It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Harris, and to serve under you today. Let me join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness on securing this well-attended debate. I note the largely cross-party nature of the contributions—with the exception of the speech by the hon. Member for Ealing North—and I will try to reflect that in my tone. We welcome this opportunity to discuss the important issue of property taxation, including the current status of council tax and stamp duty. Council tax is the most fundamental tax: we pay it every month, it is highly visible, it has an impact on all sorts of important decisions and, when we pay it, we know what services we are getting for it. It ensures that households contribute to the cost of local services, whether that is fire and rescue, refuse collection, transport, libraries or dealing with potholes. On aggregate, council tax raises about £36 billion for local councils in England. Stamp duty is an efficient tax to administer and collect. It raises a substantial sum—£14 billion that the Government use to pay for essential services, such as the NHS, schools and police. The proposal to reform council tax acknowledges the opportunity for local authorities to diversify their sources of revenue but would remove any ambiguity about centralising control over these funds. The system is often accused of being overly centralised, but this proposal would absolutely remove any ambiguity whatever, and that is something that the advocates of this proposal may want to think about. The impact on those with low and fixed incomes of moving any sort of basis of property tax should be thought about carefully. Moving towards a more periodic review of values poses the question of how that revaluation would take place. Certainly, some of us are shy of algorithms, but in all likelihood, unless we were to recruit an army of estate agents-meet-inspectors, we would be using some algorithmic method. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset talked about the compensating mechanisms of revenue support grant. The Government are levelling up in many ways, but that is another way in which we can seek a fairer outcome for our constituents. The ability to have second homes pay double will increase net benefit further. However, this issue needs careful consideration due to the work-from-home economy blurring the line between first and second home ownership. Today, we have heard some thoughtful proposals, and a number of points have been made on both sides. In conclusion, these issues are important, and there are real consequences not only for our constituents but for the housing market. We need to think through the unintended consequences at every point. Help to downsize would be one potential benefit for us all. The Government will continue to act where appropriate to do so. I thank hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions.