| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 949
part part debate on clause 3. I am glad that the Minister is nodding his agreement. That will allow us to raise conveniently one or two questions about the valuation system in Scotland and may, on balance, shorten the time that the Committee has to sit. However, I want to ask the Minister one or two questions.I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State, who chastised me for being in the House only occasionally, has already departed. I was looking forward to discussing with him the role of the Minister's wife. She is not an archetypal or representative figure in Scottish society, wherever she may have been born. She is a well-known character in children's games, and there was an interesting theme to be developed.
I shall confine my remarks to the proper matter for the debate, which is the role of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in the valuation system in Scotland. I am considerably interested in that, and I took the trouble this morning--I will not say that I did a great deal of research--to discover who the commissioners are. [Interruption.] I am glad to see that the Minister's wife's husband has returned. The commissioners are the individual members of the board of Inland Revenue, and the Committee may be delighted to know that the chief valuer, who will no doubt become an important figure in Scottish local government, is Mr. R. R. B. Shutter-- which seems entirely appropriate.
I wish to ask the Minister about the role of the commissioners. I recognise that it was dealt with on Second Reading, and I challenged the Secretary of State for the Environment on the matter during his opening speech. He said :
"That is an important point".
I accept that : otherwise I would not have intervened. He added : "there should be parity of valuation in Scotland, England and Wales. It is our intention for the Inland Revenue to mastermind the valuation exercise and give appropriate directives so that the Scottish valuations are in line with those in England and Wales."--[ Official Report, 3 June 1991 ; Vol. 192, c. 61.]
That is an obtrusive role. It is not necessarily a bad one, but it is one that we should know more about.
From my earlier inquiries, I got the impression that it would occur very occasionally and that day-to-day operations would remain with the assessors in Scotland and only if there were some dispute, for example, if there were a nice argument about the contractors principle--a vexed question which took up many hours of my time a few years ago when there was a shortage of comparative rental evidence and other methods had to be resorted to. The commissioners would be brought in only if a matter of principle arose.
I do not want to make too much of a textual point. If we are to consider the masterminding of the valuation exercise, and if directives will bring Scottish valuations into line with those in England, we need more explanation.
I do not intend to discuss forcefully the merits and demerits of the contractors principle--I have forgotten them--but I think that the merits are outweighed by the demerits. There are still differences in valuation law between Scotland and England. I approve of the Minister's talk of an attempt to harmonise valuation law. That talk was in connection with the business and commercial rating sectors, but I presume it has become relevant to the
Column 950
Government's unexpected, but sensible, decision to go for a property-based rating system and that harmonisation will take place in the domestic sector as well.If harmonisation of valuation law is to be masterminded by the commissioners, the Minister should explain exactly what the phrase means. It does not mean that rateable values will be the same. They will not be the same in England where there are wide discrepancies, and presumably they will not be the same in Scotland.
Is the Minister saying that Armour on "Rating and Valuation" can be burned, that Scottish valuation law will come to an end on a phased basis and that, ultimately, valuation law in England and Scotland will be exactly the same and the law interpreted by Scottish courts will be the same as that interpreted by English courts ? Is that the intention, and is that the remit of the commissioners of Inland Revenue ?
Let us take a popular current example. I notice from the public prints that the Minister has written to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) on the vexed question of the rating of football clubs. It has been suggested that something will be done that is totally unknown in Scottish law. Valuation law will move to a system which depends on revenue of the football clubs, and it will not be based on their grounds or the number who attend the premises. That will not be glad news for Rangers football club, but it will be extremely good for Cowdenbeath.
A revenue-based system is a departure in Scottish law. Recently, as reported in The Glasgow Herald, the Minister said :
"I should explain that should we decide to adopt such an approach, which would severely limit clubs' rights of appeal, we would regard this as an interim measure".
I am curious to know why it would severely restrict the clubs' rights of appeal. I invite the Minister to say a word in passing about that and the Government's intentions because of the interest in the subject and because it is important as an example of what the role of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue will be.
It will be a difficult relationship. I have said before that I welcome the Government's U-turn on the matter. The Secretary of State heavily briefed the press that the valuation office of the Inland Revenue will take over valuation procedures in Scotland, and the decision to reinstate the assessors strikes me as a sensible one. It is the essence of the assessors' role that although they are funded and have the wherewithal to operate through the regional councils, they are totally independent. If there is a dispute over valuation law, the answer in the courts will be that they are not controlled by anybody else. Now we are being asked to contemplate the possibility that, to some extent, they will be controlled by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.
