Peter Soulsby (Leicester South, Lab)
I had the privilege of leading Leicester city council for some 17 years. It has been said that that is longer than a life sentence, and at times it certainly felt like it. But in that capacity my city and I survived the rating system, the savage revenue and capital cuts of the early 1980s, and the rate capping and attendant confrontations that took place in what was a pretty painful period. We also survived the poll tax and the disastrous disruption and confrontation that it caused in our city, as it did elsewhere. We are now surviving the council tax and the attendant capping.

So it is with mixed feelings that I speak on this Bill, because I do not know that many of my constituents are likely to benefit from a revaluation, were one to take place. I realise that there are many different predictions about the possible outcome of such a revaluation, but it seems that my constituents and others in Leicester have suffered from the fact that house prices have risen less significantly there than elsewhere. So there is perhaps some benefit in revaluation, but set against that is the obvious pain that would be caused to those whose revaluation moved in a less favourable direction.

Far outweighing any of those considerations is the enormous benefit that is to be gained from a thorough review of the functions and the funding method of local government. I am enormously heartened by what the Minister said in introducing this debate about the Government's commitment to devolution and decentralisation in respect of local government. The Lyons review provides a unique opportunity to look at local government root and branch, and to consider not just its funding but ways of ensuring that its future is healthier than the preceding decades have been.

On balance, I very much favour the deferment of any revaluation, and I look forward to a radical reform of the finance and functions of local government.

Mark Pritchard (Wrekin, The, Con)
The hon. Gentleman mentions his support for deferment. Does that support extend to supporting Government Front Benchers in their apparent desire to abolish local education authorities to reduce future council tax bills?

Peter Soulsby
As I understand the proposals in the White Paper, the Government envisage a new role for local education authorities. I do have some concerns about what that role might be. However, I look forward to a vigorous debate over the White Paper to ensure that local education authorities continue to play a vital role on behalf of local people who elect them to serve their local communities. I look forward to vigorous debate, but I do not envisage that the White Paper will end local government's vital involvement in local education.

Tom Levitt (PPS (Rt Hon Hilary Benn, Secretary of State), Department for International Development)
Conservative Members have got the history wrong, as I recall that it was the Conservative party, from Nicholas Ridley onwards, that went into elections with a policy of abolishing local education authorities. We need to say categorically—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker)
Order. I have heard quite enough to realise that we are now moving into a debate on the future of local education authorities. However, that is most certainly a debate for the future, not for now.

Peter Soulsby (Leicester South, Lab)
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That was precisely the point that I was making.

I welcome the Minister's commitment, in introducing the debate, to a continued role for a property tax in the funding of local government. I welcome it because a property tax is predictable, collectable and just—albeit sometimes a rough justice. I urge Ministers to pass the message back to the Lyons review about the vital need for a much wider range of sources of funding for local government. A property tax undoubtedly has its place, but we need a wider range of sources so that the funding that local government receives from central Government becomes a diminishing proportion of its total expenditure. It is certainly not healthy for local government to depend, as it increasingly has in recent years, on central Government funding. That is not healthy for local democracy, so we need a much higher proportion of local government funds to be raised locally if we are to increase the accountability of local government to local people.

Mark Hendrick (PPS (Rt Hon Margaret Beckett, Secretary of State), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
In achieving that aim, would it be sensible to review the role of the uniform business rate and its contribution to local government?

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker)
Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not go too far down that road in his reply. We are debating a Bill about the postponement of the revaluation of properties in England, and we should stick as closely to that subject as we possibly can.

Peter Soulsby (Leicester South, Lab)
I shall certainly take your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and stick to the matter in hand—except to acknowledge that I agree with my hon. Friend's point.

If, as I hope will be the case, the Bill is successfully enacted, I hope that the Government will recognise that the postponement reinforces the need for them to look into the inequities of the present system of support for local government and will acknowledge that certain issues must be dealt with in the interim period before the Lyons review. I hope that they will reflect on how the area cost adjustment works at present and how its funding should be restricted to authorities that experience higher-than-average wage pressures. I hope that they will look carefully into how resource equalisation works and the need for the current system to keep pace with reality. Full resource equalisation needs to take place every three years. I also hope that the Minister will look into the way in which daytime visitors are factored into the present arrangements, as the present estimates are long out of date, being based on a survey that took place some 15 years ago. We should bring the system truly up to date and make it truly more realistic.

I heard Liberal Democrat Members argue earlier in the debate—as we expect them to do—in favour of local income tax. I know that there is a general view within local government that such a local income tax would be uncollectable, expensive, confusing and, most particularly, a burden on employers. At least, however, Liberal Democrat Members are consistent in their views. I also heard Conservative Members argue powerfully for opposing revaluation. In doing so, however, they were asking the House to support an amendment that, if approved, would have the effect of providing just such a revaluation as they purported to oppose this evening.