§ 15. Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether, in the light of statistical details now available, he still recommends local authorities, in accordance with his circular of 3rd December last, to proceed on the assumption that the general level of values in the new valuation lists will be maintained, despite the appeals that may be lodged against the new assessments.
§ Sir K. JosephThe advice in the circular was:
The possibility that new assessments will be challenged and reduced cannot be ignored in estimating the rate product for the purpose of making the rate. But the Minister would recommend local authorities to proceed on the assumption that the general level of values in the new lists will be maintained.That would still be my advice.
§ Mr. LiptonDoes that answer reveal that this appeal procedure is going to be a solemn farce to millions of ratepapers who are thinking of appealing against their assessments? Why pretend that this appeal procedure is going to be of any value at all, if it is already known beforehand that it will not serve any useful purpose at all to the ratepayers?
§ Sir K. JosephThe hon. Gentleman is permanently mischievous in his use of Question Time to mislead the public outside through the newspapers. In this case there is absolutely no reason to think that the appeal procedure will not, as always, be an effective safeguard for the citizen.
§ Sir G. NabarroIn order to prevent any inconsistency—
§ Sir G. NabarroIn order to prevent any inconsistency, will my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] Perhaps my right hon. Friend will come a little nearer to me, then perhaps he will be able to hear. In order to prevent any inconsistency and so that no one shall be prejudiced by any appeals against valuation—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We will pass to the next Question.
§ Mr. LiptonOn a point of order. In view of the completely unsatisfactory answer that I have just received, may I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat being the third time that notice has been given in the wrong form this afternoon, may I ask the House respectfully to adhere to the traditional formula?
§ 22. Sir Richard Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will give details of the Committee set up to consider the impact of 218 rates on different sections of the community; when he will ask it to report; and in what way help could be given in cases where the impact of new rates is likely to cause distress.
§ Sir K. JosephI recognise the urgency of the matter; but I cannot at present add anything to the reply which I gave my hon. Friend last Thursday.
§ Sir Richard PilkingtonWhile appreciating the Minister's courtesy in seeing a deputation and the fact that he has set up this Committee, does he agree that there are two problems; firstly, the long-term policy for rates as a whole and, secondly, some help for those who are in immediate distress because of this revaluation?
§ Sir K. JosephI think that we must first—and this affects both parts of my hon. Friends supplementary question—establish the facts, and that is what this Committee will do as urgently as possible.
§ Mr. G. ThomasWill the right hon. Gentleman look again at the Committee's terms of reference? Is he not aware that it is quite impossible for real help to be given to ratepayers unless he looks at the question of shifting a great deal of the burden now placed upon them?
§ Sir K. JosephThe terms of reference have not yet been settled. They are being discussed now with the local authority associations.
§ Sir Richard GlynWill my right hon. Friend consider, when the facts have been found, using his powers set out in paragraph 15 of the White Paper "Revaluation for Rates"—Cmnd. 1663 last year—to assist areas which are especially hard hit?
§ Sir K. JosephI really cannot give my hon. Friend much encouragement. No case has come to the Government's notice of a shift of the burden, due to revaluation alone, that has come up anything near to the level where action was envisaged by the Government when they brought forward their White Paper.
§ Mr. D. SmithWould my right hon. Friend agree that revaluation has worked out much as was expected and that, overall, this rating problem is a long-term one and not merely one of revaluation? In view of that—and I welcome the setting 219 up of this Committee—will my right hon. Friend consider extending this to cover the whole aspect of the rating problem in regard to the long-term consequences?
§ Sir K. JosephIf I wanted, as it were, to escape by setting up a committee to study all sorts of things which the Government already know about, I would do that. It seems to me that the Government know the trend of expenditure and that, therefore, what we need to know before formulating our future rating policy is the impact of rates as they are after revaluation on the individual ratepayer. That is why we are limiting this inquiry to that purpose.
§ Mr. M. StewartWhile it is true that the amount paid in rates has not gone up, as a result of revaluation alone, by 30 per cent. or so in a whole area, is it not true that it has done so for a good many individuals in a great many areas? Is it not particularly that problem at which the Minister must look?
§ Sir K. JosephIt is quite true that by putting all the rate valuations back on to a common and consistent basis—namely, current market values—the distortions that have crept in over the years, when different groups of ratepayers had different valuations and different amounts of derating, are getting ironed out. That is why I have set up this inquiry.