I hope that the Minister will give us a fuller explanation than was possible on Second Reading. I have no complaint about the answer then, because obviously it was a point for the Committee stage. As we have reached that stage, it would be helpful if the Minister gave a full explanation of the Government's intentions. We will then be able to judge whether we want to live with them.
Mr. Douglas : I understand that we shall have an extensive clause stand part debate, so I shall be brief. I am in the unaccustomed position of supporting the hon. Member for Glasgow, Gardscadden (Mr. Dewar). I shall
Column 951
also say something on behalf of local assessors and in view of the role that they play on the poll tax, that is an engaging anomaly. I shall consider the relationship of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to the assessors ; this arose on Second Reading. I agree with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Garscadden and I have tabled an amendment to this subsection to clarify the relationship. The hon. Member was right to say that we should congratulate the Government somewhat for their about-turn. In paragraph 2.29 of the consultative document, the Government said that the valuation office of the Inland Revenue would be almost in complete charge. It would almost totally operate the system.I know that representations were made by the Scottish Assessors Association and the Government rightly conceded that the expertise of Scottish assessors should be used on the new council tax. I am concerned by what is embedded in the Bill--that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue will have effective legal control. I find that disturbing in the Scottish context.
I am not an expert--I am not a lawyer--and I have no great experience from direct discussions with assessors, but I understand that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have no experience of valuing domestic property in Scotland.
Mr. Allan Stewart indicated dissent.
Mr. Douglas : The Minister may disagree, but I call in evidence Mr. Jack Woods, the president of the Scottish Assessors Association. If I am wrong I hope that the Minister will correct me.
6.30 pm
The commissioners have not embarked upon such an undertaking in Scotland. In certain areas of Scotland, there is no local office of Inland Revenue commissioners. It strikes me as strange that those with the authority and the expertise should be subordinate, in legal terms, to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue who lack that very experience and expertise.
I have tried to soften the effects of clause 3(2) by suggesting that, if the Government are intent on achieving harmony, the relationship between the commissioners and the assessors should, at the very most, be based on "guidance", not direction. It is important to decide who calls the shots and to recognise who has the expertise and experience to operate the proposed system in Scotland. I am not in love with that system, but if the Government want to get it in place by 1 April 1993, they should be sensible. They should use the expertise of the assessors to the greatest extent and those assessors should not be impeded by being subject to the overlordship of the commissioners.
My argument may be subject to dispute, but given the practical experience of the assessors they should not be dominated by the commissioners. I appreciate that the Government see certain merits in fettering the assessors' role--that would not necessarily be to Scotland's advantage--and in trying to achieve harmony. Nevertheless, the assessors should not be dominated by directions issued by the commissioners.
Column 952
Mr. Allan Stewart : As the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) said, there is an unusual degree of unanimity between the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and the prospective Scottish National party candidate for Garscadden.
This has been a genuinely useful debate and I hope that I can reassure the hon. Members for Garscadden and for Dunfermline, West. The hon. Member for Garscadden alleged that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had made a U-turn. The hon. Gentleman is a fair man and I am sure that he will recall that during questions on the original statement my right hon. Friend said to him :
"We are still considering the possible role of Scottish assessors in the system"--[ Official Report, 23 April 1991 ; Vol. 189, c. 931.]
I fear that watching me on television is not a high priority for the hon. Member for Garscadden.
Mr. Dewar : It is always very instructive.
Mr. Stewart : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I recall that, on the evening following that statement, I appeared on television in "Scottish Questions". I made it clear that the assessors have the considerable expertise to which the hon. Members for Garscadden and for Dunfermline, west have referred. I stressed that we were seriously considering their role in the proposed system. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expressed the same view in interviews that he gave.
It is important to put on record the precise nature of the relationship between the assessors and the commissioners--it is the essence of the debate. The primary responsibility for carrying out valuations in Scotland rests with the assessors. They will act in accordance with directions given by the commissioners.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West spoke about the Inland Revenue valuation office's experience of domestic valuation in Scotland. The commissioners have had experience of valuing local authority houses for sale to sitting tenants and of valuing individual properties for taxation purposes. However, Mr. Woods was right to say that the commissioners do not have the same experience as the assessors when it comes to the general valuation procedure.
