Rating (Empty Properties) Bill

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and extremely well informed. I suspect that what she said entirely mirrors the experience of most of us who have medium-sized shopping centres in the towns of our constituencies. As my hon. Friend rightly says, the problem is not due to speculative landlords trying to make a fast buck by leaving premises dormant and hoping for a capital appreciation. These people actually want to let their properties, but for all the reasons that have been specified, they are unable to do so. That is why the caveat to the observations of the Federation of Small Businesses is so important. It was right to read it out, because that caveat is perhaps the most important point. At the moment, most of us remain convinced that the Government have recognised that"““small businesses who are unable to use or sell empty property for legitimate commercial reasons””" should not be ““punished”” by the new rules. It is worth restating what my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne) said about that. Many of us will want to reflect very carefully as the Bill progresses on what the Government say they are going to do to meet that legitimate issue, which is particularly important for people based in the fringe area of north Bromley in my constituency and in many other small shopping centres elsewhere. It is a mistake to assume that there is one simple cause of the vacancy rates that distress and trouble all of us under those circumstances. That also helps to explain the concern about regeneration and why a number of property experts and people in the industry have expressed concern about the effect of what seems to be a tax-raising measure on regeneration. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister says in his reply to provide reassurance on that point. We know that, in numerical terms, the vast bulk of the consultation has been unsympathetic to the Government’s proposed changes. It might be interesting if the Minister enlightened us on whether the majority of the urban regeneration organisations that he consulted were in favour or opposed to the scheme. It is important to tackle that issue. As has been acknowledged, small businesses in such sectors are already under pressure. After all, this measure does not stand on its own. Pressure has already been exerted from the 2005 business rates revaluation, so adding this on top could be enough to push small businesses beyond the point at which they can remain viable. Particularly if the Government’s intentions are genuine and this is not a tax-raiser, it would be a tragedy if the provisions had that perverse effect by over-egging the pudding. Nothing has yet been said by the Financial Secretary—perhaps the Minister for Local Government will be able to clarify the position—about whether the proposals are indeed revenue-neutral. I think that we know the answer: it is pretty obvious that there will be a significant take. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) made that point very strongly. Against that background, how is what is perceived by many as the imposition of an additional tax likely to increase demand for vacant property or incentivise people to bring property on-stream? Reference was made earlier to the position in the 1970s. I accept, as the Minister has argued on other occasions, that the economy is different now. It is important that the risk of vandalism and other issues are spelled out and dealt with carefully in the regulations. If the Minister accepts—the Government appear to do so by putting it in the Bill—that there is a risk, who will monitor and assess it? Are we going to create needless bureaucratic burdens? Will it be another obligation that will fall on the local authority? If so—we do not know for sure whether that is envisaged at the moment—will the need for staff to carry out the monitoring be reflected in the financial settlement for local authorities? It seems to me that a number of seriously unanswered questions arise from the Bill.