Rating (Empty Properties) Bill

I beg to move amendment No. 6, page 1, line 2, at beginning insert— ‘(1) In section 45(1)(c) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (c. 41) (unoccupied hereditaments: liability) after ““year”” insert— ““(ca) none of the conditions in subsection (1A) applies””. (2) After section 45(1) of that Act insert— ““(1A) The conditions are that— (a) the whole hereditament has, subject to subsection (1B), been unoccupied for a continuous period not exceeding three months; (b) its owner is prohibited by law from occupying it or allowing it to be occupied; (c) it is kept vacant by reason of action taken by or on behalf of the Crown or any local or public authority with a view to prohibiting the occupation of the hereditament or to acquiring it; (d) it is the subject of a building preservation notice as defined by section 3 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 or is included in a list compiled under section 1 of that Act; (e) it is included in the Schedule of monuments compiled under section 1 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 (c. 46); (f) it is a qualifying industrial hereditament; (g) its rateable value is less than £2,200; (h) the owner is entitled to possession only in his capacity as the personal representative of a deceased person; (i) there subsists in respect of the owner’s estate a bankruptcy order within the meaning of Parts VIII to XI of the Insolvency Act 1986 (c. 45); (j) the owner is entitled to possession of the hereditament in his capacity as trustee under a deed of arrangement to which the Deeds of Arrangement Act 1914 (c. 47) applies; (k) the owner is a company which is subject to a winding-up order made under the Insolvency Act 1986 or which is being wound up voluntarily under that Act; (l) the owner is entitled to possession of the hereditament in his capacity as liquidator by virtue of an order made under section 112 or section 145 of the Insolvency Act 1986. (1B) Where a hereditament which has been unoccupied becomes occupied on any day and becomes unoccupied again on the expiration of a period of less than six weeks beginning with that day, then for the purposes of ascertaining whether the hereditament has been continuously unoccupied for the period mentioned in subsection (1A)(a) it shall be treated as having been unoccupied on that day and throughout the period. (1C) For the purpose of subsection (1A)(a), a hereditament which has not previously been occupied shall be treated as becoming unoccupied— (a) on the day determined under paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to the General Rate Act 1967, or (b) on the day determined under Schedule 4A to the Act, or 14 Jun 2007 : Column 898 (c) where neither (a) nor (b) applies, on the day for which the hereditament is first shown in a local rating list, whichever day first occurs. (1D) In subsection (1A)(f)— ““qualifying industrial hereditament”” means any hereditament other than a retail hereditament in relation to which all buildings comprised in the hereditament are— (a) constructed or adapted for use in the course of a trade or business, and (b) constructed or adapted for use for one or more of the following purposes, or one or more such purposes and one or more purposes ancillary thereto— (i) the manufacture, repair or adaptation of goods or materials, or the subjection of goods or materials to any process;(ii) storage (including the storage or handling of goods in the course of their distribution);(iii) the working or processing of minerals;(iv) the generation of electricity; and ““retail hereditament”” means any hereditament where any building or part of a building comprised in the hereditament is constructed or adapted for the purpose of the retail provision of— (a) goods, or(b) services, other than storage for distribution services, on or from the hereditament.””.’. What joy we are going to have debating this Bill this afternoon! It is my pleasure to move amendment No. 6 and, first, I declare an interest: my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests shows that I am a director of a property company and a building company and a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Building. When the amendments were tabled, an ““R”” should have appeared after my name to signify those interests. Could those with a pen please append an ““R”” in brackets after ““Mr. Robert Syms””? I apologise to the Committee for that omission. The Bill has proceeded fairly quickly; it had its Second Reading only last Thursday, amendments had to be tabled earlier this week and we are dealing with the Committee stage less than a week later. I am sorry that my registered interests were omitted in all that haste. The Government committed themselves to making this change in the March 2007 Budget, as a result of the Barker review of land and planning that was produced in December 2006. There are different views about the benefits or advantages presented by Kate Barker. The Government also asked the Lyons inquiry to look into this matter, and when it published its report at the same time as the Budget, it broadly supported the measure. Today, we are trying to amend this extremely short Bill. Essentially, it has only one clause—we have seen many examples of one-clause Bills—and that it is a cause for concern for many of those affected by it. We tabled amendment No. 6 because the implications of the Bill are far-reaching. According to the Government papers explaining the Bill, it is expected that the changes will raise £1 billion—no small amount. Indeed, business rates in their entirety raise half as much as the total corporation tax take, so this is very big money in terms of what the Treasury raises. We are not talking about small change. The exemptions that the Committee must consider are very important.