Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 17 June 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill on Business Rate Supplements Bill.


Business Rate Supplements Bill

Clearly, that is the Government's argument—that it is possible to have a threshold beyond which the impact on businesses is not sufficient to necessitate a ballot. I do not agree. We could get into an argument about the right point for that threshold, but—as we have argued throughout—a ballot sends a much stronger message to business that the public sector, local government and the private sector must all engage with projects that will make a positive contribution to the future of an area. It is a clear and established system, and business is used to the BID ballot. It is much more simple and straightforward to say that a ballot would be held in all circumstances. For that reason, I am pleased that the other place accepted this amendment and I hope that this House, having considered the arguments expressed in Committee, which were ably supplemented in the other place, will accept that it got this wrong last time. We need to revisit this issue, and I hope that the Government will be slightly more flexible and agree that this scheme, which could make a real difference to communities around the country, should go forward on the basis of a ballot in all circumstances.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
494 c350 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Local government Business rates Surcharges
Legislation
Business Rate Supplements Bill 2008-09
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk