Rating (Empty Properties) Bill

Except, of course, that we have a regular revaluation of non-domestic rates every five years. Because of our successful policy of regular revaluation and capping the ratio at inflation, those revaluations take place without a murmur from Conservative Members, despite the fact that they bang the drum about the alleged evils of domestic rate revaluation as though it were the end of the world. The hon. Gentleman is not rising to the bait, so I shall move on, but there is no evidence that it would take 15 to 25 years. In any event, to be fair to him—I recognise the ““real world”” point that he is trying to make—I said that that would be the logical conclusion of the argument, but because of our hugely successful economy, all this country’s shops are not going to shut down. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the retail sector is one of the flagships of our economy, as my town centre manager is reporting, but I need to move on. I was replying to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, who had raised the issue of domestic properties. As he knows, the provisions do not cover that, but there are circumstances in which council tax is relieved on the renovation of empty homes. Indeed, as I explained earlier, it is the capital value, not the rental value, that applies. I recognise the significant experience of the hon. Member for Ludlow in retail centres in towns and cities, although not the big cities, throughout the country. It is fair to say that the Government need to consider the differential impact. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary referred to the consultation. The hon. Member for Ludlow and the hon. Member for Fareham both made the allegation that the Government were hiding behind the fig leaf of Barker and Lyons. When we agree with a consultation, we are accused of hiding behind a fig leaf, and when we disagree with a consultation, we are accused of arrogantly riding roughshod over it. Both points cannot be true. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander)—it is easier just to say, ““the hon. Member for the Liberal Democrats””, which is a little tip that my hon. Friend the. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) gave me—accused us of not consulting. Of course we have consulted. The Barker and Lyons reports were substantial pieces of work, which we studied and took seriously. I note that his party said that we had kicked the document into the long grass without even reading it. Again, he cannot have his cake and eat it. I have answered the point made by the hon. Member for Ludlow about commercial activities and the ratios between non-domestic rates and corporation tax. He also asked about consultation. We did, of course, consult on Lyons and Barker, and another consultation will take place later this year. A Committee of the whole House will take place, as this is a finance measure but not part of the Finance Bill. We have given the issue a generous amount of time. The hon. Member for Ludlow brought his experience to bear on the issue of leases and made an important point. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary made a specific point about leases, the need to consider the impact on them, and the consultation that will take place, particularly with regard to onerous leases. The hon. Gentleman also asked about business improvement districts. There have been 40, and there are more in the pipeline. I am not making great claim for them, although I think that they are very useful in the areas where they exist. We have one in the centre of Oldham, for which I voted; I am obliged to pay into it, and jolly good it is too. The hon. Gentleman asked about Manchester and Birmingham. I will not tease him, but I think that he was just making the point that the richer commercial areas have to be treated differently from the rural areas. The hon. Member for the Liberal Democrats asked about rural proofing, which we believe the regulatory impact assessment does. I should also point out that rural rate relief schemes are in place. The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon), who is no longer in his place, made an important point about empty farm buildings in relation to an empty pig farm. Agricultural buildings do not pay business rates; they are treated differently. The impact in such areas is therefore taken into account by that. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) made some similar and important points about the interaction between planning policies and procedures and rates for empty properties. We are addressing those points in relation to planning policy. Two of the three examples that he raised, which I have researched, are matters for planning policy. When we debate planning policy, however, I hope that the Opposition will resist the temptation to accuse us of riding roughshod over local opinion, building over the countryside, demolishing our heritage buildings and so on, and that their arguments will be consistent—as they no doubt will be in the debate on the Sustainable Communities Bill—with what they have called for in this debate. It is advantageous for Opposition parties to be consistent in their arguments. I was going to say ““to have consistent policies””. It would be nice if they had any policies, but let me be non-partisan and say that the points about planning are important. The hon. Member for Ludlow also asked about the localisation of relief, as part of the recent pendulum swing towards localism in the Conservative party. I wonder where it will end: in kibbutzes in Shropshire, perhaps. I remind the House that it was the Conservative party that nationalised the rate of tax on empty properties in 1981, removed discretion for empty rates on industrial policy from local councils in 1984, and nationalised the whole lot in the Local Government Finance Act 1988. However, if they are moving in the other direction now, I welcome that. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) spoke on the basis of experience rather than a Conservative research department briefing. I congratulate him on that, and on the fact that he distanced himself from his Front Bench on two occasions. He raised some important issues. He said that ours was a risky strategy. The purpose of the strategy is to bring more properties on to the market by reducing rents, and to that extent—I hope I shall not be quoted out of context—there is a risk involved. But although there is some fairness in that criticism of the policy, it rather militates against the criticism that the Bill is motivated solely by a desire to raise revenue. Again, both cannot be true. The hon. Gentleman said that London was not uniform, for a whole raft of reasons. How true that is. There are different property markets in different parts of London, just as there are in different parts of the country. That returns us to the point about the rates of rent. I think the hon. Gentleman was talking about Bromley high street—I shall not make the mistake of getting the geography of his constituency wrong again—but whether on a micro-level or on a sub-regional level, in the round rents reflect supply and demand in the market place. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman supported that. Indeed, I know he does support it, for I have heard him quote Adam Smith on many occasions. I think it was the hon. Gentleman who was worried about roofs blowing off in the night, and asked us to take account of the fact that an empty property might not be fit for use as a result of either a deliberate act of self-vandalism or a windy night. Paragraph 4 of schedule 1 is very specific, having learnt the lessons of the past. It states that the regulations may"““provide that an act is to be treated as done on behalf of a prescribed person if it is done by any person connected with that person””." Paragraph 4(1) states that"““the hereditament shall be deemed not to have changed—"