Proceeding contribution from Phil Woolas (Labour) 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
The hon. Gentleman says that that will always be the case, but if he were to read the 1992 Act and, more importantly, the Hansard report of the debates on that legislation, he would understand that an essential part of resource equalisation—the notional effort made by banding to equalise the system—would not be possible, so the amendment would throw out the baby with the bathwater. There would thus be a confused situation with different banding systems operating in different billing authorities. If the hon. Gentleman stays with my argument, he will understand the position.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 440 c464
- 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
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 11:46:19 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_282642
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_282642
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_282642