Local Government Finance Bill

Lord Jenkin of Roding Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 41, I shall also speak to our other amendments in this group, Amendments 42, 44, 45 and 45A. Amendment 41 is a probing amendment. It concerns regulations about the levy payment calculations. These can be made,

“by reference to such other factors as may be specified in the regulations”.

Will the Minister indicate the type of other factors that it is envisaged might feature?

Amendment 42 would require the Secretary of State to allow 28 days for representations to be made on the basis of the calculation and to implement a process for receiving representations. I am sure that there will be informal arrangements but there should be some formal process by which local authorities can challenge the calculation.

Amendment 44 requires a report to Parliament after three years. The Government have yet to conclude on the safety net but it could be something like a 7.5% to 10% reduction from baseline funding, which, as time goes by, other than being uprated by RPI, would become an increasingly distant figure. Can we have an update on the thinking and on what evidence will be used? A significant diminution in base funding for an authority could be cumulative and we would be very concerned about that. We have debated before a significant loss of the business rate base: we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, last week. Some of it might be involuntary because of major closures; some of it might be voluntary, such as the discouragement of major regeneration projects. We need a clear path to review how it is working, so we believe that a report to Parliament at three years to see how that safety net is operating is very important.

In similar vein, Amendment 45 seeks to put down some criteria and the need for an evidence base. I apologise for the late tabling of Amendment 45A; it just got stuck in the system. It is a probing amendment intended to focus on the cumulative impact of the safety net, particularly when local authority reserves are being depleted and, in any event, the Government are focusing on levels of reserves.

I have put my name to Amendment 46, which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, who will perhaps talk to it if necessary. There is something of a hotchpotch of issues there but it is intended to be probing in order to understand issues concerning the levy concept. I beg to move.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, this group includes Amendment 46 in my name, to which I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has added his name. We come to this in a splendid example of a total coalition, if I may put it like that to my noble friend the Minister.

I will say a word about a special point that affects the City of London in a moment, but the point about Amendment 46 is that it is asking that volatility in local authority income due to rating appeals is formally recognised and “fully compensated”. The justice of this is self-evident. Under the current proposals for business rate retention, local authorities will be unable to benefit from business rate yield growth due to rental increases after revaluation. However, when it comes to reductions, local authorities are expected to manage and absorb funding volatility caused by rating appeals after revaluation, subject to the provisions of the safety net. Of course, volatility in funding will fall entirely on the local authority.

Just as with other matters of this kind, it is not within the control of local authorities because the rating revaluations are all done by the Valuation Office Agency, which is outwith local authority control, and yet the Bill is providing that local authorities must bear the risk. This seems unbalanced and unfair. If it is right one way, it must surely have the converse effect of being right the other way. I should be grateful to hear my noble friend’s answer to that.

Under the current proposals there is what London Councils describes as asymmetry—a view that I entirely endorse. It seems to me that they are wholly asymmetrical and that, in these circumstances, there must be some form of indemnity from the Government against significant VOA errors. Without this, local authorities will simply have to bear the whole risk, which could be quite substantial.

I give notice that the City corporation has raised with me a separate point on which it may wish somebody to table an amendment on Report. It is a slightly different point but it comes up under the same general issue. It is technically distinct from our proposal, which I have just described under Amendment 46; nevertheless, it seems to be in some way similar. Our Amendment 46 deals with appeals founded on some error by the VOA. The City’s difficulty concerns appeals or alterations founded on a subsequent change of circumstances—namely, for instance, a movement in the local property market that produces an oversupply of commercial property. They have had experience of this in the City. Of course, it does not affect just one office or one set of business premises; it affects them all at much the same time. Therefore, it could have quite a serious impact on the City and on other areas where there are high concentrations of high-yield commercial property.