Mr. Douglas : So that I do not mislead the House I should like to quote what Mr. Woods said. I do not wish to misinterpret him. On page 321 of the submission to the Scottish office of May 1991, Mr. Woods said :
"The Valuation Office in Scotland has never in modern times been responsible for valuation for domestic rating as contrasted with the position in England and Wales"
Perhaps I misled the House with my extempore remarks, but it is important to quote the basis of my argument.
Mr. Stewart : I have that document with me, and I believe that Mr. Woods was right to say that the valuation office has never been involved in the general valuation procedure in Scotland. However, it has experience of valuing individual properties.
The Government are already on record as saying that we do not anticipate any need for the widespread use of the power to give directions set out in the Bill. We expect that power to be used initially to start the process going, but any further directions, should they be necessary, will simply be given in order to achieve consistency of approach.
Column 953
We expect that the Inland Revenue commissioners would find it necessary to give a direction only as a last resort to achieve consistency in the way in which properties are banded in Scotland and consistency between Scotland and England and Wales, where that consistency would not otherwise be achieved in agreement with the local assessors.There might not be any need to issue directions because the assessors and the Inland Revenue commissioners already have excellent working relationships. They should be able to deal with the problems of harmonisation in the non-domestic sector to which hon. Members have referred.
Mr. Douglas : They have not agreed on some issues for years.
Mr. Stewart : They have reached a measure of agreement in some areas. The hon. Member for Garscadden referred to sports grounds, and I accept that they have not reached total agreement on that issue, which is a matter of concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Even if the law is the same, professionals may disagree on how it should be applied in particular circumstances. That does not imply any criticism of their relative professionalism, expertise or dedication. We must ensure that we avoid such disagreement when we set up the council tax.
I hope that I can reassure the hon. Members for Garscadden and for Dunfermline, West by saying that the president of the Scottish Assessors Association has gone on record as saying that he feels comfortable about the role of the commissioners at the United Kingdom level. The proposals do not cause any problems to the
professionals--those who will carry out the valuations.
I recognise that the amendments are probing and I assure the hon. Members for Garscadden and for Dunfermline, West that the power to give direction is simply one of last resort. I hope that it will not be necessary to use it once the process is up and running. I am sure that they would agree that it is crucial to give an assurance and perception of uniformity north and south of the border.
If any problems arise as a result of the Government's approach, I should be happy to discuss them with the hon. Members. We hope that that will not happen because the professionals are content with what has been suggested. I welcome the opportunity to put that on the record and I hope that I have been reasonably reassuring to the hon. Members for Garscadden and for Dunfermline, West.
Mr. Dewar : The Minister has been more reassuring than he sometimes is : I can be no more enthusiastic than that. In return, I can give him the assurance that I do not esxpect to spend many hours discussing valuation law with him. That would be a considerable test for both of us and I suspect that it would not produce much light. I hear what the Minister says. It is significant that there have not been many protests from any of my contacts, so we shall have to see how it goes. I do not intend to force a Division. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. David Bellotti (Eastbourn9e) : I beg to move amendment No. 52, in page 2, line 44, at end insert--
(4A) The Commissioners of Inland Revenue in England and Wales and in Scotland, the local assessors acting under the direction of those commissioners, shall
Column 954
(a) before commencing the work of valuation, and(b) after completion of the work of valuation,
publish the expected and final cost of the valuation and compare it with the estimated cost of assessing individuals' tax status for the purpose of introducing a local income tax to fund local government.'.
The explanatory and financial memorandum refers to an estimated cost of £250 million for the valuation provisions. There are 21.5 million houses and flats in the country. A quick calculation shows that the Government expect the average valuation cost to be £12 per hereditament. That is an interesting figure. I should very much like the name and address of the estate agent that the Government intend to use if properties can be valued at £12 each. Perhaps nearer to the truth is what the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) said earlier in the debate. He said that he could sit in the centre of Southampton with a map of Southampton in his hands and identify upon it the bands of properties there. That would be socially divisive and would almost certainly lead to major protests and many appeals. It would also cost a great deal.
The purpose of the amendment is to seek answers from the Government about what their valuation proposals will mean and to try to identify the equivalent costs of introducing a local income tax. Either the Government must provide the full costs of valuation or they must give more information. The public needs to know how much money is to be wasted on introducing the new tax. I remind the Government that between £10 billion and £14 billion has already been wasted on the poll tax.
