| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. There are far too many private conversations going on. Hon. Members must listen to the Minister. If they do not, they must hold their conversations somewhere else.
Ms Armstrong: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker--although I understand why hon. Members might like to have private conversations during this summary. However, it is my job, so I have to proceed with the summary.
A further concern was how the Valuation Office would treat properties that would previously have had rateable values reduced, often for short periods only, to take account of circumstances affecting the property; examples include a property that has been damaged by fire, or one that is undergoing substantial building work. I understand that concern, and have repeatedly said that the Government and the Valuation Office have only one intention--to ensure that the assumption on repair is that which was made in preparing rating valuations before the Lands Tribunal decision in Anston.
The current position is that if a property is incapable of beneficial occupations--if, in other words, it is unusable--it will be removed from the rating list and no rates will be payable. That is clear--certainly it is clear to the public, even if it is not yet clear to Opposition Members. I appreciate the concerns expressed by the professions and by Committee members that the Bill may affect the current position, but I do not believe that it will. As I said, I have examined the matter many times. In discussions, the Valuation Office has made it clear that it will continue to value properties affected in precisely the same way as before.
The Valuation Office shares the Government's concern that the Bill should take us back only to the position we believed we were in prior to the Anston decision. As I said, the agency is preparing a practice note on application of the Bill post-enactment, and it is sharing drafts of it with the professional bodies. I really do believe that that is an effective way to proceed. I have also given very clear reasons why it would be irresponsible to put in the Bill matters that should be in a practice note. Including them in the Bill would necessitate subsequent changes to primary legislation to deal with new or changed matters, which would not help in the evaluation process, in which evaluation officers operate by tight timetables.
I hope that my comments in this debate, and the Valuation Office's practice note, will serve to clarify our intentions in introducing the Bill. Although it is a small and technical Bill, we have the responsibility of
passing it--so that businesses that are currently facing revaluation will know that those revaluations are clearly in conformity with the expectations of the law, and so that they will know the basis on which their premises are valued.
Mr. Burstow:
I appreciate that it is the time of night when hon. Members would rather be at home reading the Bill than listening to speeches about it. However, I shall be very brief.
I appreciate the lengths to which Ministers and their officials have gone, both before and after the Bill's Committee stage, in consulting and holding a dialogue with the professions. I should like to place on record the appreciation of those efforts that the professions have expressed to me. The dialogue has been important.
There is a genuine and honest difference of opinion as to the interpretation of the case, and of the Bill in future. I am grateful for the way the Minister has dealt with the matter, both tonight and earlier. There is however a need for clarity, and I do not believe that the Bill provides it.
I was concerned that the explanatory notes were longer than the Bill, and we must be cautious when that happens. It was for that reason that we hoped that some of the points in the explanatory notes would be in the Bill.
Shortly after the Committee, I received a letter from the Rating Surveyors Association--[Hon. Members:"Oh!"] I knew that hon. Members would perk up at the reference to that body. It drew to my attention the words of Justice of Appeal Godfrey, which I thought I would share with the House:
Mr. Burns:
Although this clearly is not a party political matter, there is concern that although the Government are seeking to block a loophole that emerged
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:--
The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 140.
"The world of rating appears to one unfamiliar with the arcana to be cloud-cuckoo land, a world of virtual unreality from which real cuckoos are excluded altogether, although it seems that permission to land will be granted to a cuckoo flying in the form of the real world if it can be demonstrated that, in the presence of cloud-cuckoo land, it is essential and not merely an accident."
You will wonder, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why I read that out. Even I am wondering why. However, the Bill feels like cloud cuckoo land, with its hypothetical tenants and landlords. I have had to explore those issues for the first time, as Ministers have had to. However, the fact that the Minister has had to read into the record such a detailed statement about the Bill--and has had to give an undertaking about producing detailed practice notes--indicates that it is not straightforward.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |