Clause 52 - Approval in ballot
Local Government Bill
Public Bill Committees, 6 February 2003, 10:15 am
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 114, in
clause 52, page 21, line 34, leave out 'two' and insert 'four'.
Mr Win Griffiths (Bridgend, Labour)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 101, in
clause 52, page 21, line 34, leave out from 'unless' to 'a majority' in line 35.
No. 74, in
clause 52, page 21, line 36, at end insert—
'(2A) For the purposes of the first condition no person shall be entitled to more than one vote.'.
No. 102, in
clause 52, page 21, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 22.
No. 100, in
clause 52, page 21, line 41, at end insert—
'(5A) The third condition is that at least 25 per cent. of those eligible to vote shall have voted in favour of the BID proposals.'.
No. 115, in
clause 52, page 21, line 41, at end insert—
'(5B) The fourth condition is that C exceeds 25 per cent. of D.
(5C) C is the aggregate of the rateable values of each heraditament in respect of which a person voting in the ballot has voted in favour of the BID proposals.
(5D) D is the aggregate of the rateable values of all heraditaments in respect of which a person is liable for the proposed BID levy.'.
No. 117, in
clause 56, page 23, line 17, leave out 'two' and insert 'four'.
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
This is a large group of amendments. We now come to the interesting subject of ballots. I suspect that we will have to rehearse the arguments that we had in relation to the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill all over again. I make no excuse for that. If people are to go to the trouble of having a ballot, it should have legitimacy. After all, that is what democracy is all about. Amendment No. 114 is intended to facilitate the other amendments in the group. I will not speak to the two amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bedford, because I am sure that he will do that very adequately himself. I will simply speak to my amendments.
When I read amendment No. 74 late last night, I wondered why I had tabled it. I think that it is intended to probe and ascertain what happens when somebody occupies more than one premises. Will they be allowed more than one vote? That is a pretty simple and straightforward question.
Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)
May I help the hon. Gentleman? I believe that the amendment was tabled after both his amendments and my own relating to putting property owners into a BID in the Bill. If that were done, amendment No. 74 would ensure that some property owners did not have more than one vote in relation to the first condition.
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
I am not sure whether that was intended to be helpful or mischievous—probably a touch of both. Nevertheless, having dealt with amendment No. 74—
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
May I help the hon. Gentleman?
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
No, I shall not give way to the Under-Secretary, and I do not need any further help; I have had enough mischievous help. There is still a valid point about whether someone is entitled to more than one vote. The Under-Secretary needs to give the Committee some guidance on that.
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
We now come to the meat in the group of amendments. Amendment No. 100 would mean that there was a third condition. The first two conditions in the Bill are quite clear. The first condition
''is that a majority of the persons voting in the ballot have voted in favour of the BID proposals.''
That is perfectly straightforward. The second condition is that the total rateable value of those who vote in favour of the proposals must exceed that of those who do not. In the interests of probing a way through the clause, may I ask the Under-Secretary, on the calculation of the rateable values, whether one especially large occupier of a building, with a rateable value exceeding those of all the other voters, would be able to veto the whole scheme?
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
As I read the Bill, and when I probe the matter by reducing the argument ad absurdum, that would be the case.
Amendment No. 100 is the minimalist provision, and would introduce a threshold. One can argue about the size of that threshold. Reading the Hansard reports
of the rather long debates that we had on that subject in the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill—
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is encouraging me to have a long debate on the subject. He is shaking his head. I am pleased to hear that.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)
So are we.
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
We can argue about the size of the threshold, but having been through this course before, we think that 25 per cent. is reasonable. Again, to take the argument ad absurdum, we could find that 26 per cent. of the people voted, 25 per cent. being against and 1 per cent. in favour, and, under our suggestion, the proposal would still succeed. However, we would probably have up to 50 per cent. voting, of whom half would have to vote in favour.
