---

Business Rate Supplements Bill

As with most of the language that we have to contend with when we are making policy, sometimes the choice means choosing broader terms that encompass most of those elements. As the noble Lord has picked out, "development" includes output, productivity and wealth, but it also includes the implications of community wealth, growth, progress and so on. The term is fairly commonly understood; it is certainly in common currency. We use it, for example, in the sub-national review of economic development. If we were to take single aspects of development we would be challenged. If we chose "output", for example, we would have four opinions for every one economist, I would imagine. "Productivity" is certainly a subjective term, depending on which side of the line you are on, and I would hesitate to use the concept of "wealth" in legislation. I understand what the noble Lord is getting at, though. Something we might think about, in our guidance or advice to local authorities, is that when they came to describe their projects they underpinned the broad notion of "economic development" with a precise statement of what they meant by it, what they expected to get out of it and whether or not, in these terms, there would be specific outputs and benefits. In the prospectus, they will be required to give a detailed account of what costs and benefits their project will deliver. That is the place for some of this language to be employed. The noble Lord has asked a good question, and I hope that we can find some other ways of digging into it at different stages as we implement the BRS.