John
Healey: I am grateful for this short debate. We are
dealing with an important part of the Bill, which is drafted to give
the sort of assurance that the hon. Member for Northampton, South seeks
and, to some extent, the clarification that the hon. Member for North
Cornwall is looking for. I suspect that there is no great difference in
our general approach to the provisions and to what is right in
principle. I accept the intention of the hon. Member for Bromley and
Chislehurst in moving the amendment. He is concerned about
substitution, as indeed is the hon. Member for Northampton,
South.
12.30
pm I
shall deal first with amendment 2; in a sense, it touches on the same
concern—the risk of substitution. In other words, BRS might be
used to fund services for which local authorities should already be
providing funding. Were the hon. Gentleman inclined to press the
amendment to a Division, I should make it clear that it seems to weaken
the safeguards because it narrows the definition set out in clause
3(3)(c) to primary and secondary education rather than broader
education services. The effect would be that the business rate
supplement would be restricted to primary and secondary
schooling.
If hon.
Members consider the guidance that was published on Friday, they will
realise that local authorities could not propose using BRS revenue to
fund housing, social services, education services in general, services
for children, health services or planning services. We made that
provision for a reason. The Bill is designed to give the reassurance
that local authorities cannot use BRS as a supplement to fund services
that it has a statutory obligation to provide.
On the
question of training and skills, if a proposition was part of a
prospectus that demonstrated an investment in training and skills and
in promoting the economic development of an area, it could be
acceptable for BRS to be an element of such funding. If the hon. Member
for North Cornwall was using amendment 2 to seek such an indication, he
now has it and will not need to press it to a Division.
Amendment 46
proposes that BRS revenue could be used only to fund expenditure that
promotes the “economic well-being” of an area,
including
“the provision
of transport infrastructure and the promotion of employment and
employment skills, investment, regeneration, business efficiency and
competitiveness.” I
understand why the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst might want
to probe, but the amendment would unnecessarily limit the potential use
of BRS.
The Bill
already contains clear and appropriate limitations. Clause 1 makes it
clear that BRS revenue can be spent only on projects that, the
authority has established, contribute to and promote the economic
development of an area. As I said, clause 3 prevents sums raised by BRS
from contributing to the provision of services that a local authority
has a statutory obligation to provide.
The third
limitation—or lock, if the Committee wills—is that the
Bill makes it clear that BRS funds cannot be used for expenditure that
the authority would have incurred if it had not established a BRS.
Although limits are appropriate—we have set them out in various
parts of the Bill—we do not want to be too prescriptive or
restrictive on whether a local authority could use BRS revenues.
Provided that the link to economic development can be properly
established, it is right that local authorities should have the freedom
to propose the type of project for which they wish to use BRS
funding. I
hope the Committee will accept that general approach. If members have
detailed views on how to frame guidance, I would encourage them to
submit those views to the consultation that I launched on
Friday.
Robert
Neill: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I
hope that he will undertake that the Department will be equally
open-minded in its discussion with business over the guidance. If that
is a means whereby this can be achieved, then so be it; I am more
interested in the objective than the means.
John
Healey: May I say clearly to the hon. Gentleman and to the
Committee that I would welcome it if business organisations that wish
to contribute views—either formally, in writing to the
consultation, or during the consultation period—were to approach
us. I encourage my officials to hold such discussions with business
organisations where they have views to contribute on this
question.
Robert
Neill: I am grateful to the Minister for his helpful
response. Against that background, having probed the issue and had a
useful debate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Dan
Rogerson: I beg to move amendment 3, in
clause 3, page 2, line 26, leave
out ‘The Greater London Authority’ and insert ‘A
levying
authority’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 4, in
clause 3, page 2, line 27, leave
out ‘the Greater London Authority’ and insert ‘a
levying
authority’.
