HC Deb 27 April 1965 vol 711 cc341-62

9.13 p.m.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne (South Angus)

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Valuation Appeal Committee Procedure (Scotland) Regulations 1965 (S.I., 1965, No. 403), dated 8th March, 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th March, be annulled. My sole purpose in moving the Motion is to draw attention to Regulation 4, which says: An appellant or the Assessor may appear before and be heard by the Committee in person or by counsel or solicitor or, with leave of the Committee, by any other person: Provided that— (1) The Committee shall so give leave only if they are of opinion that no important question of law or of fact is at issue in the appeal. I understand that a number of representations have been made about this Regulation by the Scottish branch of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and by the representatives of the valuers in Scotland, but that, far from being improved as a result of these representations, the Regulation has been made more restrictive. This has been drawn to my attention by one of my constituents, who is a chartered surveyor.

For once, I must say that I am rather glad to see that right hon. and hon. Members opposite do not have the assistance of any of the Scottish Law Officers.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross)

Or a chartered surveyor.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne

Or a chartered surveyor. I do not have one to assist me. On this occasion, I feel that I am entering on slightly dangerous ground for one who is not a lawyer. My only purpose in doing so is to draw attention to what seems to me to be an extremely restrictive Regulation, which has the effect of introducing something which is rather reminiscent of a closed shop. I am opposed to closed shops in all shapes and forms. I realise that right hon. and hon. Members opposite have sometimes a rather more tender regard towards them, but I find them equally distasteful whether they appear in unions or in learned professions. There seems to me to be very much of what smacks of a closed shop in Regulation 4.

I have been told—I do not know whether the Secretary of State can confirm this—that this provision was included in the Regulations in response to comments by Lords Patrick and Kilbrandon in judgments which they delivered in 1962 when their Lordships criticised the growing practice of appeals being presented to valuation committees by persons who are neither parties, counsel nor solicitors". I should be prepared to accept that where important questions of law are involved in an appeal before a valuation appeal committee, it is reasonable that the appellant should be represented by counsel or solicitor. If pushed, I might even be prepared to go so far as to agree that in all the circumstances where an important question of law or of fact was involved, an appellant should have the right to be represented by somebody other than counsel or solicitor only at the permission of the committee.

The Regulation, however, goes a great deal further, because it lays down that where an important question of law, or, indeed, an important question of fact is involved, the Committee cannot give permission for an appellant to be represented by anyone other than counsel or solicitor. I understand that in about 95 per cent. of the cases that come before valuation appeal committees, no question of law is involved but important questions of fact are involved. As a result, the Regulation will have the effect of making it essential for an appellant in practically every case before a valuation appeal committee either to appear simply in person or to be represented exclusively by counsel or solicitor. Yet in most of these cases it is necessary for the appellant or for counsel or solicitor acting on his behalf to lead a surveyor or valuer in evidence. Thus, the only effect of the Regulation will be unnecessarily to increase the cost to the appellant of making an appeal before a valuation appeal committee.

In the judgment to which I have referred, Lord Patrick argued that A valuation committee is not a mere administrative tribunal. It is a court which has to interpret the law. This view seems to be in flat contradiction to the view expressed by the Sorn Committee, which in paragraph 91 of its Report stated that the great advantage of the valuation appeal committees is that, not being constituted as courts of law, they have no formal procedure.

In the conclusion to Lord Kilbrandon's judgment in another 1962 case there is a sentence which, it has been suggested to me—and I am rather inclined to agree with it—sounds rather like an indication of a dispute between two professions. Lord Kilbrandon said: A surveyor has no locus standi as advocate before a Valuation Appeal Committee. I am reluctant to get involved in the business of swopping legal precedents, but it seems to me that there is rather a striking contrast between the wording of this Regulation and some other legislation which is at present before the House. We have just been discussing the Teaching Council (Scotland) Bill. Schedule 3, which deals with the procedure of a disciplinary committee says, among other things, that the Council shall make rules for enabling any party to the proceedings to be represented by counsel or solicitor or otherwise. Perhaps a rather closer analogy may come from the Rent Bill, where it is said in Schedule 3, paragraph 7 that either the landlord or the tenant may be represented before the rent officer by a person … whether or not that person is of counsel or a solicitor. A similar stipulation is made with regard to the representation of either the landlord or the tenant before a rent assessment committee under paragraph 11 of that Schedule.

