HC Deb 25 October 1967 vol 751 cc1688-97

12.30 p.m.

Mr. Peter Doig (Dundee, West)

I am very grateful for the opportunity of calling attention to an anomaly which has arisen in my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson).

Four of my constituents have recently discovered that included in the gross annual value of their house is a figure for garden sheds which they do not possess and have never possessed. They did not discover this during the appeal period in the year of revaluation, 1966. This is understandable. They received a pink form which gives them the gross annual value and rateable value, but it does not include extras such as garages, central heating or garden sheds. Therefore, they had no reason to suspect that as they had never possessed a garden shed they would have one included in their gross annual value.

The anomaly was accidentally discovered during gossip with their neighbours when they found that they had a higher assessment than their neighbours for the same type of house. They went to the city assessor, who informed them that this was because they had a garden shed. They pointed out that they did not have a garden shed.

The assessor told me that nothing could be done about this. I also approached the town clerk, and he in turn said that nothing could be done about it. The assessor advised these people of their right to appeal in other than a revaluation year to the Valuation Appeal Committee. A letter that he sent to one of them said: With reference to recent correspondence on this matter I have decided, after consideration, that I am prevented by law from offering any reduction in assessment for the nonexistence of a garden shed at this address. The entry in the valuation roll as originally notified to you must, therefore, stand. He goes on to say that they have a right of appeal, and ends: I am bound to state, however, that by virtue of the provisions of Section 9(2) of the 1956 Act your appeal, in my opinion, would be considered as incompetent. It seems to me a strange thing that one party to the appeal should be allowed, as a so-called expert, to intimidate the other party into not appealing by saying that on the basis of his expert knowledge it would be ruled as incompetent. It is wrong that he should send such a letter.

In spite of the letter I advised my constituents to appeal. They agreed to do so provided that I would represent them before the Appeal Committee. I thought that this was reasonable because the letter which they received from the assessor said in relation to Valuation Appeal Committees: At the hearing you may appear in person or be represented by counsel or solicitor or, with the leave of the Committee, by any other person. As these people have no great knowledge of procedure of this kind—many of them are even frightened of it—they agreed to appeal only on condition that I would represent them.

So I went to the Valuation Appeal Committee. I was astonished to find that the Chairman of the Committee stated that if the appeal related to a question of law or fact, only a solicitor could act for these people. This would appear to suggest that if I were merely expressing an opinion the Committee would listen to me but if that I were expressing a fact it would not listen to me. This seems to me to be a very strange state of affairs.

I was further surprised to find that in the excerpt from the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956, that was sent to these people it was stated: Provided that notwithstanding the provisions of sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (b) of this subsection the assessor shall, in making up a roll for any year other than a year of revaluation, give effect to … any alteration in the value of any land and heritages which is due to a material change of circumstances. It seems to me that on the basis of that provision in Section 9 there is a case for altering this. It seemed very strange—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

Order. Is the hon. Gentleman asking that there should be new legislation to do this? If he is, he is out of order on the Adjournment.

Mr. Doig

No, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am leading up to Ministerial responsibility in this matter. It is necessary to give the background to enable hon. Members to understand what this is about. I am merely giving the background before I come to the point of Ministerial responsibility. I hope that you will bear with me and allow me to do this. I can assure you that it is necessary to do this so that even the Minister of State can understand what this is about.

I should like to have the opinion of the Minister of State when he replies on whether or not a Committee should refuse to hear someone. It must be obvious that no sane person is ever going to appeal in a case of this kind where the solicitor's fees will undoubtedly be greater than any possible saving that he could achieve in the four years between revaluations. People would be off their heads if they engaged solicitors in cases like this where they would be bound to lose more than they could possibly save. I should like to have the opinion of the Minister of State on this state of affairs.

Section 9 of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956, suggests that if a shed is removed the valuation can be decreased. On the other hand, if there is no shed there in the first place, the authorities cannot remove it, and if they cannot remove it there is no material change of circumstances and, therefore, the gross annual value cannot be reduced.

Having been refused permission to put the case before the Valuation Appeal Committee and the appeal having been thrown out, it struck me that this was a tailor-made case for the Parliamentary Commissioner. I can think of no more appropriate case for him to deal with than this. Therefore, I wrote to the Parliamentary Commissioner and asked him to investigate the case and do anything he could in the matter. I received a reply which said that it was outside his jurisdiction because it dealt with a local authority matter. It would seem to me that it should be brought within his jurisdiction.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but once again he is approaching the need for new legislation, and he cannot do that and remain in order on the Adjournment.