Even after the dispute has been resolved, the refunds can be backdated for several years, which means that the local authority has to wait for them. Here again the argument should be that local authorities should not be exposed to this kind of risk, because the Government have already accepted that they are not to be exposed to bearing the risk of general movements in the local property market. If it is right there, why is the same argument not applied to movements due to appeals from the valuation office? I understand that it would be appropriate to raise a separate amendment if one was going to try to incorporate something in the Bill, so at this point I am just giving notice of this issue to my noble friend. However, I think that there is a point on which she may wish to comment—she probably knows about this—as well as on what I would call the enlarged coalition proposal under Amendment 46 that the volatility of the ordinary valuation process should be borne by the Government and not by local authorities.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

I rise to make the coalition complete and show that it is indeed a multi-coalition point. My name appears on this amendment, as does that of my noble friend Lord Tope. Most of what I wanted to say has been covered by my noble friend Lord Jenkin. I just emphasise that the Valuation Office Agency is another separate body and that it will make decisions on appeals. It will decide whether there is any liability but local authorities will have to pick up the pieces. It seems that there is central government on one side and local authorities on the other. To my shame, I am not sure whether the Valuation Office Agency is still a part of HMRC but it certainly was as a valuation office. Local authorities will be caught between a rock and a hard place because things will happen that neither government nor local authorities will be involved with, and local authorities will then just pick up any compensation that might be needed. Although my noble friend Lord Jenkin widened it in many ways, so far as I can see, all the amendment is seeking is to ensure that losses due to appeals are fully compensated from the safety net. We believe that this would be fair and equitable for local authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hanham]

If the noble Lord is going to join the coalition, why not from the Front Bench, given the way things are going?

This group of amendments presents a good opportunity to discuss the key element of the rates retention scheme; that is, the operation of the levy and the safety net. From the outset, we have signalled our intention that the rates retention scheme will include a safety net mechanism to protect local authorities from significant downward shocks to their income. We did so in recognition of the inherent volatility in the business rates system, to which my noble friend Lord Palmer has just referred, that can see rates income vary from year to year, principally because of appeals, to which the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred, which are generally out of the local authority’s control, or a sudden change in local economic circumstances as a result of, for example, the closure or relocation of a major business. The safety net will be funded by a levy on the disproportionate benefits that some authorities would otherwise experience simply because of their high initial business rates baseline. The detailed calculations required to determine whether a local authority is to make a levy payment or receive a safety net payment and, if so, the amount of any such payments will be set out in regulations, which will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure under paragraphs 20 and 23 of the schedule. In both cases, those regulations will need to set out the precise detail of what is to be measured and how it is to be measured, and the provisions in paragraphs 20 and 23 give the scope to be able to include all relevant items in defining income for the purposes of the calculations. Amendment 41, moved by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, seeks to remove some of that scope by removing the ability in regulations to make provision for the calculation of levy payments to be by reference to some factor other than retained business rates income.

I shall lay out how we think the calculations will work. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, will be aware that we intend to set a proportional levy at 1:1, which will mean that all authorities can expect to retain up to 1% growth in their baseline funding level for every 1% growth in their authority’s business rates baseline. This will require the authority’s retained rates income for the year to be compared with its baseline starting level. In other words, that is the rates income we initially calculated that the authority would collect—its business rates baseline—plus or minus any top-up or tariff before applying the levy rate to the difference between the two. The initial comparison or the application of the levy rate could be described as another factor.

We are also trying to create a legislative framework that will stand the test of time. Noble Lords have already referred to the need to keep the safety net under review, and we agree with that. A consequence of keeping it under review is that we may at some point in the future want to redefine how the safety net works and we may—who knows?—want to include a reference to other factors. If a future Government were to do that, they would, of course, have to get the agreement of Parliament to those changes through the affirmative resolution procedure, so the right level of scrutiny is clearly available.

There is no secret conspiracy here. We do not intend to take account of some other mysterious factors. The provisions as they stand simply enable the way the levy payments are to be calculated to be set out in regulations. It is true that they may also provide some flexibility, but we have no plans to do anything other than provide for a proportionate levy on retained business rates income, as I have set out.

I have more sympathy with the noble Lord’s Amendment 42—that must be the first time I have said that since we started.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

I should have come back sooner from the Chamber.

[Baroness Hanham]

Don’t get too excited. The amendment for which I have more sympathy, Amendment 42, seeks to ensure that there is a period during which authorities can challenge the calculation of the levy payment, but I do not believe that it is necessary to set that out in regulations. The basis of the calculations is, as I have explained, to be set out in regulations and local authorities will have ample opportunity to comment on that. Individual calculations will be based on the information supplied to local authorities, so there should be no reason for the calculations to be wrong.

