My Lords, I support the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. I have no interest in ports, apart from being a harbour commissioner in the port of Fowey in Cornwall, which is not significantly affected by this, but from going around the country talking to people in ports I hear the concern that they have about these regulations. I shall not repeat all the excellent examples that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, gave the House, but I have heard them too.
My worry is that these businesses, which have sometimes been operating in the ports for many years, are in strong competition with each other and with other ports and, as the noble Earl said, they have had no means of assessing what their future rate demands would be because the Valuation Office Agency had not got around to telling them. They have ended up not being able to charge their customers or make provisions, as they do not know how much to charge, but they receive these massive bills three or four years later.
I agree with the noble Earl; I am not suggesting that the rates should be written off, or anything else, but can my noble friend explain why the Government have not followed the recommendations of the House of Commons Treasury Committee? The committee suggested, as the noble Earl has said, that the Government should, ""consider the proposal to maintain the rateable values of premises in statutory docks and harbours at the levels published in the April 2005 rating lists until the new rating list is published in 2010"."
That seems perfectly reasonable; they will still have to pay rates, but at least it will be on the basis that they understood before. This issue happened on the railways five or 10 years ago; I think that has been resolved now, but I agree with the noble Earl about the increased rate demands faced by these companies. Companies will be going into liquidation. They may have eight years to pay, but if they cannot pay anyway it does not help matters much.
We are in a situation of severe economic problems. We have a Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform that is trying to help companies survive and prosper. I would hope that this matter could be resolved by some good joined-up government between my noble friend’s department, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, and the Treasury. I fear that enough companies will be going into liquidation without those poor people operating at the ports joining them—and it is not just the port companies but the ports themselves. Associated British Ports tells me that its demand has gone up really dramatically because of this revaluation, by 100 per cent to £7 million a year. Now, it is a big company, but I hope that my noble friend will agree that a 100 per cent increase, backdated again, is difficult for companies to suffer. I look forward to what she will say, but at the moment my inclination is to join the noble Earl if he puts the Question to the House.
Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2009
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Berkeley
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 18 March 2009.
It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2009.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
709 c294-5 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-12-17 14:43:11 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_539983
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_539983
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_539983