I thank my noble friends for proposing these amendments with such swiftness and efficiency, and I shall try to do them justice. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has done fantastic work today in covering so many areas that are usually addressed by others on the Front Bench. As always, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, for his involvement.
I appreciate that there are concerns, which I share, that an effective business rates system should be based on businesses having a good understanding of their tax bill, underpinned by shared and transparent information. The amendments are about sharing information with the payer. Business rates are determined by taking account of a comparison with other properties. However, it follows from this that the Valuation Office Agency collects and holds commercially sensitive data. For example, it may hold information on the precise terms of rental agreements reached for a group of properties. The VOA has a legitimate duty to protect that information and the interests of the ratepayers who have provided it. That is in everybody’s interests, so we make no apology for having a rigorous system for handling and protecting sensitive information, an important general principle in life.
7.30 pm
We have taken the comments which have been made during the process of consultation and believe we have found a pragmatic solution. A consultation paper was published on Friday which sets out a system in which there are requirements and incentives for ratepayers and the Valuation Office Agency to engage early. Factual information will be established during the so-called check stage, with arguments and evidence being exchanged at the beginning of the second challenge stage, which is far earlier than happens now. This exchange of arguments and evidence is the point at which the Valuation Office Agency is able to provide information to address the ratepayer’s case. These reforms will make a significant difference to how soon ratepayers have access to the relevant information, and they will be able to take it into account when deciding whether to proceed to appeal stage. We look forward to receiving responses to the consultation.
On providing information to business information districts, the subject of the next amendment, I am not aware that a shortfall in information has been raised directly with government by individual business improvement districts or by any of the BID representative bodies—there are about 200 BIDs and they include places such as the Plaza in Victoria Street—nor was it raised during a broad consultation earlier this year in which the Government sought views on strengthening the role of BIDs in local areas.
Amendment 52L would allow the Secretary of State to regulate to introduce a scheme for alternative dispute resolution for appeals. However, existing powers in the Act already provide for matters to be referred for arbitration. The new appeals system will provide full and structured opportunities for the parties to check and exchange information and arguments. It provides the opportunity for further discussion, where this is necessary to resolve the case, and a right of appeal where matters are still not agreed. These are the essential prerequisites for determining a dispute. The addition of more processes would complicate and slow down the system and could unhelpfully divert the resources of businesses and the Valuation Office Agency. This could potentially result in higher costs, including for business, when we want resource to be focused on speeding up this unacceptably slow system.
Amendment 52P would allow the Secretary of State to regulate the operation of some aspects of the appeals system. These matters are not always appropriately addressed by regulations. The performance of the Valuation Office Agency should be dealt with by a service level agreement, and we have proposed this approach in the consultation paper. Ensuring that all these uses are treated equally in rating is an important principle which maintains fairness across all ratepayers. However, while the Government do not intervene in individual rating valuations, I can assure noble Lords that if there are no permanent physical adaptations to the land to facilitate, for example, festival use, and the duration of the festival is only a matter of a few days, it is unlikely to attract a rating assessment in its own right, and any festival operator or land owner who is unsure of when they may incur a rates bill should contact the Valuation Office Agency to discuss their case and it will be happy to help. I also know that the Valuation Office Agency recognises the need for clarity and consistency in this sector and is working with the industry to draw up guidance to help event organisers. It hopes to have guidance ready in time for the festival season next year. Furthermore, we have given local authorities wide discretionary powers to grant rate relief in circumstances such as these, and where they do so central government picks up, as noble Lords probably know, half of the cost in foregone receipts.
With respect to the exemptions proposed in Amendment 52R and 52M, we are currently conducting a review of business rates and as part of that we are examining the rating of plant and machinery and the role of reliefs and exemptions. The review will conclude by the end of the year, and I can assure noble Lords we will take account of points made in today’s debate. I am sorry that the debate has been cut short but I hope I have been able to persuade noble Lords that the
Bill is in good shape, that the consultation document issued on Friday gives additional and vital detail, and that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.