Business Rate Supplements Bill

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate on these amendments. I think I get the flavour of response to them, and I very much understand where it is coming from, but I will say a little more so that noble Lords understand where we are coming from and just in case people misunderstand our position or argue about it. This is particularly relevant to the observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that if London should have it, why not the rest of the country? It depends on what you think this is. We think that this is a tax. It looks like a tax, it walks like a tax and it acts like a tax, so it is a tax. It raises additional funds and places an additional burden on businesses, so the notion that somehow out there in the provinces businesses are queuing up to ask why they cannot have additional taxation is an interesting interpretation. That difference in perception between how we see this legislation and how the Government see it is at the heart of what we propose in the amendment. Again, there are some key issues as regards Crossrail. It was unique legislation which required additional funding from businesses. Transport investment in London runs at a dramatically higher rate per head of population than elsewhere in the country. Many schemes are desperately trying to get off the ground: for example, the Leeds Metro system; the Tyne and Wear Metro, which is trying to get additional funding; new routes to Durham Tees Valley Airport, which need to be subsidised in order to keep them going; or Manchester, which is in a very difficult situation after quite decisively rejecting the proposed road charging in the referendum. Therefore, there is a disparity and argument outside London about what London receives, but it is very much about the share of the cake and, particularly, about the share of transport infrastructure spending in the capital relative to other parts of England in particular. These amendments try to make the case. I and the Minister have referred to the Local Government Association briefing, which, in a sense, we are both praying in aid. It seems to be saying, "We are not sitting on the edge of our seat. We do not feel that we need it". Effectively, if the survey of chief economic development officers around the country is correct, not one authority will use the capability. Therefore, why do we have to open it up to this extent? Clearly, there is a real need for Crossrail and a real problem in plugging the gap in its funding, which is why this innovative scheme was brought up. In our mind, that is where it ought to stay. That said, I very much sense the mood of the Committee and I am grateful for the comments that have been made. I will therefore withdraw the amendment, but reserve the right to return to it on Report. Amendment 4 withdrawn. Clause 2 agreed.