Business Rate Supplements Bill

I had better take advantage of the respite from the noise of the helicopters but I hear that it is not continuing. This reminds me of my early days in your Lordships' House when I took a guest, who was the chief executive of a record company, into the Chamber and instead of saying, "Ooh, ah, look at the Throne. Where do you sit?", he said, "It must be very difficult mixing the sound in here". The recording of today’s proceedings will be difficult with the helicopter apparently intent on ensuring that we are all behaving ourselves. I was not at all surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Bates, disagreed with the first of my amendments in this group but I am very glad to have the Minister’s reassurance on Amendment 6 and the other amendments. I may return to Amendment 24 at the next stage as I may not have made myself clear. I am not concerned about the flexibility or what is permitted; I was looking to require the prospectus to go wider than we have been discussing, beyond the use of the BRS, but to give information that will help ratepayers to take a view on whether the project is one that they want to support. The issue is not just the use of their own money but—I hate the word "viability"; it is often misused, and I do not think that using it at this point would be absolutely correct—whether the project is realistic and what its future prospects for success are. Maintenance and operation must be a part of that, even if the BRS is being used only to start the project off. If I were a business ratepayer, I would not be enthusiastic about paying for the establishment of a project if I did not have reasonable confidence that it was going to be successful over a fairly long term. I may well want to come back to that issue, and possibly we can discuss it outside the formal proceedings. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 6 withdrawn. Amendment 7 not moved.