Localism Bill
Lord Berkeley Excerpts(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, perhaps I may add to what my noble friend said. In fact, I introduced the London Local Authorities Bill which originally included a clause to provide for the licensing of pedicabs. It went through a long process of petitions that were heard. In the end, the promoter of the Bill, which at that stage was the City of London, decided that it was wiser to drop the pedicabs provision in order to get the Bill through. However, it was perfectly clear that the proposal aroused a lot of opposition. There is quite a lot of financial interest in this pedicabs business. I am talking primarily of London—I do not know about the situation outside London—but it is possible for those employed to drive pedicabs to make quite a lot of money if they are prepared to work hard, late into the night and in the small hours of the morning. The amendment is obviously not without some merit because there are members of the public who will use pedicabs in preference to hanging around for buses or going down to the Tube.
Therefore, I hope my noble friend can say something on this. There is a problem that needs to be dealt with, but perhaps not so much by amending this Bill but through a local authority private Bill. The issue should eventually be picked up by the Government and some form of regulation should be imposed.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, as a cyclist in London, I have come to know the London Pedicabs Operators Association quite well. Yes, pedicabs irritate taxi drivers—and they irritate me because they are wider than my bicycle and I cannot always get past them. However, taxis, cars and white vans irritate people. At some stage, we all have to live together and hope that it all works well for the benefit of the community and for people who want to go somewhere late at night. Of course, tourists love pedicabs.
However, I agree with the noble Baroness that there is something wrong with the current situation. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, mentioned the private Bill debated here in, I think, 2009. My understanding is that there was a voluntary registration scheme that the pedicab association was prepared to sign, given that Westminster City Council apparently made specific undertakings in Committee to provide pedicab ranks around Westminster. That has not happened and the whole idea seems to have evaporated.
Perhaps I may move on to early this year, when a new plan came from the mayor’s office, Transport for London, the Metropolitan Police, Westminster City Council and the London Pedicabs Operators Association. They were asked to draw up a framework mechanism, documentation and software to satisfy the requirements of a formal licensing scheme that would include a partnership agreement, and to write a code of conduct—which is important—and a memorandum of understanding between those parties. However, again, nothing seems to have happened on this.
The pedicab association says that many of the issues listed in the noble Baroness’s amendment would in fact be in some of the agreements that it was setting out to achieve. The one thing that it says would be very difficult—and I agree—is to have, as suggested in the amendment, a separate agreement for each borough in and outside London. Most pedicabs operate in Westminster but I live in Camden during the week and they certainly move into Camden. Therefore, I believe that any such registration has to be London-wide and I am not sure why Transport for London is not picking this up and running with it, so to speak.
There is an issue here but I believe that licensing by TfL on a reasonable basis would work well. I know that taxi drivers do not like pedicabs because they see them taking away business, but we are not really here to preserve the monopoly of taxis in taking people around London. There is also the TfL cycle hire scheme, which seems to be doing quite well.
I believe that some of the issues that the noble Baroness lists in her amendment should be in some kind of agreement, but someone has to take that forward and I think that it should be TfL with everyone else’s agreement. However, every time there seems to be a step forward, something stops it. Perhaps, as the noble Baroness has suggested, people do not want a registration system because that would legalise pedicabs.
I think that pedicabs are here to stay. They are good fun. If they are registered, there will be some control over them, and I hope that that will get rid of those who do not comply with the regulations and that it will allow a good service to be properly enforced, with vehicles that have back red lights and front white lights, which are important. The noble Baroness makes a very good point with this amendment but it is probably not the right way to go forward at this stage.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, first, I think I should make it clear to the House that my father was a licensed London taxi driver and that both my brothers are licensed London taxi drivers. In fact, one or two noble Lords have mentioned to me that they have been picked up by them and taken home after a busy day in your Lordships’ House.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I can understand why my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes has moved this amendment. She has explained the problem and other noble Lords have made sensible and balanced contributions. However, Transport for London and ultimately the mayor are responsible for pedicabs in London. The Government take the view that issues surrounding pedicabs in London should be dealt with at a local level, which this amendment would provide for. After all, this issue only really affects London. However, the mayor, Transport for London and the London local authorities are already taking the initiative to address the matter with straightforward measures that avoid the trap of overregulation. Noble Lords will be aware that Westminster City Council is currently working up a voluntary—
Lord Berkeley
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but I believe that they operate in Oxford, and there is a similar problem there. But I do not know what the solution is.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I skilfully avoided saying that this problem was unique to London, because I thought this issue might arise, and I might get challenged by someone like the noble Lord.
