My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, has made some of the points that I was going to make so I will not repeat them. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
I will give a qualified welcome to the regulations. The transitional relief scheme is necessary because we are where we are. I am certain that the Government would not wish to be where they are. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. When this process started, I am sure that none of us would have wished to be in the depths of the recession that we are in now. But we are where we are. We all recognise the effects on businesses, some of which face a significant increase, even after transitional relief. This is a further unwelcome blow.
I shall say it again: I am a London borough councillor. That makes me responsible for paying the business rate as well. It is often forgotten that it is not just businesses that pay but those who run public buildings, those who are responsible for schools and so on. I suppose that I am responsible as a business ratepayer.
I wanted to say a few words about what I am going to call "the London effect". I am delighted to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, is here too; she will know far more about that than I do. I see that, before the transitional arrangements, London and the south-west are the only regions that face a huge increase in the valuation. The increase in London before transitional relief is 10 per cent. Because of that, much of the benefit of transitional relief will go to London as well, I recognise that, but can the Minister, or maybe the noble Baroness, tell us what the net effect on London will be? We need to add to that. On the same date—1 April next year—larger London businesses will, in addition, pay what has become known as the Crossrail supplement, the business rate supplement. I believe that I am right in saying that the transitional relief scheme does not apply to the Crossrail levy. I say again: this does not apply to just the large multiple retailers. Some 34 schools in my small London borough will be liable for the Crossrail supplement. No one thinks of them as large businesses. Many of them are relatively small schools, but they have a rateable value in excess of £50,000. Therefore, what someone once called a double whammy will come in on the same date: the revaluation—the greatest effects of which are in London—and the Crossrail supplement in London. I look forward to hearing more about that and anything that the Minister can tell us about its double effect.
In his helpful opening remarks, the Minister talked about good working relationships with the producers of the software. I am pleased to hear that; I have no reason whatever to doubt it, but I understand that there have, perhaps inevitably, been problems. Can the Minister give us an update on the exact position now? Do the local authorities have in place software packages that are tested, trialled and operating in order to implement the regulations and, if not, when will they have them? I know that that is not yet the case in my own authority, although it is expected in January.
I began by saying that I give the regulations a qualified welcome. I repeat that, but only because we are where we are—and most of us wish that we were not where we are.
Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (England) Regulations 2009
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Tope
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 15 December 2009.
It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (England) Regulations 2009.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
715 c117-8GC 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:52:43 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_602684
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_602684
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_602684