Surely the considerations which have to be examined by the rent officer, or the rent assessment committee, are not very dissimilar from the sort of considerations which have to be looked into by a valuation appeal committee? It seems to me that there is no obvious reason which justifies the extremely restrictive and stringent wording of this Regulation.

I realise that in the judgments to which I have referred their Lordships explained that they were anxious to protect the interests of the appellant. That is admirable on their part, but surely the appellant in these matters should be given some credit for being able to look after his own interests, and to deny the committee the right to permit an appellant to be represented by somebody other than a solicitor or counsel wherever a question of fact is involved—not a question of law—is to suggest that the appellant needs excessive protection against the wiles of other than these particular learned professions.

It seems to me that in this instance an unusually restrictive procedure is being laid down which is inspired more by a desire to protect the status and livelihood of members of the legal profession than by a desire to protect members of the public. Furthermore, it is a procedure which, as far as I can see, is bound to involve an appellant in substantial extra, and I suggest unnecessary, expense.

For both those reasons, but particularly the second one, I very much hope that the Government will be prepared to reconsider these Regulations.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro (Dumfries)

Like my hon. Friend, I welcome these Regulations, with the exception of the first part of Regulation 4. When I was in local government I was a member of an appeal committee for some years, and it was quite obvious to the members of that committee that those appellants who were not represented by people who knew what they were talking about were in bad case, and were batting on a sticky wicket, invariably being caught out by the assessor. It would be quite wrong to limit the advice that these people may obtain to that which is given by the legal profession.

The assessor is undoubtedly a master of his facts, and it would be quite wrong to forbid the appellant to have the best advice that he thinks he can obtain, whether or not it is from a member of the legal profession. On many occasions, especially in agricultural areas, appeals are made on a wide range of subjects—fishing, farming, forestry, and so on—and appellants need professional advice which is often far better than that which can be obtained from the legal profession.

An appellant might need the advice of a fellow of the Land Agents Society, or a member of the Forestry Society, or a chartered surveyor. He might want an ex pert on fishing—and there is no more technical subject than the value of salmon fishing. The expert advice which an appellant can obtain on any matter dealing with rivers is likely to be very much more advanced than he can obtain from the legal profession.

Even if an appellant cannot afford the services of a member of the legal profession, nothing gives him more encouragement than to have a friend—a friend who may be quite worthy to represent him. It is wrong to forbid such a friend to appear on behalf of an appellant. I therefore ask the Secretary of State to consider the question again.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart)

I appreciate that our argument on these Regulations must be confined to them, but it is difficult to consider them in isolation because they are part of a group of three Statutory Instruments which detail the procedure and the time table to be adopted next year when we have revaluation in Scotland. When I received the three Statutory Instruments I was rather surprised to see, in the heading, "Rating and Valuation". This seemed to me to indicate that the Government had in mind that the rating system was here to stay—in other words, that there was no prospect of an immediate change in the system of local government finance.

First, we had the Statutory Instrument dealing with the time table. That was a good one, because it extended the period during which appeals can be entered in a revaluation year. Then we had the Statutory Instrument dealing with notices. Again, that was very sensible, because it gave people more details about their rights of appeal. When I saw these Regulations dealing with procedure, however, I was alarmed to see the new powers contained in Regulation 4. These are new powers. In fact, these are new Regulations, dealing with a new situation, and it is rather alarming that in these days such a change in procedure can be introduced in this way by delegated legislation.

The powers contained in the Regulations stem from the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1963, which lay down that Regulations may be brought forward providing for the procedure to be adopted at hearings of appeals by valuation appeal committees. I suggest that if we are to make a change in principle in Regulation 4, such as we are making, it is wrong to do so in this way. It would appear to be a most unusual use of delegated powers. I should have expected this to be brought to our attention before now.