Westminster City Council is currently working up a voluntary registration scheme for pedicabs, with registration being incentivised by providing parking bays and pedicab ranks for members. Those operators and riders subscribing to the scheme will sign up to a code of practice, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has already alluded to these developments. This registration scheme would then tie in with the provisions relating to the enforcement of road traffic offences in relation to pedicabs, which are included in the London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill, currently before Parliament. Effective implementation of the provisions in the Bill relies on a system of licensing or registration being in place. The relevant clause could not come into force until a registration scheme for owners and riders has been approved by the Mayor of London.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I raised this issue at Second Reading, as did a number of other noble Lords. I would like to join my noble friend Lord Tope in expressing gratitude to my noble friend Lord Attlee for the immense amount of work that he and his officials have done to produce this substantial body of amendments, which to my mind now make this provision acceptable. I particularly welcome his efforts to produce what probably would be called a “Keeling schedule”, showing what these clauses will look like in toto if the amendments are passed. It is rather difficult otherwise to fit them into the Bill. However, that was an immensely helpful document which I hope my noble friend’s other colleagues on the Front Bench might be persuaded to imitate from time to time. For those of us who have to grapple with these things ourselves, it can be much more helpful to know what the whole thing is going to look like, rather than just looking at a whole series of amendments. This is a very helpful precedent which I hope will be followed in the future.
I have only one question to my noble friend. It is a point that I have made on previous occasions, and it concerns retrospective operation. My noble friend has assured me that nothing in these amendments will make the powers retrospective so that a penalty may be imposed on a local authority for something that has already happened. I would be most grateful if he could give us an assurance on this when he winds up the debate.
I understand that this cannot apply to fines that have already been imposed on the Government, but you could have a directive which imposed obligations on a local authority where that local authority was previously in breach and subsequently a fine was imposed on central Government. I would welcome an assurance that under no circumstances could that fine refer to anything that has happened before the date of the process introduced by these amendments. Nothing could be done before these amendments have taken effect—they must not be retrospective or retroactive. I take encouragement from my noble friend saying that one of his principles is that there will be no surprises. That, to my mind, is immensely valuable. If he could say that that rules out any retroactive effect of these amendments, that would be very helpful indeed.
I thank my noble friend for his enormous efforts. He explained to me that he had to get the assent of every other government department in Whitehall. He is a magician to have achieved that. One understands the difficulties that he has faced and I thank him very much.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I join the noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord Jenkin, in congratulating the Minister. I raised one or two issues in relation to this matter in Committee and I think that the noble Earl has done a fantastic job in a short space of time to come up with a process that few can fault, if one is going to have fines at all, and they do arise. I warmly congratulate him and join others in hoping that this happens more often with other legislation that comes before your Lordships’ House.
Before I speak to my own amendments, I would like to follow up on a point that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, made about the retrospective nature. There will be a time when these clauses come into effect, but there is also a time when the European process moves forward from infraction proceedings and reasoned opinions to the court summons and finally the court decision. That can take several years. The UK Government have a good record in complying with EU regulations. I am involved in railway issues, and in the first railway package there are 13 member states with infraction proceedings against them. We are not one of them, except for a new one relating to the Channel Tunnel. On the whole, we have quite a good record, but quite often the cause of the eventual fine could be something that was created several years beforehand. The local authority may not have been able to do something, or something may have gone wrong and it is grinding on with the Government refusing to give way, and three or four years later it gets to the European Court. I hope that the Minister will look at the retrospective nature of this not only from the UK side but also from the European side as to where the so-called potential offence has been committed and when.
My amendment was of course a probing one. I am very grateful to the Minister for his answer, which he gave before I had the chance to speak to it. That enables me to ask another question to clarify things. The Minister said that the provision would apply to a private company carrying out or performing “public functions”. I assume that “public functions” in this respect means operating rail or inland waterway infrastructure, although that could be carried out by a private company. I am not convinced that the Rail Regulator has powers to enforce fines on Network Rail—I do not think that there is a regulator for inland waterways yet—when something contravenes European regulations. I am sure that there will be an answer to this but perhaps when he responds the Minister could agree to look at this matter further so that there is some clarity within Network Rail and eventually the British Waterways charity about the circumstances under which they might be liable for a fine. I conclude by congratulating Minister very strongly on a really good piece of legislation.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
I am delighted by the policy statement but I have one question that I hope the Minister will be able to answer. In relation to panel membership, I notice that the statement of policy specifies:
“The relevant representative body will put forward nominations in respect of its members”,
of persons with sectoral experience, to the Minister. What opportunities will there be for bodies such as the Greater London Authority which are not part of a representative organisation to make nominations to the Minister in respect of panel membership? I would be grateful if he could answer that question, which probably relates to Amendment 195ZAJ but I find it so difficult when I look at all those amendments to know exactly which one it relates to.