However, I appreciate that local authorities have concerns, as this is something that we have discussed in the working groups that we have with them. Although I am not convinced that a requirement in the Bill is appropriate or necessary, I shall take this away to give further consideration to how we might meet those concerns. That is my sympathetic bit.

Turning to the discussion on the safety net threshold, prompted by Amendments 43, 45 and 45A, noble Lords will be well aware that decisions about the levels of the safety net threshold and the levy ratio are very closely linked. They must balance a range of competing issues and they cannot be divorced. While the safety net needs to offer protection against significant shocks in the local rates base, as I mentioned earlier, it will be funded by other local authorities through the levy. Therefore, the levy ratio must be set at such a level as to generate sufficient income to fund demands on the safety net at the chosen support threshold. Equally, that level must be such that it continues to offer an incentive to authorities to pursue growth.

We have carefully considered all these issues and believe that the levy ratio at 1:1, together with the safety net support threshold in the range of 7.5% to 10% below baseline funding, offers the best combination on balance. We will be consulting local government over the summer before any final decisions are taken. Therefore, although I appreciate the intention behind the noble Lord’s amendments, I am not in a position to accept them.

I think that Amendment 44 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is unnecessary. I understand his aim but he will no doubt appreciate that we will of course want to keep the operation of the safety net under constant review, particularly during the early years of the scheme. If we believe that it is not offering the right level of support, we will change it.

Finally, with Amendment 46 my noble friend Lord Jenkin seeks to ensure that provision is made for the effect of appeals on an authority’s income—a matter raised earlier by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. We recognise that the impact of rating appeals on an authority’s income is outside the control of the authority but we do not believe that this amendment is the way to deal with it. Instead, as I have previously explained, we will be building two significant protections into the scheme. First, we will be reflecting appeal losses in the initial calculation of tariffs and top-ups. In other words, we will set the level of tariff or top-up as though authorities have collected less income from rates than is the case, recognising that over time they will lose some income on appeal. Generally, we have put in place the safety net so that, where authorities lose more on appeal than is allowed for in the initial calculation, they will be substantially protected through the safety net payments.

With those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hanham]

I will write to the noble Lord. My understanding is that as long as you have sufficient income left as a tariff authority, you probably would not justify help from the safety net. It is for those who lose an enormous amount of income and are not able to cope with that because it is below the base line. None the less, I shall have the noble Lord written to about that.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, I am grateful for what my noble friend said about looking again at the issue raised by Amendment 46, but I am not sure that I wholly understood. I do not want to anticipate the argument that we might have on any amendment that she might bring forward on Report, but I understood that she said that one thing that the Government might do would be to try to take into account the impact of appeals. Is that what she said? How can you know before the appeal has been heard? I just do not understand. It is just another estimate, whereas the amendment is looking for full compensation for that. I am not sure whether I have properly understood what my noble friend said in her earlier response.

[Baroness Hanham]

It must be extremely difficult to work out in advance how many appeals will be won or lost. There will be an assessment of what that will be and it will be taken into account at an early stage. The noble Lord is asking for full compensation on every appeal that is lost or won—if it were the other way round, we could take money back. At present, if it is likely that a lower amount of rates will be collected than expected because of outstanding appeals, that will be taken into account. That is some form of compensation, it seems to me.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

47: Schedule 1, page 36, leave out lines 25 to 31 and insert—
“(2) Before making such a determination, the Secretary of State must consult such relevant authorities and bodies representing relevant authorities as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate about whether the Secretary of State should make such a determination.
(3) If, following consultation under sub-paragraph (1), the Secretary of State determines that the amount referred to in sub-paragraph (1) is to be distributed among one or more relevant authorities, the distribution may not be made unless—
(a) the basis on which the Secretary of State intends to make the distribution (“the basis of distribution”) is specified in the local government finance report for the year in question, and(b) the report is approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.(3A) If a report is approved by resolution of the House of Commons under sub-paragraph (3)(b), the Secretary of State must calculate what amount (if any) fails to be paid to each relevant authority as its share of the amount referred to in sub-paragraph (1).”

