It was a good try by the right hon. Gentleman, as well, but it did not quite come off. The simple fact is that those are two different concepts.
The Government have chosen to use a settled agreement in relation to one part of the country to impose burdens which, in the current financial climate—that point must be emphasised—have the potential to do real damage, rather than doing good. The Government did not necessarily mean that to happen, but it is a consequence of the financial mess that the Government are in nationally that they seek to transfer those burdens, and it would be a classic example of the law of unintended consequences that arises with so much legislation.
We want Crossrail to proceed. The best means to do that would have been to separate that off so that we could have had a separate debate on a more timely and relaxed basis about the appropriateness of rolling out BRS as a concept elsewhere in the country. That would have given us more time to consider the serious issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised, to which I hope we will still return. Nothing that has happened since has changed my view. That approach would have enabled Crossrail to proceed on a discrete and timely basis. I hope that we will take the amendment forward.
Business Rate Supplements Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Robert Neill
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 11 March 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Business Rate Supplements Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
489 c349 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 10:33:48 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_540966
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_540966
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_540966