Mrs Valerie Davey (Bristol West, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 94, in

clause 43, page 19, line 22, after 'projects', insert 'and services'.

Mr Derek Conway (Old Bexley & Sidcup, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 71, in

clause 43, page 19, line 23, after 'work', insert 'invest'.

Amendment No. 95, in

clause 43, page 19, line 25, after 'projects', insert 'and services'.

Amendment No. 72, in

clause 43, page 19, line 27, at end add

'in relation to a hereditament owned in the business improvement district (''relevant hereditament''); and

(c) where so specified in the BID arrangements, all or part of the BID levy to be paid by property owners, or a class of property owners, with an interest in the relevant hereditament superior to that held by the nondomestic ratepayer (''owners of superior property interests'') on whom the BID levy is imposed.'.

Amendment No. 93, in

clause 43, page 19, line 27, at end add

'in relation to a hereditament owned in the business improvement district; and

(c) where so specified in the BID arrangements, all or part of the BID levy to be paid by property owners, or a class of property owners, with an interest in the relevant hereditament superior to that held by the nondomestic ratepayer on whom the BID levy is imposed.'.

Amendment No. 73, in

clause 48, page 20, line 24, at end insert—

'(1A) Any owners of superior property interests must be described in the BID arrangements

(a) by name of the legal owner of the property interest,

(b) by an address for service of any BID related information, and

(c) by reference to the relevant hereditament to which the superior property interest relates.

(1B) The means of calculating any BID levy to be paid by an owner of a superior property interest must be set out in the BID arrangements and must be an allocated proportion of the BID levy (''allocated proportion'') in respect of the relevant hereditament.

(1C) The BID arrangements must specify the residual proportion (if any) of the BID levy (''residual proportion'') for which the nondomestic ratepayer will be liable.

(1D) The aggregate of the allocated proportions and the residual proportion of the BID levy shall not exceed the amount that would be charged if the BID levy were being paid only by the nondomestic ratepayers.'.

Amendment No. 96, in

clause 48, page 20, line 24, at end insert—

'(1A) Any owners of superior property interests who are to be liable for BID levy for a chargeable period must be described in the BID arrangements—

(a) by name of the legal owner of the property interest;

(b) by an address for service of any BID related information; and

(c) by reference to the relevant hereditament to which the superior property interest relates.

(1B) The means of calculating any BID levy to be paid by an owner of a superior property interest must be set out in the BID arrangements and must be an allocated proportion of the BID levy in respect of the relevant hereditament.

(1C) The BID arrangements must specify the residual proportion (if any) of the BID levy for which the nondomestic ratepayer will be liable.

(1D) The aggregate of the allocated proportions and the residual proportion of the BID levy shall not exceed the amount that would be charged if the BID levy were being paid only by the nondomestic ratepayer.'.

Amendment No. 151, in

clause 48, page 20, line 28, at end insert—

'( ) BID arrangements may specify that the owner of a nondomestic property should be liable to pay a BID levy.'.

Amendment No. 75, in

clause 52, page 21, line 39, at end insert—

'(4A) Where BID levy is to be paid by the owner of a superior property interest for the purposes of calculating A and B the owner of the superior property interest shall be treated as voting in relation to the allocated proportion of the rateable value of the relevant hereditament and the nondomestic ratepayer shall be taken as voting in relation to the residual proportion of the rateable value of the relevant hereditament.'.

Amendment No. 98, in

clause 52, page 21, line 41, at end insert—

'(5A) Where BID levy is to be paid by the owner of a superior property interest, for the purposes of calculating A and B the owner of the superior property interest shall be treated as voting in relation to the allocated proportion of the rateable value of the relevant hereditament and the nondomestic ratepayer shall be taken as voting in relation to the residual proportion of the rateable value of the relevant hereditament.'.

New clause 4—BID: No reimbursement to owner of superior interest—

No. NC4, to move the following Clause:—

'. No owner of a superior property interest shall seek to be entitled to any reimbursement of the allocated proportion from any other owner of an interest in the relevant hereditament other than an interest created after the date on which the BID arrangements come into force.'.

New clause 5—Identification of Land Ownership for BIDs—

No. NC5, to move the following Clause:—

'. A local authority or authorities shall, with respect to a Business Improvement District in their area, provide assistance in identifying the ownership of land within that Business Improvement District, when requested to do so by persons drawing up the BID proposals for that area.'.

Mrs Valerie Davey (Bristol West, Labour)

It is a great pleasure to debate business improvement districts at long last. This will probably be a lengthy debate, especially on the first set of amendments because they deal with what many people believe to be the key issue—whether property owners can be included within a business improvement district on a compulsory rather than voluntary basis. The Minister looks worried, but nobody would disagree that property owners should voluntarily be able to be members of a business improvement district. The question is whether they can be forced to be members within the framework adopted by a local bid. The issue has been widely debated.

Amendments Nos. 94 and 95, refer to a separate but clearly related issue. They would insert ''and services'' into clause 43(2). As drafted the Bill suggests that

''The purpose of BID arrangements is to enable . . . the projects specified in the arrangements to be carried out''.

I have spoken to many people involved in drawing up pilot BIDS or thinking of going ahead with BIDS in their areas. They believe that ''projects'' alone is inflexible and may limit the undertakings and ideas that a BID may wish to pursue. In response to this debate, the Minister may wish to clarify whether ''projects'' could include running services. Having that on record would be important to the people to whom I have spoken. If that is not the case, we would wish ''and services'' to be included in the Bill.

There is an economic argument for including property owners in BIDS, and a related business argument. Many property owners would like to be

part of BIDS—the British Property Federation has signed up to the amendments that I have tabled, which are slightly different from the Conservative amendments, although closely related.

There is also a political argument, which I would have thought would be especially worrying to Labour Members. Is it not bizarre that the Government are excluding the property-owning classes from the voluntary tax? I would have thought that Labour Back Benchers would be amused at that prospect. I know that they are getting used to being treated in odd ways by the Government—on House of Lords reform, tuition fees, Iraq and so forth. In the Bill, they are asked to vote against including property owners in the scheme. In due course, they may be surprised to hear their Front-Bench colleagues say, ''Please don't allow property owners to vote to be taxed.'' The Labour party seems to be getting into that bizarre political position.

There is a bureaucratic reason for the Government's drafting of the clause, which excludes property owners. I was given some notes that an official in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister apparently wrote. They set out 16 reasons why it was impossible to include property owners within business improvement district. I have looked at those 16 reasons; they may be good reasons for a bureaucrat, but they are not good reasons for politicians, for policy makers and for the House of Commons. I shall attempt to refute every one of them.

However, the first issue on which I wish to touch in my opening remarks is the economic reason for a business improvement district and for ensuring that property owners are included. It is very simple: property owners will be the main beneficiaries of a business improvement district. They will see the value of their property rise.

Mr Robert Syms (Poole, Conservative)

Or fall.

Mrs Valerie Davey (Bristol West, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman says ''or fall.'' That would mean a failed business improvement district. I make my points as someone who supports the overall thrust of Government policy on the issue. I support business improvement districts; there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that they will be successful in improving areas in our town centres and cities. I am trying to help Government policy through our amendments.

The economic reason for property owners to be included is that they will see the rental value on their property increase. They stand to benefit significantly as a result. Therefore, it seems odd that the Government will not ask property owners to contribute. The business reason that I have sketched out slightly is that representatives of property owners are encouraging the Government to include them in the Bill. However, it is not only the British Property

Federation that is doing so: a range of organisations that represent different forms of business and owners of different types of property have helped to draft our amendments. They have argued their case before the Select Committee and, I understand, in private to the Government. Business is very much behind our amendments.

I make the political case briefly to Labour colleagues that it would be odd to exclude property owners. However, they should be encouraged that those same property owners want to be included in the Bill so that they can pay their fair share.

I mainly want to talk about the bureaucratic issue, with the help of the notes from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Many arguments are being put to Ministers to reject the involvement of property owners. Some of those are practical and some are theoretical. Those arguments should be exposed and dealt with in Committee. It is important that the Under-Secretary and his colleagues think about that. I know from talking to councillors up and down the country that when they face a policy issue on their local authority they often—understandably—rely heavily on the advice of officials. Officers of the council, like civil servants, provide that information. However, that information must be questioned and those arguments tested.

The Ministers in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have been exceedingly busy in recent weeks and months. We understand how busy they have been. My suggestion—in the nicest possible way—is that perhaps they have not really had the chance to test the arguments that they have been given in private. Were those arguments tested fully, they would find that they quickly collapse.

The first argument that has been put to Ministers is that the property tax system in the UK is very different from that in the United States. In the United States, property tax is paid by the property owners, whereas the statutory framework in case law in the UK means that the liability for property tax falls on the tenants or the occupiers of a property. That is a core difference that one cannot dispute. The question is whether the Committee should seek to create in the legislation a UK version of the BID system in order to include property owners. I do not think that the difference per se between the UK and the United States should mean that we do not include them.

To return to the officials' concerns, they have apparently told Ministers that to include property owners would require a fundamental shift in the primary legislation that affects uniform business rates, so there is no way that they can be included.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.