Schedule 1

Part of Business Rate Supplements Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 4:00 pm on 27 January 2009.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Sadiq Khan Sadiq Khan The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government 4:00, 27 January 2009

I take all offers of cheap advice that I am given, and I take the hon. Gentleman’s contribution with the good grace with which it was given. The hon. Members for Northampton, South, for Ludlow, for Bromley and Chislehurst and for North Cornwall all raised the same point in their contributions on this amendment: we need to take on board the expertise in the business sector. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government said during previous sittings of this Committee, that is clearly our intention.

The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst spoke about a process of dialogue, partnership and collaboration. That is our intention as well. The amendment, however, would limit local flexibility. I listened carefully to the reasons why it was tabled. My concern, notwithstanding the comments made, is that if we are not careful, we here in Whitehall and Westminster will add further bureaucracy and prescription. That said, we all know that there is a 12-week period of consultation on the draft guidance. We will look at the comments made and, if need be, come back to the measures.

We in the Labour party believe in devolving power to local authorities. We believe that the power to make decisions regarding areas should rest at the spatial level that is best placed to know and understand the facts at hand. My concern is that the amendment would require levying authorities to set out expressly in their prospectus how they will involve stakeholders in the delivery of BRS objectives. That implies that levying authorities should set up a BRS governing board.

The Bill sets out a flexible framework with safeguards within which local authorities should operate to levy a BRS to fund a project aimed at economic development. It already requires levying authorities to set out in their prospectus how they will provide business with information about progress on a BRS-funded project, notwithstanding the fact that we are consulting on the draft guidance and will listen to the comments made by business.

On Second Reading and during the course of this Committee, we have discussed that BRS may be used in many different ways to fund many different projects. Each local authority—rural local authorities and those in urban areas—will have developed in partnership with local business a project and prospectus particular to its needs and long-term vision.

Every area is different and has different needs, different levels of partnership, and different resources at its disposal. It is vital that we provide local authorities with the flexibility to set up and tailor their own governance procedures for projects, just as we expect businesses to innovate rather than allowing central Government to impose a way of governing their businesses. For example, a project might be managed by a few key local businesses or by the services of an outside contractor—I know that that is a particular concern of the hon. Member for Northampton, South, who has mentioned the private finance initiative on a couple of occasions—and each would require a different method of governance.

I accept that clear governance procedures that involve local business should be set out, but the amendment goes further and would limit flexibility. We should not bind the hands of local authorities and businesses in managing their projects.