| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
37: Before Schedule 2, insert the following new Schedule—
“BRS-BID arrangementsPreliminary1 (1) This Schedule applies in the following four cases.
(a) a levying authority whose area is in England imposes a BRS, and
(b) at the time of the imposition, all or part of the authority’s area is comprised in a business improvement district.
(a) a levying authority whose area is in England may impose a BRS (the conditions in section 4 having been satisfied), and
(b) all or part of the authority’s area is comprised in a business improvement district.
(a) a billing authority whose area is in England makes BID arrangements, and
(b) the business improvement district in respect of which the arrangements are made comprises all or part of an area in which a BRS has been imposed (and the imposition has not come to an end).
(a) a billing authority whose area is in England makes BID arrangements, and
(b) the business improvement district in respect of which the arrangements are made comprises all or part of an area in which a BRS may be imposed (the conditions in section 4 having been satisfied).
Arrangements2 (1) The billing authority may make arrangements under this Schedule (“BRS-BID arrangements”) in respect of the business improvement district.
(2) For that purpose, it does not matter whether the BID arrangements in respect of the district are yet in force.
9 Jun 2009 : Column 545
(3) The purpose of BRS-BID arrangements is to enable—
(a) the projects specified in the arrangements to be carried out for the benefit of the district or those who live, work or carry on an activity in the district, and
(b) those projects to be financed (in whole or in part) by a levy (“BRS-BID levy”) imposed on persons who have a relevant property interest.
(4) A project specified in BRS-BID arrangements need not be a project that is specified in the BID arrangements.
(5) Where a project specified in BRS-BID arrangements is a project that is specified in the BID arrangements, the ways in which the project may be financed by BRS-BID levy include offsetting the amount of a liability for BRS-BID levy against the amount of a liability for BID levy.
(6) A person has a relevant property interest if the person has an interest of a prescribed description in a hereditament that is—
(a) situated in the district, and
(b) shown in the local non-domestic rating list maintained for the billing authority.
(7) “Prescribed” means prescribed by regulations; but the regulations may prescribe only freehold, leasehold or commonhold interests.
BRS-BID levy3 (1) BRS-BID levy may be imposed only for periods falling within—
(a) the chargeable period of the BRS, and
(b) the period in which the BID arrangements are in force.
(2) The length of a period for which BRS-BID levy is imposed, and the day on which it begins, are to be such as may be specified in the BRS-BID arrangements.
(3) The amount of BRS-BID levy for such period—
(a) is to be calculated in such manner as may be provided in the BRS-BID arrangements, and
(b) may be different for different cases.
(4) Regulations may make provision as to the manner in which the amount of BRS-BID levy is to be calculated; and sub-paragraph (3)(a) accordingly has effect subject to such provision.
Liability for BRS-BID levy4 (1) BRS-BID arrangements must specify the description of persons who are to be liable for BRS-BID levy for the period for which the levy is imposed.
(2) A person is to be liable for BRS-BID levy for that period if the person comes within that description at any time within that period.
(3) Amounts paid to the authority by way of BRS-BID levy must be credited to the revenue account kept by the authority under section 47(1) of the 2003 Act for the purposes of the BID arrangements.
(4) Regulations may provide that a person who would, but for this sub-paragraph, be liable to pay each of the BRS, BID levy and BRS-BID levy in respect of the same hereditament is instead to be liable to pay only—
(a) the BRS, and
(b) either BID levy or BRS-BID levy.
(5) Regulations may make provision for securing that a tenant of a hereditament is not required by reference to the tenancy to make payments the effect of which would be to reimburse the landlord to any extent for amounts payable by the landlord by way of BRS-BID levy.
Approval in ballot5 (1) BRS-BID arrangements are not to come into force unless proposals for the arrangements (“BRS-BID proposals”) are approved by a ballot of those who are to be liable for the proposed BRS-BID levy.
(2) BRS-BID proposals are not to be regarded as approved by a ballot held for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) unless the following two conditions are satisfied.
9 Jun 2009 : Column 546
(3) The first condition is that a majority of persons voting in the ballot have voted in favour of the proposals.
(4) The second condition is that A exceeds B.
(5) “A” is such amount as is calculated by reference to rateable value in the manner prescribed in regulations and is attributable to persons who voted in favour of the proposals.
(6) “B” is such amount as is calculated by reference to rateable value in the manner prescribed in regulations and is attributable to persons who voted against the proposals.
(7) Regulations making provision for the purposes of sub-paragraphs (5) and (6) may, in particular, provide for the amounts in question to be calculated by aggregating the rateable values of each hereditament in respect of which a person voted in the ballot.
(8) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) are subject to provision made in regulations under paragraph 10(1)(g).
Combination with ballot on BID proposals, etc.6 (1) Regulations under paragraph 10(1)(g) may, in particular, provide for a ballot on BRS-BID proposals—
(a) to be combined with a BID ballot;
(b) to be held at the same time as (but not to be combined with) a BID ballot;
(c) to be held within such period from the date of a BID ballot as the regulations may prescribe.
