Business Rate Supplements Bill

I wish to speak to Amendments 14, 35 and 37 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Cathcart. I do not think that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is the only person who has struggled to capture the essence of this matter vis-à-vis all the amendments in this group. She generously acknowledged that there might not be coherence with regard to all the amendments in the group. I am instructed that we should make a similar apology. I am deeply conscious that often our speeches would not make sense without the aid of the wonderful people who burn the midnight oil, undertake research and draft amendments for us. Having failed to acknowledge their existence when the amendments that they have drafted go swimmingly well, I do not want to draw attention to them only when things go wrong. I thank them for all their work and support. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, this matter goes very much to the heart of the issue. A mandatory ballot is one of the two or three central issues that we need to debate. The Minister said earlier that it was important to consult the business community and that she had met the British Retail Consortium, the Federation of Small Businesses, the CBI and the British Chambers of Commerce. I cannot remember exactly what subject was being discussed but she mentioned that there did not appear to be an appetite for the proposed measure. This is entirely different. One might dare to say that every one of those organisations is militantly in favour of having a vote on this key issue, which is particularly the case at the present time of financial hardship, economic downturn and recession. After all, it would be strange—would it not?—to have a situation where a business rate or a project was proposed with the explicit objective of economic development, regeneration and growth, and not to consult or for it to be done against the wishes of the people who were generating that economic development and growth. It would be an own goal of spectacular proportions, perhaps equalled only by the ports tax, about which we have talked on other occasions. This is a non sequitur. Clearly, if there is a powerful, strong, persuasive case for how this project will result in economic regeneration in a given area and increased economic output, the businesses whose livelihoods, profits and salaries are dependent on such economic development should be at the front of the queue in endorsing it. If they are not, that raises serious questions about whether this really is additional and about economic regeneration. Those points need to be on the record. At the moment, the ballot, as it is configured, is directed to those who may be liable to pay the rates and would have a rateable value in excess of £50,000. Sometimes we let these things trip off the tongue, but a £50,000 rateable value is a decent-sized business. I certainly would be happy to run a business with a £50,000 rateable value. It suggests that you probably have 3,500 square feet to 4,500 square feet of office space, which is probably enough for 35 to 40 members of staff, unless it is the House of Lords where it would be enough room for 300 to 400 Members. But it is a pretty substantial place. When it is measured against rateable value, those principally affected are not necessarily offices. It will be retail premises because they obviously need to have the store facilities. I believe that relatively small numbers of businesses fall into that category. In the briefing from the Mayor of London’s office, the Greater London Authority produced a helpful map—although I do not want to raise the issue of the map again. There is one here, but I am sure that the GLA had longer to produce it than the worthy people in the Minister’s department. However, it points out how many authorities have 20 or more businesses with a rateable value of more than £50,000. Hansard is still based in the written age, and we cannot show pictures—although it is worth Hansard considering having pictures every now and again. Dare we say that? Is that utterly radical? That really will get me into trouble. If a map were available, it could be useful in this regard because it would show vast elements of wide spaces all over London which do not have between 0 and 50 businesses with rateable values of more than £50,000. That certainly applies further out of London, where rateable values obviously fall. Because the cost of property falls, as does rent, there will be far less incidence of businesses with rateable values at that level. My point with regard to the whole section on rateable values and the size of business that is involved is that it should not be too difficult for the local authority, if it wants to regenerate an area, to talk to businesses of this size on a routine basis. It ought to be engaging with them; clearly it is going to be a major employer. Ninety-six per cent of businesses, or whatever the number is, so the Federation of Small Businesses tells us, have fewer than 10 employees. Clearly, then, a business with 20, 30 or 50 employees is a significant business in the area and should be involved in decision-making. We talked before about the White Paper having the problem of additionality. If you want the ultimate test of additionality, put it to a ballot. The ballot is the ultimate test. If an initiative ticks all the boxes, is truly additional and is genuinely for economic development, you will have no problem in persuading people to sign up to it. If it is not, however, if it is just a shuffling of the deckchairs, if it is just a pet project of one of the local government officers, you will not get people to do that. We now have this farcical situation where the Bill says that the levying authority might decide, even if the contribution is not over one-third, to offer a ballot. It is only ever going to offer a ballot on the projects where it thinks it will get strong approval. This amendment would ensure that all projects under the business rate supplement would have that approval. With a stroke of a pen, that would assuage a great deal of concern from many business organisations. It would be good practice and would force local authorities into good discussion and dialogue with businesses. It would follow and mirror a type of arrangement that has worked well in business improvement districts and so on, and it ought to be supported.