Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Earl Cathcart (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 11 May 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Business Rate Supplements Bill.


Business Rate Supplements Bill

I was not going to speak to this amendment, but before I do so I declare my interests. I have been a councillor for more than 10 years, and I am also an accountant. I say that because I have received comments from accountants and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, of which I am a member. I am also a director of a number of companies that pay business rates. I have a question for the Minister that was sparked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. What would happen if the actual cost was lower than the estimate? Would a refund go back to business? If, for example, the estimate was £1.5 million and the business rate supplement was £300,000, there would be no vote because the figure was less than 30 per cent, but if the actual cost was only £1 million and therefore reduced by one-third, there probably should be a vote in that instance. If the figure were reduced by one-third, would a third of that go back to the businesses that had put in the £300,000 originally?


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
710 c288-9GC 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Business Housing Greater London Discounts Economic growth Local government Local government finance Public consultation Business rates Regional planning and development Business improvement districts
Legislation
Business Rate Supplements Bill 2008-09
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk