HC Deb 29 April 1975 vol 891 cc425-6

Lords Amendment: No. 25, in page 29, line 2, leave out and the Acts amending that Act and insert the Acts amending that Act, any other Act relating to valuation".

Mr. Millan

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

This is a technical amendment.

Mr. Gordon Wilson

I should hate to miss the opportunity of raising a question about the Valuation Acts which are being encompassed in this amendment.

On Report the Minister gave an assurance to the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) and myself that an amendment which dealt with the question of correction of a valuation roll in instances where the error had been committed by the appellant who had wrongfully filled in the annual return would be considered in another place. I have received no detailed statement from the Minister about the matter, although I understand that a letter will be coming to me and possibly to the hon. Member for Dundee, West. I should be grateful if the Minister could make a brief statement explaining why it did not prove possible to consider the amendment referred to.

Mr. Millan

I wrote to the hon. Gentleman about one or two other matters that he raised on Report, and I think that I was able to meet his points on them. I am sorry if I owe him an extra letter. I shall let him have it tomorrow.

I understand that the question concerned carrying any correction made to one valuation through to similar valuations. The hon. Gentleman has talked in terms of corrections tonight, but I thought that it was a correction following an appeal—

Mr. Gordon Wilson

It is the circumstances where, after the register has been made upon a revaluation, it is discovered that a valuation was wrongfully established, because the assessor had relied on wrong information given to him by the householder concerned, and it is not possible to correct the wrong valuation until the next revaluation period.

Mr. Millan

I am not sure that I have the point right. I had thought that one was dealing with something that had happened on appeal, and my general answer would have been that Clause 2 (3) would have dealt with that. I should have thought that the kind of matter the hon. Gentleman describes could have been dealt with by Clause 2(1), but obviously he is not convinced that it could, even with the amendments we have made to the subsection tonight.

I shall look into the matter. I apologise for the hon. Gentleman's not having had a letter about it, and hope to make amends by saying that he will have one tomorow.

Question put and agreed to.

Forward to