Mr. Doig

I realise that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is why I merely said it and left it.

Next, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland and put all the facts to him. I received a reply from my noble Friend Lord Hughes, the Joint Under-Secretary of State, on 7th September. My noble Friend wrote: Thank you for your letter … to the Secretary of State about two of your constituents who have been assessed for rating of garden sheds which they do not have. He then pointed out that in his opinion the assessor was right in saying that he could not change it, etc., and continued: The system unfortunately does not make allowance for the automatic correction of an anomaly of the kind which appears to have arisen, quite accidentally, in Dundee. That position is governed by the terms of the 1956 Act itself, there is no action open to the Secretary of State to take on any individual case or group of cases. I draw particular attention to that phrase because of what happened afterwards: … There is no action open to the Secretary of State to take an any individual case or group of cases.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The more powerful the hon. Gentleman's arguments, the more I am convinced that he is really asking for new legislation. He cannot do so and I cannot allow him to go on indefinitely.

Mr. Doig

I am trying to point out that while the Secretary of State says in this letter one thing, in another he says something different. How I am to lead up to the second letter without referring to the first, I do not know. The second letter would be Greek to the House if I could not refer to the first.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

If the hon. Gentleman is merely presenting a case that different views have been presented at different times by the Secretary of State, then he is in order.

Mr. Doig

I read that phrase from the first letter twice so that it would be firmly understood, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It so happens that I have a number of old Acts of Parliament lying about my House. One of my sons was reading through these one day and discovered an Act referring to this very problem—the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1963, Section 20 of which says: Where it is shown to the satisfaction of a rating authority that any amount has been paid to them in respect of rates by reason of an error of fact, and the amount is not recoverable apart from this section, the authority shall repay the amount to the person from whom they received it or to any other person appearing to them to be entitled to that person's interests: Provided that no repayment under this subsection shall be made after the end of the sixth year after that in respect of which the amount was paid, unless application therefore was before that time. That, I submit, completely contradicts the letter which Lord Hughes sent stating that the Secretary of State had no power to do anything about this matter.

I drew Section 20 of the 1963 Act to Lord Hughes' attention and subsequently he agreed that it covered the very point I had made. It seems strange to me—and this is where the Ministerial criticism comes in—that the Secretary of State should convey to me in one letter that no action was open to him and in a subsequent letter that the point was now covered. It seems strange that no one in St. Andrew's House seemed to know about Section 20 of the 1963 Act. It is a strange omission.

On 11th October, I received a second letter from Lord Hughes in which he said: I enclose a copy of the letter which I have cent today to Lord Provost Mackenzie about the assessment of non-existent garden sheds. As you will see I have stated that if the Town Council decided there has been an error of fact they have an obligation to make refunds. I have seen the letter which Lord Hughes sent to the Lord Provost. As he said in his letter to me, it points out to the local authority that, under Section 20 of the 1963 Act, it has a duty to repay this money if there is an error of fact. The error of fact, although the Valuation Appeal Committee did not hear me, was admitted to the Committee by the Assessor.

I have approached the Lord Provost about the matter and have asked him to carry through these repayments and he has sent me the following letter: I thank you for your letter of 14th October. In view of the information, which has now come to hand, about the terms of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1963, it is my intention to discuss the matter of rating of non-existent garden sheds in the City, with the Treasurer at an early date. After I have had all opportunity of doing this, I have no doubt an item will be included on the agenda of the appropriate Committee, so that the matter may be given attention. When a decision has been obtained, I shall write you again. Powers are given to the Secretary of State under the 1956 Act to make orders. I ask my right hon. Friend to take whatever action is possible within his jurisdiction to rectify the flaws highlighted by these cases. The City Assessor of Dundee has agreed that these cases are probably duplicated in every constituency in the country. This is a serious matter that requires looking into by the Secretary of State and I urge him to take whatever steps are within his power to rectify the position.

12.47 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon)

I suspect that the indignation caused to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) by this case is the reason why he has been a little ungenerous to my noble Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who was an excellent Lord Provost of Dundee and is extremely interested in this matter and concerned about it.

Mr. Doig

I am sorry if I misled the House on this. I am in fact grateful to my noble Friend for the speedy way in which he dealt with this matter after I drew his attention to the 1963 Act.

Dr. Mabon

It seems that now there is a slight change in emphasis. But my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and, by implication, my noble Friend and myself were being criticised for the way in which this matter was handled and for the apparent contradiction between the letter sent by Lord Hughes on 7th September and that sent on 11th October. But perhaps I misunderstood my hon. Friend. I thought, however, that he had suggested that Ministers had changed their minds and this was not so.

