Philip Dunne (Whip, Whips; Ludlow, Conservative)

It is a pleasure to welcome you back to the Committee, Mr. Atkinson, in what might be our final sitting.

If I may, I will reiterate the point that I made on the audit of information under the clause. I have not tabled an amendment, but I ask the Minister to consider on Report expanding the remit of the clause to place on a levying authority that chooses to introduce the BRS an obligation to make information on the progress of the project available to the public. That could be done not only through the authority’s accounts, but through a statement that could be made available to the BRS payers—say, annually—so that there was accountability to those payers for the levy that they have been charged.

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

The hon. Gentleman made that case clearly and strongly in previous discussions. Clause 25 is perhaps not the most appropriate point to consider that issue or such amendments, not least because it provides for billing authorities in two-tier areas to make information available to the levying authority where that is necessary for the administration of the BRS. However, in general terms, as I think my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has indicated to him, our basic approach in framing the legislation is to look to any potential levying authority to prepare projects and the actual use of a BRS in an open and consultative manner. The general question of what should be required of levying authorities in carrying out that responsibility if they choose to exercise the powers is dealt with in the draft guidance, which is now out for consultation.

My hon. Friend and I have listened carefully to the points that the hon. Gentleman and other members of the Committee have made about the open, consultative provision of information. We will reflect further on the specific point that he has made, which essentially is to ensure that that approach is continued once a BRS is introduced, and not just in the period up to its potential introduction.

The clause, as I explained briefly, allows the levying authority to gather the information that it needs to fulfil its duties under the Bill, while ensuring that the information that it gains from the billing authorities cannot be exploited or misused, but is used only for the particular purposes. The safeguards are in place, setting out clearly that the levying authority can use the information only for the purposes of the BRS and not for any other use, and that the information cannot be disclosed to another authority for other, non-BRS-related business. On that basis, I hope that members of the Committee will see the importance of the clause.

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

I do not disagree with the Minister’s comments, and I take his point about the safeguards. However, subsection (3) makes provision for charging a fee on a discretionary basis. Does the Minister envisage a covering of costs by the billing authority? Since it is all council tax payers’ money at the end of the day, I should imagine anyone will welcome any degree of cost shunting between the two tiers of authority. I hope that that will be made clear in the guidance, and dealt with on a sensible basis.

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

The hon. Gentleman has long experience in local government, and he will know that, generally, local authorities have fee-charging powers to cover costs, and they are limited to those.

The clause is important, even if it is towards the end of the Bill, because it is important to make sure that in two-tier areas, the levying of any potential BRS by a top-tier authority is efficient and effective.