Council Tax (New Valuation Lists for England) Bill

The principles behind our approach may well be the same, but I do not think we should see Wales as a precedent for revaluation in England. If I am teasing the noble Lord, it is because what I enjoy most is seeing some consistency in Conservative Party thinking. The reasons for the Government seeking not only to postpone the 2007 revaluation but also to remove the maximum 10-year cycle have been expressed on many occasions. It is appropriate that, for the record and for the benefit of Members of the Committee, I go over some of those reasons again. In July 2004, the Government invited Sir Michael Lyons to consider options for reform of the council tax as part of his independent inquiry into local government funding and to report and make recommendations by the end of 2005. In September 2005, the Government then extended the scope and length of the Lyons inquiry so that it could consider issues relating to the wider functions of local government and its future role as well as, and prior to, making recommendations on local government funding. The inquiry is now expected to produce its final report at the end of 2006. In the light of that, the Government decided to postpone council tax revaluation in England, and to legislate to provide a power for the Secretary of State to make orders setting a new date for revaluation, and dates for any subsequent revaluations, so that the first revaluation in England can take full account of the further work of the inquiry and be integrated with any other possible funding reforms, and—let me stress this in the context of the amendment that we are considering—so that account can be taken of relevant circumstances in determining appropriate dates for subsequent revaluations. Subsection (4) of Clause 1 amends Section 22B of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, as amended by the Local Government Act 2003, so that the requirement for a cycle of revaluation in England at least every 10 years is removed, together with the power for the Secretary of State to specify by order a date for revaluation earlier than the 10th anniversary. That does not mean that revaluations will not occur regularly. It is simply that until we have received, thought through, and no doubt consulted on Sir Michael’s final report, we cannot take a view on how frequently revaluation should occur. We therefore think it right that we should not be statutorily committed to revaluing on a rigid, pre-determined cycle. In other words, we seek maximum flexibility As we have made clear on a number of occasions, the Government are committed to council tax as a method of funding local government in England. However, we accept that there is a case for reform and we look forward to Sir Michael’s advice on that issue in due course. In the mean time, it remains our policy that we should postpone and not cancel revaluation, and the Bill achieves that. Indeed, we are seeking to provide maximum flexibility by removing the requirement, which currently stands in the 1992 Act, for there to be no more than 10 years between revaluations. If we accept that it is right not to set a date now for the first revaluation, it follows logically that it would not be sensible to seek to predict when the right time would be for the second or subsequent revaluations. To remove the date for the first revaluation without, in turn, removing the pre-determined time-frame for future revaluations would reduce the flexibility that we seek. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that it is in the best interests of all to provide for maximum flexibility.