(2) Regulations making provision for a case within sub-paragraph (1)(a) may provide for one or other of the following—
(a) for the BRS-BID proposals to be regarded as approved if conditions prescribed by the regulations are satisfied in relation to them;
(b) for the proposals to be regarded as approved only if conditions so prescribed are satisfied in relation to them and conditions so prescribed are satisfied in relation to the matter on which the BID ballot is held.
(3) Provision by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) may authorise the person entitled to draw up the BRS-BID proposals to decide which of paragraphs (a) and (b) of that sub-paragraph is to provide the basis for the assessment of whether the proposals may be regarded as approved.
(4) A condition prescribed for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) may, in particular, involve weighting a person’s vote by reference to the extent of the person’s liability to BID levy or BRS-BID levy.
(5) A “BID ballot” is a ballot held for the purposes of section 49 or 54 of the 2003 Act in relation to the BID.
(6) Nothing in this paragraph is to be taken as limiting the power conferred by paragraph 10(1)(g).
Veto7 (1) This paragraph applies where BRS-BID proposals are approved by a ballot held for the purposes of paragraph (5)(1).
(2) The billing authority may, in such circumstances as regulations may prescribe, veto the proposals within such period from the date of the ballot as the regulations prescribe.
(3) In deciding whether to exercise the veto, the billing authority must have regard to such matters as the regulations prescribe.
Information8 (1) Regulations may authorise the disclosure of information to a billing authority so as to enable it to identify persons who, as regards a hereditament of the description given in paragraph 2(6), have an interest of a description prescribed for the purposes of that paragraph.
(2) Regulations may for the purposes of this Schedule confer on a billing authority such power as an acquiring authority has under section 5A of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (c. 67) (power to require information); and for that purpose the regulations may apply (with or without modification)—
(a) that section;
(b) section 5B of that Act (offence);
(c) paragraphs 5A to 5E of Schedule 9 to the 1988 Act (civil penalty);
9 Jun 2009 : Column 547
(d) provision made by virtue of paragraph 5F of that Schedule.
(3) Provision by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) may not modify a provision so as to impose a penalty greater than that imposed by the provision being modified.
(a) may not use information provided to it by virtue of this paragraph except in so far as is necessary for the purposes of this Schedule, and
(b) may not disclose the information (except in accordance with an enactment, in pursuance of an order of a court or with the consent of any person to whom the information relates).
Application of Part 4 of the Local Government Act 20039 (1) The following provisions of the 2003 Act apply to BRS-BID arrangements, BRS-BID levy and BRS-BID proposals as they apply to BID arrangements, BID levy and BID proposals—
(a) section 43 (additional contributions and action);
(b) section 44 (duty to comply with arrangements);
(c) section 46(3) and (4) (liability);
(d) section 51(4) to (6) (veto);
(e) section 52(1) (appeal against veto);
(f) section 53 (commencement);
(g) section 54(1) to (3) (duration).
(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)—
(a) a reference to a chargeable period in relation to BID levy is to be read as a reference to a period for which BRS-BID levy is to be imposed;
(b) a reference to a ballot for the purposes of section 49 of the 2003 Act is to be read as a reference to a ballot for the purposes of paragraph 5;
(c) a reference to the two conditions in section 50 of the 2003 Act is to be read as a reference to the two conditions in paragraph 5;
(d) a reference to a veto under section 51 of the 2003 Act is to be read as a reference to a veto under paragraph 7;
(e) a reference to an appeal under section 52 of the 2003 Act is to be read as a reference to an appeal by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(e);
(f) a reference to non-domestic ratepayers liable to a proposed BID levy is to be read as a reference to persons liable to a proposed BRS-BID levy.
(3) Section 47(3) of the 2003 Act (revenue account) applies as if after “BID arrangements” there were inserted “or BRS-BID arrangements”.
Regulations10 (1) Regulations may make such provision for the purposes of this Schedule as may be made in regulations under any of the following provisions of the 2003 Act—
(a) section 42 (joint arrangements);
(b) section 47 (revenue account)
(c) section 48 (administration);
(d) section 49 (proposals);
(e) section 52 (appeal against veto);
(f) section 54 (duration);
(g) section 55 (ballots).
(2) Regulations under this paragraph may amend, or apply (with or without modification), a provision of regulations made under—
(a) the relevant provision of the 2003 Act referred to in sub-paragraph (1);
(b) section 56 of that Act (further provision).
Interpretation“the 2003 Act” means the Local Government Act 2003 (c. 26);
9 Jun 2009 : Column 548
“business improvement district”, “BID arrangements” and “BID proposals” each have the meaning given in Part 4 of the 2003 Act.”
4.15 pm
Clause 27 : Special introductory provision
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 40 and 41 which are grouped with Amendment 39. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, brought forward an amendment to exempt the Crossrail project from the requirement for a ballot. That amendment clearly had the support of the Committee and, in response, my noble friend Lady Andrews said, on behalf of the Government:
“I have listened to the repeated calls in your Lordships’ House and during the passage of the Bill in another place for an exemption for Crossrail. I certainly agree with the argument that it brings major benefits across the capital, commands wide support, and is already underpinned by an Act of Parliament. Therefore, with the agreement of the Committee, I would like to accept the noble Baroness’s Amendment 62”.—[Official Report, 18/5/09; col. GC 532.]
This group of amendments makes only minor adjustments to the amendment proposed in Committee. My officials have worked with parliamentary counsel and I am advised that, to be absolutely confident that the amendment achieves the aim that the Committee clearly supported—that is, to give the Crossrail project even greater certainty against challenge or arguments for a ballot, which would in turn import possible delay and risk to the project—these adjustments are, indeed, necessary. With regard to the ballots, there has been no change between the outcome that the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, would have achieved and the new subsection that the Government have tabled.
Finally, we have taken the opportunity of extending the exemption from the ballot requirement for Crossrail to cover the additionality requirement in Clause 3 of the Bill rather than leaving it to regulations. To ensure consistency with the position for ballots, we are making it clear in the Bill that the additionality requirement will not apply to Crossrail. That is to give certainty to the Crossrail BRS, a project which, I know, enjoys the support of the whole House.
Lord Bates: My Lords, as the Minister said, this relates to a debate that took place in Committee on an amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, which I supported as a co-signatory. We were grateful for the concession given, which recognises the importance that we all attach to the Crossrail project. Indeed, our argument throughout the Bill, as a point of principle, is that the Bill should have been attached to the Crossrail Bill as it relates particularly
9 Jun 2009 : Column 549
In contrast to our previous debate on the government amendments, it is noticeable that whereas this amendment embraces a simple concept that results in a series of amendments running for six lines, a previous one embraced a simple concept and turned it into a schedule of six pages. That is a big difference. We do not want to sound ungrateful but that is a bit like somebody giving you £20 and you feeling quite happy about getting a £20 note when the other person is actually giving you £20 in penny coins. You would just want to take the time to count that on the way out.
With no distrust intended on the Government, in these chastened times we want to make sure that we have everything that we wanted in the previous amendment. However, the Minister did not grant that concession and we are therefore forced to take it on trust and count it before Third Reading. We certainly welcome these amendments and are grateful for the spirit in which they were offered. They are certainly the right thing to do and we are happy to be behind them.
Lord Tope: My Lords, perhaps I may place on the record that we, too, welcome these amendments, although we made it clear at previous stages that we do not share the Conservative view that the Bill should be restricted only to Crossrail. Nevertheless, we welcome the amendments.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their support.
40: Clause 27, page 17, line 27, at end insert—
“( ) Sections 3(1)(b), 7(1) and 10(7) do not apply to a BRS that the Greater London Authority proposes to impose, or imposes, in reliance on subsection (4) if the chargeable period of the BRS begins on or before 1 April 2011.”
42: Clause 29, page 19, line 3, at end insert—
“( ) regulations under paragraph 4(5), 5, 6 or 8 of Schedule (BRS-BID arrangements) (BRS-BID arrangements: liability, ballots, disclosure of information);
( ) regulations under paragraph 10 of that Schedule which include provision within sub-paragraph (1)(f) or (g) of that paragraph (BRS-BID arrangements: alteration etc. of arrangements, ballots).”
9 Jun 2009 : Column 550
43: Clause 29, page 19, line 10, at end insert—
“( ) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this Act may not impose on a ratepayer retrospective liability to pay a BRS without error or default on the part of a ratepayer.”
Lord Bates: My Lords, these two amendments, which have been tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Cathcart, are designed to provide an important guarantee to avoid retrospection in business rate supplements taxation and to highlight a staggering injustice that continues to be waged against portside industries in this country by virtue of the change in valuation procedures. The effect of these two amendments is simply to restrict the liability affecting business rate supplement if an alteration has been made due to an error that was not the fault of the business rate supplement payer. If it was not the fault of the BRS payer, there should be no retrospective collection of tax or levy under this Bill.
I hope that that statement seems obvious to all sides of the House. If there is no fault, how on earth can retrospection be imposed on businesses? These amendments point out an injustice that has resulted in just such a situation. There was a change in the way in which valuations were operated following a review carried out in 2006 by government tax inspectors at the Valuation Office Agency. Each port used to pay a single levy for all the businesses operating within the port area. Following the 2006 review, the Valuation Office Agency decided that each firm in a port area was in separate occupation. Therefore, from 55 ports in England and Wales, the levy would now be made on 1,600 portside operators. Rather than giving advance warning to those businesses of the change, the Valuation Office Agency retrospectively backdated the next tax bills not to 2006 but to 2005. As a result, portside operators, which are already on the brink and in many cases clinging on for dear life as viable businesses, were landed with an additional tax of £124 million.
In introducing this retrospective tax, the Government disregarded their own rules. The rules that they contravened were that there should be an impact assessment, but none was made; that there should be a consultation exercise with those affected, but no such exercise was carried out; and that there should be an assessment of the impact on the wider economy, but no such assessment was undertaken. The policy also contravenes the Treasury’s own guidance on retrospective taxation.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |