§ 13. Mr. Lambieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Cunninghame and Kyle and Carrick districts following the recent revaluation of properties for rating purposes; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. MillanI have had 19 letters from Kyle and Carrick and six from Cunninghame. If ratepayers in these districts are dissatisfied with their new valuations, they have rights of complaint to the assessor and of appeal to the local valuation committee.
§ Mr. LambieIs my right hon. Friend aware of the great anger in the Cunninghame and Kyle and Carrick districts over what appears to be discrimination against local ratepayers in the recent revaluation, 433 especially against business and commercial interests? Will he act on the proposal that I put to him that, as a transitional arrangement, he should ensure that no ratepayer pays more than a 10 per cent. increase, because of revaluation, this year and in subsequent years?
§ Mr. MillanI have answered questions before about transitional arrangements. I discussed the matter specifically with COSLA, and its unanimous view, which I share, was that transitional arrangements would not be desirable. If there is any feeling in the areas mentioned by my hon. Friend that standards applied to the revaluation are unfair compared with standards applied elsewhere, there is an appeal machinery open to ratepayers.
This is not a matter on which I have specific locus. One expects that on revaluation the rates of some properties will go up more than those of some others. If that were not the general expectation there would be no point in having a revaluation, because it is intended to adjust valuations to current circumstances. Otherwise they become increasingly out of date.
§ Mr. David SteelThe right hon. Gentleman says that he has no locus in this matter, but will he accept that there is a good deal of irritation and, in some cases, anxiety about the revaluation? Could he not discuss with the assessors and the local authorities the possibility of having explanations of the revaluation—in non-officialese—put in the mail so that householders understand what is going on?
§ Mr. MillanWe have already done that. The Scottish Office played a part in drawing up a leaflet, in agreement with COSLA, and copies were sent to every ratepayer in Scotland. We have made considerable effort to explain to people what the revaluation is about. Naturally, those who have gained—they are a substantial number and include, in general, domestic ratepayers—do not make a great deal of fuss. They are happy. Those who have suffered relatively do make a good deal of fuss; I do not criticise them for that. But it would be misleading to give the impression that there is a seething mass of discontent about revaluation in Scotland. That is 434 certainly not my impression, though I realise what is happening in areas about which I have had representations.
§ Mr. YoungerDoes the right hon. Gentleman agree that, from the material that I and many others have sent to him, there is overwhelming evidence that the general level of valuations in Ayrshire is being deliberately raised, as a matter of policy, over that in other areas? Bearing in mind the rating and valuation Acts, is this not illegal?
§ Mr. MillanIf the hon. Gentleman is making allegations of illegality, he should make them in more specific terms. Is he saying that assessors have behaved illegally? That is a serious charge. I have said that there is an appeal procedure available and I seriously suggest to ratepayers in these areas that if they are dissatisfied they must use the appeal procedure. It would be foolish of them simply to make points to their hon. Members, and to make political points, without also protecting their interests by taking the necessary steps to appeal. I strongly recommend them to do that.
§ Mr. MacCormickWe all appreciate the role played by the assessors in these matters, but does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the people of Argyll have been hit second only to the people of the Cunninghame district in relation to the new revaluation? Does he think that it is satisfactory for us as politicians to wash our hands of the affair? Would it not be better to institute an inquiry to ensure that people are not asked to pay too much?
§ Mr. MillanI am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is asking me to inquire into. Any revaluation affects one ratepayer and one area differently from others. I should be surprised—though do not have the exact figures—if the rates paid by the average domestic ratepayer in Argyll, even after revaluation, are out of line with rates in the rest of Scotland. I suspect—I shall be happy to check this—that they are still a good deal lower than the average paid by domestic ratepayers in the rest of Scotland. That fact, as well as the increases, must be taken into account.