Aviation: UK Civil Aviation

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Bradshaw had hoped to speak on this issue and the House would have been very interested to hear him because he is clearly one of the leading experts in this field. I regret that I am only the understudy since he is unable to be here. I must also declare that I am a member of HACAN, the protest group that is made up primarily of residents but is now fairly international, which opposes further expansion at Heathrow and works closely with those of a similar view at both Stansted and Gatwick.

I am very pleased that the Government will be consulting, hopefully in the spring, on a sustainable framework for aviation, but it is absolutely crucial that green and environmental issues are at the forefront of that conversation. This House will be very aware that since 1990 the proportion of total UK carbon emissions from aviation has doubled and that we have serious climate change targets. Whether or not it is within the context of those targets or a broader context, climate change must surely be a real concern, and if we do not manage capacity in aviation as we look at those climate change issues, surely we make a mockery of being committed to the climate change problem at all. I stress that when we talk about airports, we are talking not just about carbon emissions from aviation itself but about the travel to and fro, which is overwhelmingly by car—and anyone who thinks that you can completely switch that in any circumstances to public transport has not looked at the behaviour of those who regularly use London’s current airports and who insist, when they have many bags, on using road services.

In reference to some of the comments that have been made on tax, surely now of all times, when we are all under pressure, aviation ought to be carrying more of its own weight. The very favourable tax climate that aviation enjoys dates back to when it was a new industry. Those new industry tax breaks, given a generation ago, in essence remain with aviation today and are only gradually being countered. Like many others, I would much rather that we were not doing this on a per-passenger basis and I hope very much that the Government will achieve their goals in Europe of shifting to a per-plane basis and getting the tax associated with the emission levels for each plane. The very notion that we should be giving further tax breaks to an industry that is already paying less than other transport rivals strikes me as absolutely extraordinary.

Perhaps I can join some of those who see the estuary airport as something of an election ploy. I suspect that this project will bite the dust by the time we get to mid-May, but I will make a couple of comments on it because it addresses one of the issues raised: that of capacity. Even in their most aggressive forecasts, the Government are basically saying that 470 million passengers will be flying by 2050, but the estuary airport plans and similar raise that capacity to 700 million—way beyond even the most aggressive forecast. If you are looking at this from a climate change perspective and you want both to shift to rail and to eliminate unnecessary travel through the use of new technology, some would say that 380 million passengers per year is a much better target to work towards. We are looking at a lot of capacity around the UK, not at places such as Heathrow, but we are a country not simply a city, which I think people sometimes do not notice. As we look at putting in new capacity, here we are talking about rebalancing an economy that is looking to the north to rebuild its industry, jobs, prosperity and growth. Yet how can we look seriously at a mechanism that seeks to put all that additional capacity back down into the London area? I would argue that that is illogical.

I will not even talk about the price because no one, I think, is able to put a price on it yet, but we have issues of safety such as bird migration and the wreckage of the community that currently serves Heathrow and that is based around Ealing and Harlesden. All those people will be unemployed or will perhaps move to some new city out near the new airport. There are all those issues, as well as the environmental ones.

I realise that I am running up against my four minutes, so I simply say this: most of the problems that people have with aviation are to do with the fact that some airports, and Heathrow is one of them, are not passenger-friendly or very well run, and you cannot get through immigration. That is what drives everyone absolutely insane. The better operation of what we have and making innovations in aircraft—these are the things that would make a real difference.

Transport for London Bill [HL]

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I am not sure whether it is an interest because it is a former one, but I am a former member of the board of Transport for London and have an ongoing interest in transport within London which, like most Members of the House, I use extensively. I rise not in opposition to the Bill but to raise issues and questions that could use exploring. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has raised one of the central issues of the Bill, which is whether an outsider—someone other than Transport for London—should be engaged in the authorisation of the sell-off of operational land, particularly if it has implications for overland railway in contrast to simply the tube, bus and tram services that we most often associate with TfL itself.

In the spirit of the Localism Bill, as well as prudent practice, I would rather see the Greater London Assembly, which has an expert transport scrutiny committee, taking on that kind of responsibility rather than the Secretary of State. Understanding the implications of changing the use of land in London requires a real awareness of the intricacies and complexities of the city. I think that the Secretary of State, sitting up at that distant central government level, has relatively little understanding of the detailed dynamics of London. It is within the Greater London Assembly that that range of experience is present in people who understand what may be housing issues, dealing with waste management, transport issues, the whole range of elements that impact on decisions about land use in London. That would be the more appropriate body.

As the Greater London Assembly is not under the control of the mayor, which is evident from the institutional structures, it can provide independent scrutiny just as effectively, if not more effectively, than the Secretary of State. I raise that as a significant element. Transport for London is, after all, the transport arrangement for one particular city and it is certainly not a national transport arrangement, so detaching the Secretary of State from such an entity has a great deal of logic to it in the spirit of the Localism Bill, which we have recently taken through this House.

I raise one other set of issues—again, not in opposition. There is interesting language in the Bill on the securitisation of revenue streams from assets. I understand from earlier discussions—I have a letter here from Transport for London that goes into a little detail on it—that the concept behind this is that Transport for London owns property that it happens to rent out, as it sometimes does when it holds property for a period of time but which it believes it will need at some point in the future for a transport project. Alternatively, it has land that is used for parking, perhaps on a temporary basis, and again that land is set aside for some future transport purpose but can generate revenue in the mean time, or it may just have parking land because that is the only way it feels it can safeguard parking that is necessary for various transport facilities. Those revenues could be securitised as a mechanism for creating efficient borrowing. To me, that makes eminent sense.

It seems to me that this language also covers quite comfortably the notion of securitising the fare box. Revenues from the fare box seem to fall within the definitions in the Bill, and I support that. It is an important step forward in providing Transport for London and London itself with the mechanism that is needed to continue building our infrastructure. However, I should be interested in understanding whether that is the perception of Transport for London or indeed the perception of the Government. If so, that makes the Bill increasingly interesting.

None of the other issues covered here, such as the ability to do sensible kinds of hedging or to form partnerships with somewhat more flexibility in the current environment, seems at all controversial. However, I should be interested in hearing comment and response on the issues that I have raised.

Airports: Heathrow

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Soley]

According to the Written Answers I have received from Ministers, when the Chinese Government, the Chinese civil aviation authority and the Chinese airlines have asked repeatedly for more landing slots at Heathrow they have been told that their views will be taken into consideration by the review. Is this not deeply embarrassing and totally hopeless, in view of the economic need of this country to relate to China and other countries of that nature?

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords—

[Earl Attlee]

That was a bit quick, my Lords. We are grateful for all the input from all overseas Governments into our future aviation framework policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. There will be no increase in slots at Heathrow, but the key point is that the number of aircraft movements is capped at 480,000 movements per year.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I apologise for my jack-in-the-box tendency earlier, which was due to my eagerness on this topic. Can the Minister confirm that operational freedoms are currently only in a pilot scheme and are undergoing consultation? Can he also confirm that the Government will be putting some pressure on the airlines to see whether they can move night flights into the post-6 am slot and to use quieter aircraft—the Airbus A380s, as they come on stream—for any flights that must happen at night?

[Earl Attlee]

My noble friend is quite right. The operational freedoms trial is in two phases: the current phase, and another phase largely over the Olympics period. One of the benefits of the operational freedoms trial is to reduce unscheduled night flights. I will have to write to my noble friend on the detail of her rather more searching questions.

Localism Bill

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this amendment, but I feel that I must reply to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. Like many here, I have great regard for the individuals at London TravelWatch and the work that they do. However, the very citation from ATOC carries its own message that, of all the groups in London, the train operating companies would prefer the body which they find they can more easily ignore to the one that they must take seriously. That is entirely in character with the functioning of the TOCs and ATOC. It is precisely to have a much bigger impact on behalf of passengers that it makes sense to make this move from TravelWatch, integrating it into the GLA.

I may have misheard the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, but he seemed to suggest that, if there was that integration into the GLA, there would be a fracturing of the transport voice. Yet the GLA is already holding TfL rigorously to account. I was on the board of Transport for London and I can tell your Lordships which body it was afraid of—it was very much the GLA. It is the ability of that body to pound away on behalf of the passenger that would be gained by this shift, so I support this amendment.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I hope that the Government’s reservations, to which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, referred, are indeed strong. This needs to be rejected. I do not want to repeat everything that my noble friend Lord Faulkner said but I would go for the fundamental point. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, since he is a battle-scarred veteran of the Public Bodies Bill, will probably recall my advocacy of separate representation for the consumer interest in publicly provided bodies and in those which are regulated publicly. The Government wisely backed off from including in lists various bodies, including Passenger Focus, which could have been abolished, while for those that they are going to change they have provided an alternative but still independent body, either in another quango or in the third sector. It is a central provision of public services or those that are regarded as public utilities in this country that we have a separate consumer organisation. That applied when we set up the nationalised industries, when we privatised and liberalised those industries and when we passed the Greater London Authority Act to set up that body. It should continue to apply.

I suppose that I should apply two past interests here, both as a consumer champion as chair of Consumer Focus and as the Minister who, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will recall, brought the Greater London Authority Bill through this House. He will also recall that it was the second longest non-financial Bill ever—the absolutely longest, the Government of India Bill in 1935, was never implemented. The implementation of the Greater London Authority Act has left some problems but I do not believe that this is one of them.

It is important that we retain the distinction between the provider, and those who oversee the provider, and the consumer interest. The mayor is responsible for the provision and the London authority for overseeing that provision. In that sense, they are not much different from a private sector board as regards their consumers, so I am afraid that it does not impress me that all parties on the Greater London Assembly welcome and support this move. It is no more impressive to me than if there was a unanimous vote on the board of Thames Water to say that it wished to abolish the Consumer Council for Water, or that Michael O’Leary and the board of Ryanair said that they wished to abolish the Air Transport Users Council or—to go back to my past interests—that the boards of British Gas or npower should say that they wished to abolish Consumer Focus and any successor powers.

We must distinguish between the role of a consumer interest representative and those who are providing, or are part of the governance structure of those who provide, a service. Indeed, in London, predecessor bodies to this go back to the private company of London Transport, through the nationalisation process, through the GLC, through the abolition of the GLC, into the establishment of TfL and through to the London authority and the 1999 Bill. That was sensible. London Assembly members may well have reservations about aspects of this and may well feel that some changes need to be made—that might be right—but this clause does not say that, nor does it say that there should be some rationalisation between the London authority and Passenger Focus.

It might be conceivable that the transfer of this body into Passenger Focus was a rational move; I do not personally think so, but it would still provide an independent consumer voice focus. Actually, however, for the reasons that my noble friend points out, London is unique in this response. London is the only city in this country where the vast majority of people go to work by public transport. TfL has responsibilities way beyond the bus and train area—for roads, taxis and so on. As has also been pointed out, people outside London, and therefore with no voice in the election of GLA members, have an interest in this. So there is no principled argument that would call for the abolition of this body. I would be prepared to consider, and I suspect that the Government would be prepared to consider, something less than that, which allowed for easier changes, but the straight abolition of an independent consumer voice in the most complex, most difficult and in many respects most integrated transport system in the whole country would be a seriously retrograde move and I hope that the Minister will soundly reject it.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Kramer]

109: After Clause 217, insert the following new Clause—
“Transport for London: Rail Authority for London
(1) Section 196 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (power of Greater London Authority to give instructions or guidance to Franchising Director) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), for “The Authority may give instructions or guidance to” substitute “Transport for London shall be”.
(3) Omit subsections (2) to (4).
(4) In subsection (5)—
(a) in the opening words, omit from “give” to the end;(b) in paragraph (a), for “prevent or seriously hinder him from complying” substitute “fail to comply”;(c) omit paragraph (b) (but not the “or” following it).(5) In subsection (6), for “the Authority” (in both places) substitute “Transport for London”.
(6) In subsection (7), for “instructions or guidance may be given” substitute “the Franchising Director shall act”.
(7) In subsection (8), for “the Authority” (in both places) substitute “Transport for London”.
(8) Omit subsection (9).
(9) For the title substitute “Transport for London to be the Franchising Director”.”

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, this amendment follows on nicely from the previous amendment. It also illustrates the general confusion over the structure of transport in the London area. The purpose of the amendment is to remove from the Department for Transport the responsibility for rail franchising within the inner suburban area of London and transfer it to Transport for London. It is wholly within the spirit of the Bill to take from the centre and give to a regional or more local body powers that it can exercise more effectively and more efficiently for the benefit, in this case, of passengers.

Noble Lords will know that at present Transport for London effectively either manages or in some way regulates the Tube, the Docklands Light Railway, bus services, river transport services and taxi services, but when it comes to rail, it has only a very limited purview. It directly manages London Overground, which is one very minor line, and it will have oversight of Crossrail once it is completed. However, when it comes to the inner suburban rail services that criss-cross much of the London area, Transport for London’s role is extremely limited. The Department for Transport lets and manages the franchises and Transport for London can simply specify and pay for either an increment to that service or—terrible bureaucratic word—a decrement to that service. Essentially, the consequence of that has not been very beneficial to passengers.

I would argue that London is different from much of the rest of the country when it comes to rail. Fourteen per cent of Londoners use the National Rail network to commute daily to work. Indeed, outside of London proper, in the south-east and east of London there are many more who use that rail network to commute to work within the London area. That makes it distinctly different from any other part of the country. There are 10 train operating companies, so it is a highly fragmented service. Demand in the area is so inelastic that the kind of competitive pressures that have effect in the rest of the country are virtually irrelevant when it comes to London, where demand is so high, capacity is constantly at breaking point and there is always a need for additional capacity. So the competitive issue that exists elsewhere is not relevant within London itself.

I said that there were 10 different train operating companies. That means 10 different brandings, 10 different fare structures, 10 different forms of marketing, 10 different commercial strategies and 10 different operating time horizons. As noble Lords will know, the McNulty review recommends that more power should go to the train operating companies and franchises should be longer. So trying to create an integrated London Transport service within this environment, where rail is so fragmented and Transport for London has so little direct power, is very significantly undermined. If your Lordships would like an example of what this does to, as it were, disadvantage passengers, I draw your attention to the Oyster card. I should declare that I am a former member of the board of Transport for London and was very involved with the rail side. Rows went on year after year to try to get any form of Oyster card available on National Rail. Then we got “pay as you go”, which most people have now enjoyed only for the past couple of years. Technically it could have been done very easily, but the issue was never high on the priority list for the Department for Transport, which had to be involved because of the franchising structure. The TOCs saw it as a way to leverage money out of London Transport. The whole process was very much to the disadvantage of passengers. If your Lordships want another quick example, just go down to Waterloo. The next time you are stuck on a train that is slow because there is no space to get into Waterloo station, you will see that there is an empty platform. When Eurostar moved to St Pancras, one of the international platforms was, at great expense to the Government, converted to domestic use. The department has never managed to get its act together to put that into play for passengers. That is another huge, wasted asset. Frankly, this is repeated all over London.

