Clause 3.—(SCOTTISH VALUATION ADVISORY COUNCIL.) (Hansard, 27 June 1956)

§ The Solicitor-General for Scotland
I beg to move, in page 4, line 22, to leave out from "be" to "authorities" in line 24 and insert: appointed from a panel of persons (other than assessors) nominated by such associations as appear to the Secretary of State to represent valuation". I think that this Amendment gives effect to a promise to look at the matter again in order to see whether we could meet the wishes of certain hon. Members. It relates to a point on which a number of hon. Members felt very strongly.

§ Mr. T. Fraser
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after "assessors", to insert or town and county clerks". I should like to think that the Government will accept this Amendment to the proposed Amendment. After all, it will look very odd if this panel of persons to be nominated by the associations that represent valuation authorities does not 588 include assessors but includes other officers of local authorities. I should have thought that it would be clear that the Secretary of State does not wish the experts to be included in this panel. Otherwise, why should he exclude assessors? They are the most expert people in the local authorities on matters of valuation, but the right hon. Gentleman does not want them on this panel. He does not want them to serve on this advisory council, but he does provide for other officers of the local authority to be included on the panel.
Of course, we know what officers he has in mind. He has in mind the county clerks. There are some people who take the view that the county clerks should be included in the panel and indeed should sit on the advisory council because, it is said, they have great knowledge of those matters. But surely they are not more knowledgeable than the assessors whom the Secretary of State seeks to exclude.
In any case, we for our part take the view that this should be a council consisting largely of elected persons. We think that the names nominated by the local authority associations should be those of elected persons. We feel that we should invite them to produce a list of elected persons. We want to encourage democracy. We are all the time being scared by assertions about the growth of the managerial State; we are being bombarded by assertions about the growth of bureaucracy. Let us take a small step here to avoid the charge that we are putting the bureaucrats in control of the advisory council.
The Secretary of State, I repeat, has made clear that he does not want the most expert officers, since he will not have the assessors. Let me go a little further, and say that he will not have the town or county clerks either. There is really no need for the county clerks to be included. The Secretary of State will appoint other members than those yielded by the local authority associations. If there are some who, for good reason, he wishes to have included, he can appoint them directly, but let us secure that those people who are yielded by the local authority associations are, in fact, elected members.

§ Mr. Steele
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ The Solicitor-General for Scotland
There is, I think, a vital distinction between assessors on the one hand and town and county clerks on the other, so far as the advisory council is concerned. One of the functions of the council is to advise the Secretary of State on the assessors' work, and it is obviously inappropriate to have assessors, as it were, coming in to tell somebody what to tell them to do; they would in a way be judges in their own cause. The reason for keeping out assessors is that they are, in one sense, interested parties.

§ Mr. T. Fraser
I should have thought that in medical, health and education matters, the advisory bodies consist of those very persons concerned.

§ The Solicitor-General for Scotland
That may be so; there are those experts. But the position here is that we do not want to have the expert on this panel, because the panel is to tell the expert, up to a point, how he should run the thing generally.
Town and county clerks are in rather a different position. I feel it is a matter for the local authorities themselves to decide. I do not think we should dictate to them by saying that they may not nominate A or B. I can only hope that they will, on the whole, nominate elected representatives, but it is, I think, a matter for them, and it would be wrong for us to try to dictate to them on that matter.

§ Mr. McInnes
There is absolutely no question of dictation about this. What matters is who is best fitted for the job and is most capable of looking after the interests of the people. For that function, who would be better than the elected representatives?
As I visualise this particular Amendment, this body will be overloaded with officials of all kinds; sanitary inspectors are eligible, town and county clerks are eligible, city chamberlains could be eligible—a whole gamut of local authority officials are eligible to sit upon this Council, and they will do so at the expense of the local elected representatives.
In Committee, we sought to provide that the panel should be composed of democratically elected representatives. We had to give way on one or two points, but now the Government have come forward with this additional provision which 590 widens the scope enormously. What is wrong in asking that, if assessors are to be debarred, the same ought to apply to county and town clerks, to sanitary inspectors, chamberlains or any other official in what has now become the much broader scope of the Clause? What will happen is that officialdom, as it were, will take control of the Council; if perchance there is an elected representative here and there, he will be over-ruled.
We conceded enough during the earlier stages of this Bill, and we are not disposed to accept this new proposal of the Government.

§ Mr. Woodburn
I hope that the Solicitor-General will consider this matter a little further. We are somewhat worried that, for instance, when representatives of local authorities come to see Members of Parliament they often turn out to be mostly the town clerks and other officials. Of course, if this were a very onerous job, where the members of this Council would have to sit in continual session, I could understand the need for full-time people to take part in its work. But, if I recollect aright, the cost of running this Council is to be a mere bagatelle, which would indicate that the duties will not be very onerous. It seems to be the sort of thing appropriate for elected representatives. If we are to have only the officials, it will look very much like inviting butchers to take charge of a vegetarian conference.
The people who are the victims of valuation, whether industry or the private householder, should have reasonable representation. It should not be a matter merely for the professional people who are interested in the local authority rates. Rather should it be on the basis of a commission supervising Income Tax and Inland Revenue, to which public interest would be attached. Public interest, apart from the mere local authority interest, ought to have a balanced representation on a body of this kind which will be advising the Secretary of State.
I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will assure us that this Advisory Council will not be simply a body of people who are dependent upon the Secretary of State for approval, and who will play up to him, and that the Council will have some independence. If I were Secretary of State I should want a Council which could give me advice 591 and which was not coloured by the interests of its job and the interests of possible favours to come. Some independence must be infused into the Council. If it is not to be comprised completely of elected representatives, there should be some restriction on the number of town clerks, county clerks and people of that kind.

§ The Solicitor-General for Scotland
I certainly appreciate the force of the arguments put forward by the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) and his hon. Friends. We know of the trouble of the overloading of committees with full-time officials. It can be said for the Clause that as a result of my right hon. Friend's proposed Amendment, there will be at least a panel from which my right hon. Friend can choose. That is a step in the right direction. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will consider the points which have been made. Hon. Members on this side of the House also are aware of the difficulties, which certainly will be borne in mind by my right hon. Friend when the time comes to make the choice.
The only way in which we could cure the difficulty would be by dictating to the local authorities, and we should have to go even further than the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) has mentioned the city chamberlains, the county treasurers etc., and it would be necessary to include words such as "all full-time officials". I prefer to leave the matter as it is.

§ Mr. Woodburn
From my first reading of the Amendment, I imagine that the Secretary of State would be bound to appoint the people from the panel which is nominated. Presumably, every area could nominate its county clerk or town clerk, which would mean that there would be no one other than these people from whom to select. Could the Government not consider, in another place, the possibility of providing that the Secretary of State should have a choice—in other words, that names, and not simply one name, should be submitted? If the submission of one name is a formality, the right hon. Gentleman will have no choice.

§ The Solicitor-General for Scotland
My right hon. Friend will, of course, ask for 592 a panel of names and not simply sufficient names to fill the vacancies. He can always ask for more names, if he is not satisfied with those submitted.