Railways: Brighton to London Line
Lord Berkeley Excerpts(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will safeguard Uckfield station and the rail track of the former Uckfield to Lewes route for possible future use to provide additional capacity to the main Brighton to London line.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, there are no current plans to issue safeguarding directions. However, the former Uckfield to Lewes route is safeguarded by both Wealden and Lewes district councils in their local plans.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that East Sussex County Council has plans to build a road across the formation outside Uckfield which would, of course, completely prevent the line being reopened? Furthermore, is he aware that British Rail Property Board, which, as the House will know, is being abolished, is trying to sell off all its surplus land, which includes the land of the old Uckfield station, which, again, is essential to the reopening of this line? Will he instruct the property board not to do that and to keep this and other similar pieces of land for future reopening?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Lord raised two points, the first of which is the road. One of the benefits of the proposed scheme is that it allows for the building of a bridge at a later stage should that be necessary. In fact, the scheme makes it easier to open the line, should that be necessary, because to the west of the proposed road crossing is a level crossing, which would be unacceptable if you wanted to open the railway.
The noble Lord asked about the BRPB and whether we would give it directions. No, we will not. It is not necessary. We are absolutely confident that nothing has been done that will compromise the ability to open the railway at some point in the future, should it be desirable to do so.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the Skipton to Colne route is a little far from Uckfield and Lewes. I can point to the dualling of the Swindon to Kemble line, which is very expensive but will bring many benefits. I see the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition nodding her head enthusiastically.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for the answers that he has given to various colleagues on my original Question. Lewes-Uckfield is in Network Rail’s route utilisation strategy, which was published last year, so a lot of people in Network Rail must think that there is demand there.
The Minister said that if the Secretary of State was asked to give some assurance or make some designation on certain routes, the developers might try to claim compensation. Given the time that it takes to develop any of these new railway lines—noble Lords have given different examples—surely there is a case for looking at the policy again so that routes can be safeguarded even for 10 or 20 years. It may take that time to get a new project off the ground.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, we do not think that that route will need to be opened within the next 20 years.
Airports: Heathrow
Lord Berkeley Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, would it not be better if we concentrated on service quality at airports and did not go for the busiest? Is the Minister aware that Beijing is soon to have another runway, which will give it a total of 120 million passengers a year, and would it not be much better for the environment if we concentrated policy in this country on the medium and shorter-term passengers being able to travel by high-speed rail and ordinary rail?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the general thrust of what the noble Lord says is very good. Interestingly, I went to Gatwick airport last week and saw the effort being put towards improving the passenger experience. No doubt I shall be going to Heathrow shortly.
Localism Bill
Lord Berkeley Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I shall begin by speaking to government Amendment 107, which is also in the group.
The government amendment seeks to enable the greatest sharing of back-office services across the GLA group. The mayor has an ambitious shared services programme for the GLA group utilising existing powers under the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which enables the GLA and its functional bodies to share administrative, professional and technical services with each other.
We are conscious that there are several legislative gaps in the existing legislation, with a number of bodies in the GLA’s ambit not covered, potentially restricting further opportunities for savings and efficiencies. That is why, following discussions with the mayor, we introduce the new amendment as part of the London reform package to extend the powers to three further statutory entities; namely, the Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police, the London Transport Users’ Committee and the London Pensions Fund Authority.
The amendment also gives the Secretary of State the power to add other persons or bodies performing public functions in London, other than wholly national bodies, to the list of entities covered by Section 401A, following consultation with the relevant person or body. This will allow the inclusion of unique bodies such as the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority or the Museum of London, if there is an appetite in London for their inclusion. We will be discussing further the extent of any order with the GLA, the boroughs and other relevant partners over the autumn.
