Council Tax (New Valuation Lists for England) Bill

moved Amendment No. 1:"Page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (2)." The noble Baroness said: My Lords, noble Lords who were present in Committee will know what the amendment does. It would prevent any future order for revaluation in England, and it is an exact replica of our amendments from Committee. I listened to the Minister’s arguments in Committee with great interest, as I always do, and, unsurprisingly, they covered much of the ground that I expected them to cover. Her Majesty’s Government believe it is unlikely that there will be a revaluation within this Parliament, and the Michael Lyons report was used as a reason for postponing revaluation. The Minister did not satisfy me in her answer on why it was necessary to provide the Secretary of State with such unfettered powers in this Bill over revaluation, when it comes. She said:"““This is very much a postponement, not a cancellation””.—[Official Report, 7/2/06; col. GC297.]" In reality it is a cancellation, albeit a temporary one—although we do not know how temporary. It is a cancellation because no provisions are being made for future revaluation plans and there are no comprehensive plans for local government finance. The Minister said it was important to ensure that revaluation was stopped at the point at which we would not only be saving money, but would also be introducing clarity and certainty in the process. I am completely at a loss to know how this Bill provides any clarity or insight. The plans seem even less clear when we are presented with a Bill that allows the Secretary of State to call a revaluation when he or she chooses, regardless of changes to council tax banding or the timescale of that revaluation. Nothing in the Bill says that the Secretary of State must give a certain amount of notice for revaluation. What is to stop a revaluation being ordered in January for completion by April? I do not suggest any Secretary of State would be so rash as to do it in that time; I merely wish to point out that it would be possible, because of the uncertainty and lack of clarity that accompany the rather vague provisions in the Bill. I drew attention earlier today to the Miliband review. I do so again now, as I will in Committee, because it is an example of something that pops up out of the woodwork and is then carried forward. It is not legislation at the moment, while the Bill is, but the Government have a propensity for things happening at quite short notice. When we last met to debate this Bill, the Minister talked about how soon we could expect a revaluation after Sir Michael Lyons’s report was made available to us. It was clear that she did not know. The clearest thing that came out of our previous debate is that the Government are not really sure about the future arrangements for council tax, banding or the timing of revaluation. I do not see why this Bill should make such wide provisions to enable the Secretary of State to call for revaluation at whim. That is the reason for our amendment. It is not to seek to blow revaluation out of the water, but rather to ensure that, when it does come back, it does so in a way that is structured and relevant to parliamentary processes. I beg to move.