It is stated in Regulation 4: An appellant or the Assessor may appear before and be heard by the Committee in person or by counsel or solicitor or, with leave of the Committee, by any other person … Many hon. Members will have had experience of appearing before a valuation appeal committee on behalf of a constituent and that is something which should be encouraged. Many people are terrified of a valuation appeal committee particularly in the circumstances in which the discussions take place and because of the place in which appeals are heard. It is unusual and regrettable that an hon. Member steeped in local or national government experience, and who is familiar with rating valuation law, should be prevented from appearing on behalf of a constituent.

There is more or less an obligation on people bringing an appeal on which some point of law may arise to be legally represented. It is unusual that an average householder should get more than £2 or £3 off his valuation. We are suggesting that in such cases, which clearly would not go to the Land Valuation Appeal Court, appellants should be represented by lawyers, possibly at a substantial fee, when the minimum reduction which they could hope to obtain in their valuation would be £3 or £4. This seems to be unfair. We should encourage people to bring their cases before an appeal committee. We call them committees and not courts, which I think is right because they should be informal bodies.

My objection to this Regulation is that in bringing forward circumstances such as are mentioned in the circular to local government officials a very important appeal involving a large amount of money or an important point of law is covered, but so also are the cases of individuals who may be appealing in respect of a house valued at £10 or £12. To suggest that these people should have a lawyer to represent them, irrespective of the nature of their appeal or the amount of the valuation seems to me to be ludicrous.

Many people may be willing to represent appellants at a valuation appeal committee. When is it to be indicated that it is not proper for anyone other than a solicitor to represent the appellant? An appellant may take a friend or a counsellor or a fellow businessman to represent him. Are we suggesting that individuals who appear before the committee with their friends to represent them are to be told that they cannot be so represented? Because of the nature of the functions of these committees it may be that 30 cases are arranged for one morning and an individual might have to wait several hours before his case is heard. Are they to be told at the end of that time that they might as well go home because only a lawyer may handle their case?

The other point which I feel is a very relevant one is this: how is the valuation appeal committee meant to know if a particular point of law will arise before it has heard the case presented by the individual? This seems to me to be incredible. For example, I might have to go to the committee on behalf of a constituent next year. How can it say whether an important point of law will arise before I present my case? I know that there is a procedure open to us, that a formal negotiation between the individual and the city assessor is possible. If they do not agree, the case then goes to the committee, if they want it to do so. But how is the committee to tell whether a point of law will arise before it has heard the arguments?

This seems to be ludicrous. I hope that we will get an answer to this point. There must be one, or we cannot approve the Regulations. How can a committee say, before a case is heard, whether or not a point of law will arise? I appreciate that, in drawing up the Regulations, the Government have in mind the large appeal, affecting a large factory or a large commercial concern, but we must remember that the Regulations will affect the ordinary man in the street, going for- ward with his appeal and hoping to get, at the most, £2 or £3 off. To suggest to him that he should be represented by a solicitor appears to be ludicrous. This is a very confusing situation for the individual.

I feel that many people did not appeal their valuations, did not go before the committees, because they were concerned about the complex nature of the procedure. Apart from that, I think that it is unreasonable to ask anyone to go to a valuation appeal committee when he might have to be represented by a solicitor. We want to make the procedure easier and more informal. This would seem to be a sensible thing to do. If an individual is putting forward his point of view to a valuation appeal committee, the majority of the members of which will not have legal qualifications—so that he is presenting his case to non-legal men—surely that indicates what the nature of the discussion should be. Even if some minor point of law were to arise on appeal, the great majority of people would not be interested in going to the appeal committee. The majority would expect sensible laymen in the committee to make a sensible decision and if they did not achieve their aim earlier, they would not go to the committee. If the Regulations are not accepted and amended Regulations brought forward, we would wish to have an indication of the level of valuations below which the Regulations will not apply.

It seems to me unreasonable, quite apart from the argument so ably put forward by my hon. Friend on the question of other provisions. This is a vital point, as to whether only a lawyer can represent people in a valuation committee adequately. There are many people in other professions who have a great deal of knowledge and experience in this. I feel that other professions can do this adequately.

So far as I am concerned, this is not the most important point. We should think of a second stage of valuation and of how we can make it easier for the individual to have his case heard without being overburdened with legal arguments or feeling in any way intimidated. If we are to pass these Regulations, I am convinced that many people will not bother to go to the committee, knowing that they may have to be represented by a solicitor. More important, many people would not think of asking anyone else to represent them in the committee if those people might be told that they are not competent to represent them.

