Robert
Neill: Again, I have much sympathy with the hon.
Gentleman’s argument. I hope that the circumstances where the
provision needs to be used will not arise. It is needed as a long-stop,
but I am sure that local authorities will seek to act in a way which
does not give rise to the need to use it.
I do not have
a problem with the concept, although I note that the Local Government
Association expressed reservations about the clause. I apologise to
you, Mrs. Dean, for breaking my word—I said that I
was not going to mention ballots again—but in the absence of a
ballot, it seems that there is a need for that sort of long-stop for
that eventuality. The LGA makes a fair point. I hope that the
association is right. It has repeatedly stated that it cannot envisage
a BRS-funded project going through without the full agreement of the
business community. There is, dare I say it, one simple way to ensure
that. As such a provision is not there, the clause is necessary;
equally, however, it is important to have that reassurance that in the
event of its being terminated, there will be a guaranteed refund to
those who have
contributed.
Mr.
Binley: I shall seek a little leeway here and simply ask
whether my hon. Friend feels that this is a particularly good reason
for at least allowing the ratepayers in areas affected by such projects
to be involved every year to do some of the scrutiny that we are
talking
about.
Robert
Neill: My hon. Friend makes a characteristically well
judged and helpful point. He is right. We discussed the need for
ongoing involvement in the rolling out of the project and its
implementation in an earlier sitting, and Ministers were sympathetic to
our argument. I am sure that they will take it on board. My hon. Friend
reinforces the point that he made forcefully in our earlier debate. For
all those reasons, I believe the amendment has merit. I agree with the
hon. Member for North Cornwall that there may be different approaches
to the wording, but the most important point is that Ministers should
take away the idea and give us a
commitment.
Mr.
Raynsford: I understand the reason for having the
safeguard in the Bill, but I am a little concerned about the risk of
its being used by a dissident group who, let us say, lost a ballot on a
BRS and wanted to scupper the whole venture by maliciously appealing to
central Government to stop it. The terms of subsection
(2) —which deal with cases in which there might have
been a breach of undertakings, or, at least, the levying authority is
alleged to have acted inconsistently with the information
provided—include more than the prospectus, which is mentioned in
paragraph (a) and which one would expect to be entirely accurate, and
formal variations to the prospectus, mentioned in paragraph (b).
Subsection (c) refers to information
provided “in
the course of consultation on the
proposal”. I
have been to many consultations undertaken by local authorities on
various matters, and one hears things said by council officers or by
councillors in the heat of debate which might not be an entirely
accurate description of what the process will deliver. I am nervous
that someone who maliciously wanted to scupper a BRS could use an
inconsistency between something said
“in the course
of
consultation” by
a relevant council officer and the implementation of the BRS
proposition in an attempt to invoke the power to cancel. That, of
course, would mean that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local
Government would have to deal with people pestering him to use the
power to stop the whole thing going ahead. I can see a potential
risk.
Dan
Rogerson: I am not entirely clear whether the right hon.
Gentleman is addressing his remarks to the amendment or to the wider
provisions of the clause. He may recall a previous debate about the
power to cancel being given to the Secretary of State or, in Wales, the
relevant authority. An amendment in my name sought to ensure that a
person would have to demonstrate, rather than merely have to think,
that there are significant problems, because there may be a change in
Government or different local issues, and if there were any coincidence
between the views of those who had opposed the ballot or imposition
locally and the views of the new Government, the Secretary of State
might on occasion use the power unfairly or precipitously. My earlier
amendment sought to strengthen the provision in that earlier clause
but, sadly, it was not accepted.
Mr.
Raynsford: I understand the purpose of the amendments. We
debated “can demonstrate” and “thinks” on
an earlier occasion, but I note that the hon. Gentleman’s
amendments would not remove not subsection (2)(c) from the clause, but
a series of paragraphs from subsection (3). It seems to me,
however, that subsection (2)(c) is the nub of the problem,
because it provides people who seek maliciously to frustrate a BRS with
considerable scope to use it to demonstrate that there is an
inconsistency between how the BRS is being implemented and its
prospectus or presentation.
I am not
entirely convinced by the amendments, but there is a problem, and I
hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government will
give some thought to it, because I should hate him and his colleagues
to spend a disproportionate amount of time having to fend off malicious
grumbles from disaffected parties who are on the losing side of a BRS
ballot.
John
Healey: I have to say to the hon. Member for North
Cornwall that we are not legislating with any change of Government in
mind, and, frankly, looking across the Committee Room, I must say that
it remains quite hard to envisage the prospect. With the clause, we are
trying to establish a principle and a significant power ultimately to
cancel a BRS, without being too rigid by prescribing in legislation how
we require—rather than empower—the Secretary of State to
respond in particular circumstances. Judgments will in the end require
tests of fact and tests of degree if they are to be made appropriately
in the circumstances.
I do follow
the hon. Gentleman’s general line of argument. He wants to
provide additional protection for business tax payers, but my right
hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, from a different
point of view, which demonstrates the value of the
debate, is concerned about creating too great a scope for certain groups
of taxpayers to use the provisions either to put pressure on the
Secretary of State or to frustrate the progress and the implementation
of a business rate supplement. Mr.
Binley: The point that the right hon. Member for Greenwich
and Woolwich makes is easily met by the Government simply saying that
the provision places on the creators and proposers of a project a
greater need for rigour, which is no bad thing in these circumstances.
10.25
am
The
Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put
(Standing Order No. 88).
Adjourned
till Tuesday 3 February at half-past Ten
o’clock.
| 
