Mr.
Binley: Would the Minister be so kind as to give
way?
John
Healey: I am drawing to a close, but I will give way to
the hon. Gentleman.
Mr.
Binley: I am still concerned about local
authorities’ ability to consult and the quality of the
consultation. Will the Minister give us some reassurance that, as part
of the process of ensuring that the Bill works fairly and properly, he
will ensure that that quality is improved?
John
Healey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his
intervention. Indeed, part of my purpose in producing the draft
guidance covering consultation is precisely to collect views,
particularly from people such as himself who may be concerned about the
nature of the consultation process over the next 12 weeks, on whether
that could be strengthened, and if so, how. If the hon. Gentleman wants
to submit a view to me, I would be pleased to receive
it. In
summary, we are trying to strike a balance between giving business a
degree of reassurance to which we believe it is entitled, and the
interests of others, including local residents, who may benefit from or
share an interest with business in a project supported by a BRS going
ahead, and who may contribute a share of such a project’s
funding. On the question of balloting, those others may therefore say
that it is appropriate to give business a vote or a veto if a BRS is to
contribute a third or more towards a project’s costs, but not if
it makes a smaller contribution and the financial heavy lifting comes
from other sources. Business should not be able to block a
project’s going ahead on that
basis. I
hope that, in the light of the explanations that I have given during
our debate, amendment 1 will be withdrawn and the hon. Members for
North Cornwall and for Bromley and Chislehurst will not press their
other amendments, but will accept that we have striven to strike an
appropriate balance in the
Bill.
Dan
Rogerson: I wonder whether I might seek your guidance,
Mr. Atkinson, before I remark on the Minister’s point
about pressing amendments to a vote. Would it be possible to vote on
amendments 1, 5 to 7, 10 and 12 all together? I do not intend to press
them to a vote now, but would it be possible to vote on them en bloc,
or would there have to be a separate vote on
each?
The
Chairman: No, we cannot do that. We would only vote on
amendment 1 at this stage. If hon. Members want to vote on the
subsequent amendments, which have been grouped with amendment 1 for the
convenience of debate, they will have to be voted on in their proper
place in the Bill
later.
Dan
Rogerson: Thank you, Mr. Atkinson. I will
signify my intention to press for a vote when we reach the appropriate
point. The reason I mention that is that, as the Minister has quite
rightly pointed out, amendment 1 relates to the theme under discussion,
namely consultation with business and being able to demonstrate that
business supports the scheme, but the crucial issue is the ballot,
which, as I understand it, is dealt with later in the Bill. We will
have the opportunity to vote on, for example, amendments 5 to 7, which
are on the issue of a ballot, when we reach them. That is the crucial
question for hon. Members, certainly on this side of the
Committee.
The
Chairman: That is correct.
Robert
Neill: Along similar lines to the hon. Gentleman, I point
out that amendment 25, which is the principal amendment in my
name—the others are essentially consequential—is grouped
here for the purpose of debate, but it is actually an amendment to
clause 4, and I
therefore wish to put the Committee on notice that when we reach it, in
due course, I anticipate dividing the
Committee.
The
Chairman: I am getting some helpful guidance. If hon.
Members indicate that they wish to vote on amendment 25 when that
comes, they will not be able to vote on amendment 5, as the one
cancels out the other. So voting will be restricted to amendment 25 or
amendment 5, but not
both.
Robert
Neill: But we can have a vote on amendment 1 now,
Mr.
Atkinson?
The
Chairman: Yes. I am sorry to have interrupted,
Mr.
Rogerson.
Dan
Rogerson: I do appreciate that I threw the debate slightly
off course with my question, Mr. Atkinson.
This has been
a useful debate on what is the most important issue for many of the
witnesses we heard from in our previous sessions. I will focus, first
of all, on the points made by the Minister in response to the
individual amendments.
Amendment 1
would set out a clear indication that the business community’s
views matter, and that for a project to proceed it must be clear that
the business community is convinced that the economic development case
has been made. Although I accept the Minister’s claim that the
only way to do that would be to have a ballot, I would have thought
that it might be possible to set out clearly in that ballot that the
business community supports the measures in light of the intention to
promote the economic development of the
area. 12
noon The
Minister made a number of further points about balloting, and therefore
amendments 5 to 7 and 10 to 12, as well as amendment 25, to which the
hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has just referred. Why should
we not have a ballot for Crossrail? The hon. Member for Cities of
London and Westminster made a very good point when he said that if
Crossrail were a new project being proposed subsequent to the Bill
being considered, of course we would be calling for a ballot. However,
Crossrail is different; in the view of many, it is unique. In the
Minister’s view, it is not unique; it is very much the same as
any other project which might emerge, but I think the time scale makes
it very different. Most of the witnesses that we heard from were clear
in pointing out that they felt it to be unique as well. I think that
most politicians in London would say that Crossrail is a project of
unique significance, having had vast amounts of consultation and
scrutiny. I therefore believe that it is of a different magnitude, or
at least that we have arrived at a formulation different from that for
any subsequent scheme elsewhere in the
country. The
Minister said that he was sympathetic. I am very grateful for his
sympathy and he did look as though he was wrestling with himself and
was quite anguished as he tried to reconcile all these important
arguments. It might help to point out that, unlike the Conservative
party—we will no doubt develop this argument when we debate
later clauses—my party does not believe that this measure should
be restricted to London. We believe
that it is a useful tool, and we heard from the Local Government
Association that many projects may now emerge that require a BRS. We do
not have a problem with that as a concept. The problem is that there
needs to be a ballot. That is our opinion and that of many
organisations representing the business
community. The
distinction between not having a ballot on Crossrail specifically and
not having a ballot in London at all is crucial. The Minister said that
25 years may be the lifetime of this legislation and by then it may
well have effectively run its course. A few years ago, it was my
privilege to serve on the Committee considering the Bill that became
the Commons Act 2006, where we were looking at legislation that dated
from the 12th and 13th centuries. It is important that we
consider the possibility that future projects in London will be funded
under any regulations that we play our part in approving. Most people
accept that there is a difference between Crossrail and other projects
that may emerge elsewhere in the country.
The Minister
returned to a point that he made in his evidence to the
Committee— that a ballot will effectively give business a veto
over those projects. I think that he is saying that if a third or more
of the cost of a project is funded by the BRS, he is quite happy for
the business community to have a veto, but if it is slightly
less—1 per cent. less for example—he is not happy for it
to have a veto. I do not believe that it is a veto, but he has
presented it to the Committee in those terms. Government Members who
say that there is an intellectual inconsistency ought to consider their
own arguments about this concept—or spectre—of a veto
quite closely, because surely they apply equally whether the
contribution is more than a third or less.
The lower the
proportion of the overall financial package provided by a BRS, the less
important it is to that project’s advancement. Far from being a
veto, the ballot is merely a way for the business community to say to
all the other funding partners that it is not convinced that it will
reap equal benefit from the economic development in question, so they
should go back and look at it again. That important point needs to be
borne in mind. Through the consultation, local elections and the
mechanisms for contributions that may be made by central Government to
a project that is proposed by an elected government body, there is in
many cases accountability to these other sections—a veto, if one
likes, on behalf of the other funding partners. To pick out the
business community and say that it will be handled differently is
inconsistent and unfortunate. Regardless of whether the BRS will form
more or less than a third of the funding package, the point is that it
is still 2p on the rate to a business in an area where a BRS is
imposed. It will be of no comfort to the business that the overall
contribution is less than a third, because it is still paying its 2p,
without the benefit of a vote. The fundamental problem with the
Government’s argument is that businesses in an area where a
greater contribution is to be made are to be allowed to have their say,
even though their own contribution will be no different from that of
businesses in an area where the contribution makes up less than a third
of the funding
package. There
are problems and intellectual inconsistencies in the
Government’s argument. I therefore very much wish to press the
amendment to a vote, so that we can have the Committee’s
decision on that important question. I
would also like the opportunity later of a vote on whether a ballot is
crucial to the proposal. I believe that it is, and I therefore signal
my intention to press to a vote my amendments on the ballot
proposal. Question
put, That the amendment be
made. The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
8.
Division
No.
1] Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 1
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
2Levying
authorities
Robert
Neill: I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 2,
page 1, leave out lines 17 to
20.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 23, in clause 2, page 2, leave out
lines 1 to
5. Amendment
24, in clause 3, page 2, leave out lines 44
and
45. Amendment
38, in
clause 5, page 3, line 29, leave
out subsection
(2). Amendment
39, in
clause 5, page 3, line 36, leave
out subsection
(4). Amendment
44, in
schedule 2, page 23, line 26, leave
out sub-paragraph
(3). Amendment
40, in
clause 28, page 17, line 42, leave
out subsection
(3). Amendment
41, in
clause 29, page 18, line 21, leave
out paragraph
(b). Amendment
42, in
clause 29, page 18, line 44, leave
out paragraph
(b). Amendment
43, in
clause 30, page 19, line 6, leave
out paragraph
(b).
Robert
Neill: As hon. Members will appreciate, the effect of the
amendments is to restrict the scope of the definition of
“levying authority” to the Greater London authority. I
can be brief because this harks back to our earlier debate, but I was
not convinced by the Minister’s reply, for the reasons already
stated. We believe that it is possible to decouple Crossrail from the
roll-out of BRS elsewhere nationally. Amendments 22 and 23 amend the
definition of levying authority in clause 2 and the other amendments
are consequential, changing the references to levying authorities
elsewhere in the Bill. The arguments have been made; I need not say
more.
John
Healey: Essentially, the amendments would make a business
rate supplement an option for London only, removing the possibility for
other local authorities in England and Wales to choose to fund a
project through a business rate supplement. It is precisely the sort of
special treatment that we cannot accept as a Labour Government, and
especially as a party that is concerned about the whole country. We are
concerned about jobs, investment and the long-term business success of
all parts of the country, not only
London. As
I have tried to explain to the Committee, we do not accept the
arguments made this morning that London is different and should
be treated differently in the Bill, or that Crossrail is different. It
is the most developed example of a project for which a business rate
supplement is appropriate. It is an exemplar, rather than an exception,
and from it we can draw good lessons for the way in which a BRS could
and should work in other areas.
During our
evidence sessions, I was struck by the fact that both business and
local government representatives accepted the principle that a BRS
should be available across the country, not only in London, despite
their concerns about details such as balloting. There is a lot to gain
from giving local authorities greater ability to raise investment for
local economies, particularly in the way that we require them to do so:
in consultation and in partnership with business. The potential would
be lost if the amendments were accepted. I hope that the hon. Member
for Bromley and Chislehurst will not insist on pressing them, but if he
does, I will ask my hon. Friends to resist.
|