Would any respectable citizen go to his councillor or M.P. and ask him to represent him in the committee, when he knows that that man might be told to go home before the case was even put? This seems to me to be unreasonable. It is bound to discourage people from putting their case forward. I should like a straight answer on the point as to how precisely the committee is expected to determine whether a point of law will arise before the case is presented.

9.40 p.m.

Miss Harvie Anderson (Renfrew, East)

I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) because I, too, was at one time a member of a valuation appeal committee. It is within my recollection that at that time the committee was not regarded either legally or generally as a court of law. There was considerable substance in what my hon. Friend said, because circumstances have changed greatly since valuation appeal committees were first established. At that time it was a somewhat unusual procedure for people to submit appeals and very few cases came before the committees. Since revaluation rates have been falling ever more heavily on householders in particular, the number of these appeals has grown tremendously and the importance of this matter to the individual has grown in equal proportion.

It is equally true that the necessity for a Form of appeal has become very great indeed because, since revaluation, the comparison of like with like has become blurred and the difficulties of distinguishing the reasons for the differences between one revaluation result and another have become the subject of sharp conflict within neighbourhoods and from one neighbourhood to another.

This is particularly true where county boundaries, such as those in my constituency, have come to approximate one with another, so that one has a comparison of a very wide area basis where the assessor in each one of the areas concerned may have set himself, no doubt rightly, a different set of judgments on which to make a valuation. The ultimate result is that there has been a great increase in the number of appeals coming forward and a consequent increasing necessity for making these appeals because of the increasing costs at stake.

This has resulted in there being a very long queue of appeal cases in my constituency and this is a very telling reason why the valuation appeal procedure as a whole should be given sharp and acute consideration. There are many facets of the difficulty which this queue brings, none more than the question of timing. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) pointed out that it is not unusual for 30 people to be called before a valuation appeal committee in a morning. This raises a host of problems for all concerned. Even if 30 people are called in a whole day, the problems are only extended for many of those concerned.

In many cases a man who is self-employed and whose job cannot be done by anyone else is unable to give up the necessary time within 10 days—and 10 days is the statutory notice required to be given to make an appearance. For example, I discovered in my constituency that while the people concerned might have wished to attend the appeal, they were abroad attending to their businesses. If we want to have flourishing export industries with real enterprise among our businessmen we must expect citizens to wish to conduct their business activities in this way and allow them to rely on someone else to present their cases when they are unable to attend because their businesses claim their attention. As the Minister's predecessor is aware, I brought many cases to his attention because of this difficulty.

As to alternative representation, in connection with Regulation 4, if we accept the Regulations it will be necessary for people to employ professional, legally qualified persons to represent them. For those who are able to pay the necessary money for legal representation there is still the question of timing. As we know, legally qualified people, particularly in the west of Scotland, are heavily overburdened with work. It is not easy to engage the services of a professional man at short notice, and, as I said, the notice here is only 10 days. In addition, it might be necessary for these legal men to spend a whole day waiting for cases to come up, perhaps only to be told to come back at another time, in which case I understand that the notice for the second calling is only five days. There is, therefore, very considerable difficulty in arranging for the professional representation suggested in the Regulations.

There is the other person, equally entitled to appeal before the valuation committee, who has not got the money to pay for professional advice. Here the legal aid system can be invoked, quite rightly, and one knows the difficulties. In either case, therefore, the citizen experiences quite definite difficulty in having his case adequately represented.

I have dealt with the position of the appellant who cannot appear in person but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart has explained, there are many people who would rather not have their appeal heard than have to present their case personally, because it is something that they consider, perhaps wrongly, to be quite beyond them, and the case has to be presented in a formal atmosphere to which they are quite unaccustomed. So there is a risk here, which none of us wish, that some of those who have the right to appeal and wish to do so, cannot or will not because these Regulations include additional difficulties in making an appeal.

Therefore, in addition to his considering the very valid point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus that there are many others who are equally well fitted to represent such cases, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the very practical difficulties that I have tried to bring forward. I hope that he may see fit to change, in particular, Regulation 4.

9.46 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon)

We are all grateful to the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) and his hon. Friends for raising this matter tonight, as it gives the Government the opportunity of allaying some of the anxieties that they have expressed—some rather more vehemently than others. I hope by my explanation to give some reassurance to those who are genuinely concerned.

Before doing that, however, I want to point out that the valuation appeal committees are much more in the nature of courts. Appeals from them go to a very senior court composed of judges of the Court of Session. It is, therefore, rather a mistake to go on the presumption that there is a parallel here in relation either to the Teaching Council (Scotland) Bill which we have just discussed, or to many other Bills to which reference has been made this evening——

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will recollect that I mentioned earlier the comment of the Sorn Committee: It is the great advantage of the present committees that they are not constituted as courts of law.

Dr. Mabon

The hon. Gentleman is flying in the face of fact. That comment was made in 1955 or earlier. I am not arguing the case for all the Regulations. Hon. Members have not referred to them all, and I assume that, in the absence of comment, the House rests content with them. Regulation 4 flows from a very serious comment, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and one taken very seriously in the context of valuation by Lord Patrick as long ago as 1962. Indeed, when the 1963 Bill was being discussed reference was made to this point. That is why I think that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) is a little unfair in claiming that there is a substantial point in saying that power to make this Regulation should not have been included in delegated legislation. After all, it was a decision by his own Government, and it is perfectly legitimate for us now to come forward and present this.

The hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) has spoken of exporters, and the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) referred to farmers, and all the rest. I will try to deal with all the points I can, although I think that hon. Members will, on reflection agree, when they read the OFFICIAL REPORT, that we have had a series of contradictory speeches. I do not blame them for that. I only wish to point out that I am being invited to reply to a series of contradictory speeches, as I shall seek to illustrate in a moment. They do not make my task easy in making this matter clear to other hon. Members listening to the debate.

Miss Harvie Anderson

Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the form and shape which an appeal committee should take, will he say whether as a local councillor he has sat on one of these committees? We should be quite clear about the degree of informality which it has been sought to introduce.

Dr. Mahon

This is one of the points of contra diction. I am not selecting a particular hon. Member, but it is very difficult to reconcile arguments about the desirability of informality, on the one hand, with the very important nature of the work, on the other. The valuation committees are very much in the nature of courts because their work later, on appeal, goes to a very serious court composed of judges of the Court of Session. The whole corpus of valuation practice is based on the decisions of the Lands Valuation Appeal Court. As in other branches of civil law, there is a body of decision gathered together which is very relevant to decisions taken subsequently by all concerned in the valuation system. The situation is quite different from the examples mentioned in the debate. I do not want to dwell on them, even if I would be in order to deal with questions raised in discussions on the Rent Bill in Committee.

It has been the view that we had to regularise some of the proceedings of the valuation appeal committees. The fact that objections have not been made to eight of the nine Regulations is proof of the reasonableness in this matter. Regulations 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are in the interests of the appellant as well as of the valuation appeal committees themselves. Regulation 4, the burden of the matter now under discussion, is needed because experience after the first general revaluation in Scotland in 1961 showed—to some extent this invalidates the comment about Lord Sorn—that while valuation appeal committee procedure should remain flexible there was a case for introducing these Regulations governing these matters.

The Regulations, including No. 4, were submitted for discussion to members of the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council and its agreement was obtained. The Lord President of the Court of Session, in addition to the Council on Tribunals, the local authority associations, the Assessors' Association and—the hon. Lady will be interested to hear—the Federation of British Industries and a number of valuation appeal committees were all consulted and none has objected. The objection came quite understandably from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and, I must put on record, from the County Councils' Association. They are concerned about this matter, but the concern of the County Councils' Association is somewhat different from that of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.

Like the hon. Member for South Angus, I would not trespass on an argument between two learned professions. I would not dream of intervening in a dispute where it is one closed shop versus another closed shop. I say that as a member of a profession which itself is a very good closed shop. There are good reasons at times for having a closed shop.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne

I do not understand the argument at all. If we have one closed shop calling another closed shop black it seems that we should denounce them both and oppose both.

Dr. Mabon

The hon. Member is not quite right, because we cannot denounce doctors—we have to have doctors. I am willing to accept that we may not need lawyers, although that might not sustain itself in law, or that we may not need surveyors, although that might not sustain itself much longer, but that is not what we are deciding. As a consequence of the working of the valuation system, the higher court, the Lands Valuation Appeal Court, has made some very severe strictures on the methods of working of the valuation appeal committees.

Because of this, it has been suggested that we should have this particular procedure. I accept that it is a new principle. I accept that it is a restriction imposed on the appellant, but the House must recognise that it is the clear intention that in the vast majority of cases—I use these words deliberately—the Committee will exercise its option of inviting the appellant either to represent himself or to employ someone to present his case. Indeed, a survey conducted in 1961–62 demonstrated that about 60 per cent. of all cases appearing before V.A.C.s were presented by the appellant himself or herself. We see that there will be no change in that, because the arguments involved will be no different from those previously.

These arguments did not concern major points of law. They did not concern any matter to which the Lands Valuation Appeal Court took exception. This is the point. In addition, in about 20 per cent. of all cases the person concerned is already represented by solicitor or counsel. They will be untouched by this. We are left on the 1961–62 survey with a margin of 20 per cent. of cases which would be asked in certain circumstances to provide themselves with counsel.

As I understand it, the argument is this. I think that I ought to put on record the Opinion of Lord Patrick in the appeal of Alexander Russell and Company (Glasgow) Ltd. against the Assessor for the County of Renfrew, about which the hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East knows a great deal, as I myself do. Lord Patrick said this: There is a growing practice of appeals being presented to valuation committees by persons who are neither parties, counsel or solicitors. This in my opinion is wrong. Parties cannot be prevented from presenting their own case in any Court though one often feels uneasy lest through their ignorance some factor has not been brought to light which might have affected the decision. Nothing can be done about that, but the matter is otherwise when ratepayers are represented by professional advisers. A valuation committee is not a mere administrative tribunal, it is a court which has to interpret the law, to ascertain the facts with due regard to the law of evidence and to apply the law to the facts so ascertained. What occurs before the committee is of great importance. When an appeal is taken to this court since we are bound by the facts as they have been adduced before the committee, the committee should have the ratepayer's case presented by someone who is qualified to interpret the law and is familiar with the rules of evidence. It was on this point of unfamiliarity with the rules of evidence and the failure to bring out the facts fully that the learned judges took this very serious view. It would be wrong for the Government to ignore that comment.

Miss Harvie Anderson

Would the hon. Gentleman tell the House the amount involved in the case to which he has just referred? Surely the case of Alexander Russell and Company (Glasgow) Ltd. is an excellent example of an appeal involving an enormous sum. The cases with which we are concerned tonight, as was brought out by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), are houses with valuations of £10 and £12. It may well be that the same procedure cannot apply. It would be right for the hon. Gentleman to tell the House the amount at stake in the case from which he has just quoted.

Dr. Mabon

I cannot give that. All I can do is to concede the hon. Lady's point that it was a very considerable amount. The hon. Member for Cathcart asked at what stage we would sort out whether the Appeal Committee would or would not give permission for the appellant to act in his own behalf or to have someone other than a lawyer representing him. The Appeal Committee, which has some previous proceedings to go upon, otherwise there would be no appeal, and which is quite experienced——

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered, That the Proceedings on Government Business may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

Question again proposed.

Dr. Mabon

As I was saying, the appeal committees are experienced in identifying important matters of law or of fact, whether the appellants be a big firm, as in the case to which I referred, or, indeed, a local authority, whatever the amounts at stake. If by chance an important question of law or fact arose unexpectedly in what the hon. Member terms a normal case the committee have power to adjourn the case and review their decision on the matter. This, after all, is a point of protection for the appellant. The whole objection has been that because the procedure has not been followed out properly their Lordships have had great difficulty in hearing the case properly and, therefore, in arriving at a just decision. Surely the important thing for hon. Members to be concerned about is that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done in this instance. That could hardly happen when the judges themselves were complaining about the previous procedures.

It may be argued that we should have done this the other way round and that we should have allowed the appellant to be the person to decide, but one sees the absurdity of that in that the margin of error could be greater than in the other case where the committee, by definition composed of disinterested parties, is asked to judge whether at that early stage counsel should be employed or not.