According to all the opinion polls, support for a local income tax is growing throughout the country. The costs of introducing a local income tax deserve to be considered. A local income tax would be simple to administer. It would certainly be fairer in terms of the burden placed on people. It would be very much related to ability to pay. Almost certainly it could be in place by April 1992--a very important date, since for 12 months after that date the Government propose to waste an additional £800 million, as the Audit Commission pointed out, on prolonging the agonies of the poll tax.
The reason why it would be simple to administer and could be in place so quickly is that the information that is needed is already on the Inland Revenue computers, which give the address, including the postal code, of everyone who would be required to pay the local income tax. That information, together with the correct software programme, means that it would be cheap to administer and that it would be in place within the right time scale. A local income tax has another attraction--accountability. An end-of-year adjustment, just before local elections, means that a local income tax would be seen by the electorate to be linked to the decision that they were about to take at the ballot box.
For those reasons, we believe that a local income tax is worthy of support. It was its unfairness in principle that was at the heart of the poll tax opposition. We are beginning to see, as the Government provide us with more details, how unfair their council tax proposals will be. The council tax will do nothing to help the student in a bed-sit, often living, traditionally, in the centre of our large cities and towns.
For example, a student in Edinburgh, even with a 25 per cent. discount, will still have to pay more under the council tax than he did under the poll tax. In central London, there is low-cost housing, provided by housing
Column 955
associations and others, next door to very expensive housing. The houses look the same from the outside. On the open market, those properties would fetch the same. However, the people living in the low-cost housing may be on very low incomes. The Government's council tax proposals do nothing to help students.6.45 pm
A local income tax, related to ability to pay, means that the majority of students on low incomes would not contribute towards local taxation. Moreover, the council tax would do nothing for the widow in a terraced house, bought by the family 30 years ago in Southwark ; the house may be valued at £90,000, but her income is about £8,000. Even after the single discount, that person would have to pay £372 a year. Under a local income tax system, she would be very much better off. The only important figure would be her £8,000 income. [ An Hon. Member :-- "What would she pay?"] The figure in Southwark will be well under £372. I do not have the exact figure, but I can make it available. The Government know full well that over a month ago the Liberal Democrats published and sent to the Government details of what the local income tax would be in every local authority in the country. As I say, I do not have the figure in front of me, but it is on public record. The Government have the figure, but I can make it available to them again, if they so wish. I am giving examples that the Government need to take on board if they intend to introduce a council tax, and I am certainly pressing for the introduction of the local income tax alternative.
A local income tax has many advantages. Not only is it fair, but it is directly linked to the ability of people to pay. They will pay what they can afford to pay. That is the important criterion when considering any form of local taxation. Our proposals also mean that no new registers and no new valuations would be required. It would be much cheaper to introduce, and it could be introduced very much more quickly than a council tax.
For those reasons, and also because I believe that the British people should have before them a comparison of the costs of the alternative ways in which local government could be funded, I must press the advantages of a local income tax. The valuation costs that appear in the explanatory and financial memorandum are not clear. Insufficient detail is provided for the people of this country to reach a decision. That detail should be given by Ministers. If they do not do so, I believe that a comparison should be placed before the people of this country.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg (Hampstead and Highgate) : I doubt whether we need spend much time on that weird flight of fancy. My question arises out of the failure of the Department of the Environment to reply to a letter that I wrote to it, which is relevant to this debate.
I, too, looked at the figure that is given in the explanatory and financial memorandum. Departments, under all Governments, respond much too slowly to queries. My question, arising out of the cost, is this : could it be that the low cost--which, on the face of it, looks like £12 per hereditament--is due to the Government's intention, perhaps under regulations, to make it possible for people who know that their properties are in the top band to respond to a letter by saying, "Yes, we are in the
Column 956
top band," thus doing away with the need to provide a valuation? No one will say that he or she is in the top band if that is not so. It would not be in anyone's interest to do that. That would provide the opportunity for considerable savings to be made. That may explain why one cannot make a naive division of the number of hereditaments into the total sum on the face of the Bill, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) has just tried to do.Mr. Nicholas Bennett : The amendment provides for comparisons to be made between the cost of valuation and the cost of introducing a local income tax, and for figures to be published of the costs of valuation, both estimated--before it starts--and actual, after it has been completed. The amendment is unnecessary. Were the amendment simply what it appears to be, I should have been disappointed at the lack of knowledge that it displays about the way in which the Government treat public expenditure. However, its purpose is different. It has nothing to do with the merits of the Bill. It is intended to provide a platform for discussion of a local income tax. I am disappointed, therefore, that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) was unable to give us details of what the Liberal Democrats propose. When he was challenged from a sedentary position as to what his friend in Southwark would be paying under the local income tax system, he said that the Liberal Democrats had published those figures but that they were not available to him to give to the Committee today.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker) : Order. I must tell the Minister that if the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) had sought to do as he suggests I might have been tempted to rule him out of order. The Minister should stick to what is in the amendment.
