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

The guidance, which is currently undergoing a 12-week consultation in its draft form, is an important part of explaining to local authorities, businesses and other groups with an interest in the projects that a BRS may support how the process of reaching a decision to introduce a BRS should work. The clause requires the levying authorities to have regard to any guidance that the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers may issue. In other words, it gives statutory force—the bite that we may need—to any guidance, especially on which projects may be regarded as appropriate to be funded by a BRS and on how the levying authority will demonstrate that it would not have incurred the expenditure had it not introduced a BRS.

It is important that a basic level of content is included in the prospectus, which will provide the grounding for a BRS. We expect the documents not only to be rigorous in their assessment of a project, but to be understood easily by the wider community, other interest groups and local residents. The prospectus needs to be of a high standard, setting out the pros and cons of a project for everyone. Our guidance is an important part of that, and the Committee’s deliberations have made a useful contribution to developing any further thinking that we  may need in preparation for the final guidance, which we will consider alongside any responses that we receive during the consultation process.

Daniel Rogerson (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

I understand absolutely that the guidance needs a statutory force to have any real value. I am interested in what may happen in the future, should the guidance be changed based on the experience of processes that have been taken up in some parts of the country where schemes have been successful or otherwise. What provision is there for schemes that have reached the prospectus stage or have got part of the way through the process, so that a great deal of work has been done based on guidance that has then been altered? Are there safeguards to help those in that position? I am thinking of local authorities that have drawn up costings and a prospectus based on guidance that may have subsequently been changed. Is there a cut-off so that their projects can go forward under the guidance that applied before such changes came into force?

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

Mr. Atkinson, I welcome you to the Chair on what is a bright and sunny morning for London, as I hope it is for Northumberland.

Peter Atkinson (Hexham, Conservative)

It is.

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

It was not so bright and sunny in Chislehurst yesterday.

I understand the Minister’s point. The Committee has discussed the importance of the guidance quite a bit. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making it clear that the full 12 weeks’ consultation will take place. I am sure he has seen the briefing note from the Local Government Association, which expressed a little disappointment that there had not been more pre-consultation and was hoping for more detail. I do not pass judgment on the details of that note, but I hope that he will assure us that there will be a rigorous process of engagement with both the LGA and the business community, including those who have given evidence to the Committee, before the process is completed.

Given that the comments have to be in by 17 April and the Minister will, I know, want to give them careful consideration, I realise that he may not be able to give us an exact timetable, but if he has some idea of when we can expect to see the completed guidance and of how it might fit in with the Bill’s departure from this House to another place, it might be helpful to know. I am sure that on some points, perfectly understandably, further scrutiny will be sought, to see how our debates and other representations have been incorporated into the guidelines, as all of us on both sides of the Committee want.

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

To the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, let me say that of course the representations we receive and any further discussions that are requested and are appropriate with business organisations, local government bodies or other interest groups will be picked up and pursued rigorously during the 12-week consultation period. I am sure that the LGA can get its act together in 12 weeks to give us a full account of local government’s concerns and the points it wishes to make; I look forward to its response to the consultation. My intention, as it has been with every element of the  preparation for the Bill, is not to delay either clarification or confirmation of the approach we wish to take, not least because for those authorities—in London, in particular—that want to make early use of the powers, should Parliament pass the Bill, the greater certainty they have and the earlier they have it, the better.

In terms of the relationship with parliamentary consideration of the Bill, that approach has pros and cons. If we are able to produce the guidance that we determine to be final early, it may play a role in informing the debate in another place. On the other hand, holding back a little longer, perhaps beyond the end of the formal consultation period, may give Members of the other place the opportunity to feel that fresh points that they may have to make could be taken into account. That is a judgment that I will make closer to the time.

To the hon. Member for North Cornwall, let me say in all honesty that there can be no guarantee regarding the possibility of updating guidance. However, there may be a degree of reassurance for him in subsection (2), where much of the content of the guidance is linked to duties or requirements set out in the Bill. In other words, the guidance is developed and will be published within the framework and the constraints of the Bill itself. The guidance is largely a matter of filling the gaps, rather than writing a set of rules afresh. Those who look to the guidance that we will produce to base work on a project or a BRS must be reassured to know that it would be difficult to change it lock, stock and barrel, but clearly there may be updates to the guidance in the future.

Daniel Rogerson (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

I am talking, for example, about subsection (2)(a) where it refers to

“the kinds of projects which may, and may not, be regarded as appropriate ones”.

It would be a fairly fundamental change if, for example, the guidance were updated to modify the types of scheme that are to be included. That would have serious consequences for a proposal that is being drawn up. I merely want such issues to be considered.

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

I understand. Nevertheless, if the hon. Gentleman looks at the Bill, he will see that it contains specific constraints linked to projects that will promote economic development, rather than other aims, as well as statutory constraints on using BRS to fund services that local authorities have a statutory responsibility to provide. He has helped by drawing attention to a specific example of how the guidance will describe or fill in the gaps in the fuller picture, but the Bill itself lays out the framework within which the guidance and any BRS will have to be introduced.