It was perhaps almost galling to me to hear my hon. Friend complain of the operation of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956, because many of the criticisms that he made were in fact uttered by us in Opposition when the Act was going through 12 years ago. We are precluded by the Act from taking specific action in individual cases or groups of cases like this.

My hon. Friend referred to the 1963 Act, pointing out that the local authority has some discretion in this matter, and that is true. No doubt his speech will be read with interest. The Finance Committee of Dundee Corporation is to decide whether or not to exercise its discretion in this connection. It can decide whether or not there has been an error which should be rectified by the rating authority, Dundee Corporation.

I do not know how many non-existent garden sheds there are in Scotland that are being rated by assessors. We are very concerned about the way in which the valuation system is working. We have seen a number of anomalies and defects arising from the 1966 re-valuation. My hon. Friend takes great interest in rating problems and, as a former Treasurer of Dundee, knows that we are engaged on a review of valuation procedures. But this would involve legislation and therefore I shall not touch on that aspect now.

We are taking into account a number of points, and the 20 cases of non-existent garden sheds that we know of have been drawn to the assessor's attention, even though the garden hut element in the valuation is as small in some eases as only £1. Still, it is a matter of principle and that is always more important to a Scotsman than £1.

The matter was raised by my hon. Friend and his right hon. friend and neighbour, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs, and we have been able to go into the matter very thoroughly. I will recite the fact that the assessor was founding on Section 9 (1, b) of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956, and that, when the city assessor referred to Section 9 (2, a) of the 1956 Act, namely, that appeals are not competent in inter-revaluation years unless there has been a material change since revaluation, he was reciting the law as it stands.

I will not go into the reasons why the Dundee Revaluation Committee rejected the appeals of the three constituents. That is a matter for them. The operation of these appeals committees cannot be subject to a direction by the Secretary of State. The whole system yes, but not the specific operations of the system at the moment of their coming into being and being a real issue. That would be undesirable. It is something that in statute is firm and can only be changed by a new statute.

The reason, in defence of the present statutory provisions is not without some understanding. In a revaluation year ratepayers have a minimum of about two months between the last date of the issue of valuation notices by the assessor and the last date for lodging appeals in which to check the valuations, which cover pertinents such as garden huts. They can check to see that they are correct in relation to similar properties and, if they have any doubts, they can either approach the assessor informally or lodge a formal appeal. The argument is that if inquiries and complaints were allowed to spill over that 2½ months into subsequent years, it might open the door to other anomalies and difficulties, and comparisons would become less and less reliable as time goes on.

I do not want to be tempted into a defence of the statute or an argument for changing the statute, because I would be out of order. I merely recite the fact that the city assessor, as he sees it, is within his rights in this action as statute presently lays down. We are, however, reviewing this, but in this specific instance the question of any adjustment before the review of the Secretary of State can be translated into reality lies at the hands of the Dundee Corporation. The review will cover various procedural matters, such as the valuation timetable and information given to ratepayers in valuation notices and arrangements for hearing appeals.

Therefore, some of the points raised this morning will be covered by that, but it might be useful if we had a debate, when the review has finished, so that the Secretary of State can have the benefit of comments from his hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite on the usefulness of the review. It may be that they can suggest other possibilities of reform of the present system, which, alas, will be with us at least for another five years, I would think, and therefore we should get this system working as well as it possibly can. Other topics may be included in the review, depending on the terms of the assessor's reports for this important year of 1966–67 which should be in the Department in the course of November. The review should be concluded by the spring of next year, so I hope that my hon. Friend will remember that it might be useful for us to have such a debate and he may be able to help in arranging it.

I welcome the chance of commenting on this. I am glad that my hon. Friend is discharging any claim that we have been unreasonable in this matter or have not taken action as quickly as we can. We are the prisoners of statute, just like everybody else, and we can only take action where we can.

I cannot comment on what the Finance Committee may do tomorrow. It remains to be seen how it will discharge the matter of discretion. The matter of rents again is completely at the hands of Dundee Corporation, who are responsible to the Secretary of State for the tariff of rents. I know that in Dundee the position on rents is related to the gross annual value and hence the rating on these nonexistent garden sheds in turn reflects itself in the rent, but that is a matter which is within the discretion of the Dundee Corporation. It has always been a well-governed city and I am sure that the persons on behalf of whom my hon. Friend has been speaking will get proper and due consideration at the meeting of the Corporation tomorrow and in subsequent weeks.

The debate having been concluded, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER suspended the Sitting until half-past Two o'clock, pursuant to Order.

Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.