Council Tax (New Valuation Lists for England) Bill

I certainly agree that we can learn from what has happened with business rates, and the House needs to discuss business rates as part of this overall package. We could also learn from what happened in Scotland. The Opposition’s amendment tonight decries the fact that the revaluation applies only to England. In Scotland, revaluations have taken place fairly frequently: in 1961, 1966, 1971, 1978 and 1985. They did not take place after 1985, because the poll tax was then introduced, initially in Scotland, without great success either there or in England and Wales. So, yes, we should defer the revaluation in England, but we should certainly not cancel it. I disagree with the Opposition’s amendment. They dislike the Bill because it applies only to England, but I think that it is absolutely right that we should defer the revaluation in England. Scotland and Wales have their own Parliament and National Assembly respectively, and they should be able to do this at a different pace. In Wales, part of the problem was that the revaluation was carried out following a 129 per cent. increase in house prices since the previous one, which brings us back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test about house prices putting pressure on us, in terms of the public debate on this issue. This debate is being held at the same time as Sir Michael Lyons’ review. Being a west midlander like me, you, Madam Deputy Speaker, might almost remember Mike Lyons when he was in short trousers. His first major job, as I am sure all right hon. and hon. Members know, was chief executive of Wolverhampton metropolitan borough council, as it was then called. Of course, it is now Wolverhampton city council. Sir Michael Lyons—as I must now learn to call him—is a man with a great track record. I can quite understand why a deferral of the revaluation would be important while the Government are having that investigation carried out, and why such a deferral—as set out in the Bill, and as decried by the Opposition—would be a good thing. I am sure that Sir Michael’s review will be very thorough, and very illuminating for us. We need a public debate on this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley spoke eloquently about the need for public information. There are an awful lot of people, including some in this Chamber, who do not understand the concept of a measure being revenue neutral. A re-banding exercise can be a problem, but if it is set against a series of revenue neutral measures—which is what I hope would happen in England, although it did not happen in Wales—it can even out the discrepancies that have built up due to differential house price rises. Prices in some areas will go up more than others. For example, prices in Stourbridge might go up more than those in Wolverhampton, causing things to get out of kilter. A revenue neutral revaluation would therefore be absolutely right. However, it takes a while to explain the concept of revenue neutrality to people, many of whom, because of many years of underinvestment in education by the Conservatives, are fairly innumerate. We need to have that kind of public debate.