Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I hear the usual channels cheering. I told them that I thought that we might get to clause 62 in half an hour. It has taken us almost an hour, and I gather that we are about to have a vote in the House.

Part 5, on non-domestic rates, is a complex part of the Bill, and several matters need to be raised. No amendments have been tabled to clause 62, so we are having only a clause stand part debate. The clause deals with revaluation, for which new lists have to be drawn up. Under the old system, provisional lists had to be made three months before they were finalised on 1 April. Clause 62 simply changes that time to six months, which is to the end of September. The clause is welcome, but it shows that if modern computer technology exists to do that for rating lists, it should be perfectly possible under the BID arrangements to provide estimates. If that can be done for all 1.65 million non-domestic ratepayers, why is it not possible to do that for a few hundred BID submissions? I hope that the Minister will consider that.

The clause is welcome. It is a change that will be welcomed by businesses because it will give them more time to plan their financial affairs.

Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)

It is a pleasure to reach part 5 at last. I hope that we can make good progress. Under the Local Government Finance Act 1988, all property has to be revalued every five years. The next such revaluation will take place on 1 April 2005. Sections 41(5) and 52(5) of that Act provide that valuation officers must have completed drafts of the new rating lists three months before the revaluation takes effect, and the drafts are then made available for ratepayers to inspect. Clause 62 requires that valuation officers complete the draft rating six months in advance of the revaluation, thereby allowing ratepayers more time to

plan ahead to meet changes in their rateable values. Giving more notice to ratepayers in that way and giving them greater opportunity to scrutinise the changes should be widely welcomed. Six months, not three months, is the right period to allow them.

Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West, Conservative)

I entirely agree. The time allowed is much preferable. It is twice as good as it was before. However, even within the short-term arrangements for shops and enterprises, six months is a relatively short time to change one's behaviour to take account of what might be significant changes in revenue and variations in profitability. Will the Minister say how much more notice it would have been possible to give? How difficult would it be to change the arrangements to give twice as much notice? Can that barrier be pushed back even further? What are the costs and benefits?

Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)

Much of the constraint on how much notice can be given is built into the mammoth task of undertaking a revaluation. The Valuation Office Agency—

Mr David Borrow (South Ribble, Labour)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)

The Valuation Office Agency will be able to elaborate on that, but my hon. Friend may, with his experience, be able to elaborate even more.

Mr David Borrow (South Ribble, Labour)

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is crucial to have an up-to-date and accurate rating list? The longer the notice of the valuation list given to ratepayers, the further back the antecedent date must go, and the more likely it is that the rating list will be out of date when it is introduced on 1 April. Does he agree that a balance must be struck between the two?

Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)

My hon. Friend has given one of several possible reasons why there is a constraint on the length of notice that can be given. Six months strikes the right balance.

The hon. Member for Cotswold in a sense warmed up with new clause 6 on BIDs. Again, to send out a fresh bill that gives an estimate would be extremely costly. Incidentally, the Conservative party never provided for that in the 1988 Act.

I hope that the Committee will accept the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.