That is very much the point raised by the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) and perhaps I will come to it now. I wanted to get to a relevant stage in what is necessarily a rather complex presentation of the new clause.
The proposal would allow the BID company or board to decide what it required in the way of a budget over a period and then to decide whether it wished to seek an apportionment of the cost between property owners on the one side and property occupiers on the other. It should not be required to do that. In my view, it should be equally permissive, with separate ballots to be held of owners and occupiers. Dr. Julie Grail has given evidence, to which I shall refer, from Scotland to demonstrate why flexibility is probably a good thing, but if there is a decision to apportion the cost between the two, the proposition will be put to both the owners and the occupiers that they should meet a set percentage of the agreed budget, which will be set in advance. Both parties would know at the outset what share of the total budget they would meet and what the financial implications would be.
Business Rate Supplements Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Nick Raynsford
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 11 March 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Business Rate Supplements Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
489 c332 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 10:33:28 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_540917
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_540917
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_540917