Council Tax (New Valuation Lists for England) Bill

: The Bill is very narrowly drawn, but it enables the Government to delay revaluation and to choose when it will take place in the future. It has aroused some very strong feelings in the debates this afternoon. This debate on Third Reading is the last opportunity for hon. Members to raise their concerns and put them on the record. The Minister’s first major decision after taking up his post was to put off the revaluation and refer the issue to the Lyons inquiry—much to the dismay of his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford). The Government have essentially ensured that the revaluation will not take place before the next general election. So this is not goodbye to revaluation but au revoir, and the British people are highly likely to face a revaluation that significantly increases their council tax bills sooner or later, unless they show their disapproval in the ballot box at the next general election. Amendment No. 3 sought to introduce local revaluation, and we had a long and interesting debate that raised more questions than it answered about the great complexity of revaluation and how to make it fair. As hon. Members know, the level of council tax is one of our constituents’ main concerns, and it occupies much of our time in correspondence and advice surgeries. That makes council tax one of the most explosive political issues that the Government face. Bills have already increased by 26 per cent. since 1997. As one person said to me only today:"““I feel as though Dick Turpin raids my bank account every week””." It was noted on Report that the value of a property is not always a reliable indication of ability to pay. I am sure that the Minister and other hon. Members know of examples of people who are cash poor, yet live in valuable properties. Elderly people, such as surviving spouses, may remain in a family home that has risen in value over the decades, although they have a modest disposable income. However, four working adults might live in a more modest property, so the value of a property is not always a reliable indication of its residents’ ability to pay their council tax. The Bill will postpone the revaluation of properties for the purpose of council tax that was to have occurred on 1 April 2007, with council tax bills being based on the updated valuations that year. Conservative Members oppose the revaluation, not least in the light of the outcome in Wales. The revaluation in Wales was used as a tool to increase the overall tax take, so it was a stealth tax. If a typical house in England were moved up a band, it would become liable for an extra £257 a year on top of any other changes to the council tax bills. Of the 21 million homes in England, 7 million would be moved up a band, but only 1.5 million would move down a band. The Minister is looking puzzled, so I should explain that those figures have been extrapolated from the experience in Wales. The Bill does not go far enough. It only postpones revaluation, rather than scrapping it altogether. Approximately £60 million of taxpayers’ money has already been spent in preparation for revaluation—including on a new computer system—much of which will be wasted. It is ironic that an information technology project that the Government claim is excellent will not be used for its intended purpose. It is not clear whether the cost of the reduction of 1,020 staff by June 2006 is included in that £60 million figure. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that point later. Even more alarming to council tax payers is the worrying fact that revaluation procedures will allow inspectors to enter people’s homes. It is a great pity that the amendment on that matter was not selected for consideration on Report. I do not know whether you will indulge me, Mr. Deputy Speaker—