Sometimes I seethe with envy when I talk to transport friends in Berlin as they are able to work with the bus and taxi services so that late-night trains are met by a co-ordinated timetable of buses and taxis, ensuring that train passengers have a seamless journey. The battle in London has been to look at travel as a single journey, whether you use one mode or multiple modes to get to your destination, and to create that kind of integration. It has been phenomenally successful, but leaving out rail makes no sense.

Sometimes people say that people from outside London use the services so they must not be too London biased. We can give them a voice by putting some directors from outside London onto the relevant board within Transport for London. It is also true that the department will continue to have a voice, but the balance needs to be shifted towards an entity which has a genuine interest, in a detailed way, in the quality of service, as Transport for London does.

[Lord Spicer]

Is the empty platform at Waterloo, which the noble Baroness has been describing, the reason why plays are being put on there now?

[Baroness Kramer]

Plays are not taking place on the adapted platform but it would be better to use it for a play than nothing at all. It is absolutely ridiculous.

I have two more points to make. Some people say that there must have been a lot of thought about how the franchises should be divided up and a reason for not giving far more influence over the rail franchising process to Transport for London. The rationale was, “We don’t like Ken Livingstone”. When the GLA Bill went through this House, particularly when TfL was under review, there was an attempt to minimise the London influence. We had the disastrous Tube public/private partnership, which was a key part of the structure and which ensured that Transport for London really could not manage the system as a whole.

There was very little appreciation of the benefits of integration. That is one of the other pieces, if you like, which came out of much of that kind of thinking. We have all moved beyond that and recognise the benefits of integration and the benefits of regional management. I argue that at this time, when the transport infrastructure in this area is desperately overstretched, when we really are in a situation of economic recovery in some areas of London and you practically have to strap people to the roofs of transport carriages, we need to maximise the use of that infrastructure. Therefore, the logic is to change the franchising responsibility, which is what this amendment attempts to do.

[Lord Berkeley]

This is an interesting amendment. I was particularly seized of the way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, proposed it because, following the previous amendment and the discussion about London Travel Watch—I am sorry that I was not in the Chamber at that time—I was sent a map of the extent of London Travel Watch, which goes well beyond the GLA boundary in many areas. I do not think it goes all the way out to Banbury but it goes quite a long way in that direction; it also goes a long way west and a long way south. It made me think that if this amendment were accepted, one would end up with the same kind of problem. On the main network, not many trains terminate within the GLA boundary. I believe Croydon must be near the edge—I am no expert on Croydon but perhaps some of my noble friends could confirm that—but I do not think that any services that go through East Croydon terminate there. So there will be a debate between those who want long-distance services as frequently as possible, stopping as infrequently as possible, between Croydon and the centre of London, for example, and those who live within the GLA boundary who want a regular stopping service.

The other problem, which is particularly evident on the lines south of London, is that in many places you can get to two or three different London termini by train. It is a lovely service if it works—it usually does—but it is a very complex network. It compares strongly with the Underground lines which, on the whole—apart from the Northern line—may serve two destinations at each end, but not three or four. I can see a time when Transport for London might say that it would like to rationalise the services south of London, for example, by making them more frequent, but going to fewer destinations, and having cross-platform interchange in some places, because it thought that would be better for its electorate.

I mentioned the question of through-services and the debate regarding them and the shorter-term. There is also the question of access for freight—I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group—although there is not much freight south of the Thames, so we can probably forget about that. However, I also recall a big debate during the many Crossrail debates, because when TfL thought it was in charge of Crossrail and the Great Western, it started off on the basis that it would have the sole use of the slow lines, to Maidenhead or Reading, and all the other trains could have the fast lines. TfL thought that was a brilliant idea, because it would run a very frequent service—there would probably be those lines of heavy cables that you see between London Underground lines—but it completely forgot that those lines are run as a network of four tracks. If anything goes wrong on one track, the trains are immediately switched to the other ones to keep the service going. I did a calculation at the time, which indicated that if Crossrail had got its way the passenger operators would have had to cut their service frequency to places such as Cardiff, Oxford and Bristol by at least 50 per cent, if not more. Only half the freight trains would have gone up that line, and when one of the lines was dug up, they would just have to stop.

That is the logical consequence of splitting responsibilities. There is work to be done with TfL and the Department for Transport to take into account the needs of people who live within the GLA area and then we can have a big debate on how the available capacity is shared out between the department’s view, which is, one hopes, long-distance, and TfL’s, which has a local view. As for giving the train operators—all 10 of them, as the noble Baroness said—more responsibility, I think that is a bit dangerous when so much co-ordination is needed. It is a debate that we need to have. I am not sure whether this is the right amendment, but I think it is very useful to be having this discussion.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, I was tempted to speak by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, as she was tempted to speak by me on the previous amendment. I have a great deal of sympathy with the points she is making. I will start with a correction—also for the noble Lord, Lord Spicer—that it is not only one platform at Waterloo that is out of use; it is platforms 21, 22, 23 and 24. I think I am right in saying that it is 21 and 22 which are being used by the production of “The Railway Children”, which I can recommend unreservedly. I speak as a trustee of the National Rail Museum, as it is very much our play.

[Baroness Kramer]

Without being a train wonk on this, there is only one platform that has been converted for domestic use. The other platforms could be, but that work has not been done.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, is quite correct. As I said, I have a great deal of sympathy with the point she makes but my concern is that the introduction of a new franchising authority, which the amendment proposes, would be in danger of creating greater fragmentation of the railway than we have at present. I agree with her that there are probably too many train operating companies. It is the Government’s intention that franchises should be longer than they have been in the past, and I strongly support that. However, to introduce a new franchising operator could lead to confusion and fragmentation. My noble friend Lord Berkeley refers to services that serve London but go well beyond. The classic example of that is the Thameslink line, which starts in Bedford, goes through Luton and St Albans—none of which is covered by Transport for London or the GLA—and then goes south from Croydon to Brighton.

Services like that need to be looked at in a regional context, and I am not certain that looking at them in a London context would make a great deal of sense. However, I pay tribute to what Transport for London has done in the development of its Overground service. The opening up of the East London line is an extraordinarily successful venture. The trains are very popular and they provide new journey opportunities for people who probably did not make those journeys, or tried to do it by car, or struggled on buses. It deserves to be commended for that.

I agree with my noble friend that it is helpful to have this debate, but this amendment is not quite the way that we should go.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I understand the intention behind my noble friend’s amendment; namely, that the mayor and TfL should have greater control over London’s commuter rail franchises, given their wider transport responsibilities. As my noble friend Lady Hanham said in her letter following the Committee stage, TfL already plays an important role in relation to London’s commuter rail services. It already has, as pointed out by my noble friend, effectively full franchising powers over the London Underground concession, covering a number of key routes across London. It works closely with the Department for Transport in the development of other rail franchises affecting London, with the mayor having the ability to pay for outputs over and above those that the DfT specifies. By the way, I undertake to look up in the dictionary the definition of “decrement”.

The devolution of other London commuter rail franchises to the mayor and TfL is not a straightforward matter. The geography of London’s commuter rail network does not sit well with London’s administrative boundaries, with many lines extending well into neighbouring counties, as pointed out by many noble Lords. Furthermore, capacity on much of the London commuter network is limited, and there are inherent conflicts between London-area and non-London services that need to be balanced in the best interests of all users, and to keep overall costs down.

I am afraid my noble friend did not satisfy me in how the balance would be struck between the needs of commuters who live in London, and who elect the mayor and the Assembly, and those living in Luton, Brighton and Woking, who do not. There is a real question of a democratic accountability deficit if other London commuter rail services are devolved to the mayor, as many commuters do not live in London so do not have the opportunity to participate in the elections.

