Clause 10

Part of Business Rate Supplements Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 4:45 pm on 27th January 2009.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Dan Rogerson Dan Rogerson Opposition Whip (Commons), Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government) 4:45 pm, 27th January 2009

It is certainly reassuring to hear what the Minister is saying about the matter. I just seek clarification again. He has probably addressed this point, but I would like it to be absolutely clear. I am talking about subsection (7)(b), which begins:

“the document published for the purposes of subsection (2)(a) states that, even though paragraph (a)...does not apply”.

This relates to what he said about a situation in which the local authority for some other reason decided that a ballot was necessary on the original proposal. The provision is at the top of page 7. It concerns a situation in which the local authority decided to go to a ballot even though it did not have to on the original proposal. If it called for a ballot on the original proposal, will it now automatically go to a ballot in the event of a proposed variation, or does it again get to decide whether that is necessary? I would like that to be addressed. If it is automatic that a ballot at the beginning means a ballot on a variation, that addresses the point, but if the local authority gets to take a view for a second time, one could conceive of a situation in which there had been a ballot that approved the proposal, but the variation  meant that perhaps the original ballot—[Interruption.] I hope that the Minister can understand the point that I am trying to make.