Business Rate Supplements Bill

I do not have that degree of detail in my briefing, but I will say more about loans in due course. I suspect that I will have to write to the noble Lord. As I said, I might have to read his questions in Hansard in some detail. Amendment 24 would require levying authorities to include in their prospectus an estimate of the costs of running a project funded by a BRS. This would include the expected cost of maintaining and operating the project, as well as details about where the funding would come from. That is clearly more relevant to capital projects than revenue projects because it specifically highlights maintenance and operating costs. As I have said, the BRS can fund revenue projects. The current draft of the Bill is deliberately broad in asking the levying authority to set out the potential cost of the project. We must recognise that some of these projects might be quite long term and will be very diverse. That is why we have built in as much flexibility, accountability and transparency as possible. I reassure the noble Baroness that what she wants to achieve is already allowed for in the Bill. Paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 makes it clear that levying authorities should include a description of how the money that is raised though the supplement will be used. Therefore, if the levying authority plans to use the supplement to cover the maintenance and operating costs of the project, that will need to be set out in the prospectus under the current provisions of the Bill. As I have said, the current draft of the Bill is purposely flexible because we wanted to ensure that all the costs associated with a BRS project are captured in the prospectus, irrespective of how the money raised will be used. If the BRS is to be used to fund operational or maintenance costs, the Bill already makes provision for that to be made clear in the prospectus. Amendments 26 to 29 seek to clarify the information that a levying authority must include in a prospectus when BRS revenue is to be used to borrow money to provide funding for a project. The intention is that levying authorities should be required to give details in their prospectus of money that they intend to borrow to fund their project. It might help if I explain what the Bill currently requires levying authorities to set out in their prospectus when they propose to borrow money for a BRS-related project. Schedule 1 sets out the information to be included in a prospectus for a BRS. The prospectus is a central plank of BRS and will form the basis of the statutory consultation that must take place with those potentially liable to pay the levy. It is a key document that will set out the arrangements for such matters as billing, exemptions, thresholds, and how the authority proposes to deal with variations, overspends and underspends. As such, it forms a vital part of the necessary reassurances for business and stakeholders. One of the areas that must be covered in the prospectus is the details of any borrowing that the BRS will fund. This must include the amount of money loaned, the period for which the money is loaned and the principal terms on which the money is loaned—in particular, the interest rates. These amendments, however, propose that levying authorities should be required to set out in the prospectus information about loans that the authority proposes to take out in the future. I reassure the noble Baroness that I agree that this is important. Where money from business is used to borrow money for a project, it is absolutely right that ratepayers should be able to see the details of those loan arrangements and have the chance to comment as part of the consultation process. That should apply whether the levying authority has already borrowed the money or intends to do so. There is no need for the Bill to be amended to accommodate this point. The Bill, as drafted, already requires information to be included in a prospectus on whether the levying authority has already borrowed the money, or intends to do so in the future. I hope that reassures the noble Baroness. I hope that I have also reassured the noble Lord as I think that some of the questions he raised concerned some of those connected issues. However, I may not have gone into sufficient detail to satisfy him on some of the other points he raised, which I shall have to look at. Amendments 30 and 31 seek to expand the information that a levying authority must include in a prospectus when setting out its plans for levying a BRS. These amendments would require levying authorities to set out in their prospectus how they intend to provide ratepayers with information about their future plans for the BRS. This would give further reassurance to those paying the BRS about how their money is being used. I have talked about the importance of the prospectus. I perfectly understand and agree with the argument that those who contribute to the BRS should be able to see how their money is to be spent. However, the Bill does not need to be amended to address this point. The prospectus already requires levying authorities to set out key information about future spending plans and how they intend to spend the BRS money. That requirement goes hand in hand with the requirement for authorities to set out in the prospectus how they intend to inform ratepayers about expenditure incurred and work undertaken on the project. Therefore, we have built in as much transparency and future proofing as possible into these arrangements so that people can see how the money will be raised in the future and how it will be spent. I hope that satisfies the noble Baroness.