Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Moynihan (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 18 May 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Business Rate Supplements Bill.


Business Rate Supplements Bill

The Minister gave a very good example that would be amply covered by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. A better example with which she might be able to assist the Committee would be to show how it could be inappropriate to consult those who a levying authority might believe at some stage in the future could pay a chargeable amount and therefore should be consulted. Can the Minister give an example of when it would be inappropriate? If it was a compelling argument, it could be a reason to keep the wording in the Bill as it is. She has given the case when it would be appropriate, so in that context the phrase could be deleted from the Bill altogether. I apologise to the Minister, but it would be helpful to understand the purpose of the words, ""think whether it would be appropriate"," in Clause 6(5), and whether they assist the legislation.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
710 c525-6GC 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Companies Ballots Administration Costs Business Corporation tax Elizabeth line Billing Greater London Information Greater London Authority Infrastructure Exemptions Leasehold Internet Local government Ownership Local government finance Ports Public consultation Rates and rating Property Business rates Partnerships Transport Small businesses Tax allowances Valuation Surcharges Tax collection Tenants Business improvement districts
Legislation
Business Rate Supplements Bill 2008-09
Non-domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2005
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk