If I heard the Financial Secretary correctly, he said that owners would be encouraged to move on their properties more rapidly than they would if they benefited from the relief. That might apply when the owner is a developer of property put up for speculative purposes, which might be the case for much of the central London property to which he has just referred. What analysis has the Treasury done of the proportion of empty space to which the relief applies for occupiers—tenants of buildings—rather than owners? Outside speculative development, it is largely tenants of properties—and their predecessors, which I shall talk about in my speech—who might be unable to continue trading in those properties, who end up paying the bill.
Rating (Empty Properties) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Philip Dunne
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Thursday, 7 June 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Rating (Empty Properties) Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
461 c440 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:39:24 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_401401
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_401401
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_401401