The Government will not take an absolutely blank stand on this. That would be absurd. My right hon. Friend's view is quite simple and straightforward. It is that the Regulations should be given their chance to operate and that we should keep a close eye on the proceedings and see whether or not this method works out to the advantage of all concerned or whether it may impose a burden on a few people. If it did impose a burden we would look at it again. The system must be tried and if it proves unsuccessful we must find another which would commend itself to the judges concerned.

The Government have taken this matter seriously. My right hon. Friend has consulted the Lord Advocate and has his complete concurrence in these propositions. The Lord President of the Court of Session has also concurred in Regulation 4 as it stands. The hon. Member for South Angus is getting very heated and jumping about in his seat, and I can see why. He regards the decision of these two distinguished officers of State as not being quite proper. He is suggesting perhaps that they are not disinterested persons in that they are lawyers. If that is so, he is taking a rather unfair view of them. Even if it were true the civil officers, if I can so describe my right hon. Friend and other members of the Government, consider the advice of the Lord President of the Court of Session and of the Lord Advocate as perfectly disinterested. In addition, the Government have the advice of the Council on Tribunals which is an important body and which can hardly be said to express lawyers' interests. The hon. Member should take that point seriously.

We have precedents in regulations under the Town and Country Planning Appeals (Inquiries Procedure) Rules, 1964, and the Compulsory Purchase by Local Authorities (Inquiries Procedure) (Scotland) Rules, 1964. These have been examples where the choice of representatives is restricted to counsel or solicitors or other persons only with the leave of the committee concerned. As I said before, the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council has approved the arrangement in this instance.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor

How could the valuation appeal committee decide whether an important point of fact or law arose before it had heard any details of the case? All it would have before it would be a claim for a reduction from one figure to another.

Dr. Mabon

I concede that the committee might not know, but, as I tried to explain earlier, in such a case, having heard the stated case at the beginning of the proceedings, the valuation committee could then advise that the proceedings be adjourned and ask for learned counsel to be present in order that an important point of law or fact could be brought out in conformity with the proper procedure and laws of evidence. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman. But the advice given to me is that the valuation appeal committees in Scotland are so experienced in this matter that they could almost anticipate such a situation in the overwhelming majority of cases.

However, even if we are wrong, the procedure is still there to make sure that an appellant is given every chance of proper legal assistance, to ensure that, if he should take his case to the higher court, the judges concerned will not have cause to complain about the proceedings in the lower court because of the absence of a person instructed in the law to represent the appellant's case more adequately.

I hope that the hon. Member for South Angus and his hon. Friends will accept that I have tried to meet the arguments which have been put to me. The hon. Member for Dumfries mentioned the desirability of giving advice to farmers. He will realise that, as agricultural holdings are not on the valuation roll, farmers are really in the same position as anyone else occupying a dwelling-house. I need not elaborate on the kind of person who might come forward. I imagine that a simple farmer seeking to get a reduction of the valuation of his dwelling-house would probably not require the presence of counsel and the Committee would not require it, but, if an important point arose, the Committee could ask for it.

I hope that I have dealt with all the points which have been raised. I have given an undertaking that we shall look most closely at the operation of the Regulations and consider whether they work as we hope that they will. If they do not, the Government are willing to reconsider the matter and come before the House again with a revised form of Regulations which the House may find more satisfactory.

Mr. Monro

What is the objection to an appellant having the right, not by permission of the committee, to choose the professional adviser he wants, a land agent or chartered surveyor, perhaps? Why should not appellants be free to have the professional help of their choice.

Dr. Mabon

With respect, the importance of having counsel present lies in the need to follow the proper procedures of evidence and to satisfy the judges of the Lands Valuation Appeal Court. It is necessary to ensure that points of law are clearly seen and appreciated at the level of the valuation appeal committees. If it is thought that a land surveyor or some other person is well qualified to present the case, there is no bar to counsel bringing forward such persons as witnesses. But what is clearly wrong is to expect a surveyor, accomplished though he may be, or any other person not trained in the law to conduct proceedings at an important valuation hearing so as to satisfy the senior court if the matter is taken as high as the senior court. That is the essence of the answer to the hon. Gentleman.

Despite our earlier, I hope, lighthearted remarks about conflict between the professions, there is no suggestion of putting these other professions in a derogatory or secondary position. The point is that in this instance, lawyers are the only ones who should be entitled to present a case so that it can satisfy their lordships if the matter comes before the Lands Valuation Appeal Court.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne

I do not want to take up the time of the House unduly, but I am bound to say that I find the reply of the Under-Secretary of State unsatisfactory in a great many respects. He accused my hon. Friends and me of contradicting each other without making any indication of where the contradictions lay. He dismissed the Sorn Committee's Report as being out of date. But the most serious point was that he showed that he had neither read the Regulation in question nor listened to my remarks about it at the beginning of the debate.

The hon. Gentleman argued that, in the vast majority of cases, the appeals committee will continue to be able to permit the appellant himself to appear before it or to be represented by whom he likes. With great respect, I say to the hon. Gentleman that he cannot have read the Regulation, which says that the committee can permit an appellant to be represented by any other person Provided that— (1) The Committee shall so give leave only if they are of opinion that no important question of law or of fact is at issue in the appeal: In other words, if the Committee is of opinion that an important issue of law or of fact is at issue in the appeal, it cannot give permission for the appellant to be represented by anybody other than a solicitor or counsel.

Dr. Mabon

I would remind the hon. Gentleman that, at the beginning of the debate, he generously gave us the point that, where important questions of law and fact are concerned, the appellant should be represented by a lawyer. He went even further when he said that he felt that a lawyer should be representing the appellant in all circumstances. That is the nub of the argument. He can only choose one course or the other.

Either the appellant should be deciding or the committee should be deciding. Clearly, the appellant, being the interested party, can hardly be said to be choosing wisely or unwisely when the wisdom of his choice is reflected in the later proceedings at the Land Valuation Appeal Court. That is the point of substance. It is judgment by the referee and not by the applicant.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne

I suspected that the hon. Gentleman was not listening to my remarks and now I am sure of it. I said that I was prepared to concede that, where an important question of law arose, it was right that the committee should not be empowered to permit the applicant to be represented by anybody other than counsel or solicitor and that the appellant should be prepared to accept that. I also said that, where nothing but an important question of fact arose, there was no reason why the committee should not be empowered to permit the applicant to be represented by somebody other than a solicitor or counsel. What I object to most of all is that this Regulation says that the committee is free so to decide only where it is of opinion … that no important question of law or fact … arises.

The hon. Gentleman said that it was right that the committee should be free to decide but that is not what the Regulation does. As a result, if the figures I have given are correct, and in 95 per cent. of these cases a question of fact does arise—and that would seem inevitable—it is untrue to say that, in the vast majority of cases, there will be no difference. There is bound to be a difference. The committee has no power to decide this.

Dr. Mabon

Perhaps I may try again. The hon. Gentleman keeps referring to a figure of 95 per cent. of cases. If, say, there is an argument concerning a valuation which is £2 or £10 more, that is hardly an important point of fact unless it is also taken with an important point of law. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets his figure. Perhaps he will enlighten us. If he means the bulk of appeals, I believe that I have demonstrated that they will not be affected by this and cannot be affected because they will not be defined by the committee as involving an important point of law or of fact.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne

I am bound to say that that gives me some relief, but, nevertheless, my understanding is that in almost all these cases an important point of fact would be considered to arise. I cannot understand why the Government should consider it necessary to forbid the committee from making up its own mind on these issues and to deny it the right to permit an applicant to be represented by someone other than counsel or a solicitor, at any rate when an important point of law is not considered to arise.

This is the main issue in this whole discussion and I am sorry that the Under-Secretary does not agree with me. The fact of the matter is that to the layman the whole of the Regulation smacks of a closed shop set up for the benefit of one profession to the exclusion of others, and one which is bound to involve the general run of applicants—and particularly applicants in small cases with which all my hon. Friends have been most particularly concerned and which are obviously the bulk of the appeals and much the most important—in substantial extra and unnecessary expense. Nothing the Under-Secretary has said has in any way removed my very substantial objections to the Regulation.

Question put and negatived.

Forward to