Daniel Rogerson (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 24, page 15, line 20, at end insert

‘, and where it does so it—

(i) must direct the levying authority to refund the sums received by it in respect of the BRS or, where the levying authority is not a billing authority, direct it to return to a billing authority that is a lower-tier authority in relation to sums transferred to it by the billing authority,

(ii) must direct a billing authority that is a lower-tier authority in relation to the levying authority to refund the sums collected by it in respect of the BRS but not transferred to the levying authority, and

(iii) must direct a functional body to transfer to the levying authority sums received by the body in respect of the BRS but not used by it, and’.

Janet Dean (Burton, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 21, in clause 24, page 15, line 21, leave out paragraphs (b) to (d).

Daniel Rogerson (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

Much earlier today, reference was rightly made to the elegance of the solution proposed by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. I am sure the amendments that stand in my name are not as elegant and perhaps do not do exactly what I intend them to. However, I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate and I am sure the Minister will clarify what the intention is. I am very much building on what the hon. Member for Northampton, South said about reassuring people that if a project does not go ahead, the money will be refunded.

I have been looking at my own amendment, wondering whether it is actually about money going back to the bill payers; it is certainly about money going back to the billing authority and that is the intention. Earlier, a circumstance was described relating to an underspend on a project. Previously, it was suggested that overspends are far more likely, but there is the possibility of an  underspend, which everybody would welcome. In that event, there is an opportunity for that money to be passed back to its source and for it to be refunded to the bill payers. Similarly, my amendment refers to a situation where the Secretary of State or the relevant authority in Wales needs, for some reason, to intervene to cancel the imposition of a BRS, the scheme does not go ahead, and the money has to be refunded.

There is a provision in the Bill to allow that at present, but my amendment would strengthen it to ensure that the money does go back. I am not quite sure what would happen to the money if it was not returned. I assume that there are restrictions on its being used for any other purpose, so I suppose it would sit in an account. Whether interest on that account could be used for other reasons is another question, but the amendment aims to clarify and strengthen the principle that if, for whatever reason, the scheme needs to be cancelled and the money is not used for the purpose for which it was originally intended, it will find its way back to those who paid it in the first place.

Bob Neill (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

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.

Brian Binley (Northampton South, Conservative)

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.

Bob Neill (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

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.

Nick Raynsford (Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

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.

Daniel Rogerson (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

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.

Nick Raynsford (Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

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 (Minister of State (Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Wentworth, Labour)

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.

Brian Binley (Northampton South, Conservative)

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.