Mr. Bennett : I was drawing attention to the inconsistencies in the speech by the hon. Member for Eastbourne, Mr. Walker.
There are a number of reasons why a local income tax would be unsuitable for financing local government. Those reasons reflect matters of principle, practicality, and good administration. It was interesting to listen to the hon. Member for Eastbourne, whose theory belongs in cloud cuckoo land ; indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) talked about a flight of fancy. The hon. Member for Eastbourne cannot seriously believe that a local income tax could be in place by next year, that the software would be available and that the system would be simple. That is nonsense. None of it could be put into place by 1992 even if we believed in it in principle.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the average cost
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) : Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Bennett : Not now. I am answering the hon. Member for Eastbourne, who asked about the average cost.
It may not be necessary for the valuer to value every home. Often a valuer will go to a street and find a whole street of identical properties. He will then be able to make the assumption that the value of such properties will be the same. The £12 that the hon. Member for Eastbourne calculates as the cost per property of valuation does not take account of the fact that, in some areas, valuers will be
Column 957
able to make assessments on the basis of having seen rows of similar houses. The charge will be higher for properties requiring more detailed valuation. It is dangerous to make assumptions based on average figures.There are important reasons of principle why we should not adopt a local income tax. I do not believe that a highly redistributive tax is a suitable basis for financing local government. Income tax is suitable only as a national tax, and it forms an important element in the Government's economic policy. To give local government the ability to levy income tax would reduce the Chancellor's room for manoeuvre in economic management. It would also reverse the reduction in the burden of taxation on incomes, which has been the Government's policy for 12 years, and would have a damaging effect on incentives. I cannot believe that the people of Britain would want there to be more than 500 chancellors of the exchequer, all dipping their hands into the public's pocket after the national Chancellor of the Exchequer had already done so.
Mr. Salmond : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bennett : Let me finish my argument first.
I do not believe that it is right to give local government the right to redistribute income, and the unfettered discretion to take from local taxpayers sums of money in excess of what would be prudent. We have only to look at the effects of local government in London--at Lambeth, Haringey, Camden and other boroughs--to see what would happen to taxpayers in those areas if their local authorities had the right to dip into their pockets and impose a local income tax.
Mr. Salmond : I should like to come to the assistance of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti). The Government have been humiliated over the poll tax and are now embarking on a flight into the unknown with the new council tax. Does the Minister seriously intend to stand there and attempt to rubbish a system that works satisfactorily in so many other European countries?
Mr. Bennett : I am interested to hear from the representative of the Scottish National party that that party's policy is to have a local income tax. I do not believe that it would be right to have two forms of chancellor of the exchequer in this country--one in central Government, able to make decisions on the redistribution of income, and a mini- chancellor in every local authority, able to make his own decisions, which might be contrary to those made by central Government, about the distribution of wealth in the country. I should not like a chancellor of the exchequer in Camden town hall to be able to levy as much as 25p on the local people, in addition to the 25 per cent. income tax already taken by central Government. I do not believe that most people want to see that, either. To go down that road would pose a serious danger to the Government's economic strategy. It would be irresponsible of the Government to allow fiscal policy to be under the influence of local authorities, with all the macro-economic consequences that could flow from such a state. Income tax is not practical at local government level, for several reasons. The yield of income tax for small local authorities could vary considerably according to economic circumstances, and deny local government the steady and predictable source of income that they need. That lack of predictability, and the consequent potential instability,
Column 958
would be made worse by what experts call fiscal migration. That means that people with the highest incomes would move to low-tax authority areas and those with low incomes would move to high-tax areas.Let us ponder the vicious spiral that that would cause--the instability in areas such as south London, where Lambeth and Wandsworth exist side by side. As every telling reminder of the difference between Labour and Conservative local government shows, at the moment Labour costs more ; for example, it costs £450 more to live in Lambeth. If there were a local income tax, Labour would drive people out, and tax rates would become higher and higher as fewer people were left to pay the local income tax. Such a system of local taxation would not be common sense.
