Clause 43 - Arrangements with respect to business improvement districts
Local Government Bill
11:15 am
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.