Localism Bill

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we have added our name to the clause stand part debate that was spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, in particular. Along with the noble Lords, Lord Jenkin and Lord Reay, and, I think, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, we stand by the long-standing and fundamental principle that planning permission may not be bought or sold—a principle that was reinforced by, I think, the Nolan committee in 1997.

I can see that the amendment was an attempt to be helpful and potentially addresses one area of the concern that primacy has been given to financial considerations. However, it still raises the issue of why it is specifically mentioned and highlighted, even with the qualification, when other material considerations are not. Why does it not stand or fall like any other material consideration, subject to whatever case law produces and to guidance? I would support that proposition as well. I was very struck by the force of the arguments that came to us when this clause was introduced, as it was introduced very late in the day in the other place and there was no opportunity to debate it extensively. My understanding is that the test for planning obligations includes that it must be,

“relevant to planning … necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms … directly related to the proposed development … fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development … reasonable in all other respects”.

I take the opportunity to refer to some correspondence from the Permanent Secretary at CLG—in this case with Nick Raynsford MP, although I think other MPs had a similar exchange. In relation to what was then new Clause 15, the Permanent Secretary stated:

“The Department’s policy position is that local finance considerations should be taken into account in the determination of planning applications, but only where they are material to the decision in hand. That is, where they relate to the use and development of land, and to the planning merits of the application in question. The Minister does not agree that the clause would cut across the fundamental role of planning in protecting the public interest, and it is not our intention to indicate that local finance considerations will always be material, that any specific weight should be given to them, or that they are any more important than other material considerations”.

This begs the question: why do we need this clause? What is it doing in relation to the new homes bonus that is so important to the Government, particularly given all the anger and concern that it has raised?

I am not sure that I would share in its entirety the encouragement of the noble Lord, Lord Best, for the new homes bonus. One can see that it is an important part of government policy, but after year 1 it will be funded by scraping off the top of the grants that local authorities get. The redistribution of those moneys is not particularly helpful. It also acts against regeneration because it is done on a net basis. Therefore, if you knock down existing properties to build new ones, nothing will flow from it.

Perhaps the Minister could give us an example of when receipt of a new homes bonus would not be a material consideration. The new homes bonus is always computed by reference to the development; that is how it is generated. Because it is calculated in this way, will the Minister give us some instances, to support the Government’s proposition, of when it would not be a material consideration? That would help us. It would be good to hear from the Minister why the Government feel that it is so important that this must be included in a new clause. What is it about the new homes bonus that would otherwise be a problem if the clause were removed?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. My first and pleasant duty is to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, to the opposition Front Bench. We did business the other day on his interesting question about Thameslink. Because it was topical, it required me to work pretty fast.

The Government are committed to increasing housing supply to meet housing needs and to supporting growth to boost recovery. Along with planning system reforms, we need better incentives for communities to support and accept new development. The noble Lord, Lord Best, touched on that in his valuable contribution. However, it is vital that we provide clarity on how such incentives relate to the statutory planning system. This is not a new phenomenon, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee pointed out. Voluntary agreements between landowners and local planning authorities to provide things needed as a result of development have been in use since 1932. Nowadays, Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 makes provisions for planning obligations. The use of planning obligations is regulated by statutory and policy tests. A developer cannot be made to sign up to a planning obligation, but planning permission can be refused if, without one, a particular development would be unacceptable in planning terms.

Community infrastructure levy powers introduced in 2010 allow local planning authorities to collect and pool mandatory developer contributions, based on charges per square metre of new buildings. While planning obligations must relate to the planning merits of the specific development that they relate to, community infrastructure levy funds can be used to support development across a wider area. The new homes bonus is even more flexible, as local authorities can spend it as they see fit. The Government’s hope is that the community infrastructure levy and the new homes bonus will encourage and support more ambitious development planning, by increasing the resources available for local authorities to spend in their areas over and above what they can reasonably seek as planning obligations.

However, they are both new on the scene and questions have been raised over how such measures relate to the statutory planning application system; in particular, can they ever legitimately be taken into account in decisions on planning applications? The Government are therefore keen to clarify the legal position on this. Clause 124 provides this clarity by amending Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act to clarify that such considerations should be taken into account in relation to planning applications but only where they are material to the particular application being considered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I think we have now had “imminently”, “soon”, and “very soon”. Can the Minister perhaps rank those concepts for us and be a trifle more specific?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, when I originally drafted my response to my noble friend, I put down the word “shortly”, but the note came from the Box that it should be “imminently”. Once I was told that something would happen “shortly” and we got the statutory instrument 10 years later. However, I can assure noble Lords that the NPPF will come much more rapidly.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked me for some illustrations and I have a few matters to draw to your Lordships’ attention. The first is the test for whether a consideration is material. Case law has established that to be material to the determination of a planning application, any consideration must relate to the development and use of the land, and to the planning merits of that application.

These are long-established principles. For example, back in 1970, in Stringer v Minister of Housing and Local Government, the classic statement was made that,

“any consideration which relates to the use and development of land is capable of being a planning consideration. Whether a particular consideration falling within that broad class is material in any given case will depend upon the circumstances”.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked for examples of where NHB or CIL is or is not material. Take a scenario where NHB and CIL funds pooled by an authority will help fund a new parkway station on the local commuter route. In determining an application for a major housing development on a site within the catchment of the proposed station, it would be perfectly reasonable for the local planning authority to have regard to—as a material consideration—the fact that the development would generate revenues which would contribute to the new parkway station that would serve that development.

Of course, matters relating to NHB and CIL will not be material in relation to every development. Using the same example, what if the new development was particularly aimed at the retirement market? The development would, as with executive homes, result in NHB and CIL funds which would contribute to providing the station. This would still be a reasonable use of the funds. However, the provision of the station would not be material to the determination of this application, because it would not relate to the planning merits of the development proposed. Equally, the provision of this station would not be material to the determination of an application for a similar sized executive housing development which would be in the same local planning authority’s area, but on a site far removed from the station, and whose occupants would not use that new facility—so it would not be relevant to the application. What I hope I am illustrating here is that local planning authorities will only be able to take matters relating to NHB and CIL into account where they fairly and reasonably relate to the planning issues that are relevant to the particular application they are considering.

