Council Tax (New Valuation Lists for England) Bill

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing us another opportunity to debate a very important amendment. He has argued that it is only by having the power to debate changes to council tax revaluation in this House, as well as in the other place, that the powers of the Secretary of State can be held in check. The amendment may appear to be rather limited, but its effect is fundamental, which I hope to be able to show. It clearly covers much wider concerns. I did my best to address the issues in Committee; I am afraid that I will have to use some of the same arguments and even some of the same quotations, but I hope that they will be more convincing this time. Let me deal with the widest point first—the right and the ability of this House to debate changes in local government finance and organisation. The noble Lord and his party are concerned that this House should have the opportunity to debate anything that may follow from any of the current debates concerning the form, function and funding of local government. Let me give him that assurance. Although he did not raise this argument specifically, it is still worth putting this on the record, because I want to reassure noble Lords about the nature of the debate we intend to have on these wider issues of local government and finance. We are engaged in a very open and public debate on these matters with local authorities and all manner of experts, not least the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, himself, and the Local Government Association. There is a very wide consultation process on the Lyons report. I made it clear in Committee that the Government have said that a White Paper will be published in the summer which will draw together these discussions on a wide-ranging set of issues. That White Paper will of course be open to debate in this House. Any primary legislation that may follow will require our full and constructive engagement. Equally, I give noble Lords the assurance that this House will have an opportunity to debate any findings or recommendations that arise from the Lyons inquiry involving changes to do with council tax revaluation and anything else within the scope of his work. We cannot anticipate the form that implementation may take, but with so much experience in this House, we want noble Lords to be involved. That is the context in which the amendment has been proposed. That was part of the argument we had in Committee and I wanted to make this clear. This amendment is not the right way to go about achieving its objective. It would extend the order-making power to set the date of revaluation from being subject to affirmative procedure in the other place to being subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses. There are two arguments against the amendment which I believe are conclusive. First, on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, to set a date for revaluation is essentially to start the cycle of raising local taxation on a revised basis. To insist that this House should have the same powers as the House of Commons to challenge that process is to overturn the historic convention that these powers rest with the House of Commons alone. I brought the relevant section of Erskine May to your Lordships’ attention in Committee. It says:"““If the subject matter of the instrument is taxation, the required resolution will be that of the House of Commons only””." As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, who is a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, pointed out, we have the benefit of a clear opinion in its 12th report of this Session. It was quite specific in its acceptance of the appropriateness of the procedure. Paragraph 6 of the report states:"““As a matter of delegated powers, that is not inappropriately wide””." Crucially, in paragraph 7, the committee confirms:"““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””." That is a very clear statement; I do not know how it could have been clearer. The noble Baroness will know that it would be unusual and, I believe, inappropriate, to overlook or contradict that advice. The committee concluded by confirming that there are no issues for the attention of the House. The second argument is one of consistency. If we extend the power in this way, we are being inconsistent with the history of the legislation which precedes it. The powers which the Bill provides for the setting of a date is simply a variation on the previous date-setting power in Section 22B the Local Government Finance Act 1992 which, with the agreement of this House, gave the Secretary of State the power to set a date at any time within a 10-year cycle. That power was subject to the affirmative procedure in the other place only. There is every reason in terms of consistency, practice and logic why this power should follow what has been voted on and agreed by both Houses and laid down in legislation. Once again, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee is helpful on this point, saying in paragraph 6:"““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””." Furthermore, this amendment breaks precedents that go beyond just Section 22B. No other powers in the Local Government Finance Act 1992 are subject to affirmative resolution here. I hope that noble Lords will understand that I take these amendments seriously. I have offered the best evidence I can find that they are inappropriate. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.