Finally, Amendment 104 amends Schedule 22 to classify a mayoral development corporation as a local authority for the purposes of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970. This will allow a mayoral development corporation to share administrative services and supply goods to local authorities on the same basis as other functional bodies, again in support of the mayor’s shared service agenda. I therefore beg to move.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, this is a very interesting pair of amendments. Proposed new paragraph (d) in Amendment 107 is about the London Transport Users’ Committee, which the Minister will be aware that Amendment 108 seeks to merge more closely into the GLA. If Amendment 108 is not carried—and I will certainly oppose it if I can be in the Chamber at the time—who decides whether these administrative sharing arrangements take place? If the London Transport Users’ Committee remains as it is, who decides whether it should merge its administration? Can they resist a request to share or is it a matter of negotiation?
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, it seems to me that the concept of sharing back-office and administrative services is entirely reasonable and I can see the benefits that might flow from that. My noble friend raises an interesting question as to how it works and whether there is a discussion or an imposition when new bodies are brought in. I suppose I am a little surprised that there are not the general powers already available for the sharing of these functions but I support the thrust of this.
Localism Bill
Lord Berkeley Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I rise to speak to our Amendment 112 and comment on the government amendments in this group.
I welcome the Government’s amendments and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments. I appreciate that it caused some confusion when I first raised this. As the noble Baroness generously said, when she first wrote to me, her officials and government Ministers had understood that the legislation as drafted would not allow for charging. It was completely inadvertent, as she said, and they had not appreciated that a consequence of the Government’s proposals to expand and increase charges would lead to community fire safety being charged for. Indeed, she wrote to me to that effect. I thank her because, when it was recognised that our concerns on this were justified, she raised the matter in the House and immediately wrote to me as well to clarify the position and agreed to bring forward government amendments to correct the error. I am grateful to her for doing that.
I have to say to her that this is a fairly large Bill, about 500 pages long. It is very detailed and quite technical in parts, and some of the discussions we have had have sometimes seemed quite complex. We have concerns that some parts of this Bill may have been rushed through to the House before they were fully and properly drafted. It is to the great credit of the noble Baroness that she has been ready to engage and debate on these issues, and at times has been prepared to concede and bring forward amendments to try to improve this legislation. So I am grateful to her for the amendments she has brought forward today, in so far as they go.
I am sorry to raise the matter in this way, but I am looking at the difference between the amendment in my name and the amendment from the Government, which refers to Section 6(2)(b) of the 2004 Act. Our Amendment 112 would not allow charging for community safety or fire prevention work, whereas the government amendment refers to Section 6(2)(b) of the 2004 Act, which is purely about the fire safety work that a fire authority must undertake as part of its core functions. I entirely agree that that is right and proper in so far as it goes. The last Government recognised that fire safety should be a core function, and therefore placed a duty on fire authorities to undertake fire safety. No fire authority should be allowed to charge for that core function, as the noble Baroness rightly agrees. Where I think there is a grey area—and some clarification on this would be helpful, as this is another unintended consequence—is that many fire authorities have extended this work to the related, but slightly wider, community safety remit.
I have some particular examples of this work, which I am sure the noble Baroness would never want to see lost to the community. For example, my authority in Essex runs a number of courses for young people, such as one called “Firebreak” and another called “Young Firefighters”, and there are similar schemes in other authorities. They do promote fire safety—there are clearly benefits for fire safety—but there are much wider benefits to the individuals taking part and to the community. In Basildon, Essex fire service uses these projects, working with local authorities, councils and other bodies, as part of a team tackling crime and disorder. The fire service is part of the crime and disorder reduction partnerships, and it is very proud of this work. I looked at its website earlier today for examples. It seems to me—the noble Baroness can assure me on this—that from the wording that is taken from the 2006 Act this does not exactly fall under fire safety.
For example, there is a page on the Essex County Fire and Rescue Service website about Darren, 18, of Ashingdon Road in Hawkwell. He has just joined the crew of his local fire station as the newest recruit, and he said:
“It was Firebreak which really showed me what I wanted to do with life and how I could do it. I had got into the wrong crowd and was getting in trouble with the police and then bringing that trouble with me into school and getting into worse trouble”.
His head teacher referred Darren to the “Firebreak” course—it is a long quote but I will read it—and, as Darren says,
“When I got back to school I ditched my mates and really buckled down. Almost straight away I saw my grades improving and my predicted exam results shot up. Firebreak made me realise that there is more to life than getting in trouble and mucking about and gave me something to work towards”.
That is not technically fire safety, but the benefits to the community are enormous. Another person mentioned is Craig, who is 20 and attended this course in 2005. He says:
“I was taking drugs, drinking and stealing cars. Basically I was completely off the rails. Firebreak has changed my life, I no longer drink or take drugs and am now working to become a firefighter myself”.
The Cheshire fire service signs up to missdorothy.com. I do not know whether the noble Baroness is aware of missdorothy.com. When I was Fire Minister I went to see some of the work that it is doing, which is about community safety for younger children. Given the trust placed in firefighters, and their very respected position in the community, they were engaging very young children in community safety. Part of that was about fire safety and being safe, but also about being safe in their broader lives. The Cheshire fire service is also one of the employers involved with the Prince’s Trust programme. I certainly think that nobody in your Lordships’ House would want to lose the fire service’s involvement with the Prince’s Trust. There is a 12-week personal development course, and the fire service is one of the employers doing that.
Devon and Somerset is another authority that has a personal development scheme, also called “Firebreak”, for key stage 4 pupils from 14 to 16. Its website says that it provides a
“themed educational diet designed to complement and enhance the school curriculum. It aims to raise achievement, improve self motivation, increase educational engagement”,
and aims to develop,
“practical skills, life skills, communication skills, team work”.
Looking around the country, I see that Suffolk authority is another one to engage actively with children and young people. One of its objectives is to prevent and reduce fire crime and fire, but it also wants to engage young people, and has professional staff working with the authority, to identify good practice in working with children and young people. East Sussex has a “LIFE” project and Chester has a “Respect” project.
All of those have proven successes in deterring young people not only from a life of crime but from social disorder as well. My fear is, if it was the Government’s intention, which I suggest it probably was not, that these should be charged for—and I think that, under the Government’s amendments, they would be able to be charged for—then those very young people who can benefit most from these courses would not be able to do so.
Another issue is that, if these courses were chargeable, who would pay? In many cases it would be another public authority. What we would be doing is introducing a bureaucracy to move money around the system. So it would be helpful if the Minister, perhaps not today, could reflect on the advice she was initially given that this would not be covered by fire safety. Perhaps there may be some kind of guidance that could be issued. I think that this is the kind of work that so many people in the community benefit from.
In my own authority, at Basildon fire station, Martin Trevillion leads the community safety programme, and it is an exceptional programme. Having spoken to so many young people that have benefitted from it, I would be reluctant for us to lose that programme simply through inadvertent drafting of legislation.
Finally, I want to raise one other issue, which is that of carbon monoxide safety and awareness. I am also not clear that Section 6(2)(b) of the 2004 Act, which talks about advice on how to prevent fires and on means of escape from buildings, would cover carbon monoxide safety. This is a particular issue: there have been a number of deaths and serious injuries due to carbon monoxide, and it is something that fire authorities are able to take on and work with, and I know that some of them already do so. I would not think that the noble Baroness intended that that should be charged for as well.
When at Second Reading I first raised the issue of charging for community safety, it was clear that the Government had not thought about the implications, quite inadvertently, and this had slipped through. The Minister was able to respond to those concerns very positively. I hope she understands that my raising these tonight is in exactly the same tone, as this is a service provided by the fire authorities, working with their community, which we really would be very loath to lose, if they had to charge for it. I ask the Minister—I think she has had time to reflect, or to receive enlightenment on this issue quite soon—even if she cannot give me a full answer today, to reflect on that so some guidance can be issued, because this resource that is provided by our fire and rescue services is very valuable for the community.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I would like to support what my noble friend has said about the problem of charging for fire advice. When I read the second part of Amendment 113—proposed new subsection (5B)—I thought, “Well, any fire authority that is able to charge will probably do so”. Is it really the Government’s intention that small businesses, and particularly charities like the Scouts and others that are not for profit, should have to pay for such advice? My experience with such businesses is that it is very hard to start up anyway. I believe that you have to get fire advice in many cases. Having to pay will make life even more difficult. I can understand why the Government want to allow fire authorities to make such charges but to do that for non-profit organisations seems to be a little hard. Perhaps the Minister could reflect on that and consider whether it could be omitted for charities and non-profit organisations.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, in moving Amendment 119A, I shall also speak to Amendments 119B, 119D, 119DA and 119BA, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton. The amendments will allow integrated transport authorities and their executive bodies, passenger transport executives, to properly undertake activities that benefit or contribute to their purposes. The enabling power goes beyond the existing incidental powers and can extend outside their geographical boundaries and immediate hinterland. These bodies are not local authorities and will therefore not have the benefit of the general power of competence that is already contained in the Bill.
