Council Tax (New Valuation Lists for England) Bill

I, too, think that it was worth having the debate. The tenor of the amendment is clear: to ensure that the Government make no decisions on council tax banding without having decided whether to carry out revaluation. We accept that council tax banding depends on valuations but there is a whole host of other things attached to that banding and the decisions on that—the increase in the number of bands, the proportion between them and the ratio between the top and the bottom. We discussed during debates on the Local Government Bill the basis on which council tax was originally introduced—part property tax, part service tax. Any decision to increase the number of bands must be related to whether there will be a revaluation or differences between the values. If council tax banding were taken as a separate item, it would make nonsense of the revaluation. The amendment is simply to try to prevent the Minister of Communities and Local Government making any decision on council tax banding, the numbers or the ratio without having decided whether there should be a revaluation. I think that the Minister would agree that postponement here does not mean that revaluation will ever come about. Given how things are going, a completely different system could be set up—we do not know, and, I dare say, nor does the Minister. We are fishing in quite deep waters. We are trying simply to put a few brakes on the road ahead for local government council tax and how it is organised. I hear what the Minister says. I dare say that we may return to the matter but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.