Formal minutes
Wednesday 25 July 2007
Members present:
Dr Phyllis Starkey, in the Chair
| Sir Paul Beresford
Mr Clive Betts
Mr Greg Hands
Anne Main
| | Mr Bill Olner
Dr John Pugh
Emily Thornberry
David Wright
|
Supplementary Business Rate
Draft Report (Supplementary Business Rate), proposed
by the Chairman, brought up and read.
Ordered, That the Report
be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 34 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 35 read, as follows:
"Local businesses' acceptance of levy proposals
and spending plans, secured through a ballot or demonstrated through
consensus-building consultation, should be required before any
SBR is imposed. Sir Michael Lyons's recommendation was that there
should be no requirement for a ballot on SBR proposals within
the affected business community. We agree. Local Authorities should,
however, remain free to hold a ballot when local or specific circumstances
warrant. In deciding whether to ballot, local authorities will
wish to weigh the likelihood of securing sufficient business acceptance
for specific SBR proposals without a ballot against the additional
costs and complexities which may be involved".
Amendment proposed, in line 5, after the word "community."
to leave out the words "We agree."—(Dr Pugh.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 3
Sir Paul Beresford
Anne Main
Dr John Pugh
| | Noes, 4
Mr Clive Betts
Mr Bill Olner
Emily Thornberry
David Wright
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 36 to 49 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 50 read, as follows:
"Our second concern regarding Sir Michael's
proposals for London centre on the practicality of securing agreement
among 32 boroughs, the Corporation of London and the Greater London
Authority. London First argued that "it would be very difficult
to achieve agreement […] collectively on a programme to be
funded in this way […] There would be a high risk of failure
to agree anything. If the authorities did succeed in reaching
agreement, it would be likely to be based on a stronger emphasis
on satisfying their respective aspirations than meeting the concerns
of the business community." Both London Councils and the
Greater London Authority however appeared confident that agreement
could be reached, citing recent examples of healthy co-operation
between the boroughs and the Mayor as a firm foundation on which
to base future negotiations on supplementary business rates.
Nevertheless, concerns about the feasibility of securing agreement
on a London-wide basis reinforce arguments in favour of greater
local discretion".
An amendment proposed, in line 11, to leave out from
the word 'rates' to the end of the paragraph, and to add the words:
"However, the Mayor of London also pointed out
that reaching agreement between 33 local authorities might be
challenging. The Mayor's view was that:
he should set the SBR following consultation with
the 33 London local authorities as well as London business. He
does not believe that it is practicable that he should reach agreement
with all 33 local authorities in London. He is the directly elected
Mayor whose responsibility is to make strategic decisions for
the improvement of the whole capital rather than single boroughs.
Having to provide specific benefits for 33 local authorities would
be impractical, would not be transparent to all Londoners, would
risk short-termism and agreement may be impossible to reach in
any case. It is therefore much more appropriate for the Mayor
to consult on his strategic proposals with London's local authorities
as part of determining the supplementary business rate.
Concerns about the feasibility of securing agreement
on a London-wide basis reinforce arguments ensuring that a framework
that allows clear strategic decision-making is put in place, so
that necessary investment can be made".—(Emily Thornberry.)
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 1
Emily Thornberry
| | Noes, 6
Sir Paul Beresford
Mr Clive Betts
Anne Main
Mr Bill Olner
Dr John Pugh
David Wright
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 51 read, as follows:
"It seems perverse in the extreme to enable
upper-tier authorities across the country —including Rutland
with its population of 37,000 and capacity to raise a few hundred
thousand pounds annually from a 1 pence levy—to initiate
an SBR but to deny similar flexibility to London boroughs such
as the City of Westminster, with its population approaching quarter
of a million and the capacity to raise almost £25 million
on the same terms. London boroughs and the businesses in their
area have as much to gain from strengthening the relationship
between business and local government and working together to
promote economic development as any other local authority. At
the same time, we recognise the potential for strategic, London-wide
efforts to support London businesses".
Question put, That the paragraph stand part of the
Report.
The Committee divided.
|
Ayes, 1
Emily Thornberry
| | Noes, 6
Sir Paul Beresford
Mr Clive Betts
Anne Main
Mr Bill Olner
Dr John Pugh
David Wright
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 52 read, as follows:
"We agree with Sir Michael Lyons that special
arrangements for London are justified on the grounds of its unique
governance arrangements and economic circumstances. We do not
agree that powers to levy an SBR should rest with the Greater
London Authority only. We recommend that, in addition to the
powers for the Greater London Authority and London boroughs to
initiate a levy by agreement and in consultation with the business
community, individual London boroughs and the Corporation of London
should be able to initiate an SBR either individually or in co-operation
with other boroughs".
Amendment proposed, in line 3, to leave out from
the words 'We do not agree' to the end of the paragraph and add
the words:
"We share the concern of Sir Michael and the
Mayor of London that multiple SBRs for different boroughs could
be confusing for business. We also agree with their view that
multiple SBRs would not mitigate concerns about unfairness where
there are large differentials in the sums that different London
boroughs can raise. We believe that the fact that London is highly
interconnected and much of its infrastructure is shared, requires
the directly elected Mayor to be responsible for making strategic
decisions for the improvement of the whole capital. Further, we
agree with the view of the Mayor of London that requiring the
Mayor of London and all 33 boroughs to reach agreement on a single
SBR would hamper much vital strategic investment. We recommend
that the Mayor of London in consultation with London boroughs
and the business community should be able to raise an SBR".—(Emily
Thornberry.)
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 1
Emily Thornberry
| | Noes, 6
Sir Paul Beresford
Mr Clive Betts
Anne Main
Mr Bill Olner
Dr John Pugh
David Wright
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 53 to 72 read and agreed to.
Summary agreed to.
Resolved, That the Report
be the Seventh Report of the Committee to the House.
Ordered, That the Chairman
make the Report to the House.
Ordered, That embargoed
copies of the Report be made available, in accordance with the
provisions of Standing Order No. 134.
Several Memoranda were ordered to be reported to
the House for printing with the Report.
[Adjourned till Tuesday
9 October at 10.20 am
| 