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

We now turn to the issue of the distribution of the remaining balance of the levy fund, which comes on page 36 of the Bill. As the Bill currently stands, it is entirely up to the Secretary of State to decide how that is going to be done: whether it is going to be rolled over or distributed to local authorities. Amendments 47 and 48 propose that this should be a matter of consultation between the local authorities and the Government, and then be subject to approval by Parliament via the local government finance report. Without that, there is no way for Parliament to exercise any control over the distribution of the levy, which could be quite a significant sum at the end of the period to which it applies.

The logic of the system that the Government are introducing is that it is local government money. It should therefore be returned to the local authorities and not be the subject of a further centralisation of control by the department. It is the old question and the department seems to want to retain overall control over the decision as to whether the balance should be rolled over or distributed, whereas in accordance with any sort of localism agenda it should be recognised that it is local government money and it is for local government to decide what should happen. At least it should be the subject of consultation, as the amendment provides, and then be dealt with subsequently in the local government finance report and so be within the control of Parliament. I hope that my noble friend will be able to see the sense of that and how it is in accordance with the Government’s overall policy of localism. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 47 and 48 and wholeheartedly support the proposition that has been argued by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. There is nothing more to say on that matter.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and I also have Amendment 49 in this group, which is a bit of a failsafe proposal. It says:

“Should any part of a balance on a levy account for any year remain undistributed after 3 years from the end of that year, the Secretary of State shall report to Parliament on the reasons therefore”.

If it is accumulating over that period, there is real cause for concern. This is an added protection and certainly does not displace the propositions in the earlier two amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, I listened to my noble friend with care. Due to the extraneous noise overhead, I am not sure that I heard it all. This Room is rather vulnerable to the helicopters flying overhead. I got the impression that she feels that there is merit in what we are saying and that she understands that her regulations will in fact deal with it. Would that be a fair summary?

[Baroness Hanham]

I am happy that the changes that were made in the other place will ensure that the levy is redistributed as quickly as possible, in consultation with local government, and that will be laid out in regulations.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

Indeed, if that is going to happen, that is not unsatisfactory.

Can I have an assurance that the regulations that this clause provides for will be available by the time we get to Report?

[Baroness Hanham]

We have said that we will have all regulations available before we meet again.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

In those circumstances, I hope that my noble friends in the expanded coalition will agree that I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 47 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, I shall add a word or two on this, about which I spoke briefly at Second Reading. I agree entirely with the arguments that have been put forward so far. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Best, was extremely clear and he made his point with great force.

We have been here before. I introduced in the House of Lords a Private Member’s Bill on business improvement districts, or BIDs. That was based on a precedent from the United States, as is TIF. We got it right though the House of Lords but the previous Government found no time for it in the Commons, so it failed. Two years later, a Bill was introduced by the Government, which the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, presented with enormous pride, saying, “Look at what we’re doing”. It was my Bill, almost word for word, but the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, whom I have known for some time and for whom I have great regard, did not acknowledge that fact at all. I took the view that I was not prepared to make a fuss. The fact is that I was pleased to see BIDs reach the statute book, and they have been quite effective so far, so one has seen this happen.

I have some sympathy for my noble friend at the Dispatch Box, but of course the person who ought to be answering these arguments is my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander. That is part of our system. I have been the Chief Secretary so I know and understand the system, which is extraordinarily advantageous to Treasury Ministers. They make the operational department answer all the arguments that are put up. The most we can expect from my noble friend on this is if she says that she is impressed by the strength of the arguments and that she will prevail upon her Secretary of State to have another go at the Treasury. The fact that the Treasury is proposing to treat this simply as an addition to the borrowing requirement in the year in which it is spent is, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, and others have made clear, to ignore totally the reality of what a TIF is. It is not just spending in the year; it uses the prospective revenue from additional business rate income in order to raise a loan which can then be used for infrastructure projects. Many examples could be given, such as money being spent on a housing estate, roads and so on.

That is what everyone expected would happen. When we heard the announcement back in 2010 by the Deputy Prime Minister, enormous hopes were raised. I would suggest that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury might be invited to answer why those hopes have not been met. As I say, I have some sympathy for my noble friend because there is nothing she can do about it except to go back to the Secretary of State and have another go by bearding the Treasury and saying, “Look, this is not a tenable argument. It has to be made to work”.

