That was a helpful debate to tease out some of the arguments around the amendment. I understand that it wants to make provision for the Secretary of State to vary the upper limit through regulations and make it possible to increase or decrease the level of the supplement depending on the state of the economy. I can see that that has some attractions, but I have an argument against it.
In an earlier debate, I set out the provisions in the Bill and the way in which they need to balance safeguards with the ability to raise useful sums of cash. The 2p limit guarantees businesses the maximum BRS that they might be expected to pay. Examples of the kinds of revenues that can be raised are set out in paragraph 3.4 of the White Paper. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned the long term, and indeed, Crossrail is an example of a long-term project. We know that such major construction projects will take years to complete. The amendment raises the possibility that the maximum rate could be changed and, by implication, increased, which introduces a significant level of uncertainty for business and the levying authority.
I hear what the noble Baroness says, but certainty is important in constructing sustainable partnerships. Under the Bill as drafted businesses can be sure of the maximum BRS bill that they may be expected to pay. The amendment would reduce that certainty. Yes, it would be there for the next five years, but what about the following five years or the five years after that? Levying authorities need clarity on how scenarios would be handled. It is possible that transition arrangements will have to be made, but that all adds to levels of uncertainty that we do not need in the system.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Best, that when it comes to reducing the 2p rate, as the noble Lord, Lord Bates, pointed out, we have allowed scope within the levying arrangements that takes care of that point. Put simply, the levying authorities can set up a levy to the maximum of 2p, and within that they will have the discretion to vary the supplement as they see fit. They can certainly propose a lower supplement in their initial prospectus, and vary it in response to the consultation. That is a better way forward as it brings flexibility, negotiation and some certainty. Despite the fluency of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the support received from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I and the noble Lord, Lord Bates, are at one on this amendment. I cannot accept it.
Business Rate Supplements Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Andrews
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 18 May 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Business Rate Supplements Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
710 c542-3GC 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:33:36 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_559168
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_559168
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_559168