Proceeding contribution from Lord Davies of Oldham (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 8 June 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill on Business Rate Supplements Bill.
Business Rate Supplements Bill
My Lords, that is certainly so. However, there is a wider public interest in the benefits contained in the Bill which may derive from Crossrail’s success because, as an economic project in itself, it is vital to the capital city. We all recognise the necessity for the success of Crossrail. I shall take away from the debate the importance of the representations that have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has indicated that it is unlikely that we have heard the last of his representations in regard to this issue. But he will accept that today I am briefed in relation to the general consideration of the Bill and that that is why I am in no position to do anything more than identify the key elements which HMRC has put forward in its letter about how it will consider these issues. It might be that progress can be made regarding Crossrail, but I emphasise that the Bill is designed to cover wider issues. Therefore, it is bound to express itself in generalities that are bound to be reflected in the kind of response that HMRC puts forward. When it talks of a case-by-case basis, that is how the matters are likely to be advanced. The Bill, however, is bound to come into the category of generalities and the issue of it being case by case must be fought on those individual aspects. There may be a framework in which that can be achieved, but the Bill does not provide that opportunity. I venture that noble Lords will also appreciate that, on a matter of such importance regarding taxation, there are real issues with how the other place will take the perspective that this noble House might adopt. The noble Lords who spoke in this debate are so experienced on these matters that I do not need to develop that point, but the debate has been constructive and interesting. It is clear that these issues need to be thought about deeply, and that the Revenue was obliged to respond in the context of its general position. Those generalities are bound to obtain with legislation where neither I nor my noble friend Lady Andrews—nor anybody else—can translate the Bill into one specific case in those terms. I hope that noble Lords will appreciate the limitations I have in responding constructively.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 711 c504-5
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Companies Costs Business Elizabeth line Finance Liability Donors Greater London Infrastructure Empty property Local government Local government finance Public transport Rates and rating Property Business rates Wales Tax allowances Valuation Taxation Business improvement districts Community infrastructure levy
- Legislation
- Business Rate Supplements Bill 2008-09
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 11:57:40 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_563983
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_563983
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_563983