 House of Commons |
Session 2008 - 09 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Business Rate Supplements |
Business Rate Supplements Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Alan Sandall, Gosia
McBride, Committee Clerks †
attended the Committee Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 27 January 2009(Afternoon)[Mr. Peter Atkinson in the Chair]Business Rate Supplements BillSchedule 1Information
to be included in a prospectus for a
BRS Amendment
proposed (this day): 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.’.—(Robert
Neill.) 4
pm Question
again proposed, That the amendment be
made. Dan
Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD): When we adjourned, I was
drawing to a close my remarks on the amendment tabled by the hon.
Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, regarding some body that would have
oversight and ensure that business had a role not just in supporting
the business rate supplement and, of course, funding it, but in
ensuring that the way in which the project was taken forward had the
benefit of business insight and
experience. Although
the proposal in the amendment would no doubt need a great deal of
refining regarding how such a body should work, who should be
represented and so on, it is helpful. I shall thus listen with interest
to the rest of the debate before deciding whether to support
it. Mr.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con): I support the amendment
tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, along
with myself and other Conservative Committee
members. During
the evidence sessions, I was struck by the fact that, at the outset,
the Minister indicated that he was keen to listen to representations
and willing to take on board those that appeared to make a positive
contribution to improve the Bill. It is in that context that I support
the
amendment. One
of the factors that has led to the success of business improvement
districts is the active engagement of those who are taxed in the
implementation of the measure for which the tax has been raised
locally. One of the major drawbacks of the Bill is that there is no
mechanism for the businesses that consent through ballot to be charged
in this way to have some involvement in the delivery of the project. It
is not just about those businesses being a voice on a decision-making
body. They also feel that they can help to ensure that the
project will be delivered on time and on budget.
That is what businesses do, or seek to do, day in, day out, when
managing their activities. That is also what the Government seek to do
when introducing measures—particularly large infrastructure
projects—although I regret to say that Governments of any hue
are not perhaps as successful in achieving the delivery of major
infrastructure projects on time and on
budget. It
would be interesting if the Minister could, from his ministerial
experience, mention any projects of such a scale that have come in on
time and on budget without the involvement of significant figures from
the business world to help push them through. That is not to cast
aspersions on the quality of either the ministerial team or its civil
servants, who are responsible for implementation, but the harsh fact is
that they are, by definition, less experienced in delivering major
projects than the private sector. That is why this matter is important
and why I am pleased that my hon. Friend has moved an amendment that
would enable consideration to be given to allowing business a voice at
the table and, thereby, allowing a role for them in ensuring the
delivery of the project. They do not need to take the lead role, but
their advice will be available if they have a seat at the table, and
one would hope that that would help achieve the objectives of the
levying authority that has succeeded in securing the
charge. Now
the Minister is in his place, I shall repeat what I said at the
beginning. He said graciously in the evidence sessions that he would be
willing to listen to representations made from outside bodies as well
as Opposition Committee members. I hope that he will take on board the
intent behind the amendment. Although it might not be as skilfully
drafted as he might wish—I am sure that my hon. Friend the
Member for Bromley and Chislehurst would accept revisions or
alternatives—we would like to hear the Minister’s
response to the intent behind the
proposal. Mr.
Brian Binley (Northampton, South) (Con): I support the
very important remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow,
who has had a distinguished business career and is well versed in the
work of business generally. I listened this morning to lots of argument
and many claims of intellectualism. I am a practical man, as most
business men tend to be, and that practicality is the very essence of
the need for business to be involved. We have enough intellectualism to
keep us going for many years—much of it sitting in this House.
One of the things that we lack in this place is a practical and
pragmatic approach to problems and the world of business generally. For
the Government to eschew the opportunity for practical business
involvement in any project that a local authority may wish to pursue
under the Bill seems to be looking a gift horse in the mouth and
refusing
it. I
have already made the point that previous Government projections, both
national and local, for sizeable infrastructure projects have been, in
most people’s eyes, deplorable. I do not wish to embarrass the
Government—this Government or previous ones, frankly—by
going through a list of projections that proved to be so way out on
their final total as to be embarrassing. We do not have to get started
on the process of the Olympics to any great extent to know that to be
the case. Crossrail saw sizeable increases in financial projections,
and I do not believe that we are at the end of the game yet. The
Government’s performance is decidedly poor in this area, yet
there is an opportunity now to involve business, which is considerably
more adept at the process. I hope that the Minister will accept the
arguments made by business itself to be involved in the process and
welcome the proposal with open
arms. This
Government have talked a great deal about open government and
transparency in government, yet they are now closing down the financial
and management aspects of a given project from the very people who will
be called on to pay quite a lot of money in support of that project,
even though the expertise in the business sector far outweighs the
expertise in that respect in government. This Government were
specifically concerned about scrutiny in local government. They
specifically made the point that there should be wider involvement in
scrutiny—involvement greater than that of the elected members
themselves—and provided the opportunity for other bodies to be
involved in the whole scrutiny process of local government, yet now the
Government are closing that down under the Bill. May I remind the
Minister that we are talking about the possibility of sizeable private
finance initiative projects linked to the tax? We have not explored
that in great
depth.
The
Chairman: Order. The Chair has to take a pragmatic view of
the hon. Gentleman’s speech and he is getting well out of order.
This debate is about the schedule on what goes into a
prospectus.
Mr.
Binley: With respect, Mr. Atkinson, I seek your
guidance. I thought that the debate was about amendment 35. I put it to
you with all the good manners that I can muster that my remarks are
relevant to the amendment. However, I will take your advice and wind
up—that is what you are saying to me in a gentle way.
To reiterate,
there are those with skills in the business sector who would be willing
to become involved in the scrutiny of such a project and to offer their
expertise, knowledge and experience. If I am offered cheap expertise at
that level of importance, I take it with alacrity, and I hope that the
Minister would
too.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government (Mr. Sadiq Khan): I take all offers
of cheap advice that I am given, and I take the hon. Gentleman’s
contribution with the good grace with which it was given. The hon.
Members for Northampton, South, for Ludlow, for Bromley and Chislehurst
and for North Cornwall all raised the same point in their contributions
on this amendment: we need to take on board the expertise in the
business sector. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local
Government said during previous sittings of this Committee, that is
clearly our intention.
The hon.
Member for Bromley and Chislehurst spoke about a process of dialogue,
partnership and collaboration. That is our intention as well. The
amendment, however, would limit local flexibility. I listened carefully
to the reasons why it was tabled. My concern, notwithstanding the
comments made, is that if we are not careful, we here in Whitehall and
Westminster will add further bureaucracy and prescription. That said,
we all know that there is a 12-week period of consultation on the draft
guidance. We will look at the comments made and, if need be, come back
to the measures.
We
in the Labour party believe in devolving power to local authorities. We
believe that the power to make decisions regarding areas should rest at
the spatial level that is best placed to know and understand the facts
at hand. My concern is that the amendment would require levying
authorities to set out expressly in their prospectus how they will
involve stakeholders in the delivery of BRS objectives. That implies
that levying authorities should set up a BRS governing board.
The Bill sets
out a flexible framework with safeguards within which local authorities
should operate to levy a BRS to fund a project aimed at economic
development. It already requires levying authorities to set out in
their prospectus how they will provide business with information about
progress on a BRS-funded project, notwithstanding the fact that we are
consulting on the draft guidance and will listen to the comments made
by
business. On
Second Reading and during the course of this Committee, we have
discussed that BRS may be used in many different ways to fund many
different projects. Each local authority—rural local authorities
and those in urban areas—will have developed in partnership with
local business a project and prospectus particular to its needs and
long-term
vision. Every
area is different and has different needs, different levels of
partnership, and different resources at its disposal. It is vital that
we provide local authorities with the flexibility to set up and tailor
their own governance procedures for projects, just as we expect
businesses to innovate rather than allowing central Government to
impose a way of governing their businesses. For example, a project
might be managed by a few key local businesses or by the services of an
outside contractor—I know that that is a particular concern of
the hon. Member for Northampton, South, who has mentioned the private
finance initiative on a couple of occasions—and each would
require a different method of governance.
I accept that
clear governance procedures that involve local business should be set
out, but the amendment goes further and would limit flexibility. We
should not bind the hands of local authorities and businesses in
managing their projects.
Robert
Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): I am grateful for
the spirit in which the Under-Secretary is responding. There might not
be a great deal between us in practice. I understand his concern that
we might reduce flexibility, but I ask him to consider that the wording
of the amendment, although not necessarily perfect—I am open to
suggestions—posits two situations. The first is that a special
purpose body or organisation is set up to deliver the BRS. The
prescription is that there should be some representation on the
governing body, whatever that may be. Secondly, to meet the point made
by the Under-Secretary, this can be done through an existing
organisation, contractors or whatever. If such an organisation was not
set up, a statement would have to be made in the prospectus on how
business was to be involved in the delivery. That would not tie hands
to such a degree, and I hoped that that might address his
point. 4.15
pm
Mr.
Khan: That intervention was really helpful. This is not
our last chance to amend the Bill—the House will have other
opportunities. I shall speak to officials, having
taken those comments on board. I understand the
tenor of the hon. Gentleman’s comments and those of his
colleagues and the hon. Member for North Cornwall. My right hon. Friend
the Minister for Local Government has said the same thing in different
words—as someone said, less illuminating. I shall consider the
point. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the hon. Member for
Bromley and Chislehurst to withdraw the
amendment.
Robert
Neill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that
response. I hope that we can pursue the matter in the way that he
suggests, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1
agreed
to.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2009 | Prepared 28 January 2009 |