The matter was debated in another place and in this House on 20 June. In response to an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, the Secretary of State for Transport sought agreement to include suitable provisions in the Localism Bill, and this was given. The amendment provides an appropriate broader general power for integrated transport authorities and their passenger transport executives. For consistency, the power will also be provided to combined authorities and economic prosperity boards.
The main reason why these bodies need such a power is that local authorities using similar powers to the ITA’s existing incidental and well-being powers have been the subject of successful legal challenge. Integrated transport authorities and their passenger transport executives have therefore been unwilling to undertake activities and enterprises that are not expressly prescribed in law. The view that they could be successfully challenged has been supported by legal opinion obtained by the Passenger Transport Executives Group. An example provided by PTEG of the activities that they are seeking to use the new powers for is the provision of back-office functions for transport smart cards, similar to Oyster cards in London, to local authorities not in an ITA area or in another integrated transport authority area. Because providing and charging for such an activity is not expressly permitted by existing legislation, they fear legal challenge.
The potential benefits of integrated transport authorities being able to let their passenger transport executives undertake such operations for others is that they will be able to realise the economies of scale from providing similar services to a number of bodies. The bodies wishing to use these services will also benefit from obtaining the service more cost-effectively from an organisation that is already doing something very similar. The cost savings realised by both provider and client can be passed on to council tax payers. In the case of the service provider, this will be the metropolitan district councils in the area concerned. In the case of the client organisations, this will be either local authorities outside an ITA area or the metropolitan district councils within another ITA area.
The suggested amendment to government Amendment 119B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, is unnecessary because we are satisfied that where it serves some purpose in relation to a body’s function, collective action is already covered in the drafting of the new broader general power to be found in proposed new Clause 102B(1). Noble Lords will be aware that the parliamentary draftsmen undertake their work with great care. We are at one with what powers we want to grant and we should trust the parliamentary draftsmen to get it right on our behalf.
On government Amendment 119D, I have just explained to your Lordships our argument for providing integrated transport authorities and PTEs with wider general powers. This amendment seeks to do the same for combined authorities and economic prosperity boards, which are intended to provide stable governance mechanisms for long-term strategic decision-making on economic issues. In bringing groups of relevant authorities together, both are expected to be based upon meaningful economic geography. Where a combined authority is established for an area, it will be responsible for the transport functions in place of an ITA as well as having economic development and regeneration powers. Currently, one combined authority has been established in Greater Manchester. Economic prosperity boards are similar to combined authorities but without the transport functions. There are presently no economic prosperity boards.
Given that broader powers are being given to integrated transport authorities, it is essential that these powers are also made available to combined authorities and economic prosperity boards to ensure that they can effectively discharge their economic objectives. Indeed, given the close interrelationship between economic development and transport, it would be unreasonable not to confer these broader powers upon both bodies and would undermine their ability to deliver sustainable economic growth. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, this is an interesting group of amendments. The Minister explained their purpose very well, but it seems to me that the pendulum is swinging from local authorities, PTEs and ITAs et cetera getting a bit frightened of what they are allowed to do to something that is beginning to look like a Henry VIII clause in the transport field. That is probably quite a good thing, actually. It seems that they are going to be given powers to do anything. Perhaps the noble Earl could explain whether this could include, in respect of the integrated transport authorities or the passenger transport executives, things such as operating rail franchises if they felt like it. Could they take a bigger role in sponsoring and deciding how the franchises were run, and what would be the extent of their financial commitment to it?
Could those authorities go as far as was recently planned in Merseyside: for Merseytravel to run a vertically integrated railway and take over the infrastructure from Network Rail? It was interesting that that authority had been lobbying to do this for at least five years, if not 10, but then just as the McNulty report, which might have encouraged them to do it, came out it decided that it was not going to do it because it was too risky. However, it is an interesting option that may be open to other authorities. What will they do in running trams and operating buses? The prospect of even better integration between different types of services would be good, if it happened.
Localism Bill
Lord Berkeley Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would like to speak to Amendments 168 and 169.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly entitled to speak to an amendment that has not been moved because, as the clerks will tell one, an amendment belongs to the House. I have to say, though, that it is totally contrary to the spirit and conventions of this House that someone should seek to speak to an amendment that has not been moved. We cannot stop the noble Lord, but I hope that he will do so extremely briefly. I have a number of other amendments in exactly the same situation, and I do not intend to say anything about them at all.