After all, the Government have made a great song and dance about how one of the ways we can secure economic growth is by investing in our infrastructure. Some very large schemes have been put forward on that basis in the hope that they will be funded by the private sector or even from inward investment. A few hours ago I was discussing foreign direct investment in the Chamber, and this is the same issue. If one can borrow money in order to be able to develop infrastructure in this country, one is creating jobs and building in growth, which is what we all want to see. What is in the Bill—simply having TIF 1 and TIF 2—is what I would say advisedly is simply a form of emasculation. I quoted at Second Reading the view of one of the local authority associations. It has looked at this carefully and does not think it adds anything that will be of any use to anybody. It pains me to have to say this to my noble friend, but I would ask her to go back to the department to say, “We cannot defend this. The arguments are overwhelming and we must look at it again”. Otherwise I suspect that we shall be asking the House to accept amendments on Report perhaps along the lines of those put forward by my noble friend Lord Tope and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, tabled today. Again, I feel very strongly about this and share their views absolutely, so I hope that my noble friend may be able to respond.

[The Earl of Lytton]

My Lords, unlike my noble friend Lord Best and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, I am not an expert on TIF, but I can relate to this process, having been involved with development schemes in one form or another. I understand the principle behind this and I strongly support it. I feel like something of a spoilsport in view of what has been said because I have just one slight concern. In normal circumstances if one was looking forward to steady and progressive growth, one would say, “Let’s do it”. However, the information that I have had has indicated that one or two municipalities in the United States have suffered from solvency problems after getting themselves involved in these things because of a larger-scale downturn that was beyond their or probably anybody else’s control. I could understand a Treasury reticence about opening what it might see as a floodgate if it felt that we were in sufficiently uncertain times—and I believe that we are in quite uncertain times—and that, as a long-term punt, it could not foresee a guarantee of growth that would pay that back.

There are many instances right across London. I go back to the early days, when Canary Wharf was being developed. One of the problems that it hit was that, at that time, it could not finance the Jubilee line extension. In effect, it caused the developer to become insolvent. If you imagine that being done on a municipal scale, then obviously it is a very significant issue. The guarantees are not built in. I do not think that any of us would want to find that municipalities involved in TIF schemes would become insolvent. I am sure that there must be safeguards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, having spent some considerable time searching through the Bill to find where TIF was, I have to congratulate the noble Baroness on discovering it. It is a bit like Higgs boson. The physicist who discovered the Higgs boson will no doubt get the Nobel Prize for Physics. Perhaps we should nominate the noble Baroness for the Nobel Prize for political metaphysics.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

One might also congratulate the House of Lords Library on a very splendid section about TIF in its briefing pack for this Bill. It, too, had to say that TIF was not mentioned in the Bill at all. That point is enormously well made.

[Lord Beecham]

I reiterate my congratulations to the noble Baroness—and indeed the House of Lords Library.

The noble Baroness was rightly critical of some of the aspects of the public finance initiative with which she lived for around 20 years. I was with an LGA delegation on one of our rare visits to 10 Downing Street when we met the then Prime Minister, John Major, at the very beginning of this process. Of course, it has been adopted by successive Governments with considerable enthusiasm. But it always struck me that, whereas there was a good case for that kind of scheme where you could see a revenue stream, there was very little case where there was not a revenue stream. Schools and hospitals, for example, could not be allowed to close or fail, so there did not seem to be a chance of risk-classing in those sorts of cases, whereas on a more commercial basis it seemed quite appropriate. This, arguably, is a better version of PFI.

Of course, as the noble Baroness said, TIF derives from America, where they have other forms of municipal financing, such as bond issues. At some point we might want to look again at those as opposed to this particular scheme, which is analogous in some respects but tied more particularly to specific projects. There are certainly distinct advantages to this. I note the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, made about the relationship with enterprise zones. I hesitate to raise—for the fourth or fifth time—the question of enterprise zones and their relationship to various aspects of this Bill. I hope that I will have a reply to some of my previous questions, but I join the noble Baroness in asking about the relationship of enterprise zones to the TIF programme.

