HC Deb 20 January 1970 vol 794 cc419-51

12 m.

Mr. John M. Temple (City of Chester)

I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 9, after 'dwelling-house', insert '(other than a caravan)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay)

I think that it will be for the convenience of the House to discuss with it Amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 12, after 'dwelling-houses', insert '(other than caravans)'.

Mr. Temple

As we are starting to discuss the Bill at precisely 12 o'clock I think that I am entitled to make a modest protest at the very late hour at which business is being begun on a matter which affects no fewer than 20 million householders throughout England and Wales. It is a very serious matter and will naturally have to have a reasonably thorough discussion, even though the hour is late.

I am glad to see present the Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government, because we are almost old colleagues in discussing these matters.

The Amendment, which was discussed in Committee, is relatively simple. It seeks to leave out the word "caravan" in respect of the types of dwelling which will be assessed at the same time. In other words, if it were accepted all other dwellings throughout the country would be on a comparable basis for rating purposes, but caravans, which I shall seek to show are in a different class, would be excluded and dealt with exclusively by themselves as a separate category.

Very strangely, on Second Reading on 10th November, when the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was in charge for the Government, he said in reply to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) that caravans were included with other hereditaments. This came as a slight surprise to me, as in my opening speech for the Opposition I had not thought that they were so included within the general category of dwellings. Therefore I moved a somewhat similar Amendment in Committee on 25th November. I was not then very certain of the drafting, so I withdrew it.

There is a history to the rating of caravans, and it is comparatively new. On the last revaluation in 1963 caravans were regarded not as rateable but as chattels and, therefore, not rateable. But under the decision in a case before the courts in 1966—Field Place Caravan Park Ltd. v. Harding—residential caravans became rateable. From then on they have been individually assessed to a modest extent.

Neither the industry nor we on this side of the House dispute that individual caravans of a semi-permanent nature can well be assessed. But in only 80 rating areas out of 1,600 throughout the country are caravans independently assessed. I have a letter from the Minister confirming this. As there is so little of this individual assessing going on it would not seem reasonable to bring them into the generality of dwellings. They are totally different.

A hereditament such as a mixed hereditament—a hereditament partly a dwelling and partly a shop—is in a category by itself. If there is a case for that being in a separate category, caravans should be in a separate category as well.

I will now state the reasons why I think caravans are so essentially different. First, unlike a house, caravans are built of relatively light materials and are of a depreciating nature. Everyone who has bought a house in recent years has thought of it as a more or less permanent investment, and as an appreciating investment. But caravans, in the nature of their construction, are of a depreciating character.

Again, caravans change hands relatively frequently because even a parmanent caravan is, to an extent, mobile. It is the practice of those who own caravans frequently to change them for possibly superior models. One cannot do that with a house. Once one has bought a house, one has to go to another. It is permanently affixed to the ground. A caravan is essentially in a different position from that of a normal dwelling.

A relatively minor but still significant point is that a caravan, by reason of size, has entirely built-in furniture or furniture which is bought with it. To that extent, I do not think that there is any comparable dwelling, and it is difficult for a valuer to subtract the amount of the value of the movable furniture from the value of the caravan and thereby arrive at an assessment of the caravan for rating purposes. This may be one of the reasons why so few caravans are individually rated at present.

Another reason which makes a caravan entirely different is that its rating assessment is arrived at having regard to the caravan and the pitch on which it stands. This is not comparable to the rating of a house and the land upon which it stands because the pitch on which the caravan stands is rated from an amenity point of view as part of the caravan park. In other words, one can have two identical caravans on caravan parks which are relatively close together but which are differently assessed because of the difference it the site amenities.

I have been in touch with the National Caravan Council today in order to give the House some up-to-date observations about amenities. Some parks are run to a very high standard of amenity. I have been to parks where there have been club facilities. Sometimes there are paved roads and street lamps; sometimes there is piped television; sometimes main drainage is available and sometimes not.

A caravan therefore on a particular park cannot be judged just as a caravan but in conjunction with the amenities of the site. Taking one caravan and comparing it with another, one may get a wrong view of the actual value for rating purposes of both of them.

Another point leads me to suppose that the rating of individual caravans will not become very general. It is surprising that, although caravans have been in the position of being able to be rated individually for some time, few rating authorities have sought to bring them within the purview of rating. This is because it is more convenient, very often, for the local authority to rate the whole of the site and collect the collective rate from the site operator rather than collect rates from each individual owner of the caravans. I believe that this will always be the case and that rating authorities are not ill-advised to operate that procedure and allow the site operator to pay rates under one assessment.

I have no intention of over-playing my hand on the Amendment because I hope that it will succeed. It is a reasonable Amendment and I trust that, with my explanation, the Government will accept it.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Denis Howell)

I am obliged to the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) for putting his case briefly. I share his concern that these proceedings are taking place at so late an hour, but that is the fate of such Bills which are placed low in the Order Paper—I believe after proper consultation through the usual channels.

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear me say that the Amendment is not acceptable to the Government. Its effect, as he rightly said, is to exclude from the new procedures outlined in the Bill the rating of caravans and to make a distinction between them and houses. One point on which he rested his case was that caravans, in fact, were different from houses and ought not to have the same principles applied to them. But we are talking about caravans on permanent sites—and the courts decide what is a permanent sit. We are not talking about the type of caravan which a holiday maker hitches to the back of his car and tows around the country. If we are talking about caravans on permanent sites, it would be grossly unfair to householders if their houses were rated when people living in caravans on permanent sites were not rated.

Mr. Temple

We are not talking about that.

Mr. Howell

Indeed we are. The hon. Member disagrees. What are we talking about?

Mr. Temple

I said that neither the industry nor the Opposition claims that individual caravans should not be rated. I said that they should not be comparable with houses and should not be aggregated within the houses category. That is a different matter.

Mr. Howell

If caravans are to be rated, we must apply the principles laid down in the Bill. If we try to apply some other criteria to them, we are drawing a distinction between the rating of houses and the rating of caravans.

It is also extremely important that the valuation officer should have the best evidence available. Temporary bungalows may form the only alternative source of information on which to base a judgment. That is a very good parallel, because it is almost on all fours with the case which the hon. Member made about a caravan being a wasting asset. That is exactly the situation with the temporary prefabricated bungalows which were put up in many parts of the country. They were not expected to be permanent. It was intended to clear them away. As we know, our expectations were not fully met, but that illustrates the anomaly which the acceptance of the Amendment would create.

Where this type of caravan is to be found infrequently, as is the case in some parts of the country, the valuation officer needs to go outside his valuation area to get the best possible information on which to base his judgment. Almost identical considerations apply to caravans as to houses. I do not believe that the hon. Member has come anywhere near to making a case for the acceptance of the Amendment, and I ask the House to reject it.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Martin Maddan (Hove)

The Minister gave the game away in his opening words. His brief undoubtedly told him to reject the Amendment but his first words made it clear that he did not understand, not only the intentions of the Amendment, but what the Amendment says. I hope that he will give further consideration to this, because he will realise that other points made earlier have had some substance. Indeed if they had not, a lot of Government Amendments would not be on the Order Paper. He may learn from that that my hon. Friend's case holds a good deal of water.

As I understand the Bill, the ratepayer living in an ordinary house may have to argue about the effect on his valuation of the valuation of a caravan. Whether or not it is next door does not matter. He does not know the considerations. He has probably never lived in a caravan and his position is very difficult. To put millions of ordinary householders in this position seems improper. The Minister seemed to imply that all that will happen under the Bill is that semi-permanent caravans will be compared with semi-permanent caravans. I do not understand that from the Bill, and from what I have heard about it. It is that caravans are to be compared with houses and vice versa. If it were just caravans being compared with caravans then no one on this side would try to say that caravans should be exempt.

We are saying that they should not be put in the same mixing bowl when comparisons are made. It will be difficult for millions of ordinary householders in conventional households to refute evidence because of a lack of experience of caravan life, amenities, costs and so on. It will enable the valuation officer to bring in an extra definition with which the householder is completely unfamiliar. This is what the Amendment is about.

Mr. Denis Howell

We are not trying to exempt caravans from rating. What the Amendment tries to do is to exempt caravans from the same processes as apply under the Bill to housing. I say that would be unfair.

Mr. Maddan

Our Amendment deals with separating caravans from houses when making comparisons for rating purposes. If later the hon. Gentleman makes a consequential Amendment comparing caravans with caravans, there will be no objections from this side.

The Minister of State implied earlier that my hon. Friend's purpose was to exempt caravans from rating. I was alluding to that. If he did not mean that, I withdraw entirely what I said about it, and only reiterate that it is understood that in one way or another those who live in semi-permanent caravans must contribute to the rates.

Mr. James Allason (Hemel Hempstead)

I remind the Minister of State that the purpose of the Bill is to allow houses to be valued under a new system; namely, to compare the rents at which other houses are being let or the relationship between rents and gross value not only of comparable houses but in similar categories. We are seeking to exclude caravans from this form of rating. The Minister says that this would be unfair. Unfair to whom? It will not be unfair to the occupiers of houses—

Mr. Howell

It might be.

Mr. Allason

—that they shall not be entitled to be compared with caravans, but it will be unfair to the occupants of caravans if they are to be compared with houses. My hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) made this clear.

I know that the Minister of State is running away from it now, but he told us that if the Amendment was accepted it would mean that caravans would not be rated. He has withdrawn that now. Of course caravans can be rated. They ate being rated for value now just as are cinemas, hotels and shops. It is not unfair on hotels and shops that they will be rated in the same manner as houses. I wish that the Minister would accept that caravans are in a different category of rating from houses. Therefore, I think that he should accept the Amendment.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

I want to add my protest to that of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) about the Bill coming on at this hour of night and dealing with an Amendment of such importance. The Minister of State cannot pass it over by saying that it is just one of those things that happen. I know that it is not his fault. He is pushed here to deal with the Bill at this hour in the same way as we are. It is the fault of those on his side who manage the affairs of the Government that the Bill is brought on at this time.

I want to protest, too, about the grounds on which the Minister said that the Amendment was unacceptable. He said that it was unacceptable because caravan s should be rated. When he was pulled up over that, he said that it was unacceptable because caravans should be rated on the same principle as other dwellings. They are already rated on the same principle as other dwellings if they are permanent caravans. We can already use as comparable one caravan with another in discussing the rateable value of the first or the second. This is the law. But the Bill introduces a new type of comparable: that a caravan can be compared with a house and a house can be compared with a caravan to arrive at the gross value of either of them.

In considering the Amendment we should bear in mind that one arrives at the rateable value of a dwelling by finding what the rental value is and making the appropriate adjustments to that rental value.

The purpose of the Bill is to make certain short cuts in going from a rental value to a rateable value. Its purpose is to permit the valuation officer to say, "That particular hereditament is let at £X per year, so this one will be let at £X plus Y or £X multiplied by Y." I am not sure which way the valuation officer intends to use that in future.

If the hereditaments are of the same kind, if one is comparing a three-bedroom house with a three-bedroom house in the same street, that factor Y, an addition or a multiplication, will be insignificant. The houses are almost the same, and they are what we know in rating law as "comparables". But if one is comparing a house with, say, a flat, then the valuation officer has a formula for that Y, a formula which may vary from district to district. If the hereditament is a caravan, and we are comparing it with a house, perhaps a town house, or a mews house, what formula can be used reliably to discover that factor Y, that difference which one will apply, that multiplier, that addition to the caravan or to the house to compare like with like?

As my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester said, caravans are so totally different from all other types of dwellings that to take the rental values of caravans and compare them with other types of homes is ridiculous. It will only result in great anomalies in the preparation of the valuation list, and I say that even though we are talking about what are known as permanent caravans, because, even though they are permanent, many of them have short lives. They depreciate rapidly because they are flimsy structures. There is undoubtedly a fluctuating market for them. They are in the nature of temporary dwellings, although one calls them permanent caravans.

They can be mobile, even though permanent, because it is not an excuse to derate a dwelling because it has wheels. Some years ago one used to get away with things if one put wheels on a prefabricated bungalow, but that is not the law now. Caravans are different in structure inside because of the built-in furniture and equipment, and they are different from ordinary dwellings in that the pitch is included in the rating. I do not think that one can say that that is so with buildings on the ground.

One purpose of the Bill is to permit the valuation officer to compare caravans with dwelling houses of other types. The other purpose of the Bill, as appears from later Amendments, is to permit the valuation officer to point to the current valuation list in preparation for that which will come into operation in April, 1973, and say, "On that list as it is now the gross values are so much. Rentals in this area have gone up by so much in these last years, and therefore I shall add a certain amount to the values shown in the existing valuation list"—again a certain multiplier or additional figure. I hope that I have expressed that properly as the intention of the Bill.

