Clause 31
Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [Lords]
4:30 pm
Mark Prisk (Shadow Minister, Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform; Hertford and Stortford, Conservative)
This is an important clause, not least because it goes to the heart of several of our debates.
Hertfordshire may have been considering the Bill as it was before we debated it today, but the council was clearly concerned about the due costs, which we debated before lunch. Clearly, it has been decided that those costs will now be met by business, rather than through an adjustment within local authorities, which I am sure will please the Chancellor. I can understand the reasoning behind that decision, and there is an argument that the person who benefits from a service should contribute towards it. However, that raises the point—to return to an earlier debate—that only multi-site businesses can benefit from the primary authorities scheme, which provides quite a beneficial service for them to tap into. There is therefore a regulatory distinction between the businesses that can nominate primary authorities and the single-site small businesses that cannot. It is important that we bear that in mind.
On the specific point about the power to charge, the clause says that fees must
“represent the costs reasonably incurred”
by the authority, and that phraseology is perfectly acceptable. However, although the arrangements seem fair on the face of it, there are concerns, and I want to tease out a further response from the Minister.
The purpose of the Bill is to improve regulatory standards for businesses, principally by enabling them to nominate a primary authority as their sole local regulator. As the Minister said—almost in anticipation of my point—some businesses will say, “Hang on a moment. We’re already paying corporation tax and a range of other things.” They are paying their national non-domestic rates, or business rates as they are better known, so what are they paying for in addition? The CBI is not alone when it says:
“We do not see a compelling argument for why business should apply additional sums or why there should be a net increase in costs.”
The CBI’s essential point, which is not unreasonable, is that although it wants better regulation, why must business pay for what the Government should deliver anyway? That is a perfectly good point, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response.
My final point, which is just as important, is who will decide that a primary authority is making reasonable charges—to use the language of the clause? Will the LBRO be able to intervene or will it be the Secretary of State?