division_name: Business Rate Supplements Bill
motion: <p class="" pid="b.40.3/1" pwmotiontext="yes">I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.</p>
  
  <p class="" pid="b.40.3/2" pwmotiontext="yes">We are living through a time of great economic upheaval and uncertainty, global in its origins but local in its impact on businesses and communities right across Britain. We in Government are committed to doing what we can to help people through these tough times and to prepare for the upturn that will follow. Actions such as recapitalising the banks, targeted tax cuts, loan guarantees, programmes of public spending and support for jobs are necessary measures for the present. But even as we take action to cushion the blows of recession, we are also looking to the future. We do not want to make the mistakes of previous recessions by not continuing investment in major projects, in skills and in business support and by not putting in place policies that may help local areas to recover more rapidly and take more advantage of the upturn when it comes.</p>
  
  <p class="" pid="b.50.0/1" pwmotiontext="yes">I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and add:</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="b.50.0/2" pwmotiontext="yes">"this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Business Rate Supplements Bill because supplementary rates threaten to become another local stealth tax at a time of economic downturn; because local firms should have a vote on any supplementary rate, as already occurs with Business Improvement Districts; because cuts to the Local Authority Business Growth Incentive Scheme will put pressure on councils to levy the supplementary rate; because the proposed exemption threshold for small business will be far less generous following the 2010 revaluation; because the Bill does not address the problems that local firms are suffering as a result of the Government's business rate rises on empty property and retrospective increases in rates levied on business in the registered ports; and because the Bill fails to limit the application of supplementary business rates to the Greater London Authority and the Crossrail project."</p>
  
  <p pid="b.94.4/1" pwmotiontext="yes"><i> The House having divided:</i> Ayes 159, Noes 327.</p>