Council Tax (New Valuation Lists for England) Bill

My Lords, the difference is that the amendment requires there to be an annual debate on whether there will be revaluation that year. I cannot think of anything more destabilising for home owners than to have a debate which will run from year to year about whether there will be a revaluation. I shall come on to argue why I believe that the amendment is unnecessary; indeed, I believe that it is positively harmful. I am not simply being perverse in rejecting the amendment on the basis that I have just outlined. I am in total agreement with the need for a mature debate about the reform of council tax. However, I believe that the amendment carries a risk to the stability and credibility of the tax and I wonder whether there will be a risk of unintended consequences on house prices. I accept that the continuation of the council tax is not the policy of the noble Baroness’s party, but it is the policy of the Government. We have to make it as credible and as watertight as possible. We have to address cost and bureaucracy. Those matters are not minimal or marginal. The real costs of mounting an annual exercise, which may well in certain instances lead to no revaluation, would be extremely expensive. Concerns have been expressed not only by me in Committee, but also by the Opposition Front Bench in the other place, when Mr Syms said that,"““there is always a danger of insisting on members of the civil service doing a lot of work that does not necessarily need to be done””.—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 15/11/05; col. 9.]" He was supported by Mr Forth, who noted that,"““to fulfil the requirements of the amendment, a gigantic bureaucratic exercise would have to be undertaken every year””.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/12/05; col. 474.]" Those are serious considerations. Would that obligation to produce an annual report provide value for money for taxpayers? It might be argued that there is no specific requirement within the amendment that the work required should be particularly expensive, onerous or arduous. However, if the work were not properly done—and to do it properly would require significant investigation every year of matters such as the state of the housing market and a proper analysis of the options and so on—there would not be much point in doing it. If we lay that objection to one side, I am bound to say that I see no real justification for the amendment. This would be a statutory requirement to provide specially for a mechanism to require the Government to pronounce in a particular way on a single area of policy, but we do not have a provision with comparable effects in relation to a long list of other areas of policy. For example, I am thinking of the effects on individual citizens of the Budget or the setting of benefit levels. That brings us to the nub of the argument. I know that the noble Baroness feels that the Secretary of State might allow the situation to drift indefinitely or act without consideration for the need for public debate and that we might rush through the Lyons report without due parliamentary discussion. I hope that I can address her fears. The noble Baroness is also concerned about the potential for the unjustified use of the powers that will be given to the Secretary of State. Those powers relate to an issue of real concern to taxpayers. However, I do not believe that the argument leads to the conclusion that she has brought forward. I believe that it is a question of trust in the system and in the responsible office and person of the Secretary of State. Despite the superficially attractive argument for explicitly providing for regular review and explanation, this House surely, on further reflection, cannot accept its validity. Ministers are accountable for their decisions every day of the week, 365 days a year. They are held to account in a variety of ways by mechanisms that ensure that they act with probity. What is the logic of the amendment? These are not entirely new powers; the power of the Secretary of State to bring forward a revaluation within a 10-year timeframe was set out in the previous legislation. All the Bill does is to place that power within a more flexible timetable to signal that we are committed to postponement. Why should that change be singled out for this kind of special treatment? If we legislate for an annual review of revaluation, where logically would we stop? Furthermore, the powers of the Secretary of State are hardly unfettered. As I have already described, they are subject to the affirmative procedure in another place. The proper time for the next full debate is not at some arbitrary moment during the course of every calendar year, but when an order is on the Table with a date for revaluation and a co-ordinated packet of reforms to go with it. Let the noble Baroness be in no doubt that we will have that debate. The noble Baroness has implied that decisions on revaluation might be taken in isolation and without reference to public interest. I shall not go into detail, but the point of postponing revaluation from 2007 was to introduce greater certainty, clarity, transparency and rationality into the debate so that future revaluation would be based on a greater and more credible understanding of the functions of local government and the services that it provides. If the noble Baroness reads the interim report, she will see what Sir Michael Lyons says about this. The landscape of local government has greatly changed. To extend the remit to include that while at the same time looking at the revaluation system was logical and transparent. I hope that that is reassuring. There is a further argument, which is about the need to provide Sir Michael Lyons with time and space to complete his work and for us to consider and consult on it. This was not a capricious decision. His work, and the whole context of revaluation, must be considered in relation to those who design and deliver services in local government. We have a strong, robust and continuing relationship with local government through the Central Local Partnership. That signifies our intention, which we always express, to work with local government in order to strengthen and sustain it. The relationship is based on trust and partnership. In the light of that, I can reassure the House that our approach to local government finance in the light of Sir Michael’s findings will be based fairly and squarely on proper, full, public debate. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept those arguments and will feel able to withdraw her amendment.