These are, of course, only very simple examples. For most planning applications there will be a wide range of matters that might be material: local planning authorities will need to judge, with the law as their guide, which matters are material to the case in hand. They will then need to decide how to apportion weight between all of those matters that are material. Just because something is or is not material does not mean that it will always have a decisive bearing on the decision to be made.

Turning to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Greaves, ably moved by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, I thank the noble Lords most genuinely for this helpful suggestion. Despite its humble purpose, Clause 124 has clearly caused some to worry that it might in some way oblige decision-makers to give more weight to local finance considerations—but only where material—than to other material considerations, such as amenity or the environment. My noble friend’s suggestion is without doubt intended to provide reassurance on this point and it fully reflects the Government’s intention to leave the apportioning of weight to the discretion of the decision-maker. The Government are confident that the current clause achieves this on its own. However, there is merit in looking again at the wording to ensure that it does not inadvertently place local finance matters in any particular place in the pecking order of material considerations. My noble friend’s suggestion will be of great assistance as we continue to reflect on whether this clause best reflects our intentions. In the light of this, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, before the noble Baroness does so, may I just draw out the Minister a bit on one example? A local development plan has provision for 5,000 houses but is strapped for cash. It sees the opportunity for a cash incentive—which is what the new homes bonus is—because it needs to use some resources elsewhere in its provision of services. It therefore grants planning permission for 8,000 units, motivated by that cash incentive. Would that, all other things being equal, be a non-material consideration? Would it put in jeopardy the approval, because of the difference between that and the development plan?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Lord poses a good question that will help to illustrate the situation. He describes a situation where the planning application is for more houses than are provided for in the local development plan. The extra money arising from the NHB and the CIL from those houses can be taken into consideration if it is used in relation to those extra houses. If the money is going to enhance a railway station that would support those extra houses, it can be taken into consideration, but if it is to support perhaps a swimming pool on the other side of town, it cannot be taken into consideration because it is not relevant to the application.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Parminter’s opposition to the clause standing part reflects not just the concern of her organisation but the concern felt outside the House about the provision. Of course I will withdraw the amendment and I am grateful to the Minister for his agreement that the matter will be looked at again.

I shall comment on one or two of the points that he has made. On his example of the parkway station, the reaction around me was, “But that would enable development, and moreover it seems to be suggesting that economic growth is more important than the provision of extra housing”. It may be an interesting example but it has not quite yet convinced us.

The Government put the clause in the Bill in order not to allow uncertainty to linger. However, guidance can be produced quite quickly. It can be issued on the day that the Act comes into force or it can precede it. Although I understand that the Government wanted to reassure people, there are other mechanisms for doing so.

The Minister said that it was important to provide clarity. I hope that I have helped at any rate to suggest that the clause does quite the opposite—instead of clarity it provides more confusion and concern. We will ensure that my noble friend Lord Greaves is aware of the praise for his amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

If the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, wants to weary the patience of the Committee, he is perfectly entitled to move Amendment 168.

Amendment 168

Moved by

Railways: Thameslink Rolling Stock Contract

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will review their decision to award the Thameslink rolling stock contract to Siemens.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the competition for the Thameslink trains was designed and launched in 2008 in accordance with EU treaty obligations and UK public procurement regulations. I am satisfied that the proper process as originally advised to the bidders has been complied with. Both bids have been treated equitably and fairly in the process. The Siemens bid demonstrated that it offered better value for money against the published criteria and consequently the Government will not be reviewing the decision.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the noble Earl for his response. When the Prime Minister and his colleagues came to Derby recently we heard lots about supporting engineering and manufacturing and creating jobs, but there is a wide gap between the words and the deeds. Why were the credit ratings of the two companies such a determining factor? This decision means that the last train maker in the UK—a maker of quality products and inward investor to this country—and the 1,500 people who will lose their jobs, whose families live in and around Derby, never stood a chance. That is a disgrace.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, it is not for me to comment on the ability of bidders to raise the finance. However, the model selected by the previous Administration is a good one and we support it. It is important to remember that the Siemens bid will also create employment in the UK, although I have to accept that it will not be as much.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, on Tuesday, the Conservative MP for Mid Derbyshire said:

“Over the months … we have been waiting for the decision, I personally lobbied the Secretary of State for Transport … Unfortunately, he told me every … time that I was not to worry because Bombardier was fine … as the company had lots of orders and would have no problem going forward. That is clearly not the case, so he misread the situation. I hope that he feels somewhat apologetic about the decision”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/7/11; col. 10WH.]

That statement by the Conservative MP gives the game away. If the Secretary of State will not review the decision, what will he now do in negotiations with Siemens as the preferred bidder to maximise the number of additional jobs that it creates in this country to compensate for the thousands of jobs that will be lost in Derby and elsewhere in the rail supply chain as a result of the complacency and misjudgment which have now been revealed by one of his own MPs to have been behind the Secretary of State’s decision?

[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.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, are the Government aware that under the EU treaties there is no enforceable sanction against a country that refuses to pay a Brussels fine? So, why do we not behave like the French and award the Thameslink contract to Bombardier? Do the Government further agree that there would not even be the slightest risk, alas, that we would be ejected from the EU if we failed to pay any eventual fine? So, why do we not just go ahead and do it?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the United Kingdom has never been fined in respect of an EU infraction and Her Majesty’s Government have no intention of allowing that to happen. I hope that the noble Lord fully accepts the benefits of competition. It would be most peculiar to keep accepting bids that were not competitive.

[Lord Broers]

Does the Minister agree with me that this is just a symptom of a long-term problem whereby we have failed to co-ordinate our R&D expenditures, our government procurement and our encouragement of industry to put itself in a competitive position? We really must co-ordinate these things across the board so that our bid is clearly the strongest. I declare my interest as chairman of the Transport Knowledge Transfer Network of the Technology Strategy Board, which is trying to do these things but with precious little resource.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes an extremely good point. Another point concerns the need to schedule work such as rolling stock and other projects in order to avoid a situation of feast and famine. The McNulty report addresses that issue.

