Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman does not have to intervene yet.

Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West, Conservative)

Well, I do actually, because in addressing clause 43 the Minister failed to answer the question about the involvement of the local authority, about which I asked him specifically. That is as pertinent a question under clause 44 as it was under clause 43. He also did not answer the question that I put to him about how two local authorities would fit into this mechanism and about the problem of accountability to their electors. The key issue crystallised by clause 44 concerns the impact that the local authority will have on the ongoing BID project. We shall come to the local authority's involvement in the collection of revenues and the voting for the BID's establishment, but we are unclear about how the local authority will fit into the ongoing management of the BID over the five-year cycle. That will be exacerbated

by two authorities having to work together in the process. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be a little more forthcoming in the stand part debate on clause 44 than he was in the clause 43 stand part debate, when he avoided mentioning it altogether.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

It may help my hon. Friend if I quote page 13 of the draft guidance, which the Liberal Democrats helpfully gave me. I suspect that it did not reach me before because I was not on the Committee at the beginning when the documents were circulated. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton for letting me have a copy. On page 13 on the role of local authorities, which is relevant to the joint arrangements under clause 44, it says:

''Local authorities must likewise be motivated to become involved in a BID. A local authority will look to business to provide a plan for improvements which will fit in with existing objectives for local improvements. They will also wish to ensure that these plans are of benefit to the wider community, including residents in the local area, and in order to take the BID to a vote, will need to be convinced that there is sufficient business support in the area to make the BID a success. Any beneficial outcomes that result from a BID are likely to increase the popularity of the Local Authority in the area.''

That is not necessarily the case, as certain schemes will benefit businesses but not an area's residents. For example, bright floodlighting for 24 hours may be to the detriment of residents. My hon. Friend's question is highly pertinent. The local authority, as guardian of local residents, must consult to discover what the residents want, as opposed to what businesses want, to ensure that there is no such conflict. Will the Minister give the Committee some idea of what honest brokering role the local authority will play after the schemes are drawn up?

Mr. Todd rose—

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman, as he is scoffing and I think that he has the wrong end of the stick.

Mr Mark Todd (South Derbyshire, Labour)

I hesitantly thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I do not think that the Bill proposes that planning law should be set aside in BID areas, so 24-hour floodlighting that could have a detrimental effect on residents is unlikely to be passed in a planning application. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can think of more sensible examples than that.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman could think of dozens of them, but I happened to pick that example out of my head to illustrate a point. The hon. Gentleman is nitpicking again. He got the wrong idea about consultations between tenants and landlords, which proved that he does not know anything about property ownership. He may be closer to the mark on this one, but it is incumbent on the Minister to explain to the Committee how the local authority will act to protect residents, who, after all, will not pay for the schemes or vote on them. Indeed, how will the schemes get off the ground? What role will the local authority play in getting them off the ground and ensuring that they are implemented properly and continue to be a success?

Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)

Clause 44 enables two or more billing authorities to make arrangements for a single business improvement district covering all or part of the area of each authority. The clause is intended to allow business improvement districts to span two or more local authorities. The hon. Members for New Forest, West and for Cotswold were not content with my answer in the clause 43 stand part debate and concocted several questions about the role of the local authority and level of accountability for local residents living in a business improvement district.

I have already explained that the local authority has an ingrained role in the proposition of a business improvement district from the outset, insofar as it has a responsibility for the collection of the levy and, if it is part of the BID arrangements, the management of some services. The local authority also has a reserve power, which we will discuss later, to veto proposals when it can demonstrate that the proposal might conflict with the locally adopted plans or other formally adopted council policies, such as the community strategy. Crucially, detailed proposals must be set out, including on the amount of the levy, at the outset of the scheme before the vote, after which the authority would have the opportunity to veto the scheme. Therefore, the authority has the formal opportunity properly to scrutinise the impact of the BID on the residents who live within that area.

The hon. Member for Cotswold made the point that a local authority could provide protection on floodlighting, at least through the local planning authority. He says that he can think of other examples. I cannot, and I believe that there is a sufficiently balanced role for a local authority in the work of the BID arrangements.

Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West, Conservative)

I accept that the Under-Secretary is in a difficult position, as the arrangements are speculative. Is it fair to add a proviso to the clause by saying, ''We really haven't any idea what form these arrangements will take, but the Secretary of State will have the power to make regulations to govern them once we have thought them through''? That, in essence, is what the clause says.

Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)

I am not sure to which subsections the hon. Gentleman is referring, but I shall certainly examine those issues more closely. The clause simply relates to joint arrangements between councils, which they can cover over a boundary for a single BID. In principle, that does not affect their role in the inception of the BID or their ability to veto those proposals. That gives the local authority ample opportunity to be

involved, not necessarily in the day-to-day running of the BID, unless that was part of the proposal to be put before the ratepayers, but with a sufficiently light touch. I hope that the clause will stand part of the Bill.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

The Under-Secretary clearly does not know his own guidance, which he should know backwards. Page 15 states:

''The local community should also be involved in devising a strategy for the revitalisation of the BID area. This can perhaps be done through consulting local community groups or by asking a member of the group to sit on the board of a BID. Through creating a shared vision for an area, which includes the needs of its residents, civic pride can be restored and the existing community can be strengthened. BIDs provide local solutions to local problems.''

Before I decide whether to persuade my colleagues to vote for the clause, I shall make one last vain attempt to ask the Under-Secretary what role the local authority will have in protecting the local community as opposed to the business community.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 4.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths. Before we suspend, can the Minister tell us whether, at the opening sitting on Thursday, we will be able to amend the Fire Services Act 1947? We may need time to table counter-amendments, and we do not want them to be starred when we come to debate them.

Mr Win Griffiths (Bridgend, Labour)

Order. I am sure that the Minister has heard that point.

Mr Phil Woolas (Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

I can confirm that the matter is in hand.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Five o'clock till Thursday 6 February at five minutes to Nine o'clock.