Council Tax (New Valuation Lists for England) Bill

moved Amendment No. 4:"Page 1, line 8, at end insert—" ““(1B)   The Secretary of State shall decide at least once in each calendar year whether to exercise the power granted by subsection (1A), and shall give reasons for his decision. (1C)   The reasons referred to in subsection (1B) shall include the Secretary of State’s assessment of the degree of divergence in relevant property values since the original valuations made under this Act or since any subsequent revaluation.”” The noble Baroness said: We would agree that, given the work that Michael Lyons is undertaking, it is wise to postpone the planned revaluation. However, like noble Lords who have spoken before, our nervousness can be summarised in the fact that we do not know how long this interim period will be. It is therefore in our collective interests to make sure that whatever the ramifications of this particular piece of legislation, it does at least work in the time that it takes for Michael Lyons to report and for the Government to act. That could take some years, so it is important that we have a solution that is sustainable and acceptable to everyone. It is certainly the case that almost every revaluation that has been planned under the old rating system was delayed, postponed or cancelled; there is a long tradition of that. It is inevitable, given that the political costs of revaluation almost always outweigh the technical and financial benefits. Put simply, people who end up paying more always end up feeling aggrieved. Sometimes people who are revalued and do quite well still feel aggrieved because they think they have been paying too much until that point. None of us who have been local authority leaders like to go out and face the public with such a situation and the Government certainly do not want to either, so the easy option is to keep shuffling it off into the long grass. On the other hand, if you’re going to have a tax which is linked with property, at some point there has to be a revaluation because property prices do not rise at a uniform level throughout the country. I have found some interesting figures from the base year of 1991 to 2001. While the average increase in prices throughout the country was 29 per cent, this varied between 63 per cent in London and 2 per cent in the north-west. Since 2001, there is evidence of some convergence, but it is not on that sort of scale. Then of course there are variations within regions and within relatively small geographical areas—down to individuals’ homes, if they have done some work on them. This is where we come to the nub of the problem and why we have had the comments of the noble Baroness on the Conservative Front Bench about consistency of approach. While this is a tax based on property, it is not a property tax. That sometimes leads to intellectual and therefore real practical difficulties, which is why the Conservative Front Bench in another place said that they supported revaluation. That brings us to the interesting point made by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, about how we should consider a full-blown property tax rather than one that is part property tax and part not. Perhaps the Minister would like to reflect on the effect on house price inflation, for example, if the noble Lord’s suggestion were put in place and council tax rises were linked annually to property prices. Nevertheless, my amendment would require the Government to consider on an annual basis whether a revaluation was justified or not. In other words, it moves us from the provision in the Bill that the Government may order a revaluation to one whereby the Government must consider it. The problem with the current situation is that, while there is an affirmative procedure for revaluation, there is no opportunity for a debate about the status quo. To a large extent, the result of not revaluing is as significant as revaluing, so this is an attempt to bring some clarity and transparency to the process in which the Minister would be required to come to the House to explain why the Government in that calendar year decided not to go ahead with revaluation. I am happy to debate whether it should be a year, two or three, but I feel quite strongly about this principle. Leaving it entirely to the discretion of the Secretary of State to determine when revaluation should take place is a very wide power indeed. My amendment would not change that power, but it would ensure that the Secretary of State is publicly accountable and can be questioned in Parliament. I beg to move.