Equality Act 2010 (Work on Ships and Hovercraft) Regulations 2011

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Earl Attlee]

That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13 May be approved.

Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 27 June

Motion agreed.

Localism Bill

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we should thank the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Lucas, for identifying and raising this issue this evening. Clearly, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, we must cherish and support the legislation which enables the identification, reclamation and maintenance of town and village greens. However, there is clearly a problem here. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asks: is there a problem? Yes. Does it need sorting out? Yes, it does.

I am not sure that we necessarily have the way forward encapsulated within the amendments before us. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has made some interesting suggestions and I will be interested in the Minister’s response. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, offers the prospect of being able to identify and establish a town or village green only through a neighbourhood plan. That seems potentially too restrictive: if you do not have a neighbourhood plan in place, what happens? They will not necessarily be universal.

I side with those who say that a misuse of this legislation is taking place. I accept that it may not be widespread, but it does need sorting out. I look to the Minister to see what solutions he offers.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to respond to these amendments and the balanced way in which the arguments have been presented to the Committee. Of course, I speak for Her Majesty’s Government and not one particular department.

I know that the system for registering new town or village greens is a matter of rising significance to those of us interested in development sites, as well as to local authorities in their role as commons registration authorities. As I shall explain, it is also a matter of considerable interest to this Government.

We recognise the value of the town or village green registration system in safeguarding traditional open spaces in local communities. Government surveys show an increasing trend in applications during the past decade, although not all of these applications are granted. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, suggested that problems were not widespread, although he agreed that they could be serious. Around 200 applications are made every year to register land in England as greens. The volume of applications, the character of application sites, the controversy which such applications often attract, the cost of the determination process on parties affected and the impact of a successful registration on the landowner are all matters of serious and increasing concern. We are well aware of the difficulties that some registration applications can cause where an application is made in response to advance plans for the development of a site. However, we also appreciate the importance that local communities can place on an open space as well as new development. We understand that there must be confidence that the relevant decision-making processes are working coherently in the interests of the community as a whole and not just in those of a minority.

The natural environment White Paper announced that we will consult on proposals for a new green areas designation that will give local people an opportunity to protect green spaces which have significant importance to their local communities. We are considering what changes to the greens registration system are required in connection with the new designation as a response to the Penfold review, which recommended changes to the registration system to ease non-planning impediments to development.

Amendment 148ZZBB in the name of my noble friend Lady Byford would give the Government powers to achieve a sharper focus in the criteria for registering greens. I have some sympathy with the purpose of the amendment, which could help to address some of the cases where applications have been used as a last resort only to delay development, such as my noble friend has described to us. The noble Lord, Lord Best, asked a question about rural housing. We share the concerns of my noble friend Lady Byford and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that the green registration applications can have an unfortunate deterrent effect on the provision of land for rural affordable housing. We are actively looking at whether amendments to the registration criteria are needed. We shall want to hold discussions with those with an interest in our proposals before concluding on the nature of any legislative changes. Legislative changes may be necessary. My noble friend Lord Greaves is right: the registration of a green is indeed a matter of fact. The criteria against which registrations are considered are set in law. There is no discretion. Local communities have no say in whether registering land as a green is desirable or not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, as I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, we support the thrust of these amendments. Certainly I agree that CIL must not be used to fill revenue holes in the budgets of local authorities. A specific assurance on that from the Minister would be entirely appropriate.

When we debated this last week, our concern was about the interaction of CIL, Section 106 and affordable housing. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, the Minister indicated possible flexibility in future after consultation. We welcome that. We also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that if part of CIL is to be paid to a neighbourhood forum, for example, it must be linked to infrastructure. We would prefer the decision to be made by the local authority rather than dictated according to an arrangement of the Secretary of State.

The definition of infrastructure for these purposes in paragraph 12 of the CLG book, Community Infrastructure Levy: an Overview, published in May this year, states, surprisingly:

“The Planning Act 2008 provides a wide definition of the infrastructure which can be funded by the levy, including transport, flood defences, schools, hospitals, and other health and social care facilities. This definition allows the levy to be used to fund a very broad range of facilities such as play areas, parks and green spaces, cultural and sports facilities, district heating schemes and police stations and other community safety facilities. This gives local communities flexibility to choose what infrastructure they need to deliver their development plan”.

There is already quite wide discretion in the rules.

I particularly support the point about potential double charging when a development has already entered into Section 106 obligations, some of which may be very long-term. Like my noble friend Lord Berkeley, we had discussions with Gatwick. However, this is not just an airport or a Gatwick issue.

I am not sure how best to resolve this issue. Part of the solution may relate to how and at what point CIL is charged. I understand that what triggers it is the commencement of development that has been the subject of some form of planning permission. Therefore, in a situation in which Section 106 obligations are already in place from prior development, I do not see how under the rules that could trigger a new CIL charge. However, any new development might, so Section 106 and CIL could still be paid at the same time. The potential for double charging is an issue, and I look forward to the Minister's response on that. However, the thrust of this is exactly right and we support it.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, Amendment 148ZZBBBA, moved by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, seeks to limit spending on the ongoing costs of providing infrastructure to those items that were originally funded by the levy. New developments may create additional demands on existing infrastructure as well as demands for new infrastructure. The amendment would prevent local authorities from using levy receipts to address the intensification of demand on existing infrastructure, despite the fact that this could be exactly what is needed to support a new development.

My noble friend’s Amendment 148ZZC seeks an exemption from the levy for any development that makes a contribution to existing infrastructure through Section 106 planning obligations. This is not appropriate as the two instruments are concerned with different aspects of development. Through the levy, most new development would contribute towards the cost of meeting the cumulative demands that development of an area places on infrastructure. Conversely, planning obligations are concerned only with the site-specific matters necessary to make a particular development acceptable in planning terms.

Local infrastructure may or may not be part of the planning obligation. Where it is any part of a planning obligation, it must satisfy the statutory tests that ensure that they are necessary to make the development acceptable, are directly related to the development and are fairly related in scale and kind. We do not believe that it is appropriate to exempt development that is subject to a planning obligation from making a contribution to the more general infrastructure demands that it places on the area. In addition, the existing legislation already prevents developers being charged twice for the same item of infrastructure through both instruments. That answers the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I will check to make sure that it also answers the concern of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. I am not absolutely certain that it does, but I will check, and I am sure we will return to this at a later stage.

[Lord Berkeley]

The port down the Thames—London Gateway—committed probably £100 million to upgrade the junctions on the roads and the motorway leading to the M25 to cope with additional traffic reported to be coming from its development. I understood the Minister to say that that is exactly what the CIL might be required to do. I see that as double taxation.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I think that I will come to a point later in my speech that should deal with the noble Lord’s concerns.

My noble friend Lord Jenkin also proposes Amendment 148ZZD, the effect of which would be that where regulations require the charging authority to pass funds to another body, it would retain ultimate control over how those resources are used by confining spending to matters it determines appropriate.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

It is a question not of control but of what the funds can be spent on. That is what I am asking. If it is going to pass the resources to somebody else, it is with the purpose of giving the somebody else the opportunity to spend them. What I have argued is that it must be infrastructure, whether initial or ongoing. Will my noble friend not accept that?

[Earl Attlee]

I am grateful to my noble friend. I hope that when I have finished my speech, he will be a little bit more satisfied.

We intend to use the powers of Clause 100 to require charging authorities to allocate a meaningful proportion of any revenue generated from development in an area to the parish or community council for that area. The local council will be free to determine how those funds are used to address the demands that the new development will place on its infrastructure. This amendment seeks to take control away from those local councils and the communities that are being asked to accept the new development and will significantly reduce the incentive effect of these changes.

My noble friend Lord Jenkin asked whether CIL can be passed to others on condition that it is spent on infrastructure. Where CIL is passed to another body, it must be spent on infrastructure to support the development of that area. I think I have repeated that answer.

[Lord Greaves]

Will my noble friend confirm that passing those resources to other bodies will occur only in the case of parish and town councils, and community councils in Wales, and that they will not be passed to neighbourhood forums or any other organisations?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, that is a slightly technical question for me, but I will write to the noble Lord on it, unless inspiration comes quickly.

My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked whether such resource will be used to meet local government shortfalls. We have clearly set out that the purpose of the levy is, and must continue to be, to support development. I can assure noble Lords that the money cannot be substituted for general local government spending.

My noble friend Lord Jenkin asked the Government to consider greater flexibility in the use of CIL. We will consider whether allowing spending on infrastructure and other matters could improve the levy’s ability to support development. We agree that infrastructure is vital to supporting new growth and development but we do not accept that it is necessarily all that is needed. We will reflect on that and return to it at a later stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley]

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, suggested that Section 106 might be being phased out. Is that correct?

[Earl Attlee]

No.

Electricity Market Reform

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Marland]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments. She rightly said that meeting the challenge is very difficult. The previous Government found it very difficult. I am happy to say that we have played our modest part by encouraging six new nuclear power stations, setting out a road map and introducing a series of measures that will regenerate the energy and electricity supply market—which, as I said earlier, has not happened for 20 years. We have inherited a legacy of inactivity. It is a major structural problem; it is not one that we welcome, but we in this Government intend to get our hands on it and deal with it.

I note the noble Baroness’s point about nuclear subsidy. I shall continue to remind her that we have always said there will be no subsidy for nuclear other than that available to wider technologies. The wider technologies obtain a subsidy and nuclear is now part of that.

On the noble Baroness’s comment about bills, it is fair to say that bills have risen and are going to rise. I go to my petrol pump and find it costs me £1.33 to fill my car—no, I am sorry, it costs me £1.33 per litre. That is more than £1.33 to fill the car—it is about £1,033. Bills are rising outside our control because we are reliant on fossil fuels and oil coming from different shores, rather than the wonderful security in which a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Lawson, were able to bathe—an oil supply from our own sources. When you invest in a new infrastructure which needs £110 billion there will be bill increases on the horizon. Do we want to do this? Of course we do not—we want to keep bills as low as possible and to reduce them—and the plans we have set out will enable us to recover that position and to not see the same exponential rises that we have had of late.

The noble Baroness referred to feed-in tariffs, doubtless with the solar photo voltaic debate that will take place on Thursday in mind. Do we think it right that the Government should prioritise billions of pounds to support an industry which is not necessarily climatically suited to this country? The Government have to make tough decisions; they have to establish value for money for the taxpayer when deciding where to allocate funds to support developing technologies. The current Government, of which I am proud to be part, do not consider that this technology requires the same degree of support. The industry is becoming mature and the cost of equipment is coming down dramatically and we have therefore taken a view on it.

The noble Baroness referred to RWE. I believe that RWE is less certain of its future in its home country than it is here. It has various jurisdictional issues in terms of the future of its own nuclear industry that present it with far-reaching problems beyond our shores.

The Government have committed to the green investment bank and we have allocated funds to it. You cannot just click your fingers and establish a funding bank overnight, but in 12 months we have got to grips with the issue and it is well on the path.

We have consulted on the issue of EPS but we have not changed fundamentally what we set out to do. It is important that we have standards for companies that do not comply with a reduced performance format. That is the long-stop part of regulation which will set a clear regulatory path of where people can perform in energy supply.

Clearly we need to take into consideration the energy-intensive industries and we are consulting with them at the moment. We will announce a package of support for them to encourage them towards lower carbon usage. They are major employers in the country and major international exporters. It is important that we recognise that in any regulation we introduce, and at the end of the year we will announce a package of measures to support that.

I hope that that explanation goes a long way towards answering a number of the excellent points made by the noble Baroness. I have a feeling that there will be some more excellent points in a moment.

[Earl Attlee]

I remind the House of the benefits of short questions in order to allow everyone who wants to get in an opportunity to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Reay]

My Lords, this is an extremely important White Paper—

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, it is the turn of the Labour Benches.

