Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Greg Knight (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 1 December 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill on Council Tax (New Valuation Lists for England) Bill.


Council Tax (New Valuation Lists for England) Bill

My hon. Friend says, sotto voce, that that is right, but I am not reassured. That is not what I mean by an appeal process. We all know what would happen: a Secretary of State who made an order, perhaps for the wrong reasons, would simply whip members of his party to vote it through. We see that time and again. It is not an appeal process; it is what the late Lord Hailsham described as elective dictatorship, and I do not regard it as a satisfactory safeguard. If we are to accept the principle of amendment No. 3, we need a proper appeal process whereby the Secretary of State’s decision can be challenged and he can be required to reveal why he has made the order. We have not yet reached amendment No. 4, but it at least requires the Secretary of State to"““give reasons for his decision””." Amendment No. 3 does not, and that is yet another area in which it is deficient. My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley did the House a service by allowing us to debate this issue, but the wording of his amendment renders it a wholly unsatisfactory vehicle, and I hope that he will withdraw it. Someone asked earlier why we should not refer it to the Lyons committee, but I should prefer it to be withdrawn completely, and I should like a rethink to take place.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
440 c437-8 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Council tax ICT Increases Local government Local government finance Property Prices Valuation Tax rates and bands Timetables Time limits Tax yields Valuation Office Agency
Legislation
Council Tax (New Valuation Lists for England) Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk