Business Rate Supplements Bill

This is a useful amendment that will allow us to dig under the surface of the Bill. I shall take Amendment 6 first. It is obviously right that there should be safeguards to ensure that money is spent appropriately, and the Bill provides safeguards on that point. The Bill makes clear, as I have said several times today, that revenue from BRS can be used only on projects that the local authorities are satisfied will promote economic development. Conversely, the Bill sets out a number of areas for which the supplement cannot be used, and we have discussed those today as well. It is also true that the BRS cannot be used to fund services and projects that the authority is already committed to. We have discussed that too. Clause 3 makes clear that the supplement can be spent only on the project for which the BRS was introduced. Levying authorities will not be able to raise a supplement for one project only to use it to fund another. That is more or less a summary of what we have debated on previous clauses. With regard to this amendment, I am happy to make it clear that the funding can be used either for capital or for revenue, whichever the local partners determine will be most useful. The crucial point is additionality. We all recognise that there are immensely worthwhile projects where the real added value would come from support for staff, skills or whatever it is. The original guidance gave the example that a levying authority may identify a business support or vocational skills programme in a local area, which clearly brings with it a revenue implication in terms of training. Whether revenue is used to pay the salaries of staff or training—in fact, whatever it chooses to use the revenue for, whether it is about repaying loans or directing it to revenue projects—we have decided that this should properly be left to the authority. We have provided for flexibility there. I mentioned loans. I may not be able to answer all the questions asked by the noble Lord—I may have to read Hansard carefully tomorrow to make sure that I have picked up all of them—but I will do my best. Clause 3 already makes provision for levying authorities to use BRS revenue to repay loans on sums borrowed. That flexibility is another very important feature of the BRS. It means that authorities are not subject to what would in effect be a limitation on their ability to spend their BRS revenue on capital projects. This will give them the flexibility that they need to identify the project or projects that will best suit their local circumstances and aspirations. I reiterate that I am happy to put on record the fact that the Bill already gives levying authorities the freedom to use revenue income on capital expenditure, revenue expenditure or a mix of the two. It is unnecessary to put that degree of detail into the Bill. I hope it will help that I have put this on the record.