Unless at least a quarter of the people are in favour of such proposals, I feel that they should not succeed. One could argue about the threshold; there were different thresholds in the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and Scottish legislation. The threshold for Scotland was 40 per cent. and for Greater London 25 per cent., so when 25.5 per cent. voted in favour, the threshold was just met. The core theme of amendment No. 100 is that there should be a threshold. I am not saying that 25 per cent. is necessarily right, but to take the argument ad absurdum again, let us suppose that just one person voted in favour of the proposals and the others did not vote. The Under-Secretary adduced a long argument to persuade us that abstentions were in effect votes against. In case he adduces that argument today, I should explain that in the example that I gave, 99 per cent. could be against and 1 per cent. in favour, but that 1 per cent., under the Bill's terms, would carry the day and the scheme would succeed.
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
If at the next general election, when the hon. Gentleman submits himself to the good people of Cotswold, all the electors abstain save one, and that one—himself, presumably—votes for him, will he refuse to serve as the Member of Parliament for Cotswold?
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
I am pleased to say that I have a unique feature: I am the only Conservative Member of Parliament who has increased his majority successively in the last three elections. I do not know whether the good people of Cotswold will continue that wonderful trend or not, but I hope, subject to their wishes, to be here for a long time to come. The Under-Secretary is very young, so I am not sure whether I will outlive him, but I intend to be here a long time—as I am sure does he. [Interruption.] I did not catch that remark made from a sedentary position. Does the Minister for Local Government and the Regions wish to intervene?
Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)
I was simply observing that, according to the logic of his recent observation, the hon. Gentleman can probably look forward to being the leader of the rump Conservative party after two further elections.
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
The Minister's suggestion is totally misconceived. It will not be a rump party at all. The longevity of his Government might not be quite as great as he thinks. We shall have to wait and see what the British people say about that.
Mr Win Griffiths (Bridgend, Labour)
Order. Will the hon. Gentleman speak specifically to the amendment?
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
Yes, Mr. Griffiths. I was being tempted down a path that was all to do with elections.
If the Under-Secretary is going to adduce the argument that abstentions are in effect no votes, if just one person voted and was in favour, under the ballot as proposed in the Bill, even if 99 per cent. of the people were against, according to his argument, the whole thing would still go ahead. That points to the absurdity of not having some form of threshold built into the ballot.
Mr David Lepper (Brighton, Pavilion, Labour/Co-operative)
Has the hon. Gentleman read page 10 of the guidance notes, which have been referred to quite frequently during the debate? It states:
''Notice of the ballot must be given to all ratepayers qualified to vote on a BID, at least 56 days in advance.''
That will be preceded by a fairly extensive period of debate—locally, I would imagine—involving all of those eligible to vote, about the pros and cons of establishing a BID. With the guidance to which I referred, and the likelihood of a long local debate, the turnout in such a ballot is likely to be far higher than he has suggested. Undoubtedly, those who do not wish to see the BID established will vote against it, rather than abstain.
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
The hon. Gentleman might have a magic wand, but in the real world there is no such thing. One can encourage people to vote, but that does not mean that they actually will. One can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
My hon. Friend says ''very profound''. Sometimes, in order to get a point across to some people, a point has to be made in a profound way—or a less profound way—according to the level of whomever one is trying to make the point to. I must not go too far down that road.
The argument has been reduced to the absurdity of the scheme being carried even if only one person voted. We are finding in democracies that the turnout is dropping and dropping. Every politician and everyone who takes part in the democratic process should be acutely worried about turnouts. If turnouts are dropping and dropping, elected bodies do not have a democratic mandate or legitimacy. The same thing applies under the BID procedure. I am not saying what the percentage should be, but a figure of 1 per cent., 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. would be unacceptable. I put it to the Committee that anything less than 25 per cent. would be unacceptable; the BID would not have proper legitimacy in the eyes of the businesses and other partners involved.
Mr Patrick Hall (Bedford, Labour)
Thresholds are a difficult matter of judgment. Would the hon. Gentleman agree that, generally speaking, the Conservative party claims to understand business, and claims to be its voice in Parliament? Why is the hon. Gentleman not putting forward the suggestion of the Federation of Small Businesses, which says that the threshold for turnout should be 75 per cent., not 25 per cent.?
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
I do not speak for the Federation of Small Businesses. I try to take a rational and reasonable approach. The figure of 75 per cent. probably arises from the fact that the Federation of Small Businesses is worried about the additional burdens and costs that BIDs will impose on small businesses. I think that it has a legitimate point of view, which the Government should take cognisance of in drawing up the proposals. The fact that the Minister dismisses so lightly the failure to supply proper estimates or financial information shows that there is no proper understanding of the difficult circumstances that some small businesses face. That is particularly true for one, two or three-man businesses, which work huge numbers of hours a day to keep the business going.
Such businesses already have to deal with matters such as VAT and tax. Now another administrative burden is piled on top of a whole range of bureaucratic burdens that the Government have already piled on top of them. A letter will come flying through the post about BIDs, which they have never heard about. They do not know what the system is, or what is involved. That is another thing that they will have to get to grips with. Surely we in the Committee must come up with something that is easily understood and easily computed into a business plan so that a business man can decide whether the scheme will benefit his business or the wider area. He can then start to make some relatively easy judgments. If the system is to have democratic legitimacy, the Government should seriously consider whether there should not be a threshold in the ballot.
The fourth condition would, on the basis of rateable value, safeguard the majority of those who vote in favour of the BID. Again, one could argue about what the figure should be. If one were being realistic about it—I read the guidance and considered the matter very late last night—the figure of 25 per cent. in amendment No. 115 is probably too high. It should, perhaps, be nearer 10 or 15 per cent. However, there should be some threshold for the aggregate of the rateable values. Amendment No. 117 would safeguard the position by allowing the third and fourth options.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Bedford will speak ably to his amendments Nos. 101 and 102, but he is on to something. A simple majority should be built into the system, as he suggests in amendment No. 101. I am not sure what he hopes to achieve by deleting the third line of subsection (6). He may be trying to eliminate any ratepayers' veto. That would be unfair, because the ratepayers will have to pay for the BIDs. If the scheme is to have legitimacy, the aggregate of the value of the ratepayers who vote for it should exceed the aggregate of the value of those who vote against it. We are not concerned simply with numbers in the
ballots. The Government recognised that by including the B option, and it would be a retrograde step to take it out.
Mr Patrick Hall (Bedford, Labour)
My amendments have not yet attracted massive support, as can be seen from the amendment paper, but I would like to explain why they should. Before I do so, I wish to comment on the Conservatives' approach. It is clear that they really do not support BIDs. In fact, on Second Reading, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) did not have a good thing to say about them.
Some Conservative Members support BIDs, or at least say that they do, but come up with nothing but obstructions and objections, as we have seen in the Committee. That is quite different from probing in order to make something work. I suspect that their opposition is intended to prevent the scheme getting off the ground.
The various obstacles and difficulties should be minimised to make the scheme as clear and simple as possible. My amendments would provide a single simple test. It would be good enough for local council and general elections and would be understood by everyone—the simple ballot.
The purpose of my amendment is to remove the dual key mechanism, to which the hon. Member for Cotswold referred, to allow a decision as to whether a BID scheme proceeds that is dependent solely upon a majority yes or no vote. I shall refer to page 10 of the helpful and widely read draft guidance. The entire Committee finds the principle of setting down draft guidance in Committee extremely helpful, provided one is sent the document, and provided one attempts to read it.
Page 10 reads:
''A successful ballot will have to meet two tests. Firstly, a simple majority of those voting in the ballot must vote in favour. Secondly, those voting in favour must represent a majority by rateable value of the hereditaments (rateable properties) of those voting. This 'dual key' mechanism is intended to ensure that a small number of large businesses cannot force through a measure that small businesses do not support''.
Therefore, it is the end of the matter if there is a no vote. The second test kicks in only if there is a yes vote. The returning officer will have to go through the potentially complicated process of adding up the rateable values of all business ratepayers who have voted. It is then possible that if the total value of those voting no exceeds those voting yes, the scheme will be stopped. That is the only way in which the dual key mechanism would have an impact. It creates the possibility of the losers in a ballot winning after all.
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not wish to mislead the Committee, but he omitted the words ''and vice versa'' at the end of the paragraph from which he quoted. Those words are important; otherwise a small number of large businesses could enforce the scheme on a larger number of small businesses.
Mr Patrick Hall (Bedford, Labour)
It could not—[Interruption.] I have read the guidance, possibly more than the hon. Member for
Cotswold has. However, we have already established that that was not his fault because he was not sent a copy. When he did receive one, he lost it. I should like to offer my copy to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton—[Interruption.] Oh, he already has one.
The logic must be followed. A small number of large businesses cannot force through anything because they would fail the first test—they would not win the ballot. Small numbers of anything cannot win ballots because the larger numbers will have voted no. It is only applicable when a small number of businesses have lost and the total of the rateable value exceeds that of the winners.
I have consulted the Bedford Town Centre company on the issue. It is delighted at being one of those selected to be a pilot BID project. I am also delighted at the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion, together with the Association of Town Centre Management, has put into ensuring that the scheme is likely to be a success. There is a great deal of enthusiasm in Bedford in preparing the business plan, which involves all the partners. All 430 business units in the town centre that have been identified will be consulted and urged to contribute. I understand that around 250 of those business units are small businesses. Therefore, the small businesses have the protection of having the numbers if they want to deploy them. The rateable value of those town centre properties, according to the valuation register and the Land Registry in 2002, is approximately £28 million. One property, the BT exchange, is valued at £9 million, which is one third of the total. Were that property to be included in a BID scheme, it would carry a disproportionate weight if its owners were against the BID scheme. That cannot be right, and that is the danger of the dual key mechanism.
I know that the guidance points out that several variations are possible in BID schemes—it is up to the people who draw them up.
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
How many people does the British Telecom building employ compared with the total number of employees in the other businesses?
Mr Patrick Hall (Bedford, Labour)
I do not have that information, although I am not sure how relevant the point is.
BID schemes can include all sorts of variations and decisions about including or excluding certain sectors or types of trade. Some schemes may include exemptions from the levy or, indeed, apply reduced levels of levy. The greater the opportunity for complication, however, the greater the chance that things will go wrong. I would like my hon. Friend the Minister at least to acknowledge that we must keep things straightforward and simple. The dual key—the rateable value test—is a potential source of complication and is unnecessary. That is the reason for my probing amendments.
I very much support the BID concept, because it has great potential and could yield great benefits for business and town-centre users. Nothing should divert time and energy from work on business plans. The business community should be involved, because its
enthusiasm is essential to making plans work. Schemes will require months to pull all those positive efforts together, and there will be great disappointment and cynicism if they gain a majority of votes, yet fall on the rateable value test. Why risk that?
My hon. Friend the Minister may well say that the Bedford scheme could be drawn in a way that excluded the British Telecom exchange, and maybe it could—there are all sorts of possibilities. However, we should minimise the chances of things becoming complicated and people misunderstanding. We should in no way distort the image of the great benefit that the Bill is making available to our town centres and communities. Let us keep it simple and have one test that everyone understands and respects.
Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West, Conservative)
When I put my name to amendment No. 74, my understanding was that it would, for example, ensure that a shop proprietor who owned three shops in the town centre had only one vote, although I expected the aggregate rateable value of all three to count under the second condition. I was, however, concerned that he should be able to vote only once under the first condition. Of course, there was a time when we supported multiple franchises, but those days have rightly ended, and that is the situation that I sought to preserve.
The threshold is an important issue, and I draw the Committee's attention to the Select Committee's recommendations. Paragraph 36 stated:
''The Regulatory Impact Assessment indicates that this will be prescribed as the majority of businesses and more than 50 per cent. of the rateable value.''
The memorandum from the Association of Convenience Stores stated:
''It is vital in setting rules for the arrangements of BIDS, appropriate and effective protection for small businesses is retained.''
As a result, the Select Committee said:
''We recommend that a threshold of two thirds of the number of businesses should be adopted to safeguard the interests of small businesses in a Business Improvement District.''
The Federation of Small Businesses produced a brief, to which the hon. Member for Bedford referred. It calls for a two-thirds majority requirement and a turnout of 75 per cent.
The hon. Gentleman asked why we had not included the three-quarters threshold, and it is because we listened to the legitimate concerns expressed by Labour Members in the debate on the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill. In that debate, on a similar question, we argued for a turnout threshold. Government Members pointed out that that would make it legitimate to oppose the proposal by arguing that people do not vote at all, and that that is unhealthy in a democracy. I think that the force of the argument was with them, and we re-tabled an amendment on the basis of the ''yes'' vote, rather than the threshold. That is the right way to go, and we have gone for that in our amendment. We have proposed a fairly reasonable test in that respect, with regard to the 25 per cent. majority.
We seek to protect the minority interest and to ensure that there is sufficient support to generate a
successful BID, and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's deconstruction of the true meaning of amendment No. 74.
Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)
I shall make two brief comments about the substantive points in the debate. I do not accept the arguments in support of a threshold. The key point is that those who will be asked to pay the BID levy, should a vote go through, should have had a chance to vote. It is vital that the register details all the people who will be eligible and required to pay. I would be concerned if people who were not on that register were sent bills. The register of voters must be the register of people who will have to pay, and there must be a clear link between the two. If that is guaranteed, the only other question that we must be sure about is whether all the people on the register will be properly and duly notified of the ballot, and receive a ballot paper. I understand from the drafting of the legislation and the guidance notes that that will be the case. If the Minister can assure us on those two conditions, there is not a problem, and we should reject the case for thresholds. Local authority elections do not have them, and I do not see why they should be included in the present case. As long as the businesses are notified, I do not foresee the problems that have been suggested.
Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)
We have heard a number of analogies between elections to parliamentary or local bodies and elections to BIDs. Those analogies do not have any validity whatever. Local authority and parliamentary elections are to an established body, and take place on the basis of one person one vote, whereas we are talking about elections that are supplementary to an existing process, in which even buildings have a vote, even if their owner does not.
Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)
The right hon. Gentleman may not agree with the analogies, but I disagree with him. The people who vote—the tenants in the main—will be used to voting in elections, will understand the democratic process, and will find it more difficult if a new set of democratic conventions are applied to that ballot.
That draws me on to my next point. The hon. Member for Bedford gave an interesting speech. I am not quite sure whether I shall vote with him if he presses his amendment to a vote.
Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)
I think that the right hon. Gentleman is right: the hon. Member for Bedford will probably not ask the Committee to divide. Nevertheless, it is important that the Minister replies clearly to the points that the hon. Gentleman made. I did not table the amendments with him, because for a BID to work there must be a genuine partnership within the given business community. Some larger businesses will tend to occupy the bigger buildings. They are the key to making the partnership work. BIDs are not just about the money that people will be asked to pay; they are about creating dynamics within local business communities to get them to work together for the collective aim. I understand the reason for qualified voting.
My understanding is that the consultation process has been long and extensive, and that businesses are getting what they had asked for—not only representatives of big businesses, but more generally. Businesses see it as fair, given the context. I hope that the Minister will say that that is his understanding of why the qualification for majority voting is required—and I hope that he will convince me not to support his hon. Friend.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole, Conservative)
I spent a number of hours on the Committee that considered the City of London (Ward Elections) Act 2002, which was about a business vote for the City, so I have already dealt with several of the problems. A register will have to be drawn up, and there will have to be a qualifying date. Given that some cities have a high turnover of businesses and individuals, it is sensible to have a ballot close to the qualifying date for registration, otherwise that register will be out of date and the electorate will have changed. What is the qualifying date, and how long after that is the ballot? How long will the ballot be open—a day, a week, a month, a year, or even five years? That is relevant because people take time to make a judgment before voting.
Mr David Lepper (Brighton, Pavilion, Labour/Co-operative)
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman, unlike some of his hon. Friends, has read page 10 of the draft guidance. It states:
''The ballot will be conducted over a period of a minimum of 20 working days, individual BIDs will be able to decide on the exact time scale.''
Mr Robert Syms (Poole, Conservative)
I thank the hon. Gentleman. If I had been sent the document, I would have known. Many people have said that a majority of one may be legitimate, but for a scheme to succeed it needs the overwhelming support of the community. To make a scheme go, a high threshold will be needed.
