Proceeding contribution from John Healey (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 1 April 2009. It occurred during Legislative debate on Rating and Valuation (S.I., 2009, No. 204).
Rating and Valuation (S.I., 2009, No. 204)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right—unsurprisingly, because she champions her businesses and her constituency very powerfully. There is a strong perceived unfairness about the situation in which those businesses now find themselves, and I understand that. They argue that they have made a contribution to their business rates through their tenancy fees or the cumulo system. The problem is that it is hard to pin that down, and there is no specific evidence in the contractual tenancy agreements. Where there is, the port operator would have to deal with that directly with the tenant. However, the terms of the tenancy arrangement and the fees that are paid are contractual matters and not, I am afraid, something that I or the Government can step in over. However, I have directly encouraged Associated British Ports and Peel Ports to take a sensible and practical approach to their tenants, because they have no interest in those tenants not being able to continue in business.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 490 c994
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Business Arrears Payments Ports Rates and rating Business rates Valuation Office Agency
- Legislation
- Non-domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2009
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 10:41:49 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_545843
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_545843
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_545843