Council Tax (New Valuation Lists for England) Bill

moved Amendment No. *3A:"Page 1, line 6, leave out from ““compiled”” to end of line 8 and insert ““on a date previous to the making of any order under section 5(4) and (4A) of this Act.””””" The noble Baroness said: I think that we all accept that this is an important piece of legislation, but it is not free-standing. It introduces no new concepts—revaluation has been around since 1991—but seeks to shift the goalposts of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 by enabling the Secretary of State, once the 1997 date is postponed, to order new valuation lists in any given year thereafter. The rationale put forward for the delay, as we have discussed, is the extension of the remit of the Sir Michael Lyons review. Currently, under the 1992 Act, the Secretary of State is able to change the proportions between council tax bands and the value of bands, and under an amendment from the Local Government Act 2003, to change the number of bands. The amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State would be able to alter the number and relative proportion of council tax bands only once a revaluation had taken place. We can see no logic in making any changes to the council tax bands at all, but particularly not prior to revaluation, if that is going to take place. Both valuations and council tax banding are an integral part of the totality of the council tax system and, as the Government have admitted, the council tax is linked to wider questions about the structure of the council tax and to the operation of council tax benefit. Indeed, Sir Michael Lyons draws attention to that in his report. At present, there is no requirement on the Secretary of State to refer to any other matter if he decides to increase the number of bands, and we believe that that decision should be constrained, at least until revaluation, if it ever takes place. If it is decided to abandon the revaluation, then there would be a status quo. Revaluation, as we discussed under the previous amendment, is a costly process that has hugely disruptive effects on local areas, without an enormous deal of benefit to the funding of local councils. There is the possibility of some flexibility as a result of increased values, but not a lot, because the Government will almost certainly ensure that there is no benefit to councils from any increase in valuation in their areas. The grant would no doubt be suitably adjusted. The same goes for changing council tax bands. To make these disruptive changes without the proper basic information relating to revaluation—either you stick where you are or you have to have the information before you change council tax bands—would make a bad situation worse. My noble friend Lord Hanningfield and I tabled amendments along these lines at Report on the 2003 Local Government Act to ensure that, however many valuation bands were added to the spectrum, the ratio between top and bottom would not change. The noble Lord made the argument that to allow for the ratio to change between top and bottom bands could change the structure of council tax substantially. That is relevant to this amendment, as the Minister at the time, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said:"““We would not be able to change the ratio to reflect more closely the relative values of bands and we will not know what they will be until a revaluation takes place””.—[Official Report, 17/7/03; col. 984.]" That sensible statement meets this amendment halfway. The amendment seeks to confirm the common sense of that statement and ensure that valuation is put to its proper use. It would mean that the work of valuation officers and the expense of compiling a valuation list would be put to constructive use, rather than lying dormant until government policy dictated a re-jigging of local finances. It may be that the Government have no intention of reforming council tax bands before any revaluation has taken place, but we are getting a little wary at the rate and number of pronouncements and consultations on the structuring and finance of local government that are coming out on a daily basis. I twitted the Minister a while ago at Question Time about the Miliband review; I think that the Minister told me that there was no such review and—hey presto—we have a Miliband review, which presumably runs alongside the Sir Michael Lyons review. Certainly, there is plenty about the restructuring of local government to make one feel that more is going on below the line than is going on above it. We believe that these amendments are necessary to constrain a government change to council tax banding before or without a revaluation. If there never was a revaluation, the council tax banding system would stay as it is; if there is one, it will be tied up with it. I beg to move.