| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7 Jan 2003 : Column 91—continued
Mr. Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Minister intervened on me when I made that point. He said that parliamentary scrutiny would be provided by means of the estimates debates. However, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the estimates procedure is in such a sorry state that it will not provide real scrutiny of the new grants, which will therefore be open to the abuse that he has described?
Sir Paul Beresford: One problem with the present scrutiny system is that there is so much to scrutinise and so little time available. I believe that the proposed system could be manoeuvred by Ministers, who will face no risk of intervention.
The next station on the centralisation line is the new approach to the housing revenue account. The Bill introduces a subjective basis for determining annual subsidy. That will destroy the improvement in predictability achieved in the past year or so. That predictability was welcomed by housing authorities, but the Bill will replace it with confusion and uncertainty. To add to the difficulty, and to exacerbate the continued trend of centralisation, clauses 89 and 92 will allow the Government to determine by formula the rent of every council and housing association dwelling in England. The proposal will destroy the previous provision in the Housing Act 1985, under which housing authorities must have regard to the pattern of private sector renting in deciding rent distributions for their own dwellings, thus ensuring that differentials reflected tenants' own experience.
Finally, it is worth referring to clauses 101 and 102, which have not been touched on, but which provide the opportunity for the Secretary of State to interfere even in the minute detail of contracting-out exercises. Clauses 101 and 102 will essentially remove the opportunities for any of the benefits to local council tax payers and residents of the discipline of competitive tendering. Perhaps that is a suitable note on which to end a Bill from this Government. In essence, this restrictive, centralising Bill will further damage the freedoms of local government, while flying under the Government's tarnished flag of the so-called expansion of local government freedoms.
7.40 pm
Mr. David Lepper (Brighton, Pavilion): I wish to concentrate on part 4, which relates to business improvement districts, but I should like to welcome some other aspects of the Bill before doing so, such as the help that it will provide to small businesses, and, despite what the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) has just said, the measures to protect the rights of local authority staff, especially their pension rights when councils contract out their services.
I welcome the ability of councils to trade, and mine is likely to be one of them as Brighton and Hove city council achieved a good rating. The right to vary the discount for empty private properties and second homes will be much welcomed in areas such as mine with very real housing need and where several hundred private accommodation units are still empty.
I also welcome clause 82 on quashing liability orders. I have raised that issue with Ministers on several occasions on behalf of a constituent who understandably felt that, although it was acknowledged that a liability order served on him was a mistake, a blot would remain on his character unless the council went through the expensive higher court action procedures, which the Bill will replace with a simple recourse to magistrates.
I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Minister has said about a possible amendment to section 28. It seems to me that, despite the nit-picking comments made by some hon. Members earlier, it does not matter whether the Government or a Back-Bench Member introduces that proposed amendment to repeal section 28. The important thing is that an item on the statute book that remains to many gay and lesbian people a threat and a
powerful symbol of prejudice and discrimination is removed. Through their action on adoption and their forthcoming proposals on partnership rights, the Government are already doing much to combat that discrimination and prejudice. I hope that when that proposal is introduced—I am sure that it will be—official Opposition Members who wish to support such an amendment will at least be free to do so, even if they are not whipped to do so.I come now to business improvement districts. I pay tribute to the Association of Town Centre Management for the ceaseless work that it has undertaken over the years to promote the idea of business improvement districts. I am glad that the all-party group on town centre management issues, which I have the honour to chair, has been able to play its part in that lobbying. I am also pleased—I have to declare an interest—that I have been asked to chair the steering group on business improvement district pilot projects, which is being administered on behalf of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister by that association. That steering group brings together the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Countryside Agency, English Partnerships and the private sector.
I also pay tribute to the many town centre managers and their teams who brought together the public and private sectors in town and cities across the country to improve their areas, to bring new prosperity to local businesses and generally to revitalise town centres as places in which to work, to do business and to live. I pay tribute especially to the work of the Brighton city centre business forum and its manager, Tony Mernagh, and its chair, Derek Maddison. Not the least of their achievements has been bringing together businesses, the council and the police to make Brighton the first of the south's cities to receive the Home Office safe shopping award, combating retail crime.
In 1999, Lord Rogers' urban taskforce report proposed town improvement zones, recognising the problem with many town centre management schemes was the difficulty of securing sustainable funding. That problem was underlined by the study undertaken by the Association of Town Centre Management on behalf of the then Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on schemes in six towns and cities. The study showed that the time devoted to fundraising weakened the effectiveness of the schemes themselves and that making funding dependent on voluntary contributions generated a sense of vulnerability. It also showed that there was some resentment against those who did not make the voluntary contributions but who still benefited from the cleaner streets, safer environment and the increase in customers that the town centre management scheme brings to the area.
The proposals in part 4 are welcome, as they will provide a way to find sustainable funding for those improvement schemes by allowing a levy of businesses to be used, with the agreement of those businesses, specifically for agreed improvements to make areas safer and cleaner and to deal with crime and grime. Some hon. Members may be sceptical about the idea of business rate payers being willing to pay more. To those sceptics, let me say that more than 80 councils across the political spectrum expressed an interest in becoming pilot bid areas and more than 50 have subsequently submitted formal applications.
The intention is that when the legislation is in place, as it should be by the summer, some 20 or so pilot areas should be ready to test and, I believe, demonstrate the benefits that BIDs can bring to an area. May I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) that it is certainly the intention that those pilot areas should be representative not only of city centres, but of suburbs, market towns, coastal towns and all the regions of England as well.
Those who have had the opportunity to talk, for example, to Robert Walsh, New York's commissioner for business improvement districts, will have no doubt about the benefits of those schemes. The statistics that I would use are rather more up to date than those referred to by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), given that they apply to the past five years or so.
In New York's BIDs, empty commercial properties have been filled, graffiti has been dealt with effectively and 40,000 new jobs have been created during those five years. Similar results are on record for Philadelphia and Washington DC. In Washington, there has been a 28 per cent. drop in serious crime, thefts from cars are down by 71.6 per cent. and pick-pocketing is down by 50 per cent.
This is new territory, bringing together the public and private sectors. The Government's proposed ballot process—the total rateable value of those in favour of such a scheme has to exceed that of those against—seems to be a way to guard against domination by large multiple retailers or the independent sector. It is also a way to maximise turnout and to secure a democratic mandate before schemes can go ahead for an initial five-year period. However, as I have said, this is new territory, so I wish to indicate two issues on which I hope that Ministers will ensure that there is clear guidance and which need detailed consideration. The money raised in BID areas must ensure true additionality for the services provided, and the criteria for defining that additionality must be absolutely clear if the proposals for a BID are to command support.
Secondly, I believe that the use of the business rating system as proposed is the clearest basis for the levy. Through the CBI and the British Property Federation, however, landlords have expressed genuine support for BIDs and a wish to play a formal role. Complex arrangements could no doubt be devised to bring the property owners and the tenants into the voting process. I am not sure, however, that that would be the most profitable way to proceed at present. I urge Ministers, however, to give proper consideration to ways in which property owners can be involved formally in a relationship with those who have voted for the BID.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |