RATING AND VALUATION (POST- PONEMENT OF VALUATIONS) BILL. (Hansard, 12 March 1940)

§ THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE)

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. The law provides that new valuation lists for both London and the provinces shall come into operation every five years, and under 814 the law as it stands at present a new valuation list would come into operation at the beginning of April, 1941. It will be quite clear to your Lordships that the preparation of these lists involves a very great deal of work by the local authorities, and already before war broke out representations had been made that in view of the heavy strain imposed by air raid precautions and other similar matters, it would be desirable to defer the new valuation. It was clear on the outbreak of war that, in view of the enormous tasks imposed upon local authorities, the carrying out of a revaluation during war-time would be almost impossible, and that even if it were possible the valuation, when completed, would be worth very little, because it must be quite clear that war conditions may cause, and indeed already have caused, startling and rapid fluctuations in the value of property. For that reason, the Government stated in answer to a question in another place early in September that it was intended to ask Parliament to pass a Bill postponing the operation of the Rating and Valuation Act; and local authorities were at the same time circularised and informed that they need not proceed with the work of carrying out a fresh valuation, work upon which they would otherwise have begun to embark in the autumn of last year.

I think that I have said as much as is necessary to explain the object of the Bill. It provides that new valuations shall not come into operation until a date to be determined by Order in Council, but which in no case shall be later than the April next but one after the end of the war; that will be the last date, and it may be determined by Order in Council that the date shall be earlier. There is perhaps one matter in the Bill to which I ought to call your Lordships' attention, and that is subsection (2) of Clause 1. That subsection, to which I am bound to say I can attach very little meaning on reading it in the Bill, was not in the original Bill as presented to the House of Commons, and it has a particular intention in that it provides, in the case of London only, that reassessments and revaluations may be made where special conditions demand it. That provision is not necessary for the provinces, because there are already provisions by which owners of property affected by alterations of value there may secure a revaluation 815 Those provisions do not apply to London, and therefore this provision by which a re-valuation may be made in London is necessary.

In many ways it is undesirable to have to postpone this valuation, but I think your Lordships will agree that it would be both difficult and useless to carry it out at the present time. I hope you will be disposed to give this Bill a Second Reading. I hope so also on personal grounds, because, for reasons which I have now forgotten but which seemed very good at the time, I carried on a strenuous opposition to this Rating and Valuation Act when it was originally passed, and there is some rough justice in its falling to my lot now to move that it shall not now operate.

§ LORD JESSEL

My Lords, I must congratulate the noble Duke who has introduced this Bill on his speech. He was extremely brief, and he did not explain to us the reason for which he opposed the original Bill. I am afraid that this Bill is necessary. It is not going to help very much, because unfortunately, although it is not the fault of the Government, from the way it is worded it has led a great many people to expect that they are going to obtain a vast amount of relief, and I am afraid that their belief will not fructify into reality.

This question of rating and valuation is a most difficult one and, as your Lordships know, evacuation has hit London extremely hard. The rates in the more prosperous parts of the town are going up by leaps and bounds. That is not altogether the fault of the boroughs which have to collect the rates; to some extent it is the fault of the precepting authorities. The London County Council has reduced its rate by 3d. in the pound; on the other hand the Police have incerased their rate by 3d. in the pound. We are very anxious to know how it is that this enormous increase in the Police rate has been arrived at. No doubt when the figures are published by the Police authorities, as they always are, we shall know. The chief difficulty, in my view, 816 is that the richer areas in London are going to pay an extremely heavy rate. Some people may say that that is a good thing. On the other hand, it must be remembered that the rates of London are practically equalised. For example, in Westminster 90 per cent. of our rates are equalised and in Holborn the proportion is 80 per cent. If you hit the rich boroughs too hard, therefore, the rest of London will feel an exceedingly heavy draught.

There is one great difference between rating in London and rating in the rest of the country. In London the rate precepted by the London County Council and by the Police is based upon the rateable value, and the rateable value is not the same thing as the product in the pound. In the provinces you do have exactly what the rate is, so much in the pound, collected by the authorities that have to find the money; but in Westminster, for instance, we pay one-sixth of the rates of London, based on a rateable value of £11,000,000. It is well known that our "empties" have risen, through evacuation, from 6½ per cent. to nearly 17 per cent., and the consequence is that the supposed rateable value of Westminster is a great deal short of what it was at the last valuation; yet the County Council, quite within their rights as the law stands at the moment, make a precept on us on the alleged valuation of over £11,000,000. We have done our best, as most of the boroughs of London have done, to economise, but we feel it is an injustice that the law in this respect is not the same in London as it is in the rest of the country. I must say that I do not think the Government could help it; they could not have envisaged a change of this kind at this particular moment. But what I do say is that this Bill, while it will give a certain amount of relief and will be welcome in some quarters, will be a great disappointment to a great many people, because, although they think that under the Bill they are going to get that relief, they will find when they go before the various assessment committees that nothing of the kind will follow.