Dan
Rogerson: I am somewhat mystified by the argument that the
Minister is seeking to make. For potentially multi-million pound
projects, we are talking about a bit of photocopying and the provision
of a prospectus. His right hon. Friend the Minister for Local
Government will be well aware that the situation in my local area is
about to change. At present we have six district authorities, which
would be billing authorities, and Cornwall county council, which as the
top tier would be the levying authority if the provisions were enacted.
Providing six copies of the relevant information to bring it that much
closer in a very rural authority such as Cornwall—I use it as an
example because it is the one that I know best—would make a
difference. I
accept, of course, that local authorities may choose to provide that
information elsewhere, but the business community, local taxpayers and
so on are used to the billing authority being the authority with which
they interact when paying their bills and having any queries
answered.
Mr.
Khan: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that what we envisage
and what his example demonstrates is a conversation between businesses
and key stakeholders? His point about rural parts of the country
relates to our hope that stakeholders will join the conversation. Some
people call that consultation; some call it partnership. During the
course of that discussion and consultation, we would expect such points
to be made. We expect that good local authorities, such as the one that
he is fortunate to have in his constituency, would respect the views of
key stakeholders and ensure that copies were available, but does he
believe that we in Whitehall should impose that throughout the
country?
Dan
Rogerson: Absolutely, just as I believe that we should
impose a ballot, at the risk of being out of order. The provisions are
crucial to ensuring that adequate safeguards are in place so that
people have the opportunity to interact. The Minister rightly points
out that there will be a consultation process, which is to be welcomed.
Were I proposing that every business should be sent a copy of the
prospectus, I might agree that that would be burdensome to the local
authorities involved. However, to say that a copy should be available
nearby at the local authority office for consultation is not
particularly burdensome.
I
did not anticipate pressing the amendment to a vote, because I thought
that the Government might graciously give way and accept that it was a
beneficial provision that would improve the Bill. However, having heard
the Minister’s argument and not being convinced by it, I must
press it to a vote.
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:— The
Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes
8.
Division
No.
4] Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 5
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
1Information
to be included in a prospectus for a
BRS
Robert
Neill: I beg to move amendment 35, in
schedule 1, page 22, line 16, at
end insert— ‘11A A description of the
arrangement by which persons paying the BRS shall be represented upon
the governing body of any organisation set up for the purpose of
delivering the objectives of the BRS, or if, such organisation is not
to be set up, how such persons are to be involved in the oversight of
the delivery of those
objectives.’. We
come to another measure about which concerns were raised by the
witnesses from the business community who gave oral and written
evidence. We have sought to strengthen the involvement of business,
something that the Ministers have said they desire. I hope that we can
broach it in a constructive spirit.
In response
to an earlier question, the Minister said he hoped that a dialogue
would go on in the drawing up of the BRS schemes. I do not dispute it;
I also hope that that is the case, but we think that it needs to go a
stage further. As well as dialogue beforehand, there needs to be an
ongoing dialogue about the implementation and outworking of the scheme.
If businesses are contributing, in varying degrees, it is important
that they do not lose control once something is signed off and is up
and running. I suspect that it will be in everyone’s interests
to have ongoing business involvement.
The
Government’s proposals talk in terms of the national project
panel in the drawing-up and creation phase. Obviously, it is not
practical to have that in the implementation phase, but I hope that it
might be possible to ensure that there is business involvement in
implementation, as businesses have skills and experience that they
could bring to bear to ensure that the BRS is rolled out in the most
cost-effective and efficient manner. They would then have a stake in
it, and would be able to
supplement the skills that local authority and other public bodies have
in that regard, thereby making for collaboration. In some
cases, the local authority will propose to deliver the scheme itself,
but in others it might be necessary to set up a special purpose vehicle
to deliver the scheme, particularly if there is an infrastructure
project. Such a vehicle might have a board of directors or some other
governing body; its nature could vary according to the legal status of
the organisation set up to deliver the purpose, or the SPV. We seek a
mechanism whereby business would be represented on and involved in that
governing body, or controlling mind, in relation to delivery as well as
planning. It seems logical to achieve the sort of partnership and
collaboration that I accept Ministers want. That is the
background. We
hope that the amendment would be a constructive addition to the Bill.
It would not only reinforce business confidence, but bring practical
benefits to both business and the broader community, including council
tax payers, by ensuring that there was efficient outturn for the
project, which will have been given the
go-ahead.
Dan
Rogerson: I am sympathetic to what is set out in the hon.
Gentleman’s amendment. We have heard at some length how
successful the BIDs model has been, around the country, at delivering
extra investment in a very localised area. In addition to the ballot
issue, which we have addressed, part of that model concerns the ongoing
engagement and involvement of all the funding partners in delivering
the scheme, so that they have confidence that it is being delivered in
accordance with what was originally set out, and so that any slight
variations, or reports on how things are proceeding, are part of
engagement in line with previous consultation.
I am
sympathetic to the idea that a similar case could be made for having
greater involvement in the delivery of a project that a BRS would fund.
We have previously debated, or at least discussed, the fact that we do
not have the tradition of having a core, uniform business rate for
local authorities, but this issue is over and above that. Business is
being asked to contribute, and it is important to have some reassurance
that business will be heard and that we will get the benefit of
business experience. In delivering projects of this kind, it would
undoubtedly be beneficial if local businesses that are strongly engaged
with economic activity had such
opportunities.
Lorely
Burt (Solihull) (LD): Does my hon. Friend agree that there
is also a concept of natural democratic justice in the proposal, which
would involve and use the expertise of local business, thereby gaining
commitment? Given that local business is being required to make an
economic contribution, surely it should have a say in the running of
the project and how it
proceeds.
Dan
Rogerson: My hon. Friend has made her point very well. Her
experience of business is no doubt reflected in her
contribution. 1
pm The
Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order
No.
88). Adjourned
till this day at Four
o’clock.
|