How will the ballot take place? Will it be done by ticking a piece of paper, by post, by the internet or by texting? The Electoral Commission suggests numerous methods.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole, Conservative)
If I had it, I would. Will there be consultation with the Electoral Commission, to ensure best practice? I am not sure whether it is a secret ballot. Can one see who is voting, and what they have chosen? We have always has secret ballots in Britain, but this is a different sort of election, with a different sort of vote. It would be good if the Minister were to put on record whether it is a secret ballot.
We need answers to a number of questions. The first was about the qualifying day and the register. Are people open to challenge about their registration? We are talking about money, and people may have a view about whether or not someone should vote. Will there be a proper system for that? We need to sketch in a little more detail on how the regulations will operate, so that people will know how the system will work.
Mr Paul Goodman (Wycombe, Conservative)
I have not been sent a copy of the guidance either. Fortunately, I do not need it for the point that I wish to put to the Minister. I shall anticipate the argument that he is likely to make on the
threshold, because he put it to my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold when talking about the circumstances under which my hon. Friend increased his majority three times. I think that the Under-Secretary's point was that as there is no threshold in general or local authority elections, there is no reason to have a threshold for BID elections, and so amendment No. 100 is mistaken.
However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said, that really is no analogy. Although general election turnouts have recently fallen and local authority turnouts are often very low, this Parliament and local authorities have legitimacy. Legitimacy does not come about overnight. Even when the turnout in local authority elections is low, it is the legitimacy that local authorities have that allows them to continue to command the assent of the people who live under them for their activities.
I do not see how BIDs can acquire legitimacy overnight, by being literally brought into existence. The Under-Secretary will recognise that under clause 52(2):
''The first condition is that a majority of the persons voting in the ballot have voted in favour of the BID proposals.''
Thus if 100 people are eligible to vote and two vote in favour and one against, the BID will come into existence. The Under-Secretary has argued that that BID will therefore have legitimacy. I do not believe that it could possibly have legitimacy under those circumstances.
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
My hon. Friend is adducing a very good argument. Does he agree that the converse is equally true? If one or two sensationally bad BIDs fail because they do not have proper democratic legitimacy, that will give the whole concept a bad name and make it likely that there will be fewer BID schemes in the future.
Mr Paul Goodman (Wycombe, Conservative)
Absolutely; my hon. Friend is quite correct.
The Under-Secretary might not like my hon. Friend's threshold of 25 per cent. He may believe that it is excessive, although my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West pointed out a few moments ago that we have reduced that threshold in response to concerns expressed by Labour Members. However, the Under-Secretary should include some threshold, or threshold proposal, in the clause, even if it is lower than that in the amendment.
Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West, Conservative)
Does my hon. Friend agree with the distinction that I made between a threshold of the number of yes votes and a turnout threshold?
Mr Paul Goodman (Wycombe, Conservative)
Yes, exactly; and as my hon. Friend knows, the foundation on which I have tried to build this contribution is a consideration of turnout. It is impossible to see how a BID election with a low turnout could have the same legitimacy as a local authority election with a low turnout.
Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)
I wish to add that, presumably, if a ballot is to be open for a period of days, it will become known during that time how many people have voted. If it appears that the BID is not going to have the
requisite number of voters, there will be plenty of opportunities for its advocates to do some canvassing. If that canvassing still does not generate a reasonable turnout, there must be some presumption about the quality of the BID. There is therefore much sense in having a lower threshold to safeguard against poor-quality BIDs. Surely it is inherent—[Interruption.] It is a long time since I was passed a note in the middle of speaking. I must say that it is very flattering. It creates the same problems as some of the notes that I used to be passed—I cannot read this one either.
The mechanism allows that opportunity. Therefore, the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold is not a nuclear weapon. Because of the nature of the ballot, it is possible to know of any failing. If the advocates cannot get the vote out, they do not deserve to win it. We are arguing about something that need not be a major point of contention.
The word ''legitimacy'' has been used a great deal today. This has been a week for legitimacy. The Minister for Local Government and the Regions and I were in the same Lobby during the vote on another place, and the word ''legitimacy'' was used constantly. Legitimacy is what anybody accepts as legitimacy. Legitimacy is like money. If we agree that the plastic cups in the Room will be used as money, they become money. Whatever we agree is valid. It is divisible. We should not endow the word with too much religious sanctimoniousness, but it helps if people think that the thing is credible and will work. If things can fall on their face and people then squabble and say, ''That didn't get much of a vote; we should have known at the time,'' that will bring the process into disrepute.
I hope that we will look at this intelligently and that the Minister's career does not suffer terribly from his errings on Tuesday—errings in the right direction of course, but with this Government one must be cautious about that. I am not sure what the Under-Secretary did on that occasion.
Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)
No, but I have guarded the Division lists. They are precious, because on occasions I find myself in a Committee that is much less interesting than this, and one is desperately short of literature.
Mr Paul Marsden (Shrewsbury & Atcham, Liberal Democrat)
Many of these points may be valid, although I would not want to get into the monetary value of plastic cups. However, the problem seems to revolve around the fact that some hon. Members have not been sent this mysterious document, which may enlighten them—and me. Perhaps copies could be made available, not simply to the privileged few. The cleaner might have read the document rather than us. Perhaps we can see it too.
Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West, Conservative)
I cannot put my hand on my heart and say that I was not sent this document. You will be aware, Mr. Griffiths, that I receive a considerable volume of unsolicited mail, and I do not know whether the document was part of that.
Some of the things that may be in the document need to be put on the record in Committee, because the guidance does not form part of the Bill. Therefore, we may be doing the Minister a service by asking him to answer questions that may be answered in the document, simply to put that on the record.
Mr Paul Marsden (Shrewsbury & Atcham, Liberal Democrat)
Conservative Members may not read their post, but I most certainly do. I did not receive a copy and I look forward to seeing one. If copies could be made available, perhaps the Committee could make sensible progress.
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
We have had a full debate, and the sense that I take from the Committee is that it would like to make some progress, so I shall be brief as I can be.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) and other hon. Members were sent the BID guidance in their post, but if there was an oversight we will send another copy to hon. Members who have expressed doubt about whether they received it. It is possible that the postal system failed on that occasion. I will give the hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt, to save time for the remainder of the Committee.
Mr. Marsden rose—
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
However, he is insisting, so I shall give way.
Mr Paul Marsden (Shrewsbury & Atcham, Liberal Democrat)
I take exception when a Minister accuses me of receiving a document that I know I have not received. My staff carefully record all documents that come into my office. If I have made a mistake, I stand corrected, but I would like it to be placed on the record that I believe that the Minister is incorrect.
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
I am interested in the recording system operated by the hon. Gentleman's staff: every single piece of paper received in his office is logged, registered, recorded and no doubt entered in triplicate in a log book. I am sure that he can spend some time later showing it to us.
Mr Win Griffiths (Bridgend, Labour)
Order. We have explored the guidance for long enough. We do not need any more comments about whether hon. Members received it. I am sure that after this sitting everyone will receive a copy. Can we carry on with the debate?
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
Clause 52 requires that for a ballot to be approved two tests must be met: first, at least a simple majority of those voting must be in favour; secondly, those voting in favour must represent a majority of the rateable value of those voting.
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
We believe that that is fair and equitable. It protects the interests of small businesses, which potentially have the larger number of voters, and large businesses, which potentially have the higher rateable values. The principle behind much of the legislation on BIDs is providing adequate protection to ratepayers, who will be liable for the additional levy within a permissive framework, which will encourage partnership and co-operation without excessive legislation to complicate and inhibit the process.
Amendments Nos. 114, 100, 115 and 117 create two further conditions to be fulfilled: a turnout threshold for eligible voters voting in favour and a turnout threshold for the representative rateable value voting in favour of the proposals. Not only would the first two tests have to be met, but at least 25 per cent. of those entitled to vote would have to vote in favour and at least 25 per cent. of the total rateable value would have to vote in favour. Those conditions would create additional unnecessary complications. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton touched on the simple principle that democracy in this country rests on the right, rather than the obligation, to vote. In that context, we do not usually operate the threshold concept in ballots, whether it is a ballot of ratepayers or electors.
I accept the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon's point that it is dangerous to draw direct analogies between parliamentary elections and ballots of ratepayers. The principle of a right, rather than an obligation, to vote counts against the concept of a formal threshold. It may well be that for legitimacy's sake we want to see as high a turnout as possible. Most businesses are not shy in coming forward to vote against a proposition if they have doubts or are in anyway uncertain about elements in a proposed bid. I am sure that the proposed safeguard is sufficient.
The hon. Member for Poole raised a number of particular questions about the technical arrangements for administering the ballot. The local authority will administer the ballot via its returning officer and will be responsible for calculating the result. There will be a 56-day scrutiny period before the ballot commences and a postal ballot of at least 20 working days' duration. Electronic voting might also be possible. Pages 24 to 26 of the guidance go into the issue in detail, and I shall make sure that the guidance is available. The ballot will be secret.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole, Conservative)
Is it clear that there is only one vote on one proposition at any one time? There should not be a ballot on four propositions for one town centre in which people can vote for A, B, C or D.
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)
I am pretty sure that that will be the most likely scenario, although I would not rule out a BID wanting to look at further questions. The guidance will make it clear that simplicity is a virtue.
The hon. Members for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) and for Cotswold and the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon spent a lot of time on the concept of the threshold. A threshold is not part of the usual balloting processes in this country. There will be ample notice and awareness of BID proposals and there is no need for the extra threshold of a specific vote in favour requirement. We have already given a safeguard that both small and large business interests can be properly represented through the double lock mechanism. That overcomes some of the arguments about the interests of small or large businesses being swamped and so forth. With regard to that, the threshold is unnecessary.
The amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford look in particular to the other end of the scale. He does not suggest that the double lock process is necessary. He would prefer a simple vote of ratepayers. We believe that the dual key mechanism safeguards businesses having the confidence to support a BID. That has been embedded since the publication of the White Paper: the principle protects small and large businesses. The dual key approach has given great reassurance to many involved in the consultation process. The removal of the second condition involving rateable values would be easier to administer but it would not be favourably received by large business interests, which are vital to ensure the success of a BID.
My hon. Friend raised particular points that come from his experiences in Bedford, and in particular those to do with the BT exchange building. He posited the concept that the district's boundaries could be drawn to exclude that sort of property. That might be an option. However, I understand that central list ratepayers—those who are not on the local ratepayers list because they are utilities such as electricity pylons, telephone exchanges and so forth, if they are not offices—will not usually be voters in such circumstances. That might also help to overcome some of his concerns about large inert buildings that go on to a central list of ratepayers. I hope that my remarks to some extent answer the queries that arise from his amendments.
We believe that partnership between all sides of the business world is the key: the double lock mechanism ensures that they are all definitely on board so that the BIDs can progress. I hope that the hon. Member for Cotswold will withdraw his amendment, and that other hon. Members will not press theirs.
Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)
I listened to the Minister's reply with great sadness, because it confirmed my prejudice about this Government: they are not true democrats. One day they may come to regret the stance that they are taking because they may find themselves living in an environment where a different party has a large majority and they may want turnouts and thresholds that can help them. Nobody who believes in democracy—it would be surprising if anyone wished to be elected to Parliament who did not—could fail to appreciate the argument that we were trying to put across.
I make it absolutely clear that I am not saying that the threshold that we proposed was right. We may well want to propose a different threshold at a different time. This is an important matter that might be revisited in another place and on Report. Therefore, I will be urging my right hon. and hon. Friends not to press the amendment to a Division on the basis that we may want to bring it back again.
Mr Patrick Hall (Bedford, Labour)
The amendments in my name are probing amendments. However—my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas) should not get upset about this—I am now tempted to press the amendment, but only if we can do so on a
dual key basis; first, a simple headcount and, secondly, the totals of the rateable values of the constituency offices of hon. Members.
Mr Patrick Hall (Bedford, Labour)
I agree.
The hon. Gentleman makes my point about the risks of the dual key.
I have raised legitimate questions about the dual key. It will be tested in practice, and I hope that my concerns will prove unnecessary. History will be the judge. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.