Proceeding contribution from Baroness Andrews (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 18 May 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Business Rate Supplements Bill.
Business Rate Supplements Bill
I take that point entirely. However, there are enough reasons not to go down this route of an automatic offset, particularly when the crucial point is that levying authorities can use their discretion on whether to have one or not. I do not need to rehearse our arguments on Amendment 55A. As the noble Lord said, we have already had that debate. I am afraid that Amendment 52 is unduly prescriptive, although I understand why the noble Baroness has tabled it. We debated levying authorities setting out their detailed plans in their prospectus last week, including whether they intend to offset BID levies against liabilities for BRS. In the draft guidance that we issued in January for consultation, at paragraph 3.41, we make the point that business will have the scope to challenge prospectus assumptions at the consultation stage. For that reason, we advise that it is in the levying authority’s best interests to ensure the robustness of its business case and to ensure that work on the preparation of the prospectus involves detailed discussions with local business and other interested parties, covering the whole range of matters that should be in the prospectus. Given that requirement, it would be unnecessary to require them formally to consult about whether there should be an offset for those paying BID levies before they carry out their formal consultation on the prospectus. Again, we should leave it to authorities to determine how best to engage with businesses, and to have that conversation before they finalise their prospectus. Amendment 55 seeks to clarify whether a levying authority could choose to treat BIDs in its area differently; for example, by offsetting the BID liability of persons in BIDs established before the BRS was imposed but providing no offset for persons in BIDs established after the BRS was imposed. The noble Baroness asked quite rightly about the interpretation of "consistently". I hope it is sufficient to tell her that the BID rules must be the same for all BIDs. The same level of offset should apply wherever the BID is and whenever it is established, be it before or after BRS. I hope that that answers the noble Baroness’s question. Clause 11(4)(c) requires the BID rules to, ""apply uniformly throughout the levying authority’s area"." I think that the explanation that I have given is an extrapolation of that point. The noble Baroness does not look at all convinced.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 710 c553-4GC
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords Grand Committee
- Subjects
- Companies Ballots Administration Costs Business Corporation tax Elizabeth line Billing Greater London Information Greater London Authority Infrastructure Exemptions Leasehold Internet Local government Ownership Local government finance Ports Public consultation Rates and rating Property Business rates Partnerships Transport Small businesses Tax allowances Valuation Surcharges Tax collection Tenants Business improvement districts
- Legislation
- Business Rate Supplements Bill 2008-09
- Non-domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2005
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-22 01:56:54 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_559199
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_559199
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_559199