If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue, the real impact has been on businesses, with 605 newly assessed properties having a rating assessment backdated to 1 April 2005. It is those newly assessed port occupiers, with properties at a rateable value of about £54 million that face the backdated liability of more than £70 million. Although there are some significant issues, problems and pressures faced by businesses in port when they get this unexpected and significant backdated liability, let me explain that the impact is not universal.
Although some businesses may certainly be struggling, local authorities report that £25 million—in other words, a third of this backdated liability—has already been paid in full. One hundred and forty-six businesses—in other words, one in four of those affected by backdated bills—have already settled in full. A further one in seven of the remainder—the 67 properties and businesses I mentioned earlier—have now entered into the schedule of payments that is giving them real help through what is a tough period for them. That schedule has allowed them to spread the payments and manage the cash-flow consequences in a way that would be stopped dead in its tracks— it would be blocked—if the motion proposed by the Conservatives were to be passed.
Let me turn to the central question of waiving the tax liability, because a number of different solutions have been proposed by the ports lobbyists, but they all add up to the same thing. The intended outcome in each case would be to waive what has now been established—legally established—as a tax liability. Let me tackle that proposal directly. Despite the delays and problems in the ports review, I do not accept the principle that once it has been properly established that a business is legally liable to pay tax, it should simply be waived and the company let off. We do not do that in other circumstances; we do not do it with other business taxes. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) says that the Chancellor announced a waiving of the tax liability yesterday, but the hon. Gentleman completely misses the point. I have a precise argument, and if he bears with me, he will get it.
Once facts and a tax liability are known, they simply cannot be disregarded. The Government do not do that with any business tax. If the Government accepted the principle of removing a backdated rates liability, it would require primary legislation. In other words, Ministers would have to ask Parliament to give selective advantage to a specific group of businesses. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will allow me—
Rating and Valuation (S.I., 2009, No. 204)
Proceeding contribution from
John Healey
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 1 April 2009.
It occurred during Legislative debate on Rating and Valuation (S.I., 2009, No. 204).
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
490 c996-7 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 10:41:49 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_545855
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_545855
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_545855