|
Clause 59
Crown application
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Before the Committee adjourned before lunch, someone—I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Poole—rather mischievously asked whether Her Majesty would be subject to these provisions. The purpose of rising on this clause is to find out whether the Crown in the name of Her Majesty is bound by the clause and, if so, whether one of her properties could become part of a BID, in which case she would have a vote. Perhaps the Minister will give us the answer.
Mr. Leslie: The clause states:
''This Part binds the Crown.''
It is a simple sentence, yet it contains so much.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is it incidental or supplemental?
Mr. Leslie: Clause 59 provides that any Crown property, which will be mainly central Government property, will be liable for the BID levy where the Crown property falls within a business improvement district. Crown properties have been liable to pay non-domestic rates since 1 April 2000. If they fall within a business improvement district as defined within the proposals, those properties will also be liable to pay the additional BID levy and will have a vote in the BID ballot.
Mr. Turner: Can the Minister tell me who votes for the Queen?
Mr. Leslie: The ratepayer will have the vote in those circumstances. I hope that that is helpful and that we can allow the clause to stand part.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: This needs to be clear. Government have got themselves into this position, so they need to answer. If one of Her Majesty's properties forms part of a BID, does she or someone on her behalf have a vote in the matter?
Mr. Leslie: That would be a matter for Her Majesty and her offices. As for any ratepayer, we should observe the privacy of that individual ratepayer to make their own arrangements on rates payment. [Interruption.] I feel quite content in what I have said, so I hope that the clause stands part.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 61
Interpretation of Part 4
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am afraid that we need to rehearse—or re-rehearse—the question of unitary authorities, because clause 61, uniquely in the Bill, uses the term ''unitary county council''. Does that term include all unitary authorities? Does it include unitary metropolitan district councils? It is another example of how untidily this and other Bills have been
Column Number: 400
drafted, and we will need to tidy up the term, particularly as the Government are proposing more unitary authorities for this country. Will the Under-Secretary consider that matter, if not today then perhaps at a later stage? We raised it with the Minister for Local Government and the Regions recently, and we will continue to raise it every time we get a list of local authorities until the matter is tidied up.
Mr. Leslie: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. It is interesting that unitary councils are referred to only in certain legislation. In clause 61, the definition of ''unitary county councils'' is clear. It does not include unitary authorities, but the other parts of the billing authority will, not least because billing authorities will be at that tier of local authority. Those matters are adequately covered.
Clause 61 deals at length with definitions of terms in part 4 and provisions about central list ratepayers. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 62
Submission of proposed rating lists
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I hear the usual channels cheering. I told them that I thought that we might get to clause 62 in half an hour. It has taken us almost an hour, and I gather that we are about to have a vote in the House.
Part 5, on non-domestic rates, is a complex part of the Bill, and several matters need to be raised. No amendments have been tabled to clause 62, so we are having only a clause stand part debate. The clause deals with revaluation, for which new lists have to be drawn up. Under the old system, provisional lists had to be made three months before they were finalised on 1 April. Clause 62 simply changes that time to six months, which is to the end of September. The clause is welcome, but it shows that if modern computer technology exists to do that for rating lists, it should be perfectly possible under the BID arrangements to provide estimates. If that can be done for all 1.65 million non-domestic ratepayers, why is it not possible to do that for a few hundred BID submissions? I hope that the Minister will consider that.
The clause is welcome. It is a change that will be welcomed by businesses because it will give them more time to plan their financial affairs.
Mr. Leslie: It is a pleasure to reach part 5 at last. I hope that we can make good progress. Under the Local Government Finance Act 1988, all property has to be revalued every five years. The next such revaluation will take place on 1 April 2005. Sections 41(5) and 52(5) of that Act provide that valuation officers must have completed drafts of the new rating lists three months before the revaluation takes effect, and the drafts are then made available for ratepayers to inspect. Clause 62 requires that valuation officers complete the draft rating six months in advance of the revaluation, thereby allowing ratepayers more time to
Column Number: 401
plan ahead to meet changes in their rateable values. Giving more notice to ratepayers in that way and giving them greater opportunity to scrutinise the changes should be widely welcomed. Six months, not three months, is the right period to allow them.
3.30 pm
Mr. Swayne: I entirely agree. The time allowed is much preferable. It is twice as good as it was before. However, even within the short-term arrangements for shops and enterprises, six months is a relatively short time to change one's behaviour to take account of what might be significant changes in revenue and variations in profitability. Will the Minister say how much more notice it would have been possible to give? How difficult would it be to change the arrangements to give twice as much notice? Can that barrier be pushed back even further? What are the costs and benefits?
Mr. Leslie: Much of the constraint on how much notice can be given is built into the mammoth task of undertaking a revaluation. The Valuation Office Agency—
Mr. David Borrow (South Ribble): Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Leslie: The Valuation Office Agency will be able to elaborate on that, but my hon. Friend may, with his experience, be able to elaborate even more.
Mr. Borrow: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is crucial to have an up-to-date and accurate rating list? The longer the notice of the valuation list given to ratepayers, the further back the antecedent date must go, and the more likely it is that the rating list will be out of date when it is introduced on 1 April. Does he agree that a balance must be struck between the two?
Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend has given one of several possible reasons why there is a constraint on the length of notice that can be given. Six months strikes the right balance.
The hon. Member for Cotswold in a sense warmed up with new clause 6 on BIDs. Again, to send out a fresh bill that gives an estimate would be extremely costly. Incidentally, the Conservative party never provided for that in the 1988 Act.
I hope that the Committee will accept the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 63
Small business relief
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: This is an incredibly complicated clause that deals with large numbers of formulae. Hon. Members will see that the formulae start on page 25 and go on to page 26. If they are still awake by page 27, pages 28 and 29 will certainly send them to sleep.
We accept that small businesses have higher proportionate costs. We therefore welcome the small business relief that the clause provides. However, we
Column Number: 402
note that the maximum qualifying threshold E—introduced in proposed new section 44(9) under subsection (5)—is to be prescribed. I understand that the reason for that is that there is a maximum up to which small businesses still qualify for small business relief. I would like to probe the Minister on that maximum.
I understand that the current maximum is £8,000. The Small Business Bureau believes that it should be £10,000, with a buffer of up to £25,000.
Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman is right that the clause, and subsequent clauses, are complicated. I tried to understand them myself and was not clear whether the small business relief applied to all ratepayers with properties with a rateable value lower than the thresholds indicated in the explanatory notes, or just to small businesses. If it applies only to small businesses, I am not clear whether that distinction is made under subsection (3), proposed new subsection (4B)(a)(iii).
Mr. Clifton-Brown: That technical question should be for the Minister, not for me.
As I understand it, the clause relates to rateable value. The size of the business does not matter when one pays non-domestic rates. It is the rateable value of the business that counts. I understand that the maximum rateable value to qualify for small business relief is £8,000.
Mr. Davey: That is an important point. Many hon. Members rent offices in their constituencies on which they pay non-domestic rates, so they will probably benefit from the relief. If that is the case, hon. Members should declare an interest at the beginning of their speeches.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman asked me a technical question, and I gave him what I perceived to be the answer. If I am wrong, no doubt the Minister will tell me so.
I understand from reading the clauses that the small business relief will be funded from the overall pot. That means that the general non-domestic ratepayer will be paying more to compensate for the small business relief. We have received some representations saying that the relief for small businesses should be funded out of a separate pot, because a separate multiplier and provisions are applied to small businesses. Some larger businesses, which do not receive the relief, are aggrieved at having to pay extra to fund small businesses that may be competing with them. It is a question of equity. Will the Minister comment on that issue?
3.36 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
3.51 pm
On resuming—
| 