I am intrigued by Amendment 51, which seeks to avoid the trap of any such financing being regarded as part of what we used to call PSBR—now debt—and takes it off balance sheet. It seems such a simple solution that I wonder why it has not been adopted before, perhaps in relation to other matters. I hope that it stands up; it would be good if it did. If it does, I think we would be in a similar position to that of former Labour Ministers in 1931, when the incoming Government went off the gold standard and they said, “They didn’t tell us we could do that”. If this proves to be a viable mechanism, I hope that it will have a wider application, and indeed it might.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to his special field of expertise, housing, and rightly pointed out that the schemes will not be available to support housing but will be available to support infrastructure. There are two aspects to that. First, there is surely another way of promoting housing construction. If the Bank of England is going to pump endless billions into the vaults of our esteemed banks, would it not be better to pump that money directly into housing construction? This would have precisely the same effects on the economy that the noble Baroness has alluded to: the net cost after you take off the savings to the benefits system—increased tax income from corporate tax and the like—would be less than the amount devoted. You would have assets on the balance sheet—this is not money for current expenditure—and that might be a way forward. I suppose that is not really within the province of the Local Government Finance Bill, but it raises the question of TIF and its use for infrastructure.

As I understand it, the Government have been looking for investment in infrastructure from pension funds and the like. I recall a recent report, although I cannot remember whether it was produced by the National Association of Pension Funds or the IFS, which indicated that there was little interest thus far in such funding from those sources, whereas this offers a clearer route to making rather more rapid progress, and I very much hope that it will be pursued.

Nevertheless, there are some potential flaws in the present proposals. In particular, the amount allocated— I think the noble Baroness said £160 million although I thought it was £150 million, but it is in that region—is pitiful, as she rightly said. I do not know whether yesterday’s “city deal” announcement dealt with this £150 million or £160 million—whatever the figure is—which I thought was to be allocated to the authorities involved in that city deal but, if so, however it is divided up, it is a very small amount indeed and will do very little. Even in a single authority, it would not do an enormous amount. Spread across eight authorities, it would do very little. I hope that this is seen as a first instalment and that the process will go on to much larger sums in future, and rapidly, if we are to see a real impact on the present situation in the economy.

TIF 1 also has its problems because, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, pointed out, the restrictions seem to be quite perverse. The timescale for repayment is particularly so because, if there are to be resets and so on, nobody is going to be taking on large sums that have to be repaid in a very short time, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, rightly said. Indeed, lenders may very well be reluctant to lend over those times. I entirely concur with the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that it is ridiculous to have an absolute limit and for there to be a cap on expenditure in the first year. On the contrary, I would have thought the more the better to get the thing moving in the early stage.

We certainly approve of the concept and hope it can be made user-friendly, if I can put it that way, to lenders and authorities. These amendments certainly go some way to taking us in that direction. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is quite right. We cannot expect too much of the Minister in replying today, unless she has somehow received a blank cheque from the Treasury, which would be a first. I am sure she will report back the strength of feeling among people with considerable expertise in these matters, whether ministerial or professional, and we might see some improvement.

On Report, it would be helpful to have explicit reference to the scheme in the Bill. It has to be very clear what we are talking about and whether there are to be any changes in the scheme as adumbrated so far. It is clear that this is not going to be a panacea. It will not do everything, but it would be a welcome extra tool for local government, which is perfectly capable of using it effectively, as it has demonstrated for generations. It can and does play a significant part in regeneration, very often in partnership with the private sector. I very much look forward to the day when local authorities can get on with schemes under the aegis of TIF—however it eventually emerges from this Bill—and, perhaps, other measures.

I note that Scotland seems to have jumped the gun. That is interesting because presumably—certainly in the present state of affairs—what happens there would impinge upon the national UK debt. Sitting where the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and I sit, just over the border, it would be extremely irritating if it were found that Scotland was able to do a great deal and we in the north-east were not. Of course, the same would go for many other parts of the country where there is huge need and demand for investment of this kind, and for the contribution that that could make to the economy.

I certainly commend these amendments, and I hope that the Government in one form or another can look sympathetically at them and address the very legitimate concerns that have been raised in order to make a good policy work effectively, which is what we must all seek.