Dan
Rogerson: I apologise for the unseemly haste with which I
was seeking to debate this issue under the previous group. These
amendments look further at what may or may not be done with the money
and how it may be used by the organisations that might be involved in
spending it. They are probing amendments and are intended to help us
understand the Government’s point of view.
As I
understand it, provisions under clause 3 allow the GLA, as a levying
authority, to permit other bodies to spend some of that money in
pursuance of a project, but not in other cases. The Minister referred
to passenger transport authorities in other parts of the country, which
are not directly elected and therefore are not intended to be levying
authorities. However, they may well be involved in the spending of
moneys, or the delivery of a scheme. We are seeking to understand how
they might be involved, and whether there are provisions
in the Bill to allow for that money to be moved. I am sure that the
Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I am assuming that the
current provisions are there to allow the GLA, for example, to work
with particular boroughs if they are incurring some of the costs of
part of the delivery of a project, so that the money could be
reimbursed to them. If that is the case, we are trying to find out
whether there needs to be flexibility in other parts of the country for
other relevant authorities to spend some of that
money. Robert
Neill: I have heard what the hon. Gentleman said, but I am
not entirely sure what he is driving at. The Minister may be able to
help me, but my understanding is that the references to the GLA in this
context arise because of the particular nature of the relationship
between the GLA and its functional bodies, Transport for London being
the most obvious one in this area. However, it is unique and does not
relate to any situation elsewhere in the country. Perhaps that is the
answer to the hon. Gentleman’s situation, to some
degree.
John
Healey: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bromley and
Chislehurst for trying to assist me. However, despite the amendments
and the remarks by the hon. Member for North Cornwall, neither of which
are clear, I am not sure what he is seeking an answer to. I would
welcome an intervention to clarify that; otherwise, I shall consult the
record and try to sort it out.
Dan
Rogerson: As a London MP, the hon. Member for Bromley and
Chislehurst has clarified some of the issues in this provision. I was
merely seeking to find out whether the Minister felt that there might
be circumstances in other parts of the country where a BRS might be in
operation, where similar arrangements would need to be in place to
allow money to be moved between organisations. I sense that the
Minister is about to find some inspiration on this and I am sure he
will reassure me that these amendments will not be
necessary.
John
Healey: I think that my mind is becoming a little clearer.
We have framed the legislation to allow other local authorities,
singularly or together if they are proposing a BRS, to enter into
arrangements for part of the delivery of a particular project that may
be supported by a BRS in the same way that we are making provision for
the GLA and TfL, which we know will be necessary for the one clearly
BRS-related project that is on the stocks—Crossrail. I am
confident that we have framed the legislation to cover that possibility
were it sensible or required in other areas related to a BRS, but I
shall look again at our provisions if the hon. Gentleman thinks we have
not.
Dan
Rogerson: I am grateful to the Minister, and to the hon.
Member for Bromley and Chislehurst for clarifying the matter. Hon.
Members from at least two parties are keen to see that, with certain
safeguards, other areas of the country may be able to explore the
option. I wanted to ensure that they have similar provisions in place,
allowing them to make best use of it and allowing efficient delivery,
as in the provisions set out for London in the case of Crossrail. With
that reassurance,
and the Minister’s saying that he will look at the provisions
again if necessary, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
3 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
4Conditions
for imposing a
BRS Amendment
proposed: No. 25, in clause 4, page 3, line 21, leave
out from beginning to second ‘ballot’ and insert
‘a’.—(Robert
Neill.) Question
put, That the amendment be
made:— The
Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes
8.
Division
No.
3] Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 4
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
5Prospectus
Dan
Rogerson: I beg to move amendment 8, in
clause 5, page 3, line 35, after
‘office’, insert ‘, and the
principal offices of any relevant billing
authority,’. It
may seem a minor point, but although we have had discussions about
London and particular circumstances that pertain there, certain
circumstances pertain to rural potential levying authorities as well,
given the great distances involved. The provision in clause 5, as it
stands, sensibly says that a prospectus should be available on the
internet and copies should be available for inspection at the principal
office of the levying authority. That may be a problem in two-tier
authorities—it may well be in London—where the levying
authority is a body at some distance from people. Those people may be
involved in a lengthy, sometimes difficult journey in order to go and
inspect the prospectus, if they do not have the ability to look at it
on the web or if they would prefer to see a hard copy and ask questions
of the relevant officer when they are consulting
it. The
point of my amendment 8 is that the principal offices of the relevant
billing authority should also be in possession of those documents for
people to inspect, so that those living at some distance from county
hall, for example, in a large rural county, where there may not be
particularly regular or frequent public transport, have the opportunity
to consult the documents. The prospectus concerns everybody, so
although the business community will naturally want to have a look,
council tax payers
too, for example, might want to view the prospectus and contribute to
the general consultation. It is important, therefore, that people
living in the area covered by the levying authority have the maximum
opportunity to inspect the prospectus. It seems sensible, therefore, to
extend the provision of the relevant documents to the offices of
billing authorities as well as to those of the levying
authorities. 12.45
pm
Robert
Neill: The hon. Gentleman raises a fair
point.
Mr.
Binley: I am also concerned about this matter. I have
already drawn attention to what I consider to be the weakness in the
ability of local authorities to consult properly. Part of that weakness
lies not only in the document produced for consultation but in the
ability to make people aware of such documents. That affects the entire
prospectus issue. Will the Minister consider ways to notify the public
of what is going on in the first place, so that they can visit sites
where the prospectus might be available? Will he also consider
increasing the number of those sites? In rural areas, in particular,
finding out about such matters in the first place is a serious problem,
not to mention getting to the place where the information can be
obtained. In particular, some elderly business people might not be
quite up to using the internet in ways that we might
expect.
Mr.
Khan: The hon. Member for North Cornwall introduced his
amendment by saying that it was a minor one, but it is not, for three
principal reasons: first, because it gives me the opportunity to
welcome you, Mr. Atkinson, and to say what a pleasure it is
to serve under your chairmanship; secondly, because it allows me to
make my maiden voyage in my new role, which it is a pleasure to have;
and thirdly because it gives me the chance to introduce a series of
clauses that set out in more detail some of the requirements contained
in clause 4, which we have not yet had a chance to
discuss. Amendment
No. 8 would require hard copies of the prospectus to be made available
at the principal offices of the billing authority as well as the
authority proposed in the supplement. We are keen to ensure that
prospectuses are easily accessible during the consultation, which is
why we have required hard copies to be made available at the principal
offices of the levying authority and why electronic copies will need to
be available on that authority’s website. I accept the need for
accessibility, but that need should be balanced with the additional
costs that we expect authorities to meet when proposing a supplement.
Authorities will not be able to recoup the costs of producing and
publishing a prospectus through the BRS—not that anyone is
suggesting that they should. We need to show some restraint, therefore,
in the requirements that we place on authorities.
Nothing is
preventing a good local authority, especially in a rural part of the
country, from doing the very sensible things suggested by the hon.
Members for North Cornwall and for Northampton, South. The latter made
a very good point: we must not all assume that everyone is computer
literate and has access to the web. We expect local authorities to take
note of their points. They know their areas better than we in Whitehall
do. Committee members, whichever side of the Committee
they sit, do not want us in Whitehall to impose burdens on local
authorities when elected councillors know their communities far better
than we
do. We
are trying to set out an approach that strikes the right balance to
ensure that prospectuses are widely available while keeping costs
minimal. Requiring billing authorities to make copies of the prospectus
available at the principal offices, which the amendment would do, would
increase costs and be prescriptive, but would not necessarily result in
a significant improvement in availability. Making copies available in
the principal offices of the lower-tier authorities could lead to
confusion for ratepayers, who might not realise that the upper-tier
authority—the levying authority—is responsible for the
project. That is a big concern for the Committee. For that reason, I
urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment, which is by no means
a minor one.
| 