Another practical objection is that income tax rates are changed only in steps of 1p or, at a pinch, 0.5p. That would represent a large proportional increase in the tax rate and would greatly restrict local authorities' flexibility in making budget decisions. The smallest increase or decrease in income that they could consider might represent 10 or 20 per cent. of their total revenue. That does not seem likely to offer adequate accountability, and the buoyancy of the local income tax would reduce the restraints on local authority spending.
The Chairman : Order. The Minister is contrasting the cost of administering one system with the cost of administering another. His remarks do not seem to have much to do with the amendment. He should direct his remarks to the amendment.
Mr. Bennett : I thought that it was in order to point out what the effects of the amendment would be, Mr. Walker. It would produce a system of local income tax, and the disadvantages of that--
The Chairman : Order. I beg the Minister to read the amendment and then address his remarks to what I can read in it. I am not prepared to allow the debate on which the Minister is now embarking about the intrinsic merits of a local income tax scheme. The amendment is not about that, and nor is the debate.
Mr. Bennett : I think that I have already given enough evidence, Mr. Walker, to show the impracticality of the Liberal amendment, and the fact that it is wrong in principle. I therefore ask the Committee to vote against it.
Mr. Bellotti : I am grateful to you, Mr. Walker. I was beginning to struggle as I listened to the Minister's response. This is the first time that I have listened to a response from a Minister that I simply could not fathom. I hope that my reply will keep to the point. First, there is the question of what the Government's valuation proposals will cost. The Minister's response has at least revealed that the Government will expect people undertaking valuations to stand at the end of a street and look down it to see whether all the houses look the same. If they do the houses will all be valued the same. That reveals a naivety beyond belief, even for the House. Everyone realises that there has to be some element of fairness, and the Government's approach to valuation is ridiculous, as well as unfair.
Column 959
Mr. Hugo Summerson (Walthamstow) : Speaking as a chartered surveyor, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the procedure that he describes would be perfectly easy to carry out.Mr. Bellotti : I am grateful for that advice, but in all the towns-- and indeed, in all the roads--in which I have lived, there has been a vast variety of property values. There are differences in value of almost 100 per cent. between houses one end of the street where I live and houses at the other. A naivety about property valuation is being revealed among Conservative Members which I find surprising, especially in any one professionally involved with valuation. But at least we are getting some more information in the debate.
Having seen how ridiculous the Government's idea of the cost of valuation is, I want to emphasise how easy and cheap in comparison our alternative proposals would be. I invite the Minister to visit his local Inland Revenue office and ask the manager to press a button on the computer. Immediately, details of the names and addresses, including postcodes, of all the people in that area will flash before him on the screen. That is the basic information that we need to start with for the introduction of a local income tax. Given that the information already exists, the costs of levying a local income tax would be minimal.
7 pm
The Government's true feelings towards local authorities have been revealed at the Dispatch Box tonight. The measures in the Bill are all about controlling local authorities from the centre. If the Government want to make local authorities accountable, there are other measures open to them, one of which is the introduction of a fair voting system. But the Government want total control, and they are so naive as to believe that the valuation proposal can give it to them.
On the basis of the debate, I have no hesitation in pressing the amendment to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made :--
The Committee divided : Ayes 26, Noes 274.
Division No. 168] [7 pm
AYES
Alton, David
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Beith, A. J.
Bellotti, David
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Carr, Michael
Cartwright, John
Douglas, Dick
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Fearn, Ronald
Godman, Dr Norman A.
Howells, Geraint
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Livingstone, Ken
Maclennan, Robert
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Salmond, Alex
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Wigley, Dafydd
Tellers for the Ayes :
Mr. James Wallace and
Mr. Archy Kirkwood.
NOES
Adley, Robert
Aitken, Jonathan
Alexander, Richard
Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Allason, Rupert
Amess, David
Amos, Alan
Arbuthnot, James
Arnold, Sir Thomas
Ashby, David
Ashton, Joe
Aspinwall, Jack
Atkinson, David
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Batiste, Spencer
Beggs, Roy
Bellingham, Henry
Bendall, Vivian
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Blackburn, Dr John G.
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Body, Sir Richard
| Next Section
| Home Page |