[Lord Boyd of Duncansby]

My Lords, I want to ask one question, relating to the position of the devolved Administrations, particularly Scotland. The renewable obligations are executively devolved to Scotland and that has enabled the Scottish Executive—now the Scottish Government—to shape that as they wish. What role does the noble Lord anticipate that the Scottish Government will be able to play in the new feed-in tariffs with contracts for difference? What will be the relationship between the Scottish Government and the new institutions that he talked about?

Localism Bill

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the purpose of the CIL is for owners or developers of land to contribute to the cost of providing infrastructure that supports the development of the area. Almost all development has some impact on the need for infrastructure, or benefits from it. It is fair that such development pays a share of the cost of providing that infrastructure. In setting a charge, local authorities must have regard to the actual and expected costs of infrastructure and its other sources of funding. They must also have regard to the economic viability of development, which includes the need to deliver affordable housing.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, proposes amendments to provide that affordable housing provision will not be prejudiced by any levy charges that an authority may set. As we explained in the other place and to the National Housing Federation, the existing legislation already provides appropriate safeguards to avoid negative implications for the delivery of affordable housing. The statutory guidance issued under Section 221 of the Local Planning Act 2008, to which local authorities are required to have regard, explicitly sets out that a charging authority must take development costs, particularly those for affordable housing, into account when setting a charge. The point of the levy is to support and not frustrate the delivery of a local development plan. The statutory guidance is specifically clear that an examiner should consider whether a local authority’s proposed charges would put their affordable housing target at risk. Where the independent examiner considers that it does, they should not approve the proposed charge.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked me about the Section 106 funding source for affordable housing. It does not follow that the imposition of a CIL charge will result in lower Section 106 contributions. In setting a charge, a council has to consider the impact on the economic viability, including affordable housing, and ensure that the levy does not put it at risk, which will include affordable housing funds. These amendments are clearly well intentioned. We agree that affordable housing is important and must not be harmed by the implementation of a levy. I can reassure noble Lords that the amendments are unnecessary, as appropriate safeguards already exist.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in his Amendments 148ZZZBE et cetera, seeks amendments that would in effect allow local authorities to implement a charge without first having to remedy any deficiency identified by the independent examination of their proposals. Local authorities are in the best position to know what level of charges will work in their area to support development and encourage growth, but we do not accept that they should have complete freedom to set any charges they like. Instead, we are maintaining proportionate safeguards to prevent unreasonable levy charges, which could put development at serious risk. Our proposals rebalance the relationship between the examiner and the local authority, to provide that it is the authority that has the final decision on how any deficiencies in their proposed charging schedule are addressed. However, we are clear that any changes made by the authority must be sufficient and necessary to remedy any non-compliance identified by the independent examination of the proposals.

Noble Lords also seek to remove powers that allow for regulations to make provision about the evidence that a local authority must or must not consider in setting a charge. Our experience of similar examination of local plan-making shows that the decisions of independent examiners vary. Councils have tended to give a great deal of weight to previous decisions, and that has sometimes led to restricted local flexibility and freedom. We want to ensure that that does not occur with the levy. The proposed power will enable the Government to respond in a robust and flexible way to practices which threaten to undermine the ability of councils successfully to introduce their local levy charges. Our proposals strike the right balance between ensuring that local authorities have real discretion to set charges in their area while retaining appropriate safeguards to ensure that proposals do not put development of the area at risk.

Amendment 148ZZBBA, tabled by my noble friend Lord Greaves, would widen the permitted use of levy receipts beyond infrastructure to matters that support the development of an area. My noble friend has raised an interesting point. We are clear that the point of the levy is to support growth and new development. Infrastructure is of course central to supporting new development and unlocking growth, but it is not the only matter necessary to enable and incentivise development. We want to reflect on whether continuing to limit spending solely to providing infrastructure restricts local authorities’ ability to support and enable development of the area. We want to consider whether widening permitted uses of the levy would make the instrument more effective and better placed effectively to promote, support and enable new development.

My noble friend Lord Greaves also proposes Amendment 148ZZBBB, which would do two things. First, it would alter the purpose of the levy so that it is focused on supporting communities rather than development. We have set out proposals to pass a proportion of the funds raised in an area to the parish council for that area and for those funds to be spent on infrastructure to support the development of that area. Control over the remainder of the funds is to be retained by the charging authority—normally the unitary, district or borough council—to provide the infrastructure needed to support the development of the larger area. The point is that the impact of the development and the infrastructure needed to support it are not confined to the geography of the community. Some will be, and our changes to direct a meaningful proportion of funds to the communities where development takes place will deal with that. Other matters, such as transport, span communities—and, indeed, charging authorities.

Secondly, the amendment proposes to allow funds to be used for the building, improvement and renovation of housing. That is unnecessary, as existing primary legislation in the Planning Act 2008 already contains the power to allow for levy receipts to be spent on affordable housing. However, regulations currently prevent that. Allowing such spending is therefore not a matter for the Bill, but the treatment of affordable housing is relevant to the amendments sought. I can confirm that we will consult during the summer on making that change through regulations.

In Amendment 148ZZCB, my noble friend Lord Greaves seeks to remove the provision for regulation to set out the ongoing costs to be funded by the levy. The powers we propose mirror existing ones in the Planning Act 2008, which allow for regulations to set out the works, installations or other facilities to be funded by the levy. The existing powers are currently used to specify that the Mayor of London must use receipts to fund strategic transport infrastructure. London is unique in that the London boroughs may also levy charges in their area, but are free to spend the receipts on any infrastructure to support their areas. We have no plans to use the power to specify the ongoing costs to be funded, but we envisage that it is necessary to deal with similar exceptional circumstances.

[Lord Berkeley]

Can the noble Earl clarify what is covered by “future ongoing costs”? Is it maintenance of housing or maintenance of a road? It is a bit of an open-ended commitment. You can understand a capital cost but if it is maintenance for roads or housing forevermore, it seems a bit odd.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, perhaps it would be helpful if I first answered the question from my noble friend Lady Hamwee on whether ongoing means maintaining the infrastructure or excludes it. Clause 100 sets out that this includes maintenance and operation of infrastructure.

Amendment 148ZZBBC seeks to allow the levy to fund the provision of infrastructure on a continuous rather than ongoing basis. We do not believe that this amendment would have a material effect. Our changes clarify that levy receipts can be used to maintain the ongoing costs of providing infrastructure but such spending will still have to satisfy the requirement that it also supports development of the area. The reason for our change is that the current provisions are being construed as limiting spending only to the initial costs of providing infrastructure. This could prevent infrastructure that is wanted and needed from being provided where the funds necessary to maintain and run it are not available. This is a perverse outcome and we are making sure that councils have the flexibility to deliver what is needed to support development of their area.

My noble friend Lord Lucas seeks an amendment that would prevent regulations allowing levy receipts to be reserved for future ongoing costs. I have explained that our proposals are concerned with ensuring that local authorities have real flexibility to spend the funds on the matters that are needed to support development in their area. We believe that this amendment would constrain this flexibility and could result in inefficient and ineffective spending by requiring funds to be used now rather than retained for future strategic projects that are planned.

Amendment 148ZZCD, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and others, proposes to remove provisions that provide for regulations to place a duty on charging authorities to pass all or some of any community infrastructure levy received to other persons. Alongside the physical barriers to new development, growth can be slowed or restricted by local concerns about its impacts. We intend to use the powers conferred by Clause 100 to require charging authorities to pass a meaningful proportion of receipts raised from new development in an area to a parish, town or community council for that area where there is such a local council. The local council will be required to spend the funds to provide infrastructure to support the development of its area.

When communities understand that new development is directly contributing towards the cost of the demands that it places on the infrastructure of their area, and see that they will be given real control over how these resources are used to address those demands, they are more likely to accept and indeed support it. Our reforms to the levy will make it genuinely pro-growth. Addressing the demands that new developments place on infrastructure will enable development to happen and it will incentivise communities to accept it. Using receipts to invest in the local area will ensure that growth is supported and sustainable, which will in turn unlock new development and growth.

We want to reflect on the amendments proposed by my noble friends Lord Greaves and Lord Tope to allow the spending of the levy on matters other than infrastructure. It is essential that the levy operates in a way that helps drive growth as effectively as possible. We will carefully consider whether permitting spending on other matters can improve the instrument’s ability to support and enable development. As ever, I am very happy to discuss these matters privately between this stage and Report. I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments at the appropriate point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, that is quite a detailed point. It would probably be safer if I wrote to the noble Lord on that.

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, I would certainly like to take up my noble friend’s offer of conversations between now and Report. I think I heard three different answers to the question posed by my amendment, and I hope that I will end up with one answer by the time we get there.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for a full and indeed very positive, or broadly positive, reply. Certainly at this hour, I should like to read the record and perhaps revert to those who pressed this particular amendment on us to talk it through with them in detail. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for the thrust of his support. These issues around who else the levy should be paid to are certainly important ones, and I would be happy to be included in that correspondence if I may. It is also important that it is done by diktat of the Secretary of State rather than being the local authorities’ decision.

Can I just check: did I hear the Minister correctly when he said that he thinks it is right that the legislation provides for affordable housing to be included within infrastructure—the regulations currently preclude that? Did the Minister say that he was looking to consult on that later this year to change that rule, so affordable housing could be included? Was that what he said?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I think the noble Lord will have to read the Hansard, but what I said was quite clear and the words in my speech will make that clear. The short answer is yes.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

In which case, I am most grateful to the noble Earl.

Diplomatic Missions: Unpaid Congestion Charges and Parking Fines

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to recover unpaid congestion charges and parking fines incurred by diplomatic missions.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, two-thirds of all foreign missions pay the London congestion charge, but as diplomatic missions are immune from prosecution in UK courts, there is no legal course of action which Her Majesty’s Government or local authorities can take to enforce payment of the congestion charge or parking fines. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Transport for London and other local authorities continue to press non-paying diplomatic missions to pay the clearly outstanding congestion charges and parking fines.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

I thank the Minister very much for that Answer—disappointing though it is, I am afraid. Does he agree that this is an absurd situation which cannot go on indefinitely? The total in unpaid congestion charge penalties rose from £36 million at the start of last year to £52 million by the end of April. Is not the answer perhaps for the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary to sit down quietly with the American ambassador—who owes £5 million of those fines to the people of London—and explain to him that this is not a tax: it is a legitimate charge for services rendered under Article 34 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations? If the American ambassador were to do it, I am sure that the others would follow.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Lord suggests that this situation could go on indefinitely. My noble friend Lord King, who briefed me, told me that he had to deal with this issue during his time in office, so it is a long-running problem. On the noble Lord’s second question, I understand that the mayor has had a chat with the President of the United States, but he still did not get very far.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, will my noble friend forgive me if I rain on his parade? Is he aware that the collection of congestion charges by Transport for London is a pretty haphazard affair? Some of us have had the misfortune, and on at least two occasions, of an allegation that we had not paid when we had.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I have had a brush with Transport for London over the congestion charge and, unfortunately, I found it to be deadly efficient.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House whether the President of the United States and his very long and low-slung car—which went aground in Dublin, we are told—and his retinue of 40 other cars paid the congestion charge when they came to London last month?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I expect that they probably claimed diplomatic immunity.

[Baroness Doocey]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a Member of the London Assembly. Does the Minister agree that the abolition of the western extension zone gives the Government a new opportunity to renegotiate this long-running saga?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the situation is simple: we believe that the Government of the United States should pay these congestion charges and parking fines as they occur. It does not really matter how far out the congestion charge zone goes, these fines and charges are due.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, the Minister is right: sagas last a long time, and so has this particular abuse—for it is an abuse of our hospitality when charges are not paid by foreign embassies. Why does the Minister not talk to his Foreign Office colleagues and suggest that Foreign Office staff from this country working overseas will not pay any charges until we reach the sum that is owed to us by those delegations that refuse to pay legitimate charges?

