Business Rate Supplements Bill

I will have to take advice on that. The answer is yes, it will be all businesses. I hope that the noble Earl is helped by that explanation. Amendment 46 would require that the ballot is held if any variation is made to a BRS. My case about uncertainty applies to this as well. Projects already under way could be put in jeopardy simply because of a relatively minor change. I understand the noble Lord’s concern that the BRS should not be subject to undue changes without adequate consultation of those liable for the supplement. Clause 10 already makes provision that if the variation in the project would increase the BRS contribution towards a project to more than one-third a ballot would be required, as is the case with new projects. Again, we have covered that point in the interests of fairness. There is another possibility. The levying authority might want to vary the supplement, but the change would not result in the BRS contributing more than one-third towards the cost of the project. If that change was not highlighted in the prospectus as a possibility, the authority would be required to consult, which would involve publishing a document that set out the proposed variation, mirroring the prospectus required before a supplement could be levied. If the variation would increase the number of persons liable to the BRS, there must be consultation, whatever the original prospectus says. We have underpinned that arrangement for consultation. In the Bill, we have tried to set a minimum standard for the consultation and balloting needed before a supplement can be changed. Any decision to carry out a ballot over and above that requirement should be left to the discretion of the levying authority. Amendment 15 potentially goes further than requiring a ballot in all cases. It would also extend who was eligible to vote in a ballot to those whom the authority was required to consult. This would mean that in addition to those who were liable for the supplement, lower/upper authorities and other persons the authority thought appropriate would be eligible to vote. I agree that the views of the wider community need to be considered, and I think we would see local authorities consulting their communities as a matter of course, in the way that they do already. Given the duty to involve, that is even more likely now. However, giving the same weight to the views of those who would not be liable for the supplement as those who would have to pay could undermine both the fairness principle and the fundamental principle that BRS is a new tool. I conclude by citing the LGA during the Public Bill Committee. It picked up on the fundamental point that every noble Lord who has spoken has made. It stated in evidence: ""The guarantee to local businesses that this power will not be abused is the guarantee that we are accountable to local communities. We have a direct interest in ensuring that local economies are maintained and sustained … No authority will make a decision that has a detrimental effect on its local business community".—[Official Report, Business Rate Supplements Bill Committee, 20/1/09; cols 65-75.]" That is a straightforward and positive statement from the LGA, and I hope noble Lords will accept that.