Business Rate Supplements Bill

I like the idea of Hansard having illustrations, but let us not go as far as cartoons. On the Minister’s last point, where she quoted the LGA, I still have difficulty in applying the points that it makes to the question of under and over one-third. The arguments are yes or no, rather than centring on that one-third contribution. The proposal to have a ballot is not a matter of not having confidence in a local authority’s judgment about what is good for its area; it is about the businesses that are being asked to pay. The other partners can veto by refusing to contribute because they are not multiple in the same way as businesses are. A local authority can come to a perfectly honest view about what is best, and ratepayers may disagree. That is where we differ. The consultation allows for nuanced responses. The prospectus should reflect the consultation. The consultation is not an end in itself; it almost certainly ought to lead to variations in the draft prospectus. It is unlikely that the latter will be perfect initially. The consultation has a role to play in developing the prospectus. The consultation is not a referendum. I probably depart from the noble Earl on this because I do not see it as an alternative to a ballot but as complementary to it. One should not consult on something that one is not prepared to do. Consultation has a much wider role. Local authorities should hold a debate with local businesses, but that is not the same as giving them a menu of things to choose from. I do not see that working. I hope that I am not being unfair, but I believe that the Minister’s argument can be summarised as the Government’s proposals striking a balance between the two arguments. I fear that the proposals actually satisfy neither of those engaged in this argument. I am certain that we will return to this on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 13 withdrawn. Amendments 14 to 17 not moved. Clause 4 agreed.