When one applies that to caravans and other dwelling houses, will valuation officers really point to valuations of caravans in the current list and compare those with houses which he is going to assess in the 1973 list? If he does that, he will perpetuate anomalies and errors in the existing list, and indeed multiply them. If he takes the present rent of, say, a dwelling-house, and by some X to Y ratio he gets the present gross value—if that sort of formula is to be applied as between caravans and other dwellings, it creates a ridiculous situation.

12.30 a.m.

So from the point of view of both purposes of the Bill—comparing present rents and present rateable values and gross values and pointing back to the previous valuation list in the use of caravans as comparable with other dwellings—this will make a complete farce of the list.

I do not say that this is likely to happen many times. I cannot see any intelligent valuation officer carrying out an exercise of this sort except in some peculiar districts where he has nothing else to compare them with, but in places like some areas of North Wales where there are masses of caravans and one brick-built house, he will compare them and come to an extraordinary decision. Whether it happens on one occasion or thousands, it will create injustice, and that is permitted by this Bill.

Caravans ought not to be brought into any rule of thumb or any formula which a valuation officer could apply and will be permitted by this Bill to apply. It would be far better if the Government accepted this Amendment and excluded caravans from consideration under the new procedure in the Bill.

Mr. Denis Howell

If I may, with the leave of the House, reply briefly, I hope I have cleared up the misunderstanding which appeared to occur earlier. I am sorry if it was my form of words, but I proceeded from the assumption that all hon. Members in the Chamber were friends of the Bill and I used the words that we would talk not about the exclusion of caravans but about how they were to be assessed and about the criteria to be applied.

I am still unconvinced that the powers given to valuation officers in this Bill are not necessary. I listened with great care to what the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has just said. The important thing, which he said and I emphasise, is that if any valuation officer can use caravans for the purposes of his comparison, he will do so. Evidence about their rentable and rateable value is the best evidence on which any valuation officer can proceed and we are talking only about cases where such evidence does not exist.

The Opposition are saying that they would take from valuation officers powers to compare with temporary bungalows and other similar types of accommodation and the power to use them as a criteria. They have not told us, and certainly the hon. Member for Crosby has not told us, how they would assist the valuation officer in this difficult task. When I intimated to the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) earlier that this could be a hardship on caravan owners, I think I was right, because the further advice I have is to the effect that caravan owners themselves not infrequently seek to argue their case on the basis of the valuation or rents of temporary bungalows and other similar types of accommodation which is not exactly on all fours.

Therefore, this applies both ways. It will help the caravan owners to judge whether their valuation is fair, as it will help the valuation officers to reach a reasonable conclusion in all the circumstances of any particular case. I repeat, if no evidence of similar caravans exists in the valuation officer's area, he must go further afield to get the best evidence he can of temporary bungalows, which is usually the comparable type of accommodation which he takes into account.

For all these reasons, I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. Temple

I do not know when I have felt more disappointed—and possibly with myself, for not having taken sufficient time to explain my Amendment. I tried to cut corners, which is always wrong with anything to do with rating, because it is an extremely complicated matter. Possibly, therefore, I should blame myself for the fact that the Minister misunderstood the object of the Amendment at first. Even in his second speech, however, he did not get really the point. That is why I will make the point very clearly again to see whether he will not change his mind.

We were never challenging how the caravans individually could be assessed. The challenge was on quite a different basis. As I explained, until this new revaluation, caravans were not rateable at all and there were various dwellings categories for rating purposes. These were houses, bungalows, purpose-built flats, converted flats, maisonettes, town houses, mews houses, semi-houses and flatlet houses. These were all separate categories. What the Government have sought to do—we do not challenge this—is to make all those dwellings into one category, but they are all permanent dwellings. They have said that caravans are to be compared with all those permanent dwellings. My submission, which was perhaps not clear at the start, is that we do not wish caravans, which are essentially different, to be made comparable with these other dwellings. I hope that I have made the position completely clear.

I am afraid that the Government are already proposing a system of amalgamating these dwellings for assessment purposes, which will be extremely confusing in the valuation court. It will be confusing if we bring in for comparability purposes caravans or mobile dwellings, albeit on a permanent site. The Minister would keep referring to "permanent caravans". Caravans can be moved from the site. It is only the pitch which has any permanence.

The Bill will cause many difficulties in the valuation courts, and if there are to be other categories of dwelling—I referred to the mixed hereditament—I can see no reason why caravans should not be in a separate category. As the Minister said, the valuation officer will go around the valuation courts of adjacent areas and there will be comparability—but caravans should be in a separate category, and then the situation will be much clearer.

I hope that we have made our point. I certainly have no intention of withdrawing the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Denis Howell

I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 10, leave out from 'a' to 'and' in line 20 and insert: 'new valuation list coming into force on or after 1st April 1973, then, subject to subsections (3) and (3A) of section 83 of this Act, any evidence taken into acount or adduced—

  1. (a) as to the rents at which other dwelling-houses have been let; or
  2. (b) as to the relationship between those rents and the gross values of the hereditaments consisting of those other dwelling-houses as shown in the valuation lists ceasing to be in force on the date of the coming into force of the new valuation list in question,
shall be regarded as relevant and admissible for the purpose of that ascertainment, whether those other dwelling-houses are of the same or a different description, if, at the beginning of the period of three years ending with the date of the coming into force of the new valuation list in question, the site of each respectively of those other dwelling-houses was situated within the area of a local valuation panel constituted in accordance with section 88(2) of this Act which was either the same such area as, or such an area contiguous at some point with, that in which the site of the dwelling-house in question was situated;'. This Amendment is intended to honour an undertaking which I gave to the Standing Committee. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan), with, perhaps, a little less than his customary charity, suggested a few minutes ago that we were being reluctantly forced into making the change. In fact, I am trying genuinely to meet the wishes of a number of hon. Members on both sides.

Real concern was expressed in Committee that the Bill as originally drafted would give valuation officers considerable additional powers which would, on the whole, be to the disadvantage of occupiers. It was argued that a valuation officer would be able to go far afield for his comparisons when drawing up a new valuation list, and the occupier, particularly if he were not professionally represented would be at a grave disadvantage. After considerable debate, I undertook to see whether it would be reasonable and practicable to produce a form of words which gave the valuation officer the power which we thought he needed in certain cases to go further afield than his own area, but not so far afield as to result in the realisation of the fears which hon. Members had expressed. We have, accordingly, alighted upon the formula of the contiguous valuation panel area.

We examined several alternatives and tried to arrive at what we thought was the best solution. We toyed with the idea of writing into the Bill a reference to "reasonable distance", but we decided that a form of words of that kind would invite litigation on a large scale about what was or was not reasonable. We looked at the idea of single or contiguous rating areas, and we decided that that, in practice, would become too restrictive. Next, we considered the possibility of putting in a reference to some set distance from the dwelling house within which comparable evidence might be found, but we decided that, in terms of distance as between rural area and urban area, that also was not practical.

We concluded finally that the only possible approach to meet the wishes of the Committee was to determine the matter on the basis of the contiguous valuation panel area. The House will know that there are 95 of these in England and Wales. That gives some idea of the limitation which we are here putting upon the opportunities open to valuation officers and occupiers. It is a reasonable solution. It strikes a fair balance as between the valuation officer and the domestic ratepayer. I think that it meets the real fear which hon. Members expressed, and I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Temple

We welcome the Amendment. As the Minister of State said, the question was discussed at length in Committee. Right from the start, the Government were pressed to narrow the area of comparison. This is a major victory for the Opposition. From the outset, we maintained that it would be unfair if the net of comparability were spread over the whole area of England and Wales. The Government have reached a happy compromise by settling on this valuation court area and the adjacent valuation court areas, because together those will give a fairly wide area around the hereditament under discussion. We can accept that and think that we have done a good deal to help ratepayers when they appear in the valuation court.

12.45 a.m.

You may have noticed, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. Friends and I have tabled a modest Amendment to the Government Amendment. It is after the first 'rents', insert 'and assessments'.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member may not speak about an Amendment which I have not selected and which in any case is out of order.

Mr. Temple

I consulted the Public Bill Office about this. The Amendment is not numbered, but it goes with Amendment No. 2. I thought that there was no question of selection because it was not numbered.

Mr. Speaker

There are two Amendments to Amendment No. 2 which are not numbered. They are out of order and they are not selected.

Mr. Temple

I accept your Ruling, of course, Mr. Speaker.

I conclude by saying that we are grateful to the Government for the Amendment, which goes a long way to meeting the case which we put in Standing Committee.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter (The Hartlepools)

I am pleased that the Government have decided to make this considerable shift from the original wording. Hon. Members opposite may claim some credit for the change, but it was urged by both sides both in Committee and on Second Reading when I strongly protested against the then wording.

However, as I said on Second Reading, even with a compromise of this sort, when areas with comparable rateable values are considered, even when they are contiguous, the ratepayer is left with a considerable problem when applying to the local valuation court for a revision of his rates or objecting to an assessment. The difficulty occurs especially in the large conurbations and in urban areas contiguous to rural areas.

Although the ratepayer applying to the valuation court may have some knowledge of his immediate locality and may be able to confront the Inland Revenue with argument and evidence based on that knowledge, it is often difficult for him to contest evidence about the circumstances of areas only three or four miles away. I welcome this change, but I urge the Minister to consider that problem.

Normally a ratepayer is unable to afford professional advice. I have had considerable experience as a member of a local valuation court and I know that the ordinary ratepayer is often so awestricken by the professionalism which he meets in the court that he is unable to find the words with which best to argue his case.

The Government have done a remarkably good job here in producing a compromise and moving away from the greater difficulties for a ratepayer of allowing assessors to bring in evidence rateable values in areas completely different from that in which the plaintiff is assessed and is making his case.

I would have thought that the corollary of what the Government, in their wisdom, have now done in accepting the appeal made from both sides of the House is that the plaintiff should have made available to him all the evidence which the assessor,, the Inland Revenue, will bring to bear against him. A very good principle in Government and local government is this, that where a man is making an appeal there should be available to him all the relevant information so that he can prepare his case, or seek advice, before he enters the local valuation court to present his case. Therefore I ask the Minister, can some real thought be given to how best to make available to the ratepayer all relevant information which will be brought to bear against him at the hearing when he objects to the assessment made upon him, or when he makes application for a reduction in his rateable value, for whatever reason? If the Minister will take that appeal which I make to him, on the ground that it is very important to the individual, I shall be very grateful to him.

Mr. Allason

I think we are very sorry that the hon. Member for the Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) was not a Member of the Standing Committee, because had he been there, with his well-known persuasiveness, he might have helped us to get a bit further along the road even than we have reached at last tonight.

The Minister gave the impression this evening that he had given undertakings in Committee and that he had been thoroughly sympathetic. I would remind him that his words in Committee were very different indeed. He said that it is the Government's belief that the only feasible thing to do is to go further afield than 'adjacent' when, by necessity, it has to be done, in order to get the best possible evidence. Obviously we cannot accept the limitation proposed…On purely practical grounds, therefore, we could not accept the Amendments…[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 20th November, 1969; c. 43–4.] He gave us no hint whatever that his mind was in any way receptive to the arguments we were putting to him. Finally, I asked leave to withdraw the Amendment then under discussion, and I did so on the basis that we should bring forward a better Amendment on Report, because the Minister was not then prepared to budge.

However, do not let us be churlish about this, because now he has brought forward this Amendment, and it is a very important one. It amends the 1967 Act to the extent of adding 15 lines to it; 10 lines are taken out and replaced by those of the Amendment.

I welcome it very much, firstly on the grounds of clarity. In the debates in Committee the Minister was constantly getting muddled between the alternative types of evidence. We constantly reminded the Minister of the alternatives, and considering this proposal and the new sub-paragraphs (a) and (b), it is clear that if the matter was muddled to the Minister, it would have been even more muddled to those affected by it.

A principal matter has concerned the restriction on the scope of the area about which the valuation officer might seek evidence. We have based our arguments on grounds of equity and convenience, and we are delighted that the Government have accepted our views. We were told that "adjacent" was ill-defined, and instead we now have "contiguous". The Amendment is to be welcomed because it will improve the Bill.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker

I remind the House, as I mentioned about two hours ago, that we still have a lot of work ahead and that the night is not eternal. Mr. Maddan.

Mr. Maddan

I sympathise with your observation, Mr. Speaker, and I promise to be brief. Indeed, I wish to clarify only one point.

On Second Reading and subsequently I tried to obtain an explanation of the phrase …for the time being in force…". I feared that those words would mean that since the new list had already come into force, it would not be permissible for a ratepayer to make comparisons between his current valuation and his old one and similar differences between those applying to his neighbours' houses. Will subparagraph (b) of the Amendment solve that problem?

Mr. Denis Howell indicated assent.

Mr. Maddan

I am grateful for that assurance. The Minister will agree that often things are not always what they seem at first sight, certainly to a layman like myself in these matters.

Mr. Graham Page

The hon. Member for the Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) raised an important point in connection with the Amendment when he asked how best we could protect the ratepayer who was often awe-stricken in valuation proceedings because he must frequently appear in person since there was no legal aid for him in those courts.

For the ratepayer this presents a considerable problem, even though the area with which he may have to deal has been greatly reduced by the Amendment. As the hon. Member for the Hartlepools pointed out, he may have precise knowledge of his immediate locality, but he will be in difficulty in rebutting evidence which may be brought even from areas contiguous to his own.

I do not want to be uncharitable when the Minister has made a concession of this sort. However, it should be put on record that here we have a one-Clause Bill—that is, apart from Clause 2, which is concerned with the Citation, extent and commencement of the Measure—of 25 lines the guts of which are in lines 10 to 20. It probably has not happened in the history of Parliament that those lines, those guts, have been removed, that the Bill has been de-gutted and a transplant gut inserted, this operation resulting from an examination and critical diagnosis by the Opposition.

1.0 a.m.

Even so, the position, although gratifying, is rather alarming. My hon. Friends the Members for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) and Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) were the specialists, as it were, called in to make the diagnosis. It is rather alarming to think what would have happened to the patient if they had not been consulted in Committee. To switch the metaphor somewhat, the patient is the ratepayer who will suffer under this new procedure. The Government could not possibly sustain such a grossly unfair provision, and they ought never to have tried to defend it. The Minister of State tried to do so in Committee, but it was an untenable position. Now under the Amendment we have the provision that evidence will be brought only from the area of the property concerned or the area of the local valuation panel contiguous to that of the area in which the property is situated.

The Minister of State told us that there are 95 local valuation panel areas. That means that every one of them is substantially large. It may still be that the ratepayer has to face evidence brought from l0 or 20 miles away—from an area with which he is not acquainted. He will still be in difficulty with the Amendment as it stands. He will be in difficulty because of the size of the area concerned and he may have to face evidence which he cannot verify or confirm. He has not the power of the valuation officer 10 discover rents different from his own. The valuation officer may point at the dead list to produce a live valuation list. The ratepayer has to face the possibility of comparison of his property with different kinds of property.

Although the geographical area has been reduced from the whole country to a matter of two or three local valuation panel areas, the ratepayer will still be in difficulty. A great burden is placed on a ratepayer when the valuation officer has all this information at his disposal which the ratepayer cannot possibly gather. Even with the very best advice the scales will be more heavily weighted against him in the valuation court than at present. This is too great a price to pay for administrative convenience in a situation of staff shortage. That is the only reason for this Bill, that there are not enough valuation officers to go round and a short cut to valuations is wanted. This is too great a price to pay in the suffering and burden it will put on the ratepayer who wishes to dispute his assessment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Graham Page

I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 25, at end, add: Provided nevertheless that the said evidence shall not be regarded as admissible in valuation proceedings unless the party seeking to adduce the same has, not less than 28 days before the commencement of the hearing of those proceedings, supplied to the other party or parties thereto written particulars relating thereto, stating—

  1. (i) the reasons for endeavouring to ascertain the gross value of the hereditament, which is the subject of the said proceedings, by reference to dwellinghouses of a different description or in an area contiguous as aforesaid to that of the said hereditament;
  2. (ii) the address, the accommodation, the description (for example, house, bungalow, purpose-built flat, converted flat, maisonette, town house, mews house, semi-house, flatlets house), the rent (including the amount and whether it is inclusive or exclusive of rates, controlled, regulated or of otherwise) and the assessment of any dwellinghouse being one of those referred to in the foregoing part of this subsection as 'other dwellinghouses';
  3. (iii) the nature of the said relationship between rents and the gross values shown in the valuation lists ceasing to be in force as aforesaid, stating it in figures as a ratio, percentage, fraction or multiplier if it is capable of such definition, and
  4. (iv) the calculations made and the multiplier or other formula used in arriving at the dross value of the said hereditament from the rent or assessment of the other 438 dwellinghouse' or 'other dwellinghouses' aforesaid or from the relationship aforesaid.
This proviso deals with the information which should be given to the ratepayer by the valuation officer if the officer intends to adduce certain evidence which the Bill now says is admissible evidence in valuation proceedings. It also obliges the ratepayer, if he intends to adduce that kind of evidence, to notify the valuation officer. It is a case of mutual disclosure of evidence before the parties reach the court.

In our discussions on the last Amendment we saw examples of the kind of evidence with which the ratepayer may be faced. In a straightforward case the evidence will be about houses of the same size in the same street as that the subject of the dispute. Under the Bill the ratepayer may be faced on the day of the hearing of his case with a great deal of evidence selected from facts to which he has no access. I recognise that to give that evidence the valuation officer will have to give notice stating the property to which he intends to refer. If the ratepayer has read the right sections of the General Rate Act, 1967, which he probably will not have done, unless he has professional advice, for which he can obtain no legal aid, he will know that he can demand that the valuation officer should produce the returns relating to that property for his inspection. He may receive that notice from the valuation office 14 days before the hearing and then must busy himself going to the valuation officer's premises and looking at these returns to see what information they give him about the sort of evidence which the officer intends to adduce at the proceedings.

All that those returns will include is, according to Section 82(1)— such particulars as may be reasonably required for the purpose of enabling him"— that is, the valuation officer— to compile the list. They are returns which the officer has required the householder to sign at the time the last list was being prepared, which, as we have not kept to quinquennial periods, may be ten years out of date, or they may be such particulars as may be reasonably required for the purpose of enabling him to decide whether or not to make or, as the case may be, to object to the proposal. The valuation officer may have got returns fairly recently in connection perhaps with that case or some other case before him. The returns may be up-to-date. They may be many years old. They could be supplemented by evidence from the valuation officer or any witnesses he cares to call, evidence which will not appear on the returns and which will not be known to the ratepayer before he hears it in court, evidence such as the present rents, which may or may not be given in the returns which he has inspected, and the kind of dwelling-house. What the returns will not show is the multiplier which the valuation officer will use by reference to some previous valuation list. The returns will show only a fraction of the valuation officer's case which the ratepayer has to meet when he gets to court.

What we seek in the Amendment is to oblige any party adducing any kind of evidence which he will be able to adduce when the Bill becomes law to inform the other party of that evidence. If he intends to bring evidence from another area, he should say why it is necessary to do so, why there is no comparable evidence within a short distance of the property the subject of the dispute. If he is to use secondary evidence of that sort from a distance there must be a reason which he will have to put before the valuation panel. He should inform the ratepayer of that reason, so that the ratepayer can be prepared to argue the point if necessary during the valuation proceedings.

The valuation officer should state clearly the category into which his alleged comparable dwellings falls. I have set out in paragraph (ii) of the Amendment different kinds of dwelling-houses as I believe they are categorised by valuation officers. If the valuation officer or the ratepayer wishes to compare a bungalow with a maisonette or town house he should state clearly in what category the comparable dwelling-house falls.

He should also make it quite clear, if he is to compare rents, what type of rent applies to the house which he intends to compare with that one at issue. The forms now being sent out by valuation officers to householders, which are the returns about which I shall speak, the returns which the valuation officers are collecting in order to prepare the 1973 list, ask the householder to say what rent he pays if he is a tenant. It does not ask him to say whether that is a controlled rent, regulated rent or entirely free rent. If that rent is to be the basis of fixing the rateable value on some other property, at some distance away, what on earth is the use of knowing that the rent is just a certain figure? One must know whether it is a controlled rent based on 1939 values, a regulated rent, which disregards scarcity values, or a free rent, which is probably the right rental value for the property.

So if the ratepayer examines the returns he will not get real information about the rent. He will be given a figure for rent, but will not know what kind of rent that is or how he should compare it in valuing that property, and from that property valuing his own. The additional information which would be given before the hearing is that concerning the formula which is to be applied in order to compare like with like—not only the formula but the basic facts from which that formula is derived.

1.15 a.m.

The ratepayer may be faced with an argument from the valuation officer that on the current valuation list there are properties which are rated at EX and that since the valuation list was compiled rents in the areas have gone up to £Y. The valuation officer may say to him, "I have not valued your house but I have applied that ratio which I have found to be existing in this area. I have not taken your house on separate valuation but have applied a certain formula."

If the ratepayer is going to be presented with that sort of thing at the hearing without warning of the figures beforehand or of the basis on which that formula or the multiplier has been concocted, and without any idea of what the formula is or the multiplier is, how can he argue his case? He may ask for an adjournment in order to get professional advice, but I cannot see the ordinary, awe-stricken householder at valuation proceedings, unrepresented, trying to argue his case in person reacting in that way. Faced with the statement, "I have applied the multiplier based on the last valuation list for the area. I have taken twenty houses where the annual value is so-muck, and rents are so-much, and have applied that formula to your house", he would be so shocked that he would not know whether he should ask for an adjournment. Indeed, if he said, "Can I go away and think about it?" what would be the good? He is not given the real information and he would need great professional advice to know it.

Having argued that the valuation officer should inform the ratepayer throughout these examples, I say that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If the ratepayer intends to adduce that kind of evidence himself, he should give the valuation officer notice of it beforehand in the same way as he would require the valuation officer to give notice to him. The Minister of State should give serious thought to this.

I can imagine the difficulties in which a valuation officer might be placed when fighting the owner of many properties, for example, some of the flat-owning companies in London, who would be able to adduce a mass of evidence of this sort. Would the valuation officer be pleased to meet that sort of evidence without warning in the valuation court? It is only fair to both sides that, now that we have altered the procedure on which formula or multiplier evidence can be produced, and are allowing evidence to be produced of property from a distance, as it were, we should say that, at least 28 days before the valuation proceedings start, the parties should disclose their cases to one another.

In any civil action, the plaintiff delivers hi; statement of claim, the defendant delivers his defence, and the parties know what each other's case is. If they do not "buy" these two documents, they ask each other for further and better particulars, and one has the reply to the defence, counterclaims and so on before one goes into court. The chance of surprise is reduced to the minimum. One knows the case one has to face.

But in valuation proceedings, under this procedure the ratepayer certainly will be faced with surprise when he gets into the court. I ask the Minister to remember that the very great proportion of ratepayers appearing in valuation proceedings, because there is no legal aid for them, will be appearing in person without professional advice. We should not put them to the disadvantage of having to meet a very complicated case on the spur of the moment.

Mr. Maddan

I warmly support the Amendment, particularly for a reason which my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) did not give.

The point is that the matter would be likely to go to the valuation court only if there had been personal negotiations between the property owner involved and the valuation officer in an attempt to resolve the difficulties privately. If those negotiations are to be likely to lead to a private settlement, so that the matter is kept out of the court as far as possible, it is better for the valuation officer to know that he will not be able to spring on the property owner a case in the valuation court which will take him by surprise.

For that additional reason the Amendment will be very valuable. In one sense it may require more work of a valuation officer before a case goes to court but, human nature being what it is, it will help to keep cases out of court. The endeavour must be to try to reach a settlement wherever possible and to use the court only as the last resort. My hon. Friend has listed all the germane considerations which could arise in the court. This is a most useful Amendment and I trust that the Minister will accept it.

Mr. Allason

Parliament has a duty to ensure that equity follows our actions. I and other hon. Members have misgivings about the effect of the Bill, first because of comparisons with different types of dwelling. My hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) has listed them. If the ratepayer finds that his type of house will be compared with an entirely different type we must go out of our way to ensure that he is fully protected. We are also worried about comparisons at a distance. A ratepayer may have to go 20 or 30 miles to view a house with which his house is being compared. Are we satisfied that there are adequate safeguards?

What about the effect of the general multiplier, referred to technically as the relationship between rent and gross value? We know that it is a general multiplier which will be given on tablets of stone to the valuers who are to apply it. It is a little suspicious that they are to use a computer for the purpose. We must ensure that there is equity in our actions. Are we satisfied that the Bill will ensure equity to ratepayers and others if the Amendment is not accepted?

We have to consider the point about fairness to the ratepayer. He will be in considerable difficulty unless he receives the information listed here. If the Minister can tell us that every one of these items will automatically happen I will be fascinated. I suspect that he cannot lay his hand on his heart and say this is so.

There is also the question of fairness to the valuation officer. My hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester has explained what could happen if he comes up against a really hot surveyor who blinds him with science and produces all sorts of cases of which the valuation officer has not heard. I would put the other case, which is that the valuation officer wants to be fair to the ratepayer. He will find it difficult unless this information has been given in advance.

Then there is the valuation panel, which is deeply concerned to ensure that justice is done to the ratepayer, particularly the unrepresented ratepayer, who is rather at a loss as to how he goes about this. He is up against experts. The panel will wish to ensure that his case is presented in the best possible way and his difficulties understood fully. Unless the items contained in the Amendment are within the knowledge of the ratepayer, valuation officer and the valuation panel, justice will not be done. It is essential that this Amendment be included in the Bill.

Mr. Denis Howell

It is, naturally, disappointing to find that every time I try to be accommodating and meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite, they either describe it as a victory for the Opposition, or, as with the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason), I am accused of producing something to which I never referred in Committee. If the hon. Gentleman looks at column 50 of the Committee proceedings he will find that I gave the undertaking to go away and think again about that. I returned and produced—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Let us get back to this debate.

Mr. Howell

I am trying to. I have tried to honour a commitment I gave in Committee by producing Amendment No. 5. We have tried to meet the commitment, as far as we could, to ensure that the basic facts should be known to every occupier. We have done that in the only practicable form.

I think that the House will reach the conclusion that the form of words in this Amendment is not practicable or desirable. I am advised that this Amendment would be a completely new departure in that it not only seeks to give the occupier a right to know the facts, but it goes further and seeks to give him advance knowledge of the arguments which would be adduced from the facts. The question about the arguments is one for the valuation court.

1.30 a.m.

The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) fairly stated that they were trying to do something which applied both ways: that the obligation would be not only on the valuation officer, but also upon the occupier. This is one reason for turning down the Amendment. In a sense it would take away the rights of many occupiers. It would drown many people in red tape, because it would become obligatory in every case to go into the excess of detail for which the Amendment calls. The appellant in many cases would find himself drowned in an ocean of unnecessary detail and red tape, because most of the information which the hon. Gentleman suggests should be made available obligatorily can be and normally is obtained in the friendly and informal discussions which go on between householders and valuation officers. Therefore, I do not think that it is necessary to write into the Bill all this mass of detail which is normally available.

If the valuation officers had to provide all this detailed information in every case it would cause intolerable delays in dealing with cases and would create a considerable increase in public expense. It is not my case that we should not increase public expense if it produces a greater degree of equity in these matters. My case is that it will not necessarily produce a greater degree of equity, because all the information is normally available in the transactions between the occupier and the valuation officer. Therefore, to say that the valuation officer has to go into this detail in writing in every case seems an unwise move.

The Government's view is that if there had to be this exchange of information in every conceivable case that was to be argued before the valuation court, it would destroy the informality of the proceednigs in that court, which, time and again, has been recognised and acknowledged to be one of the most valuable parts of those proceedings. If hon. Gentlemen look at the proceedings of the Land Tribunal, they will see that on many occasions it pays tribute to the value of the informality of the valuation court proceedings.

For these reasons, we very much hope that the House will prefer Government Amendment No. 5, which comes next, rather than the more detailed procedure proposed in this Amendment.

Mr. Temple

I am disappointed by the Minister of State's reply. I make no comment on Government Amendment No. 5, because that will come under discussion later.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) did a magnificent job in explaining the Amendment, and I think it must be clear to the House.

The Minister of State has just said that the Amendment is a new departure. That is true. But there are at least three new departures contained within the Bill, all of which will be helped by acceptance of the Amendment.

The first new departure is this amazing amalgamation of all types of different hereditaments, now including caravans, That is one reason why we believe that a case could be stated, or adduced, to use the words of the Amendment, by either party in the valuation court, and I believe that it would be helpful for that reason. Another reason why we think the Amendment is necessary is that the areas are extended to quite an extent. At the moment there is a limited area for comparability purposes of various hereditaments.

But there is a third and overriding reason, and this was admitted by the Minister of State when he said: But the use of the multiplier must be available to the valuation officer…"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 20th November, 1969; c. 31.] An entirely new dimension has been imported into the valuation of properties, and it will be observed that the Amendment is directed to the calculations made and the multiplier or other formula.

During the Second Reading debate I referred to the fact that we did not want a form and formula job, and about the use of the multiplier I said: If the idea is to enable the Inland Revenue to use a multiplier in an office remote from the site, the Bill will be a disaster."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1969; Vol. 791, c. 46.] That is exactly what will happen, because we had a startling admission from the Minister. It electrified the Committee when it was made, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on coming clean on this matter, but this new dimension has been imported.

I believe that the Amendment is very important because, whereas the normal ratepayer may be able to judge the value of properties in adjacent areas of which he has knowledge, only the Inland Revenue will know what particular multiplier it has used. I must explain this use of the multiplier, because it is germane to the Amendment. It has been said that flats are over-valued, and that houses are under-valued relative to flats. If the multiplier was a factor of two—in other words, that rentals had gone up to approximately double in the 10 years between 1963 and 1973—the multiplier for houses would be taken as a factor of two. But if it is judged—and it always has been—that flats are over-assessed at the moment, one might say that the multiplier for flats should be 1.8.

Within all these categories there are an enormous number of different types of hereditament. These are now being brought together. There will, of course, be an enormous number of different factor multipliers, but only the Inland Revenue will have the advantage of knowing the exact multiplier which it has used in respect of each class of hereditament. For that reason, and for that reason alone, it is imperative, if we are to have fairness and a reasonably relaxed atmosphere without a degree of professionalism, which I know is not wanted by the hon. Member for the Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter), in these valuation courts, that the ratepayer should have the advantage of knowing the multiplier used in the class in question.

I cannot see that the Inland Revenue would have any reason for not disclosing this matter, but unless it is disclosed in advance the whole procedure before a valuation court will be more or less vitiated from the ratepayer's point of view if, at the last moment, he is suddenly confronted with this use of a formula. He will have no idea how to compare his dwelling-house with other dwellings in respect of which a different multiplier, or a different formula basis, has been used. Again I do not see any reason why the appellant in a valuation court should not have the address and description of the other accommodation with which his hereditament is being compared. It seems only reasonable, and something which one would have thought the Inland Revenue would have been glad to list in advance, to give a chance to the ratepayer.

We on this side feel that we have made an impact, but we also feel, as do certain hon. Members on the Government side, that the ratepayer wants more than a fair chance against all the professionals who will be facing him on these occasions. Domestic ratepayers are, for the most part, small people and do not want

Division No. 49.] AYES [1.43 a.m.
Nil
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: Mr. James Allason and Mr. Martin Maddan
NOES
Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw) Harper, Joseph Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Buchan, Norman Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Murray, Albert
Concannon, J. D. Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) Norwood, Christopher
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Howell, Denis (Small Heath) O'Halloran, Michael
Dobson, Ray Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Dunnett Jack Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, west) Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Ellis, John Judd, Frank Skeffington, Arthur
English, Michael Latham, Arthur Urwin, T. W.
Fernyhough, E. Leadbitter, Ted Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Ford, Ben McBride, Neil Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Freeson, Reginald McGuire, Michael White, Mrs. Eirene
Golding, John McNamara, J. Kevin Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Mapp, Charles TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hamling, William Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Mr. Ernest Armstrong and
Hannan, William Millan, Bruce Mr. Ioan L. Evans.
Mr. Denis Howell

I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 25, at end insert:

(2) In section 83 of the said Act of 1967, after subsection (3) (which restricts the use

to go to the expense of employing rating surveyors. It seems only reasonable that rather more evidence should be available to them if they request it some 28 days before the hearing.

I do not see why the cards cannot be put face up on the table. That is what the Amendment is about. We do not want mysteries or Departments browbeating the poor ratepayer. This system would be much better, and I should have thought that the Inland Revenue would welcome it. I do not see how it would add an enormous amount to the expense. Anyone preparing a case must know what evidence he will adduce, on either side, so why not have the cards face up on the table?

We have an important extra safeguard here for ratepayers. It should be welcomed by the Government, and I cannot for the life of me understand why they are not accepting it.

This is our case. We have done well up to date but we would like to record a third success in our attempt to help the ratepayer in what I know are his difficulties. I hope the Amendment will prove acceptable.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 0, Noes 44.

of certain returns as evidence by or on behalf of the valuation officer) there shall be inserted the following subsection:— '(3A) Subsection (3) of this section shall apply to any gross values taken into account by the valuation officer by virtue of section 19(2A)(b) of this Act as it applies to returns to which this section applies, and—

  1. (a) the reference in paragraph (b) of the said subsection (3) to the returns there men. Toned shall be construed—
    1. (i) in the application of that paragraph to a return relating to a hereditament in a rating area other than that for which the valuation officer was appointed, as a reference to a copy of that return certified by a valuation officer to be a true copy;
    2. (ii) in the application of that paragraph to any of the gross values taken into account as aforesaid, as a reference to such a copy of the relevant part of the relevant valuation list as is referred to in section 84 of this Act;
  2. (b) subsection (2) of this section shall apply to such a copy of a return as is referred to in paragraph (a)(i) of this subsection as it would apply to the return itself'.

(3) In section 84 of the said Act of 1967 (which relates to the proof of the contents of a valuation list as for the time being in force) the words 'as for the time being in force' are hereby repealed.

The Division on the last Amendment was the first occasion in my experience when I have played extra time in order to produce such a result.

The present Amendment is further evidence of the Government's wish to be helpful and accommodating and to honour the commitments which I made in Committee. The basis of the commitment in this case, given in response to the suggestion made by two of my hon. Friends, in particular, was that we should make it possible for a ratepayer to have the facts which would be put in evidence and from which he could conclude what arguments were likely to be adduced.

I was asked that the facts should be made available to the ratepayer, if requested. In fact, the Amendment goes further. The facts will be made available not just upon request but as an obligation upon the valuation officer. Where a valuation officer proposes to use rental evidence or the relationship between rents and assessments, he will be required to disclose the facts, the rent return and the assessment. I hope that the House will regard that as a very fair means of meeting the undertaking.

Under this procedure, the occupier will have 14 days' notice, which seems to us to be a reasonable time, and for his part the ratepayer can have inspection of the form by giving 24 hours' notice.

Mr. Graham Page

Although this is a concession, after pressure in Committee, it is not so great a concession as the Minister of State suggests. He said that it is to let the ratepayer know the facts. He is only bringing this into line with Scottish practice, anyway. There is some warning to the ratepayer when he is told by the valuation officer what properties are to be adduced in evidence, but he is not given a statement about those properties. He is merely told, "Come and look at the returns". He is not even given the returns or copies of them.

The return will tell the ratepayer nothing but who happened to be tenant of the property, perhaps ten years ago. It may be up to date; it may not. It will tell him the figure for rent but not the kind of rent. He will have only a fraction of the valuation officer's case from looking at the returns.

Then there is the time factor. The valuation officer can give this notice 14 days before the hearing of the valuation proceedings. It may be a notice about a property in a contiguous valuation panel area perhaps 10 or 20 miles away. The ratepayer has to go and see the property, or send a professional man to see it. Having regard to the shortage of professional valuers—and the purpose of the Bill is to obviate that shortage—he is unlikely to get a professional man to go and see the property at that short notice.

He looks at the property in the neighbourhood of the property about which he has been given notice and he has then to decide whether he ought to ask the valuation officer to produce returns of any other properties down the street or in any other neighbourhood. He can ask the valuation officer to do that only after he has received a notice of this sort from the valuation officer himself.

If the ratepayer wishes to adduce evidence by producing returns about the property, he cannot do so unless the valuation officer has given notice that he himself intends to produce returns about some other property. This is an anomaly, and that is why I say that the Amendment is insufficient and that with the new procedure which we are producing Section 83 should have been much more amended.

A ratepayer may not often be put at this disadvantage, but when it happens there may be a grave injustice to him. Section 83 of the General Rate Act, 1967, is not sufficient to cope with the new procedure which will be the law when the Bill is passed. The new rating practice which will evolve, the new rating law and the new kinds of valuation, valuation by multiplier, by reference to old valuation lists and multiplying by this new procedure, warrant a complete revision of Section 83, a section which obliges the valuation officer to produce information, and I am disappointed that that section has not been better amended by the Amendment.

Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West)

Would the hon. Gentleman care to explain why he did not put down an Amendment to the Amendment?

Mr. Page

The hon. Gentleman cannot have been in the Chamber during our discussion of the last Amendment, which was my alternative to this.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Back to