Council Tax (New Valuation Lists for England) Bill

The Conservatives should listen to the argument. They get very excited about revaluation. It brought an end to their Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, and they know the damage that that caused them. The second myth that has been perpetuated, and which was repeated in some of last weekend’s newspapers in a rehashed story from some dim and distant period during the summer recess, is the amazing revelation that—surprise, surprise—in valuing a property, valuers take on board the attributes of that property. Well, blow me down, the number of bedrooms is taken into account in the valuation of a property. Presumably, whether a property has a swimming pool, a conservatory, an attic or a golden garden shed will also be taken account in the valuation. Of course, the valuation office also takes into account certain attributes that work in the opposite, negative direction. If a property is located in front of a chemical works, for example, the house price may well go down—goodness me! If the front of a house has a bad view, the value of the property may go down. As I say, Madam Deputy Speaker, blow me down with a feather! Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, who are fighting among themselves over the election of a new leader, based on the premise that they must have credible policies, have tabled an amendment before the House, the effect of which would be the precise opposite of what they have argued. The party’s spokespersons have repeatedly said over the years that we cannot have a property tax without a revaluation, but they are now telling the House that we must have a property tax without any revaluation. That is not so much a U-turn—at least we are honest about ours—as a double U-turn. Let me remind the House that, in opening the debate for the Conservatives, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) said, first, that he agreed with the postponement. That is what he said and that is what the Bill does. Secondly, he agreed that we should not have a 10-year limit in terms of the revaluation cycle. Thirdly, he said that his only problem was with the secondary legislation, to which I shall return in a few moments. But the Opposition have tabled an amendment that would have the effect of going ahead with revaluation, though they agree with the postponement. They are going to the country saying that they want to put forward credible policies, yet they obviously do not have them. I suspect that the amendment before us was written in the Whips Office. In the rush to get away last Thursday, the Whips realised that they had to amend the motion on the Opposition day debate that they called, and I suspect that today’s amendment was written in haste. I also suspect that the words used at the Dispatch Box in today’s debate will feature in many a local election leaflet drawn up by my party as we approach next May. They are quite probably already in a ““Focus”” leaflet and on their way out. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, repeating something that he read in the newspapers this weekend, said that we are introducing a tax on views, but valuation officers have always taken the attributes of a property into account.