Council Tax (New Valuation Lists for England) Bill

moved Amendment No. 3:"Page 1, line 8, at end insert—" ““(   )   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.”” The noble Baroness said: The Minister mentioned déjà vu and I am afraid that we are going to continue in that vein because we debated this amendment in Grand Committee. However, at that time, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, who was replying on behalf of the Government, concentrated his remarks almost entirely on the question of property price divergence. Because of that, I have removed that element from the amendment, as I want to concentrate on the principles. I still contend that over time—let us remember that we are now using a base which is something like 14 years old—divergence of property prices is an important issue, but I have removed that because, as I said, I want to concentrate on the principles. The Minister said—I paraphrase—that the Bill does not fundamentally change the powers of the Secretary of State except to remove the obligation to revalue at 10 years. She is saying, ““Well, what’s all the fuss about?”” It is precisely because the revaluation at 10 years has been removed that we see a problem, because the certainty of doing something within that timescale has been replaced by the power of the Secretary of State to revalue at any time in the future. That will be done by order, and only through the House of Commons. My amendment would require the Government to consider annually whether a revaluation is justified—moving from the position whereby the Government may order a revaluation to a position whereby they would have to consider it. They would report to Parliament and then on to the wider world on their deliberations. I am happy to concede that the period might be two or three years rather than annually, but I want the principle to be accepted. Putting it into the Bill would give a formal basis for consideration of what is, after all, a major piece of public policy that attracts a great deal of controversy. In the absence of the 10-year stop that was in the previous legislation, we need certainty, which reporting to Parliament would provide. The Minister said that this was not cancellation but postponement, which implies that there will be a revaluation. In Grand Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that the factors to be considered in determining the right time for revaluation were many and complex and that sadly we did not have a neat formula to give us the answer. Quite so. It is precisely because at no point in any of our debates have Ministers explained how the determination is to be made that we feel uneasy. Whether we are citizens, involved in local government or parliamentarians, we seem to be being asked to take on trust that such a system in government exists and that it is robust. It may well be, but we do not know that in the complete absence of any mechanism to report to Parliament how the Government are thinking. If the Government are confident that they have robust systems, they have nothing to fear from coming to Parliament now and again and being transparent about their thinking on revaluation. If they are not confident but wish to base their position on political expediency, their reluctance would be more understandable. But I find that hard to believe. I beg to move.