the leave of the House to speak again, I would like to say that I am satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's reply. It was only the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary referred to an Amendment as being consequential that brought a doubt into my mind.

Mr. J. Edwards

Having made a statement on the third party point, I was referring to other Amendments on the third party point as being consequential. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not understand that.

Mr. O. Poole

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: In page 22, line 14, leave out second "the," and insert any.

In line 15, leave out second "the," and insert "a."

In line 17, leave out second "the," and insert "a."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]

9.15 p.m.

Mr. O. Poole

I beg to move, in page 22, line 20, at the end to insert: (d) in the case of a building or portion of a building occupied as a whole by the valuation in the list of that building or portion of a building as two or more hereditaments. Perhaps I may also refer to two other Amendments which cover the same point, in Clause 40, page 25, and in Clause 42, page 27, line 26. This is rather a narrow point, but when it was discussed before it was agreed to be of some importance. Briefly, the point of the Amendment is that if a hereditament has been divided into two, it can be valued as two separate parts, but if circumstances should subsequently arise by which that hereditament is occupied as one whole place, there is no provision in the Bill by which it can be re-assessed as a single hereditament. The object of this group of Amendments is to endeavour to put that position right, and we feel that if these Amendments are accepted, the point will be covered.

Mr. Turton

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Bevan

It is certainly true that in Committee I promised to have a look at this and I have since examined it. The hon. Member will remember that in Committee a considerable number of Amendments were moved which to some extent fell by the wayside when the third party right was, in fact, established. This is one of them, and third party right, along with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Subsection, provides sufficient authority to raise objection on the ground mentioned in the Amendment.

Mr. Walker-Smith

In that case it would seem to be redundant that paragraph (c) should be in the Bill, because the two things are the obverse and the reverse of the same case, and if the right of third party appeal covers one it would appear redundant that the one already in paragraph (c) should remain in the Bill.

Mr. Bevan

The answer is that Section 23 of the 1925 Act, as amended, now to be repeated in the new Clause, gives power to the valuation officer to treat as a single hereditament one which is occupied in parts. If paragraph (c) were not in the Bill, it might be held that the valuation officer could not be challenged.

Amendment negatived.