Nevertheless, the Department for Transport is happy to engage TfL further about the devolution of local rail services, in the context of Sir Roy McNulty’s independent study on rail value for money earlier this year. This study suggested that more local control of rail services could contribute to the development of lower-cost regional railways and, in line with the Government’s localism agenda, we are considering options for more local control of some rail services in other parts of England. We will also continue to encourage operators to work more closely with TfL. The new working arrangements, put in place for the South Central franchise which was let in 2009, appear to be working well.

On this basis, I urge my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I am delighted that I have been able to stir up some debate on this issue and see it get some attention—rather than slip to its usual place at the bottom of everybody’s priority list—because there are some genuine issues here.

I say to those who are concerned about passengers outside the London area that most people have London as their destination and are therefore intensely important to TfL; they are not marginal. Also, most people who come in contribute in some way to London’s economic viability, either through business or entertainment, and so are very much a concern to Transport for London even though they do not actually live within the area. Again, we can also bring in other board members.

I am delighted to have sparked off some of this debate. Given that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 109 withdrawn.

Airports: Heathrow

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Lord will understand that we cannot arrange for every flight coming into Europe to land at Heathrow.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the recent report by Airport Watch, which demonstrates that Heathrow and London dwarf every European rival in number of flights to the world’s main business destinations. Therefore, would he agree that in order to keep its place, Heathrow should focus on how it treats its passengers and perhaps the UK Border Agency could change its policy so that people with non-UK passports can get through in less than one and a half hours, which was true at terminal 3 two weeks ago?

[Earl Attlee]

My noble friend makes extremely important points which were all picked up by the South East Airports Taskforce. She mentioned the UK Border Agency. We are aware of scope for improvement and UKBA is working on that. She will also be aware of other things that will be happening as a result of the South East Airports Taskforce’s work, which will improve the experience for passengers.

Railways: Thameslink Rolling Stock Contract

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, any job losses are highly regrettable. However, Bombardier has previously advised the department that it expected to make redundancies at this time regardless of the outcome of the Thameslink procurement order as Bombardier’s Derby factory is currently operating at peak capacity and several of these orders come to an end later this year. Noble Lords will know that there are several other rolling stock procurement contracts in the offing.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, as I am sure the Minister will agree, it is crucial that we keep in this country the engineering skills to design and build trains. Are there any planned negotiations with Siemens and Hitachi to bring those kinds of jobs to the UK? In the case of Bombardier, has he considered extending some of its existing contracts, for example to provide electrical units to the train sets it has already built, and that are much needed on the Great Western, Northern and Southern lines and would help preserve that skill base in this country?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, on the last point, I am not sighted on that, but I will write to the noble Baroness if I have anything to add. There is an issue about the capacity for Bombardier to design rolling stock in the UK, but it is a matter for that company whether or not it maintains a capacity.

Transport for London (Supplemental Toll Provisions) Bill [HL]

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for so eloquently moving the Motion that the Bill do now pass and for any influence that she might have had in securing the amendments that she described. I am quite content with the Bill as it is now, partly because TfL is a much more benign institution under current management than it was. Where it finds levels of misbehaviour, it seems interested not in immediately slapping down fines but in exploring the reasons for it, amending signage and handing out warning notices beforehand. I find it a civilised and easier-to-deal-with institution these days. I am also comforted by the level to which the Secretary of State will be involved in granting TfL any substantial powers under the Bill. I thank the noble Baroness and Transport for London, and wish this Bill good luck.

[Baroness Kramer]

I shall be brief in my comments on the Bill. I was a member of the board of Transport for London when the congestion charge was brought in and chaired all the public meetings on that issue. I have been an open opponent of the Thames Gateway Bridge, so am very glad that that project has been scuttled.

I should like to ask two questions about the Bill, just by way of seeking confirmation. Do all the usual processes of planning, consultation and approval remain in place, even though this mechanism provides the funding for any new river crossing that might be tolled? Secondly, could this framework apply to other projects carried out by Transport for London? For example—since we have had many discussions on air quality—if there were to be a low-emissions zone and it was decided to toll cars that did not meet the relevant emissions standard as they entered the zone, could this framework again be used for that purpose? It is a framework that London might turn to, particularly at the time of the Olympics. Although I seek confirmation on those matters, I am very supportive of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grey-Thompson]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords and the noble Baroness who have taken part in this debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his support and should like to address the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.

The mayor’s transport strategy had an impact on the passage of the Bill. The Bill was not intended to be applied solely to the Thames Gateway Bridge and it continues to be relevant to other projects. Other projects will be carried through in the usual way in terms of tolling.

The powers in the Bill are very wide, and the supplementary toll provisions order will not take effect unless it is confirmed by the Greater London Authority. Lots of provisions are in place. I am afraid that I cannot answer the noble Baroness’s question on emissions. I hope she will accept Transport for London writing to her on that matter; I am afraid that I am not an expert on that area of the Bill.

[Baroness Kramer]

I apologise to the noble Baroness. I should have let her know that I was going to ask that question. I am afraid that it did not come to me until the early hours of this morning.

Localism Bill

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, it is probably rash of me to intervene in a debate that has so far been dominated largely by great gurus of local government, another of whom is yet to speak. However, it must have become obvious, at least to my Front Bench, that I am one of those who become more rash, rather than more cautious, as the years advance. I have endlessly declared my wife as an interest, in respect of Braintree District Council. I hasten to add that she has not told me to say anything about this issue. The council is well conducted—and I say that not just because she told me that. However, I support the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and say that the concern is confined not just to his Benches. That has admirably been made clear, but having geared myself up to speak, I decided that I would do so—albeit very briefly.

First, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, was right to say that this issue should have been discussed with local authorities, not just bounced out with the publication of the Bill. Secondly, I have every sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Jenkin said—whether or not something like this survives, the Secretary of State should not be judge, jury, prosecutor and executioner. That leads to my interest in some of the amendments in the group, including that of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Best, who knows as much about all this as anyone, said—although he did not use this phrase—that the Government were opening a can of worms. The whole of the rest of the debate has demonstrated that it is indeed a can of worms, not least in the speeches of my noble friend Lord Cathcart and the noble Lord, Lord Empey. It may be too late to put the lid back on it, but my noble friends ought to contemplate whether they can squeeze it down a bit or at least make it a more palatable lot of worms.

I do not have much more to say, but I have two questions that link with the points made in recent speeches. I want to put them very directly. First, as was initially raised in uncertain terms by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, just where does this stand in relation to the devolved Administrations? Since the noble Lord spoke, I have checked Clause 213 on the extent of the Bill. If I read that correctly, this lot does extend to Wales; but it does not extend to Scotland and, as we have just heard, it does not extend to Northern Ireland. Therefore a fine from the European Union would be imposed on the United Kingdom Government. We are the members of the European Union, not Scotland, even if it would like to be, or Wales, even if it would like to be, or Northern Ireland—I do not know whether it would or not. That means that in certain circumstances the United Kingdom Government could be fined, but if the fine related to a local authority in Scotland, the European Union could do nothing about it. Only an English council could have a knock-on fine under these proposals. If I got that wrong, I would be glad to be told; but that appears to me to be the meaning of the Bill and I do not think it is satisfactory.

Secondly, as was touched on by my noble friend Lord Cathcart, is this or is this not retrospective? I could just about understand it if councils knew what they were getting into when they made a decision that might lead to this risk. However, unless I have read the Bill wrongly, this is a backward-looking proposal. A fine could be imposed that related to something that had already happened, in circumstances in which a local authority had no reason to suppose that there would be a penalty. Most of us would regard that situation as deeply unsatisfactory, and I do not regard it as satisfactory on anything that I have heard today.

From what the noble Lord, Lord Best, said the other day, we know that this clause was one of the top three targets of the Local Government Association, which is why he is here today, no doubt. He was very kind, and rightly so, to my noble friend Lady Hanham on the Front Bench for having been so conciliatory on its other two main targets—one was the issue of mayors, the other I cannot remember. I urge my noble friend to be conciliatory on this one as well.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I am afraid that I am a local government novice rather than a local government guru. However, I want to add a few words because in some of the last speeches there was a dangerous drift, I thought, towards implying that this was all the fault of Brussels and I think that has to be countered quickly. As a Londoner, I am very grateful that there is an EU air quality directive. The Mayor of London and his draft air quality strategy assess that PM10 particulates play a part in the premature deaths of more than 4,000 people per year here in London. In fact, if you look at the impact on heart disease, it is probably closer to 8,000 people. If we had that number of premature deaths from food poisoning, I would guess that there would be a very big response. The fact that it comes from air poisoning seems to have drifted past an awful lot of British Governments. As a Londoner, I suspect that many of us are reasonably concerned about that.

I agree with all the arguments that the Government cannot possibly turn around and pass these fines off to other authorities to act as judge and jury. That is against natural justice and it is important that we say so. However, this whole conversation that we have had today has made it clear that arbitration is complex, expensive and protracted; the wisdom of Solomon would rarely be adequate to make sure that proper allocation followed. In those circumstances, this strikes me as a classic piece of the gold-plating that we mention when we talk about how our country handles directives from Brussels. Going back to the original proposition, to simply eliminate this clause would be the far cleaner way in which to act. The Government have often said that they do not expect us to ever get any EU fines, in which case the argument is even stronger for simply eliminating all of this rather than following the gold-plating strategy that seems to be under consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Kramer]

118: Before Clause 38, insert the following new Clause—
“Tax increment financing
(1) The Business Rate Supplement Act 2009 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 1 (power to impose a BRS) insert—
“(1A) A BRS may be in the form of tax increment financing.”
(3) In section 14 (chargeable amount: supplementary) in subsection (2) after ““A” is” insert “for any form of BRS other than tax increment financing”.
(4) In section 14, after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) For tax increment financing “A” is—
(a) the increase in the rateable value on the chargeable day attributable to the project to which the tax increment financing relates, or(b) if section 12(2) applies, the rateable value of the occupied part of the hereditament on that day.”.”

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, we have just been through a very important debate that has taken a good two hours. I sense that the House is absolutely exhausted, so I will try to be very brief in moving Amendment 118. I will speak also to Amendment 118ZA. Since the latter is the smaller, I will address it very quickly now.

This arose because my colleague and expert lawyer, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, looked at the Bill and realised that there was a serious question in the wording of Clause 38(7), which refers to business rate supplements and makes various amendments. It says:

“The amendments made by this section do not apply in relation to a BRS imposed before the date this section comes into force”.

That is an important date because on one side of the date of raising a business rate supplement there is in many cases no requirement for a ballot, and various other conditions are different, and on the other side of that benchmark the conditions are entirely different. It is absolutely necessary that any authority affected by business rate supplement rules knows when that date occurs. I apologise if we have made a mistake, but neither the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, nor I can find any definition to determine when “this section comes into force”. This is an attempt to do that by replacing those words with the word “enacted”. It seems that if this clause should pass and become part of the Bill in its final form there has to be some clarity from the Government. This is a technical issue but it could lead to an awful lot of confusion and litigation if it is not clarified.

Amendment 118 covers the issue of tax increment financing. I will take a moment or two to explain what tax increment financing is. I am sure many Members of this House are very aware of it but there might be one or two who are not. I will then explain why I have raised this in this Bill and at this point. Tax increment financing was first used in the 1950s by California and is now part of the framework statutes of every state of the United States bar Arkansas, as well as of various continental countries, in various forms. Essentially it is a mechanism that recognises that where regeneration takes place or where there is new infrastructure, land values consequently rise. Therefore, business rates associated with that increase in land values are attributable to the existence of the project. In effect, it allows the relevant local authority or other body to borrow against that predicted increase in the business rates that results from the construction and existence of the project.

In this country we have a great problem in building infrastructure. People often use the example of the London Tube system and the Jubilee line. We get the cost upfront—in the case of the Jubilee line, about £3.5 billion—but there is a huge benefit at the far end when the project is complete. The increase in benefit to landowners around the various stations on the Jubilee line is estimated at about £13 billion. In other words, huge value is created, but we rarely find any mechanism to let us capture that value in order to get the financing to build the project in the first place. This happens on a small scale as well as a large scale. Knowing the cash that is coming out at the end, are we going to take the steps to allow us to find a mechanism to tap that in order to get the project built?

In the United States, this is not often used on large-scale projects. It is used typically on small, local regeneration projects in blighted areas, but it need not be limited to that application. The Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, announced in September 2010 that the coalition would at some point allow local authorities to use tax increment financing to finance infrastructure projects. In a sense, this is a probing amendment to find out where on earth we are in this process. I speak partly as a Londoner because I know that so many infrastructure projects are necessary in this city, but it has to apply to the whole of the country.

This issue is relevant because of the various new clauses in the Bill that apply to the business rate supplement. I am conscious that a review is under way of local government revenue-raising powers and that tax increment financing is likely to be discussed as part of that. However, a problem arises from Clause 38 because of the new constraints that are applied to local authorities in raising business rate supplements— notably that a ballot is now necessary for every business rate supplement. Under the existing rules, no ballot is necessary if the business rate supplement provides less than one-third of the total cost of the project.

Crossrail was passed through a special hybrid Bill but the business rate supplement plays a significant part in the financing for it. Had all the businesses in London that are covered by this rate been balloted, they would not have passed the business rate supplement because many of them do not benefit from the existence of Crossrail. I am sure that this will be true on a small scale as well. It will become very difficult to achieve a business rate supplement when many businesses will look at the project that is very beneficial to the community but say that it does not benefit them directly. The joy about tax increment financing, if that were to be the basis on which businesses were balloted, is that you pay it only if you have benefited. You will pay a tax increment levy only if you have seen the increase in property values that comes because the project has been created. That, presumably, is something that businesses capture through rent or through the sale of property or in various other ways, but it is in their interest to make sure that the project happens.

That is why I have raised the matter in this context, although there is a more general Bill to come. It seemed to me that if we were going to see in this Bill new difficulties for using business rate supplements, we at least ought to have some discussion of mechanisms that would be put in place to give confidence to local authorities that they could proceed with infrastructure projects, regeneration and other necessary developments. They would then have some assurance that mechanisms would be coming their way that would allow them to achieve that. At a time when we talk about the importance of economic growth, infrastructure is perhaps more important than ever, so there is an urgency in clarifying this issue. That is why I have brought forward the amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we understand why the smaller of the amendments has been introduced tonight. Doubtless the Minister will be able to give satisfaction on the date that these provisions enter into force for the reasons the noble Baroness has outlined. We also understand better now why she has attached tax increment financing to these provisions. As she said, a ballot is now required in all circumstances, whatever the level of funding, and there may be difficulties in securing that in the future.

Tax increment financing is about raising more money upfront by committing revenues which would not have arisen but for the project going ahead. We accept and support the importance of focusing at this time on tax increment financing when capital resources for local authorities are especially tight and the private-sector nervousness about the state of the economy means fund raising is extremely difficult. The noble Baroness will be aware that the previous Government set up a working party to examine this and an enlarged group has been working with the coalition Government. What I am not sure about is the grafting of these provisions on to the Business Rate Supplements Act 2009, which is about levying a supplement on the NNDR. It involves consultation arrangements and a ballot of those existing ratepayers affected. In concept, TIF is about ring-fencing additional business rates and almost hypothecating those to fund a borrowing arrangement. The current position is set out in the local growth document which the Government issued recently. That talks about introducing new borrowing powers to allow tax increment financing. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister what the mechanism is for those borrowing powers to be introduced to facilitate tax increment financing. I do not think grafting it on to the Business Rate Supplements Act provisions will be the right way to achieve it. It looks as though the Government already are focused on changes to borrowing arrangements which will facilitate it and obviously, subject to the detail of that, it is a principle and a project which we would support because it is important to get this source of funding under way at the current time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, I hope I can be helpful on this but, while thanking all noble Lords who have spoken, I revert to the point that my noble friend Lady Kramer made in her initial remarks about this being a probing amendment.

The Government have committed to introduce tax increment financing but we should not pre-empt the outcome of the local government resource review that will conclude in July. The review is looking at both local retention of rates and tax increment financing as we need to make sure that tax increment financing proposals are consistent with our wider proposals on business rates retention. The amendment appears to increase the rates liability of businesses, whereas tax increment financing, as generally understood, does not increase the business rates that would otherwise be levied but uses those rates to repay the borrowing that helped to deliver a piece of infrastructure. The business rate supplement and proposals for tax increment financing are two separate models that are structured differently. Rather than integrate them, there is no reason why they could not be used alongside each other to facilitate the funding of infrastructure to support economic growth.

The amendment seems to create two types of business rate supplement. The first type is a traditional business rate supplement of up to a 2p levy on business rates payers within an authority area that occupy property rated above £50,000 for an economic development project. The second type is a business rate supplement for where tax increment financing has delivered some infrastructure project of up to a 2p levy within an authority area but is restricted to the increases in rateable value of properties rated above £50,000 as a result of some infrastructure that has been implemented by tax increment financing.

The amendment appears to be defective in a number of ways. There is no definition of tax increment financing. The amendment would also create some practical concerns. The tuppence maximum will apply to the area, so in London the proposal could not apply as the tuppence limit reached by the Crossrail business rate supplement has been dealt with. Applying the increase to the rateable value to adjust the impact of the tax increment financing project would require a second ratings list to be set up for all properties with rateable values both prior to and after the tax increment financing project delivery. A consequent increase in administrative costs is highly subject to challenges over the extent of any rateable value increase as a result of the tax increment financing project or other factors—refurbishment of a property, for example.

The tax increment financing scheme does not increase the business rates that would otherwise be levied but uses those rates generated by the infrastructure to repay borrowing. Under existing arrangements, 100 per cent of business rate revenues collected by local authorities are pooled for redistribution to local authorities in England. By considering options to enable councils to retain their locally raised business rates, the current local government resource review provides an opportunity for significant changes in the way in which councils are funded. Such an approach could help to set free many local councils from dependency on central government funding and provide incentives for them to promote economic growth. The review is considering how we could manage the distributional impacts of any new arrangements. More deprived councils will continue to receive support.

Last September, the Deputy Prime Minister announced that the Government were committed to take legislation to allow for tax increment financing. Then, the local growth White Paper, issued in November, set out the Government’s intention to carry out a resource review. The terms of reference for the resource review were published in a Written Ministerial Statement by the Secretary of State on 17 March 2011. The resource review will look at local retention and tax increment financing in the round and will conclude in July. The aim is then to move as quickly as possible towards implementation, taking into account the need for primary legislation.

I appreciate the spirit of Amendment 118ZA, which aims to ensure that any business rate supplement where the levy raises less than one-third of the overall project cannot be imposed between Royal Assent and the commencement order without a ballot. However, we do not think that bringing forward commencement of that part is necessary as we are not aware of any proposals for any new business rate supplement planned to be imposed—that would fund less than one-third of the overall project—as we have not seen an initial prospectus or consultation. The business rate supplement for Crossrail has already been imposed and would not be affected by the amendment. I should like to offer reassurance that the Government will bring into force the proposed change that will ensure a ballot for all future business rate supplements regardless of whether it funds more or less than one-third of overall costs.

Clause 38 will come into force following a commencement order to be made by the Secretary of State. We will look to make that commencement order for a date no earlier than two months after Royal Assent in line with convention that legislation is brought into force earlier only where necessary and in exceptional circumstances. I trust that that is a fair response to the noble Baroness and that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Kramer]

I thank the Minister. I am not sure that we are a whole lot clearer on the commencement date but perhaps the Government at the earliest possible opportunity will make that date clear to allow local authorities to handle their affairs in the most effective manner. I accept that I am not likely to get a clearer answer than that.

There are no absolute rules on tax increment financing. There is no absolute requirement that TIF applies only to the standard business rate. There is no rationale that says that it should not apply to a special business rate, which is what we might call the business rate supplement. If this begins to be a widely used measure, many communities and many business communities might rather see a special rate for a project that they consider to be particularly beneficial rather than forgo the project. I would be sad if the Government were ruling out flexibility around TIF from the beginning and going only with the very plain vanilla simplest form of TIF as they look at the various options in front of them.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, raised the point that very often the person or the business paying the business rate is not necessarily the one that benefits from the increase in value. I take his point. However, as the Minister pointed out, with the standard vanilla TIF, this would not be an issue because one is looking just at the standard business rate and it would be only where there was a special levy in order to create the project. It will depend on whether that increase in value results in increased benefits to the occupier. For example, a shop that suddenly finds there is much more traffic coming through the door may be very pleased to support the higher rate payment because, in effect, their business has benefited. I would say that that is not an absolute.

I would hope that local authorities are given the maximum amount of flexibility to be able to design projects around the needs of their community—and the benefits that will come to their community—to negotiate much of this with local business. I hope very much that as the Government deal with this issue, they will not try to be prescriptive but will allow that kind of financial flexibility which local authorities, I suspect, are best positioned to understand in detail.

I very much confirm that this was a probing amendment. I was rather flattered by the Minister’s attempt to deal with some of it on a line-by-line basis. It was not written with that in mind. I very gladly beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 118 withdrawn.

Olympic Games 2012: London Air Quality

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's first question is simple. Everyone is responsible: the Government, the mayor, TfL, LOCOG, the ODA and, most importantly, individuals who make their own transport decisions. As regards the noble Lord’s second question, the host city contract states that the International Olympic Committee can withhold payment from LOCOG if an event in the Olympic and Paralympic Games cannot take place for any reason or if there is non-compliance with the contract. Air quality in the UK is improving and it is very unlikely that air quality issues will result in payments being withheld.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in raising this question. The Minister will be aware that London has already violated its entire annual allowance for PM10s for 2011 and we are in only the fifth month of the year. Will he give us some assurance that London will at least look at putting in place a temporary clean air zone around central London and the Olympic venues during the Olympics? If it does not, does he agree that we will end up doing what Beijing did, which was to resort to an almost impossible alternation between allowing in cars with odd-numbered plates one day and even-numbered plates the next in order to manage air quality problems?

[Earl Attlee]

My noble friend will be aware that the PM10 problem occurs only in a few hotspots. By and large, the PM10 problem is licked. She talked about temporary exclusion zones. That would be a matter for the mayor.

