| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I welcome Amendment No. 15, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, to address the difficult question of ensuring that moneys raised by the BID company are directed at extra services to those provided by a relevant authority. However, as I said in Committee there is a real difficulty in fixing a level of service, and assessing how a level of service can be sensibly measured and maintained over a number of years.
Amendment No. 15 provides that the "existing level of service" is the level of services which are provided at the time of an application for an election order. However, in its consideration of the BID application it is not clear how the local authority will ensure that improvements to be undertaken during the life of the BID company would be in addition to those that the local authority or other relevant authority would carry out.
I welcome the principles of Amendment No. 16 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. It goes some way to encourage local partnerships and ensure that improvement schemes are not duplicated. However, the amendment seems to place the BID applicant in a position of uncertainty as there is no timescale by which the exchanges of information between the local authority and other relevant authority must be completed.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I understand the points that the noble Baroness has made. I think it is possible in these sorts of cases to be altogether too prescriptive and, indeed, if you have a local authority which is in discussion with a BID applicant, I have no doubt that these are matters which can be dealt with.
If the relations have reached the point where strict timetables, and so on, are necessary, the suggestion I would make is that that does not provide a very good augury for a satisfactory partnership, but I think the clause as it stands is quite workable. I am grateful for the support that it has received, particularly from my noble friend on the Front Bench. I hope that the House
will be able to accept it. If, on further reflection, further changes would be necessary they no doubt can be introduced in another place.On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause--
(" .--(1) On receipt of an application for an election order made under section 2, the local authority shall send to any other relevant authority appearing to them to have an interest the name and address of the applicant and the particulars of the improvements proposed under the draft scheme.
(2) A relevant authority notified under subsection (1) above shall forthwith notify the local authority in writing--
(a) of any proposals for improvements which are the same as, or substantially the same as, the improvements proposed under the draft scheme, or
(b) that there are no such proposals.
(3) Before making an election order, the local authority shall inform the applicant in writing of any proposals notified to them under subsection (2) above or any proposals for improvements to be made by them which are the same as, or substantially the same as, the proposals in the draft scheme.
(4) To the extent that any proposed improvements of which the applicant has been informed under subsection (3) above are, in the opinion of the authority proposing the improvements, likely to have been made, or had work commenced on them, in the period specified by the applicant as the proposed duration of the business improvement district scheme, that authority shall forthwith--
(a) consider making such financial contribution to the cost of the improvements proposed under the draft scheme as is appropriate in the circumstances of the case; and
(b) following such consideration, notify the applicant of the decision in writing.
(5) Where the authority referred to in subsection (4) above are not the local authority to which the application for an election order was made, they shall forthwith notify that authority of the decision in writing.
(6) Where a local authority have notified any other relevant authority under subsection (1) above, no election order shall be made unless notification pursuant to subsection (5) above has been received by the local authority.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Formation and functions of BID company]:
Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 17:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I propose to discuss Amendments Nos. 24 and 25. Amendment No. 17 to Clause 11 prevents a BID company from being set up in such a way as to make it a company controlled by, or subject to, the local authority's influence. This term is defined in Part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.
The result, if a BID company were to be controlled or influenced, would be to treat the expenditure of the BID company as though it were the local authority's. This would result in a substantial constraint on the BID company and plainly affect the expenditure plans of the
The consequence of the amendment is that local authority participation in a BID company board will be limited. However, that does not preclude the involvement of local authorities and existing partnership arrangements under town centre management schemes. In fact, they often mirror the minority interest which is required to avoid the operation of Part V. The point is independent of whether the expenditure is general public expenditure.
The new clause after Clause 29 takes account of the fact that "local authority" as defined in the Bill is not the same as for the purpose of Part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 which was referred to in Clause 11, as amended. The amendment to Clause 30 is a consequence of defining "local authority" separately in the new clause following Clause 29.
These complicated different definitions appear to be necessary because one is having to make use of existing local government legislation which has been drawn up with a variety of different purposes in mind. Nevertheless, I hope that the amendment is clear and workable and I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I support the intention of Amendment No. 17 to ensure that the BID company is not controlled by or under the influence of the local authority. Perhaps the noble Lord may wish to consider whether the clause will meet its aims at all times, in particular after the company has been launched.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I agree to take note of that important point.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 18:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, a point of accountability was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, in Committee. The amendment is designed to enhance the accountability of the BID company to the chargepayers. The effect of the amendment is to require the company to have regard to the interests of all scheme chargepayers in implementing the scheme. Clause 30 contains a definition of scheme chargepayers. I hope that that goes some way toward meeting the Minister's concerns. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am pleased that this amendment makes it clear that the BID company should, in carrying out its work, have regard to the interests of the scheme chargepayers. However, noble Lords may wish to consider whether this provides sufficient accountability to the chargepayers. I fear that
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, we have given careful consideration to whether the measure should go further. I remind the House that we are dealing with a company which will be subject to all the provisions of the companies Acts. Those Acts provide elaborate procedures for making the company and its management accountable to the shareholders and to a growing number of stakeholders. On reflection, the amendment which I have moved, and which the noble Baroness has welcomed, adds sufficient to the statutory accountability which already exists to make any further amendment to the Bill unnecessary. I hope that on reflection the Minister will recognise that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Business improvement district charge]:
Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 6, line 3, at end insert--
("( ) No BID company shall be formed or constituted in such a way as to be a company controlled by, or subject to, the influence of a local authority within the meaning of Part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (companies in which local authorities have interests).").
Page 6, line 9, at end insert--
("( ) A BID company shall, in discharging its functions, have regard to the interests of scheme chargepayers.").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page