Clause 16
Business Rate Supplements Bill
9:00 am
Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)
At the end of our sitting on Tuesday, I was near the end of my speech outlining the case for new clause 1 and amendment 45. I have a few additional points, which I will cover briefly now to complete the case.
The advantage of the proposal for a landowner levy to be an option in areas where there is a BID and where there might be an adverse impact from the introduction of the BRS, is that it would be permissive. There would be no obligation on local authorities to produce a register of landowners, which could be an onerous and expensive operation and could involve abortive expenditure. It would apply only in those cases where BIDs were up and running, where there would probably be a greater understanding of the ownership structure in the area. There would be an incentive to ensure that the BID, if it was working successfully, had the prospect of continued viability should it be threatened, as we heard from witnesses who gave evidence last week, by the arrival of the BRS. I therefore believe that there would be considerable advantages.
I accept, however, that more work might be needed if this particular option is to be progressed. There would almost certainly be a need for further guidance on the processes involved in compiling a register. If I can persuade my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government consider the proposition, I would be happy to offer any further thoughts outside the Committee on how that process might be undertaken.
It will be important to conduct some further research. A research study was commissioned precisely because of the anxieties about the non-contribution of landowners towards BIDs. I believe that that study, commissioned by the Department and undertaken by the university of York, has completed two stages. Stage 3 has been postponed because of the expected arrival of the BRS; that is an entirely proper approach by the Department, as it avoids anticipating conclusions to a research study that could be influenced by the impact of the BRS.
It would be sensible to have a specific element in the research study looking at the experience of introducing, on a voluntary or a permissive basis, a landowner levy in one or more BIDs districts, where the imposition of a BRS can be anticipated and where there might be an impact. One might suggest the possibility of a control study, using one or two BIDs districts without the landowner levy and one or two with the landowner levy, to compare and contrast the experience of those two.
There are very strong grounds for considering the option. The issue has been with us right from the origin of BIDs. We heard evidence that the success of BIDs might be undermined following the introduction of the BRS if progress is not made on the funding package to keep BIDs viable, and we know that the contribution of landowners could be critical.
I hope that I have said enough to persuade my right. hon. Friend that the idea is worthy of further consideration. I accept entirely that my new clause and amendment are unlikely to be accepted today. I shall be happy not to press them if my right hon. Friend indicates that he is not happy to accept them, but I hope that he will be willing to give further thought to the concept.