Business Rate Supplements Bill

I will resist the temptation to renew the debate from 25 years ago, much though I might love to on another occasion. Of course I understand the points being made; I hope that, equally, others understand my points. London borough councils are not to be equated with non-unitary district councils. They are larger; they have hugely bigger budgets; they are very different players in local economies. That is not in any way to belittle the role of non-unitary districts—I would say the same if my noble friend Lord Greaves was sitting next to me. There is no equation there. I said before that no one is clamouring for the power now—clearly the time is not right—but some time during the next 25 years or so for which the Bill is likely to apply, the time may well be right. Whatever the provisions of the Bill when enacted, it would not be done unless it had the consent of the businesses affected. I use a local example. If the London Borough of Sutton, which is on the borders of Surrey, wanted to engage in a project with Surrey County Council—as any outer London borough might with its neighbouring county—why should it not be able to levy a supplementary business rate, assuming that the businesses involved are in favour of it? This may well be the worst time to be introducing such a Bill, but I am not responsible for its timing. The Bill is here; all I am saying is that it is regrettable that London borough councils are being treated as if they are non-unitary district councils and being excluded for all time from the Bill. In the second part of my speech, I asked for a commitment from the Government on various aspects of implementation. I suppose that the Minister's answer is that we will have to wait until the long awaited map is published, in which case it is very likely that we will be returning to similar points for greater clarification on Report, once we have seen the guidance. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 3 withdrawn.