Business Rate Supplements Bill

In general, we regard this group of amendments to be helpful in drawing attention to a number of key issues about the Bill, but we have some reservations, which are born of our consistent view that we are suspicious of the motive behind it. We believe that it could be a means to delegate commitments and responsibilities that should be in the preserve of central government to local government as part of the current adverse economic and fiscal position. We are very concerned about that; we will obviously come back to that when we consider additionality. That is why we would not want to follow the amendment that extends the list into housing. Housing is for central government and for private sector commitment for development. That should be allowed and it would not be appropriate to be covered under the Bill. The amendment helpfully highlights the fact that, curiously, we have a Bill that identifies what the business rate supplement can be used for by listing what it cannot be used for. Clause 3(3) lists housing, social services, education services, services for children, health services or services that the local authority provides in the discharge of functions that Planning Acts provide. Then there is the very broad term of economic development. I share the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee: most things fit into economic development. At Second Reading, the Minister was generous in giving a number of examples of what could be used, but it would be useful for that phrase, "economic development", to be spelt out. That would give comfort to businesses, which may be fearful—the noble Baroness referred to the briefing from the Federation of Small Businesses, which we have also read and agree with. Amendment 12 raises a very important issue: how are people who may have contributed to be kept involved in the project all the way through? It proposes a review and a report to Parliament. That is a very good idea. We welcome that. I have only one question for the noble Baroness, which is whether five years is too long and whether annual or triennial reporting would be more appropriate given the major projects that are being considered. That discipline of having to report back to people would be very helpful. It is also very important to keep businesses involved in the process. We have received briefings from all the business organisations about this. They are very worried, first, that there will be a whole raft of measures that are carefully crafted not to require a ballot and which the organisations will be levied to fund if their businesses have a rateable value of more than £50,000 per annum. Secondly, they are worried that they will be denied any say in the process of paying that levy and that they will have no involvement in the project itself. We all know what a healthy incentive it is for organisations, particularly businesses, when profit is determined by the ability to keep to the budget and to be on time. In the absence of that profit motive, it would be wise to have businesspeople very closely involved at every stage in the implementation of the project for the perspective that they bring and for the transparency which they can elicit from the people who are project-managing the exercise.