Council Tax (New Valuation Lists for England) Bill

I hope that the House will agree that I have been generous in taking interventions and I now wish to proceed. I look forward to hearing hon. Members’ contributions later. For the sake of completeness, I should also remind the House of the position in Scotland. The Scottish Executive commissioned its own independent review of local government finance in 2004. The review committee consulted on options earlier this year and will publish its report in the summer. In debate with my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) said:"““We recognise the need periodically to revalue properties for the purpose of council tax . . . We support the revaluation being made on a regular and predictable basis.””—[Official Report, 7 January 2003; Vol. 397, c. 64–5.]" No one should accuse the hon. Gentleman of changing his mind too quickly, because two years later, he said:"““Any council tax system inevitably requires some form of revaluation.””—[Official Report, 2 February 2005; Vol. 430, c. 929.]" A sensible man. The hon. Gentleman’s boss, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), said that"““a property-based tax must take account of changes in the value of the property.””—[Official Report, 2 March 2005; Vol. 431, c. 983.]" Her boss, the Leader of the Opposition—for another few days at least—said on 20 February 2005: ““You have to revalue.”” So the Opposition support the principle of revaluation; nothing could be clearer. But in April they decided to argue for postponement. Fair enough. The Leader of Opposition was clear: on 20 April, he told ““Sky News”” that his new policy was a postponement of revaluation, not a cancellation. For the avoidance of doubt, he added ““for the first Parliament””, when he was questioned about the delay. So I confidently expected the Opposition to support the Bill. After all, they want to be a mature Opposition. They have been told by their young pretender to remember that actions speak louder than words. They have vowed not to oppose measures simply for the sake of opposition. What could be simpler than voting for a Bill to postpone revaluation? They might even have claimed that we had stolen their policy.But I had overestimated the people who go by the title of Her Majesty’s official Opposition. They still take the title literally: they oppose everything. They are addicted to opposition and repulsed by common sense. No wonder that John Stuart Mill called them the stupid party—