[Earl Attlee]

The noble Lord will recognise that diplomacy is a very delicate matter and that such a course of action would be extremely ill advised.

[Lord Glentoran]

Will the Minister say what success the previous Government had with this problem, which has been going on for many years?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I would like to keep this non-partisan. All Governments put pressure on the Government of the United States and other countries. I am pleased to say that we have had some success with Kazakhstan, which has managed to regularise its overdue parking fines.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, have the Government made a study of how the United Kingdom pays similar fines in other jurisdictions? Do we obey their rules: is it only they who do not obey ours? How do we stand elsewhere?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes an extremely important point. Our diplomats are very careful to pay all outstanding charges when they are overseas. We discourage any parking offences and in the United States our diplomats pay toll charges, which are equivalent to our congestion charge.

[Lord Tebbit]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tebbit]

My Lords, could we not experiment with wheel clamping the CD-plated cars of particular embassies? That might have a good effect—and while we are about it, we could try wheel clamping one or two Lib Dem Members of this House.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend knows the details of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, under which diplomatic cars are inviolable. Therefore, we cannot clamp them.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, perhaps I may make a helpful suggestion. The Government should seek statutory power to tow away any vehicle that has been the subject of several previous parking fines that remain unpaid.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I repeat the point that I just made. Diplomatic cars are inviolable. The other problem is that we could get into a tit-for-tat situation with our diplomats overseas. I suggest that that would not be a sensible course of action. It would be much better to continue to apply the pressure that we do.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, how does the noble Lord equate his last answer with his answer to me in which he said that we obey the rules overseas? How could there be any tit for tat?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, my replies are not inconsistent.

Localism Bill

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Shipley for giving me the opportunity to promote the principle of council tax referendums. We have several interesting amendments to debate later on, including some government ones.

Clause 59 gives effect to Schedule 5, which inserts a new Chapter 4ZA into the Local Government Finance Act 1992. This enables local electors to approve or veto excessive council tax increases in a referendum. It also gives effect to Schedule 6, which removes the Secretary of State’s powers to cap council tax in England and makes consequential amendments to various Acts as a result of the provisions for council tax referendums. The clause will ensure that excessive council tax increases occur only where they have a clear mandate from local people. This is in contrast to capping, where Ministers take the decisions and local people have no say at all. It will strengthen local democracy and ensure councils are more accountable to their electorates, but it will allow the electorate to vote for increased expenditure if they want it.

A set of principles defined by the Secretary of State will be used by authorities to determine whether their council tax increases are excessive. These principles must be submitted in a report to the House of Commons for its approval. A comparison of basic amounts of council tax could be the only principle, but the Secretary of State can include other principles as he sees fit. It is necessary for the excessiveness principles to be determined by the Secretary of State with the approval of the House of Commons.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, touched upon the wider economic issues of council tax expenditure. It would be impractical and excessive to require a referendum for every single council tax increase. The flexibility allows for different sets of principles for different categories of local authorities. For example, principles relating specifically to town and parish councils could ensure that the great majority of councils—indeed, all but large, high-spending parish councils—would not be required to hold referendums. The report for the House of Commons must be laid before the date on which the local government finance report for the year is approved. Authorities will therefore know, when setting their council tax, whether or not they have exceeded the principles, so they will go into this process with their eyes open.

Where an authority determines that its council tax is excessive, it will normally hold a referendum no later than the first Thursday in May—the usual date of local elections. However, the Secretary of State can specify a different date by order, such as to allow the referendum to be held on the same day as local government elections if this date is not the first Thursday in May. Entitlement to vote in the referendum is based on the register of local government electors and entitlement to vote in local government elections for a particular area.

Where an authority sets an excessive council tax increase, it must also make substitute calculations to determine a basic amount of council tax which does not exceed the excessiveness principles. The substitute calculations would take effect in the event that the authority’s increase is rejected in a referendum or the authority fails to hold a referendum by the required date. The Secretary of State may make regulations concerning the conduct of referendums, which would include such matters as the wording of the question to be asked in the referendum, the publicity to be given and expenditure limits. There are obvious reasons why this may be necessary.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked whether authorities can campaign for the proposed increase in council tax. No, it is intended that they cannot. They must put the facts to the electorate and leave them to decide but individual councillors will be free to campaign.

The Secretary of State will have the power to direct that the council tax referendum provisions should not apply. The power could be exercised only where it appears to the Secretary of State that unless the authority is allowed to increase its tax excessively, the authority will be unable to discharge its functions in an effective manner or be unable to meet its financial obligations. This is a reserve power and the expectation is that this would be used only in exceptional circumstances, such as where the High Court has exercised its powers to appoint a receiver where an authority has failed to service its debt within a set time period.

This clause is long and detailed but it is not as complicated as capping legislation, which has such concepts as budget requirement, designation, nomination, designation after nomination and vice versa, notional budget capping as well as actual capping and so on. And I have not got the foggiest clue what that is about. It replaces all that with a simple concept; namely, that local people and not Ministers should take the decision to approve or veto excessive council tax increases.

Sadly, council tax has more than doubled since 1997. If councils want to set excessive council tax increases—that is, those that exceed the norm—in future they will have to prove their case to the electorate. I urge that Clause 59 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I touched on non-domestic rates and localisation, and how that regime would sit alongside the regime proposed in the Bill. In particular, I should like to know whether there would be equivalent capping powers on the business rate because that has ramifications for council tax levels as well.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, that is a weensy bit technical for me. Some amendments deal with non-domestic rates. If the noble Lord’s point does not get covered, I will of course write to him.

[Lord Greaves]

The Minister mentioned parish and town councils. I think he said that only a small number would be caught by the referendum provisions and that there would be those which are very large and would have large levels of spending. He is nodding so I remember correctly. What sort of scale does he expect this to be? Would it be three or four, half a dozen, or 30 or 40? The Government must have some idea.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Lord has asked an important question. There will be provisions to ensure that small parish councils do not get caught by these provisions. They will be for only the larger authorities. I am sure that we will either get to a suitable amendment or I can write to the noble Lord and other members of the Committee with full details of how that important issue is addressed.

Clause 59 agreed.

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

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition, I give my full support to the Bill. It will be appreciated that all Private Bills take a fair amount of time to pass through the House, and this one certainly has. It is very good that we have reached this point of fruition today. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is reassured on the points that he raised. I am not quite sure that I can go quite so far as him in defining Transport for London as a benign institution; I hope he will acknowledge that he was reflecting from a very narrow perspective. He will know that many of us have considerable anxieties about the operations of Transport for London, and consequently “benign” is not the first adjective that comes to mind for some. Nevertheless, we certainly wish the Bill well and warmly congratulate the noble Baroness on taking it through the House at this stage.

My noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe ought really to have been at this Dispatch Box at this moment. In fact, I sought all my powers of persuasion in arguing that it should be him, because he was in at the very origins of the Bill a number of years ago when it was considered in this House. However, he is in the dizzy position these days of shadow Deputy Chief Whip, and I hold such people in such high respect that I do exactly what I am told. That is why I am addressing the House on the Bill.

I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, raised one or two points on which reassurance will be given in the wind-up. However, certainly in broad terms, this is an enabling Bill as far as Transport for London is concerned. We are in favour of measures that give enabling powers of this kind, provided that the necessary safeguards are in place. I am pleased to see on various parts of the coalition Benches enthusiasm for the structure of congestion charges, which gives one hope that a rather more constructive approach will be taken towards certain aspects of congestion charging in the future. This Bill gives Transport for London the powers necessary to advance the cause of Londoners in crucial areas, and we are very pleased to welcome it.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, it has been more than two years since Parliament last considered this Private Bill. This is therefore the first time that the Bill has been considered by the coalition Government and this Parliament.

Our capital city's transport network is large and complex, and it should come as no surprise that the promoters of this Bill occasionally encounter challenges that prompt them to seek specific powers further to those already on the statute book. This Government recognise the critical role that transport has to play in supporting London’s economy and with it the nation’s prosperity. We are continuing to invest in London's infrastructure, with Crossrail, the Tube upgrades and Thameslink all under way.

The Government are content for this Bill to pass to the other place, where it can be further scrutinised. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for putting forward the Bill and for the clear way in which she explained it.

[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.

Olympic Games 2012: Courier Industry

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Falkland]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare my interest as president of the Despatch Association.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, arrangements for couriers and traffic regulation during the Games are the devolved responsibility of Transport for London, but the Department for Transport is taking a keen interest in this area to ensure that the UK and London keep moving next summer.

[Viscount Falkland]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for an encouraging reply—more encouraging, I might say, than the courier industry has received thus far from the Olympic delivery committee. Might the Government be able to persuade the Olympic delivery committee, which is in charge of the arrangements, that the courier industry is not the freight industry, which seems to be its only concern? The courier industry’s service is used and relied on by most of commerce and by other organisations. It offers a valued service of 24-hour or same-day delivery. If that is not available during the Olympic Games, many businesses may suffer.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, yesterday I had a meeting with officials from TfL in order better to understand its plans for helping to deliver a successful Olympics and Paralympics. TfL’s structured programme of consultation with the larger trade associations began some time ago. It is not my role to tell TfL what to do, as it is the competent authority. However, I did mention the desirability of allowing all responsible trade associations to be able to engage with TfL, including the Institute of Couriers and the Despatch Association. I also said that the courier industry is slightly different from the freight industry, a point which the officials well understood.

[Lord Glentoran]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is not the ODA but LOCOG which will be responsible for administration at the time of the Games and that if anybody should be working with the transport industry, which of course they should, it should be LOCOG?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, my noble friend is nearly right. On 9 February 2011, responsibility for the 2012 Games travel demand management, Olympic and Paralympic route networks and road freight management programmes in London transferred to TfL.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords—

[Baroness Doocey]

My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that licensed black taxis should be allowed to use the Olympic lanes during the Games? If they do not do so, a lot of them will have to put their business on hold for the six weeks of the Games.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am not absolutely sure of the answer to the noble Baroness’s question, but I am quite sure that TfL has taken this into consideration. Very few routes will be unavailable to cars.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, the trouble with giving way is that one’s question is then addressed by the previous speaker. Could I just offer to the Minister a word of encouragement and warning? I am hot-foot back from the Olympic site this morning. Everyone who goes there is enormously encouraged by the preparations for the Games, which I am certain will be hugely successful when they occur. But perhaps I may give the Minister this word of warning: I had the misfortune many years ago to introduce the London bus lanes and left out the interests of the black cab trade. I still bear the scars to this very day, so I warn him lest he bear such scars.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, part of the reason why we are in such a good position with the Games is the good planning put in place by the previous Administration. With regard to the use of black cabs, noble Lords will understand that the primary route for getting to the Games should be public transport—buses, the underground and railway systems.

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville]

My Lords, given the role of the runner Pheidippides in bringing the news of the battle of Marathon to Athens, could my noble friend see whether there was any way, since he gave his name to the race, that the name of Pheidippides could be worked into the process that he has been recently defending?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, that is an extremely interesting question which I am sure my officials will love researching to enable me to write to my noble friend.

[Lord Kilclooney]

My Lords, can the Minister assure us that there will be no roadworks in London during the 2012 Olympics?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, when I had my discussions with the TfL officials I was very impressed with the number of different problems they have considered, and I am sure that they will do everything they can to minimise all roadworks where they could cause a problem.

[Lord Tomlinson]

My Lords, when the noble Earl has his next meeting with TfL officials, if he has any spare time, can he tell them that there was not exactly dancing and singing in the streets at the news of the vastly inflated salaries that they are being paid and the fact that there are now more than 360 TfL officials being paid six-figure salaries?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I was impressed enough with the TfL officials to think that future meetings would not be necessary on my part.

[The Countess of Mar]

My Lords, could the noble Earl impress upon the people organising the transport that some people cannot use buses or the underground because they are disabled and they use taxis instead and that these are a very important component of transport?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Countess makes an important point. The blue badge scheme has been provided for and there will be dedicated parking places for blue badge users. However, they will have to be booked in advance.