Council Tax (New Valuation Lists for England) Bill

The noble Baroness concluded on an interesting point—the one which divides us. The amendment is unnecessary and inappropriate. I shall briefly rehearse the history. It has long been recognised that any issue relating to taxation falls to the financial privilege of the other place. I can see no reason why this Bill and this order-making power should be seen as requiring us, an unelected House, to challenge that position and those constitutional conventions. The noble Baroness talked of it being about process. Well, we are debating the process as we debate the Bill. However, the amendment calls for this House to be given a locus in a debate on financial matters. I refer the noble Baroness, conclusively, to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s 12th report of this Session, which stated:"““As a matter of delegated powers, this is not inappropriately wide. The affirmative procedure is also appropriate: it is the procedure to which orders under the current section 22B (which may provide for more frequent valuations than every 10 years) are subject””." The report goes on to say:"““The draft of the order must be laid before, and requires the approval of, the House of Commons only. This accords with all of the other affirmative powers under Part 1 of the 1992 Act, including powers added by the Local Government Act 1999””." Those include the powers to change the proportion between bands and to change the discount and so on. The committee continues:"““The privilege of the House of Commons extends to raising money by local, as well as national, taxation (except when it waives privilege) and revaluation feeds directly into the amount of tax raised””." The final conclusion is:"““There is nothing in the bill to which we wish to draw the attention of the House””." I think that puts the matter very clearly and reassures us that the provision that we have made is right, proper and appropriate in all respects. I have always wanted to quote from Erskine May. In the 23rd edition, on page 670 it says:"““If the subject matter of the instrument is taxation, the required resolution will be that of the House of Commons only””." I think that makes the point. Finally, I emphasise that it is certainly not the case that the power leaves it completely in the hands of the Secretary of State alone and unchallenged to set the date of any future revaluations. I return briefly to the debate that we have been having in the cracks of other debates, as it were, on the power of the Secretary of State to set the date. We have to agree that it must be the responsibility of the person who has responsibility for policy and legislation. I cannot see a legitimate or credible alternative to that. However, any proposals that we bring forward for reform are bound to be subject not only to parliamentary scrutiny but to extensive and proper public consultation and debate. In this context, the House of Commons will challenge the Secretary of State through the affirmative resolution procedure. He will have to put such an instrument in the other place, and that instrument will be subject to scrutiny by Members of all parties in that place before it is passed. I cannot believe for a moment that that scrutiny will not be thorough and appropriate. But it is not appropriate for this House, in this Bill and in this way, to seek to have that power extended here. I hope that I have given the evidence and the constitutional probity for that. I hope that the noble Baroness will recognise that fact, that she will agree with me and that she will withdraw the amendment.