Business Rate Supplements Bill

No, I do not think I need to say anything about that. It is just that when one is working across government on a set of detailed regulations and issues to do with implementation, there have to be lots of meetings between officials from the departments. That is why we get good government; it is because we actually talk together and make sure that the final product commands consensus. The map will come as quickly as possible and it will be as helpful as possible. I turn to the broad arguments. I thought that noble Lords opposite made an extremely good fist of explaining why the GLA will be the levying authority in London, rather than the boroughs. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, pointed out that the important principle throughout the Bill is that one tier is the levying authority. The dog that did not bark in the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, was that if the London boroughs had a power to levy BRS, it would be a power "on top of" and a double opportunity to levy rates on business. The important thing is that while the role of the London boroughs is as important as the noble Lord made out, what we have had to consider is that the BRS should be levied at the right special level. The point about London and its unique characteristics of extraordinary complexity is that there has to be a strategic city-wide approach. Therefore it is only right that the GLA should be the levying authority, not just in terms of London, but because of its role in the economy of the south-east and concentration of jobs there in terms of the country as a whole. We have tried to ensure that London is treated in the same way as the rest of the country for BRS, but the spatial level at which the supplement is levied needs to be considered in a different light in London. I detect an inevitable tension because the noble Lord is the great champion of the boroughs but, with his experience on and commitment to the GLA, he understands its strategic role in promoting economic development across London. It is clear that the projects that the GLA can undertake with a London-wide BRS will have a much greater strategic impact on London than could be achieved with separate contracts carried out by an individual borough or even a group of boroughs. If noble Lords cast their mind back a short while—although it seems a long while—to when we were debating the GLA Act and the planning powers given to the mayor, they will remember our debates on the strategic imperatives of London and the need to strengthen that capacity. We have had a very good debate. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord will not feel too injured and will be able to withdraw his amendment.