The whole ethos of the Bill is to try to take the business community with the schemes and to try to build on the relationships between business and local authorities. It is all about building on what are hopefully the existing good relationships between those two. I am afraid that, like other noble Lords who have spoken to these amendments, I cannot divorce the consultancy process from the voting process; they are tied together.
The Minister in the other place, John Healey, said at Second Reading that, ""there will be compulsory consultation".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/1/09; col. 44.]"
That sounds very punchy but compulsory consultation, although welcome, can be ignored. I can give two examples where that has happened. The first was when Ken Livingstone tried to extend the congestion charge. He jumped through all the right hoops, including consultation, but business and residents did not want the extension imposed on them. That opposition was ignored. The other was another thorny issue: the consultation on the third runway at Heathrow. There was a lot of opposition to that, but it was ignored.
I am not making any particular points about those issues. My point is that consultation alone is a very thorny issue and does not necessarily lead to satisfaction. If, as my noble friend has said, a scheme really is so good for business, they will vote for it. Why would they not if it is going to be so good?
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, put the position of the Local Government Association, and I am afraid that I do not agree with it. It would say that, wouldn’t it? That was bound to be its position. It does not want any opposition to its schemes, so it does not want anyone to vote on them. We have the bid scheme. Bid scheme approval requires a majority of liable taxpayers so that the aggregate of rateable values voting in favour must exceed those voting against. That scheme seems to work extremely well, so why cannot we have a similar system of mandatory voting for this all the way through? I cannot understand why the Government are so reluctant about this.
Another point is that you get voting only when the contribution from business is 33 per cent of the scheme. There is the possibility that local government will massage the figures. If a local authority wants to raise £300,000 from business through a BRS, provided that its estimates for the total cost are more than £900,000, it will not have to have a vote. It can then force its project through without one; it can make the estimates greater so that it does not have to reach the threshold of a third. I have talked before about what happens when the actual cost is lower than the local authority’s original estimate and about the ability to massage the figures. The noble Baroness gave me an answer, and I hope that it would not massage the figures, but there is a danger that it might.
I am afraid that I have to go back to the question of consultation, because consultation is vital if these schemes are to be effective. Consultation can work in two ways. The local authority can come up with a scheme and consult on it. I gave the example of Norfolk and the dualling of the A11, which many areas in Norfolk do not think will benefit them at all. I mentioned King’s Lynn. There are lots of down-market King’s Lynns, such as Swaffham, Dereham, Fakenham, Wells-next-the-Sea and Cromer. Lots of places might feel that they just do not benefit from a scheme. It will help the economy in south Norfolk, but not the other areas. Despite opposition from the areas that it does not help, Norfolk might say, "We are going ahead with the scheme anyway". That is one form of consultation.
The other form of consultation is asking the businesses in Norfolk what scheme they would like and what would help them, rather than imposing a scheme on them. I hope that there would be something in guidance along those lines. They might want an incinerator because all the waste that they produce is put into landfill and the cost is becoming prohibitive, and an incinerator might get rid of a lot of cost and they are willing to help to pay for it. Consultation could work both ways. Why not have a vote because this is a scheme that businesses really want? I cannot understand why the Government are so reluctant to give a vote.
Business Rate Supplements Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Earl Cathcart
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 11 May 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Business Rate Supplements Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
710 c327-8GC 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:37:58 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_555617
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_555617
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_555617