Indeed. My right hon. Friend knows all about his constituents’ dwellings. Accuracy is important and there is a contradiction in section 22B. It refers to steps which are ““reasonably practicable””, goes on to talk about ““the time available”” and ends with a reference to accuracy. In many circumstances, the three requirements could well prove contradictory. The practicality is one thing and the timing another, but where does that leave the accuracy? Those contradictions have not been resolved, and even the amendment does not resolve them.
Labour as well as Conservative Members need to ask themselves to what extent they want to keep faith with the new mantra of localism. The practice has become popular among politicians of constantly reasserting how strongly they support the concept of local decision making, whether in schools, hospitals, local authorities or anywhere else. On the face of it, that is one of the attractions of the amendment. In some ways, it seems to move us in that direction by providing an opportunity for much more local decision making than has been available hitherto in this great valuation exercise. That in turn, however, poses a number of questions, some of which have already been touched on today.
The most fundamental of those questions is whether we believe that, in the whole business of valuation of properties to establish a tax base, a national approach is preferable to a local approach. I must admit that, having listened to the debate so far, I have not yet made up my mind. I can see both sides of the argument, which is rare for me. As many of my right hon. and hon. Friends pointed out, there must surely be a strong case for saying that, because this is potentially such a local matter, we must give priority to the local decision-making element that the amendment would allow. Many examples have been given, ranging from new build to demolition.
The new build case is clear. My expert friends have observed that, with new build, the valuation tends to be at current market rates, if I have understood them correctly. Some doubt has been raised about the effect of demolition, however. It could perhaps move us in either direction. While demolition in a blighted area that was then cleaned up and made into a community facility would undoubtedly enhance the area, I am sure we can all imagine other circumstances in which the effect would be the reverse.
Council Tax (New Valuation Lists for England) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Eric Forth
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Thursday, 1 December 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Council Tax (New Valuation Lists for England) Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
440 c456-7 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 11:46:01 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_282606
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_282606
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_282606