Business Rate Supplements Bill

I shall speak also to Amendments 15, 16, 17, 34, 36, 42, 44, 46 and 47, and I am quite alarmed that I seem to have so few notes for so many amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Bates, and the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, have other amendments in this group. This takes us to the issue of ballots and our proposals that there should always be a ballot, not only if the levying authority decides that there should be or if the threshold is reached. I am well aware that the Local Government Association is not seeking an extension of the ballot provisions; indeed, it would prefer there not to be any ballots, as I understood the evidence. It takes the view that whether or not there is a ballot should be up to the local authority. I understand that line of thinking; I thought that the evidence session in the Commons went less into why that was the case than it might have done, which was a pity, but one can understand—and I very much share—the view that local authorities should be autonomous. The Liberal Democrats have a reputation for defending the local authority position; that is an instinctive reaction, but I hope that it is not a knee-jerk response. It is because we see local authorities as very close to their communities and carrying out an important representative role, but the concern that underlies all that is concern for the people whom they represent. I want to explain why I am taking what may appear to be an anti-local-authority line. It is not—that is not where I am coming from. I do not suggest that a ballot should replace good, thorough and effective consultation, which is fundamental to the business rate supplement proposal working well. However, because there is no business vote, although I am not arguing for that, we need to be careful to give business the fullest opportunity to make its views known. I realised, but only this morning, that I had made a bad error in the drafting of these amendments, which I found myself dealing with at some speed just before they were put down, and I hope that both the Minister and the Official Opposition’s officers received a message that no one should spend hours honing their arguments about why there should not be a ballot on Crossrail. I should have accepted Crossrail. The term "unique" really does apply to it—an overworked term, but in this case used correctly. I do not seek to argue for a ballot in this case. Crossrail is different; it has been debated for many years and in great detail. The Minister, John Healey, has said more than once in the Commons that it would not be right for business to have a veto when the funding for any given project is also coming from other sources. I seek not a veto over a project but a veto over the BRS element of the project’s funding. It is important to have a ballot for any project. The Bill provides a threshold, and if it is considered necessary for business to have—I will use the same terminology—a veto when its contribution is over the one-third threshold, why is it not necessary to have a ballot for any contribution? I do not see that the proportions make for a separate argument. Most of these amendments were drafted by the Federation of Small Businesses and arrived at a very timely point when I realised that I was in danger of not managing to draft amendments on ballots by the deadline. It says that there is a danger of an authority deliberately or carelessly underestimating the BRS proportion in order to avoid a ballot. I acknowledge its concern but I do not share it. Local authorities may do their best to ensure good relations with businesses in their area but the national non-domestic rate—I stress "national"—is a national rate. It is harder to consult effectively and there is inevitably a degree of cynicism about consultation when the body collecting is not the body setting. We need good consultation and the ballot. I return to my point about whether it is necessary to have a ballot if the threshold is reached. The draft guidance, which I looked at this morning, seems to ignore the discretion of local authorities to hold a ballot whatever the proportion. That again makes me wonder about the Government’s mindset in arriving at their decision on this. This is an immensely important point, as I said. It is not anti-local-authority but pro-ratepayers. I beg to move.