Postal Services Bill

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Wednesday 6th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Wheatcroft]

My Lords, I share the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde. Overgearing is as bad for companies as it is for Governments, and it is something we need to be aware of as we move towards selling Royal Mail. I would favour an initial public offering, but that in itself is no protection against what might come afterwards, so this is something we should look at. But first we have to have something that is saleable, which in its current form Royal Mail most certainly is not. Protecting the interests of the users of the postal services must mean protecting the universal service; that is paramount. Clause 28 gives Ofcom an overriding duty to do just that, to secure the universal service, and that is why my noble friend Lord Jenkin and I have tabled Amendment 24Q because, in our view, if there is an overriding duty then the triple lock imposed by Clause 37(4) is unnecessary if we are to stimulate the competition that eventually we would like to see.

Competition, as we have heard, depends first on having a level playing field, as otherwise fair competition is completely out of the question. Competition is in the interests of consumers and it is what in the long term our amendment would help to achieve. But, at the moment, the universal service is in jeopardy because Royal Mail’s financial position is indeed precarious. To some extent the company has brought this fate upon itself. Successive managements have failed to achieve the efficiencies that they knew should have been brought about, and that in the face of a market becoming ever more dangerous. However, the current management is well aware of what needs to be done and, I believe, is fully capable of doing it as long as it is given the tools. It has the will, but it does not have the right regulatory regime.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, about the problems with the current access arrangements. Royal Mail needs much more freedom to decide on its products and its prices. Competition has to be on that level playing field. There are now many private postal operators who are free to tailor their products and their prices to what the market wants. They can cherry pick, but Royal Mail is prohibited from giving itself that freedom. Ofcom, when it takes over the regulation of Royal Mail from Postcomm, needs to impose a different and very much lighter regulatory regime. As we have heard, Postcomm has not been the most successful of regulators, but it has put forward among the options going ahead that of removing its ability to set prices and leaving Royal Mail free to set its own prices, with a right of appeal being in place for those who feel that it is not playing fair. The competition would have the ultimate answer.

If Royal Mail is to have a viable future and appeal to investors, it needs to be able to compete. It should not be as expensive for the company as the current regulatory regime, which is expensive in two ways: it forbids Royal Mail to compete with the many private operators, and it gives Royal Mail a huge bill—£53 million in the current year, as we have heard. In the interests of fair competition, we really should consider what my noble friend Lord Jenkin mentioned, and share the cost of regulation. In any case, under the new regime the bill should be much lighter, but I see no reason why those who are benefiting from it should not make a contribution.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I hesitate to rise on this occasion because there have been so many detailed, coherent and powerful speeches, but perhaps I may make two brief comments. I would ask the Minister, as he looks at the potential amendments to Clause 28, to recognise that it is an extraordinarily powerful clause. Everyone in this House is concerned that Royal Mail should have an effective future and that we should have a secure universal service provider. Moreover, everyone in this House is aware that Postcomm in its approach to regulation has played a role—it has not been the only factor but it is certainly a critical one—in bringing Royal Mail, frankly, to its financial knees. If I were a potential investor I would ask myself how that regulatory environment was going to change because I certainly would not want to put my head into the same noose that Royal Mail has had to face for the past decade or so. Clause 28 therefore signals a fundamental change in the outlook, priorities and focus for Ofcom, particularly by for once looking for financial sustainability. So I urge the Minister, in looking at a variety of complex and interwoven evidence, to continue to recognise the importance of sustaining a balance between competition and the future of the universal service provider. But let us not lose what this clause has finally brought to the picture.

My final brief comment is that concerns have been expressed around the Committee that one of the responses Ofcom might make to financial pressures in the universal service provider would be to restrict the scope of the universal service. It seems to me that that would be very hard to do, given the language used in this clause and in Clause 30. I know that it was only meant to get the debate going, but I am rather taken with Amendment 24H tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, which would require paying attention to the underlying costings. That would drive in the direction of recognising that price might be the mechanism to use to ensure Royal Mail’s financial future rather than reducing the scope of the USP.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly in support of Amendment 24PB, which has already been spoken to by my noble friend Lady Dean. I await the Minister’s response with interest because that will give an indication of the Government’s view not just on how they will tackle this particular piece of legislation, but their more general view on the problems we face in many other areas of society related to indebtedness. It will also be an indication of whether we are learning the lessons of history. I go back to NATS which, when it was privatised, was very highly geared indeed. My old friend the former Chancellor and then Prime Minister was even prepared to contemplate a gearing of 129 per cent, but in the event it was limited to 110 per cent, which was still an extraordinarily high gearing to bear for the airlines group that bought the major part of the company.

We privatised in order to bring in capital, to bring in to a degree the economic disciplines of the private sector, and to bring in private sector management that we hoped would result in better performance. Capital was a vital part of that, so if you end up with a company potentially coming in which has borrowed most of the money to purchase your concern and then finds that it is unable to provide the capital needed to effect changes in the operation of your concern, you are in real difficulties. That was the experience with NATS. It ran into the September 11 debacle fairly quickly and then had to go running back to the Government for a form of bailout. We know perfectly well from our experiences over the past decade that if utilities go to the wall, they have to be bailed out. We know also that in defining utilities, we find that a substantial part of the private sector itself ends up as a form of utility, which is what the banks are. They could not be allowed to go to the wall so they had to be bailed out. Let us hope that the report that is coming out on the banks will teach us some lessons from history that we can use to good effect.

BAA was purchased on the basis of very high gearing indeed, and there is a big question mark over the extent to which the capital that went in has been used to its fullest effect. We know perfectly well that those who suffered from the poor performance of BAA just before Christmas because of a lack of capital investment in equipment will feel that BAA did not deliver as it should have done. Instead, BAA has spent much of its time trying to make profits to repay the capital it borrowed at very high interest rates. When we come to changing the status of Royal Mail, there is no way that we should be looking at a company that is very highly geared.

The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, has made in this amendment a modest attempt—it is not very prescriptive—to put right the wrongs that we have experienced in the past. When we move to talk in a different context about the private sector, perhaps these are the frameworks that we should lay down for changes there, too. The Americans certainly know that, when utilities have been privatised, there should not be gearings of more than 60 per cent. I hope that we can look for similar changes in this legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clarke of Hampstead]

I start by declaring my usual interests. From the age of 14, as a telegraph boy, I have been directly associated with the Post Office and am very proud to have that association.

In the past 24 hours, I have given a lot of care to the idea of moving this amendment separately, upsetting some of my friends, who wanted me to leave it in the group. The purpose of taking it out of the group is to focus on one of the most important things that the new Royal Mail will have to face, which was mentioned in the last debate at length. Incidentally, the last debate has given me some comfort because, after 10 years of criticising Postcomm with very little or no support from my own Government and my own friends, I heard an analysis from the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, who put his finger right on it. It has been a con from the start, and those of us who said so 10 years ago can feel a little bit comforted that after a decade people have come round to realise that what we were saying about cherry-pickers has come true. I welcome the new approach, whoever the owners are of the new Royal Mail.

I will not be too long. Given the timing of this debate and its wide and, I think, unwieldy groupings, I know that there is a desire among noble Lords to get off for the Recess in good time, so I will not go over the history too much, but I will say one or two things. However, some people will find it difficult to understand why, with all this complexity that we have just been dealing with, we are proposing legislation at the fag-end of a term, when people are going off. I find that a little bit trying—but never mind, it has happened.

I would be failing in my responsibilities as a human being and my conscience if I did not stand up and speak about this question of profitability of the new Royal Mail. A number of friends have said that it is not necessary, but what is at issue here is the regulator and the criteria that Ofcom will have to apply to looking at things like tariffs and at what surrounds the making up of a price structure for competitors and for access agreements to work. Of course they are necessary to make sure that we have the universal service. I think every Member who has spoken would agree that it is an important part of the fabric of our society to maintain the principles not only of Rowland Hill but of the 300 years of Post Office service since Queen Anne’s time.

I have every confidence that Ofcom will do a good job, although it would not take much to do better than Postcomm. In fact, this is not a new thought. On 9 February two years ago I wrote to Mr Brown, the chief executive of Postcomm, who had written a nice letter to me asking a couple of things. I told him,

“Postcomm is an organisation that gives me little confidence that its existence was ever necessary. I may be the only person who believes that the transfer of postal regulation to Ofcom is a step in the right direction”.

I welcomed the change then and I welcome it now, providing that Ofcom is given the right tools to do the job that it is going to be charged with. Part of that is dealt with in my amendment, which says that the question of profitability must be in the minds of the people considering these things. It is no good expecting Royal Mail to do the work contained in the universal service obligation if it is not able to price things the right way. The price structure must allow profitability. I spent too long in my job trying to get the Post Office to pay its dues to the pension fund. There was a 12-year holiday, when it did not pay anything into the pension fund—and we wonder why it got into a state in the end—but that is another story.

There was ill conceived regulation at that time. I sat over there and listened to the Statement from a chap from down the other end, Stephen Byers, telling us that this liberalisation and new deal would bring in an era of a tremendous new Post Office for the 21st century. I stood up and said that it was a load of nonsense, because if you do not have something to stop people creaming off the work of Royal Mail, as has happened, you will find yourself in trouble. Yet nobody listened, least of all from my own Government’s side. That followed through to the ill fated 2009 Bill, which has been mentioned, and the product of that ill conceived regulation has been that people in the industry have paid a heavy price. Billions of pounds have been lost because of how Postcomm works.

I said that I would be brief and I will. We will be entering a new era in the long and well respected history of the Post Office. I am not used to begging for things but I beg the Government on this point: not to make another mistake by allowing the anomalous situation whereby an outside body is able to hamstring the business. I have had to come to terms with the idea that the Royal Mail will never be the same once it is privatised. As I said last time we were in Committee, it hurts but it is happening. Nevertheless a new Royal Mail, invigorated by new and competent management, gives us a new chance. That is not to say that Post Office managements were not competent in the past but they were never allowed to do the job because of political interference over decades. The 1960s, 1970s and 1980s were dominated by political interference. Ever since the Post Office became a corporation in 1969, politicians had their fingers on the service being provided.

With that new and competent management, together with the historic agreements that have been mentioned about going forward with modernisation, the staff and people who run Royal Mail deserve to be given fair and just regulation, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. It has to be fair and just. I hope that the Government will recognise that the regulator has to be fair. I believe that requiring that the service be “profitable”, instead of “financial sustainable”, will help. I look forward to the Minister telling me that the Government agree that the Royal Mail will be entitled to be profitable.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I had not expected to speak on this amendment at all. Having looked at the language, I thought that “financially sustainable” looked pretty adequate. Why shift it to “profitable” and set the bar higher? However, listening to the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, I found myself convinced on this so I felt I should get to my feet. It would be a positive for this Bill if we came out knowing that we would not have to revisit the future of Royal Mail, the universal service provider, and that it had been moved on to a basis where it would thrive in future and deliver the services that we all want and that our community and economy need, so that we do not have to keep coming back to patch it. Constant salami slicing is quite often the tradition as we make change. As I look at that, the requirement for profitability has some real appeal because financial sustainability can be achieved in many ways; you could talk about additional subsidy, or whatever else. It seems to me that there is a far more secure future. The noble Lord, Lord Clarke, has convinced me and I hope that he will have some success in convincing the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cotter]

My Lords, Amendment 24X suggests that the proposed period for the review of the universal service provider by Ofcom be extended from three years to four years. The Bill gives Ofcom a series of different powers to review the financial burden and how it is to be calculated through various recommendations. It has a lot to consider in the review and it is vital that the matters are considered in the correct manner. Ofcom must look at and assess the cost of the service provided both to the generator and to the consumer. We need to make sure that that is examined correctly to ensure that further losses are not made by Royal Mail. In view of the diversity and depth that are needed for the review to ensure the success of the universal service provided, why not allow an extra year for the evidence to be collected and presented? We need a comprehensive review that gives detailed examination to ensure that all aspects of the universal service provider are examined and given consideration. An extra year would ensure that all aspects were considered in such a way. I maintain that it is quite clear that more time is needed for the review of the universal service provider by Ofcom.

[Baroness Kramer]

I shall speak briefly to Amendment 24AB in my name and that of my noble friends Lord Razzall and Lord Cotter, as the argument for the need for stability and certainty for Royal Mail as a universal service provider has been made extensively in the House today in discussion of the previous group of amendments and by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on this group. However, there is a glaring gap in the Bill, because there is no set timetable for the period during which Royal Mail would continue reliably to carry that role. The amendment would set a period of 10 years before Ofcom may make a procurement determination that would change that position.

The case was well made in the other House by a Member of the Opposition—some people will think that I am supporting those on the Benches opposite more today than those on mine. The honourable Member for Ochil and South Perthshire, I think, said that moving to the 10-year period,

“gives Royal Mail the certainty to make investment and business decisions, confident that it will remain the universal service provider for a reasonable amount of time”.—[Official Report, Commons, Postal Services Bill Committee, 7/12/10; col. 648.]

The point was also made that, for Royal Mail to have a secure future, significant investment will be required, much of it in equipment. Given the lifespan and cycles of equipment, 10 years becomes a reasonable minimum for that kind of stability.

We have heard again in this House real concern about cherry picking. It is clear to me that your Lordships do not want others coming in to cherry pick pieces or aspects of the universal service. I am sure that that is true for the public at large, who perhaps matter the most; it will certainly matter to Royal Mail itself and future investors. Given the widespread concern, it strikes me that an amendment such as Amendment 24AB neatly covers a variety of concerns by providing fundamental stability over a 10-year period. That may alleviate many of the other issues raised in this important debate.

[Baroness Wilcox]

My Lords, this group of amendments relates to the actions that could be taken if Ofcom found that there was an unfair financial burden on the universal service provider as a result of its complying with its universal service obligation to ensure that consumers are protected under the new regulatory regime. Clause 43 sets out three options if there were found to be an unfair burden: a review of the minimum requirements; a procurement process; or the establishment of a compensation fund. If it considered that action would need to be taken, Ofcom would have to recommend to the Secretary of State which of those options would best address the unfair burden.

I speak first to Amendment 24X, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Razzall and Lord Cotter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. The noble Lord, Lord Cotter, made an eloquent case for the amendment. It is right that we should consider it alongside the other amendment that would prevent a procurement determination for 10 years; the two need to be seen in balance. Your Lordships will need no reminding that our central objective in the Bill is to protect the universal postal service. We have been clear that Royal Mail must continue to modernise and, to that end, have included a new requirement on Ofcom to have regard to the efficient provision of the universal service.

No one would dispute that Royal Mail needs to improve its efficiency, and the company has already taken significant steps on its modernisation journey. However, without further modernisation, costs will remain high, increasing the risk of substitution by other forms of communication, in turn exacerbating volume decline and further threatening the universal service. The package of measures in the Bill will greatly assist Royal Mail in its modernisation. We believe that it is important to allow Royal Mail to continue on this modernisation path for a few years, able to take advantage of the benefits of the Bill, before the regulator assesses whether the universal service represents an unfair burden. This would also give certainty to all those who might be required to contribute to a compensation fund, given the reassurance that that would not be on the table for at least three years after the Bill came into force. This is clearly a fine balance. There is no right number; it is a judgment. I would therefore like to take the amendment away to consider it, so I hope that the noble Lord will, for now, consent not to press it.