Lord Berkeley
“Planning permission for subterranean development
After section 75 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, insert—“75A Planning permission for subterranean development
(1) Any proposed development which extends below the ground level of an existing property shall be deemed to be “a subterranean development” and any person seeking to undertake a subterranean development must—
(a) commission a “Subterranean Impact Study” by consultants approved by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the impact of the proposed subterranean development upon—(i) subterranean ground conditions with particular reference to flowing and standing water; and(ii) foundations, footings and structure of any adjacent buildings and other buildings within a radius of 100 metres of the proposed development;(b) provide owners of any adjacent properties and of properties within a radius of 100 metres with a copy of the Subterranean Impact Study and enter into consultation with the respective owners during a period of not less than 90 days;(c) submit a copy of the Subterranean Impact Study to the relevant planning authority, together with the results of the consultation with relevant adjacent and nearby property owners, before submitting any application for full planning approval for the proposed subterranean development from the relevant planning authority;(d) seek the approval of the Secretary of State for the proposed subterranean development;(e) provide an appropriate warranty or bond and security for expenses to a value to be determined by a specialist advisor.””
Lord Berkeley
I wish to move Amendment 168 very briefly and to speak to Amendment 169. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, said, the amendments have not already been debated, in spite of what it says on the groupings list. Amendments 170CA, 170CB and 170CE are not on the groupings list and they have not been debated either, so I hope that they will be debated at some stage.
All I was going to say in moving the amendment—in fact, I was hoping to speak to it after another noble Lord had moved it—was that I supported it. I was also going to ask the Minister whether and how it would apply to underground workings such as cracking. Cracking is the extraction of gas from underneath the ground: one drills many thousands of feet underground and pumps in high pressure water and gas is then extracted. This is a common occurrence in the United States at the moment. A lot of gas is extracted but a lot of houses are subsiding and being damaged as a result. I believe that the same process is being planned or has started in the Blackpool area. I am looking for information from the Minister on that as well. Whether I get it now or whether he writes to me, I do not really mind. I beg to move.
Lord Selsdon
My Lords, as it is my amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is, I believe, a former member or director of the piggy-back club, I assume that he is piggy-backing. My amendment is too big to be discussed here. I consulted my party and it has very kindly given me leave to introduce a Private Member’s Bill which will cover all these areas. I would much appreciate it if the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, would co-operate with me. I should declare that I have lots of underground interests too.
Lord Berkeley
I am grateful for that remark and I look forward to further discussions with the noble Lord.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I think it is a bit unfair to suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was going to weary the Committee. I say to noble Lords that if the issue is a big one and they have other routes for having a debate, why put down an amendment? When amendments go down, we all spend time trying to get our minds around what the issues are so that we can respond. It wastes our time as well.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, just about everything that could be said has been said on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked about gas extraction. I will have a letter written to him before the next stage so that he knows the situation.
Lord Berkeley
“Matters to which local authorities must have regard
(1) When considering planning applications for, in particular, warehouses, distribution sites, ports, airports and airfields, local authorities must have regard to the impact on—
(a) businesses,(b) leisure facilities,(c) the provision of emergency services,(d) the environment, and(e) the local economy.(2) When considering planning applications which are expected to result in a significant increase in the use of local transport infrastructure, local authorities must have regard to—
(a) achieving the minimum disruption to local transport infrastructure,(b) achieving efficient freight access to businesses,(c) encouraging the use of sustainable transport,(d) ensuring pedestrians, disabled people and cyclists are appropriately provided for, and(e) possible alterations to the infrastructure to make use of future low-carbon transport.(3) Local authorities must adopt planning policies to protect transport routes which may reasonably be believed to have a role in providing low-carbon transport in the future.”
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, in general planning terms, this amendment seeks to establish how larger developments, which we discussed yesterday, fit into the local planning framework. Quite often, with big developments—ports, airfields, airports, warehouses, distribution centres or whatever, or even energy projects, that we have discussed at length—there are problems with the local facilities getting overloaded. It is very important that there is a link between the way that these big projects get permissions and what happens around them locally, which may or may not be subject to Section 106 agreements or other agreements.
Looking particularly at subsection (2) of this amendment, one can envisage a significant increase in the use of local transport and heavy goods vehicle transport. Therefore, it seems important to encourage sustainable transport here and also not to forget the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and disabled people and generally to encourage the use of low-carbon transport. It may be seen as an amendment to introduce something we have talked about before—general sustainable development. I hope that it is more than motherhood and apple pie and that the Minister, in responding, may say that it will all be in the national planning policy framework, which is now imminent, I believe. I will look on the website when I leave here and see if it is. It would be good to hear from the Minister whether these kinds of issues will be in the NPPF, or, if not, whether the Government look with favour on amendments such as this. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the noble Lord has introduced an interesting amendment which rustles between two responsibilities. If this were a very big application, such as those in the first part of the amendment—sites, ports, airfields—that would not be the responsibility of local authorities, that would be for the new planning inspectorates or commission. On the other applications, I think that that would happen already—it is all part and parcel of our planning considerations—and while we understand the concern about balancing the transport system in favour of sustainable transport, which the noble Lord mentioned, he should understand that is only part of what is included.
Many of these areas are already taken into account—I am trying to go back to my own limited experience from years ago—and most are things that the planning committee would be interested in, while the bigger applications will be dealt with by other means, although local authorities will, of course, be able to comment on them as they go along. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Berkeley
I am very grateful to the Minister for that response. She is absolutely right that on big projects, these things should be taken into account in the whole, but I still have a concern about something falling between two stools, if that is the right analogy. Perhaps I can have a discussion with her between now and Report, or read Hansard. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Localism Bill
Lord Berkeley Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jenkin of Roding
In moving this amendment, I wish to discuss the other two with which it is grouped. I tabled these amendments before we had the debate last Tuesday in which we discussed the application of the community infrastructure levy. Anxieties had already been aroused with regard to the original purpose of the levy being altered. My noble friend Lord Attlee spelt out that purpose very correctly. It is meant to support infrastructure development and be paid by the developer of a facility such as housing or industry. My noble friend Lord Greaves had moved an amendment which would widen the permitted use of the levy receipts beyond infrastructure matters that support the development of the area. My noble friend Lord Attlee said:
“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”.—[Official Report, 12/7/11; col. 707.]
He went on to say:
“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”.—[Official Report, 12/7/11; cols. 709.]
These words have aroused considerable anxiety. I have a copy of a letter written yesterday by the Institution of Civil Engineers to the Secretary of State. The letter was copied to my right honourable friend Greg Clark and my noble friend Lord Attlee. The institution’s chairman wrote:
“I am writing to highlight concerns regarding the Government’s undertaking to reflect on allowing the use of the Community Infrastructure Levy on matters other than infrastructure. The Levy was specifically conceived and justified to provide for new and upgraded infrastructure—a point reinforced by the Government many times”.
Indeed, they did so most recently last Tuesday through my noble friend Lord Attlee.
The purpose of these three amendments is to try to get clarification on three specific issues. First, Amendment 148ZZBBBA seeks to ensure that the application of CIL is confined to the provision and maintenance of an infrastructure project which is in an approved charging schedule, on the ground that that fulfils the original purpose of the introduction of the CIL. The institution believes—I accept the case that was made on Tuesday and is in the Bill—that this should include what is called in the Bill “ongoing expenditure”, which I understand to mean the maintenance of an approved infrastructure project financed by CIL. I hope that my noble friend can give me a very clear undertaking that there is no question of this levy being used simply to fill a revenue hole in a local authority’s budget. It has to be confined to the provision and maintenance of an infrastructure project.
My second point has been touched on but I would like to be given a much needed assurance. There are plenty of examples of where developers have agreed to make a contribution under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. If a developer has made such an agreement—sometimes it can last for a number of years—he should not be charged the CIL in addition. I hope that my noble friend can give me a clear undertaking on that. It was briefly discussed, and if we had not risen when we did on Tuesday, I would have intervened, because I was expecting to move the amendment on Tuesday night. I said, “Let’s wait until I am speaking”.
My third point concerns the suggestion of compensating communities by allowing CIL receipts to be passed to other persons. I do not quarrel with that—although I know that some object—but it must be spent on infrastructure projects. It must not be allowed to be a financial recompense paid to a community because it has development in its area. I hope that my noble friend can give me a clear assurance on that.
My final point is that the area must not be too tightly defined. There is anxiety that that may be the effect of the Bill. For instance, if the money has to be spent in the area, how will that fund a bypass which may be necessary as a result of the development, or flood defences, which may have to happen well outside the area but are clearly for its benefit?
I have asked a number of questions, and I do not think that I need to go on longer. Those are seen as serious issues by those concerned with re-establishing our infrastructure in this country. I took part in the original debate on the CIL when the 2008 Bill was going through the House. Indeed, I tried to ensure that both Houses would be able to approve the delegated legislation under it. I carried that in this House, but it was turned down by the then Leader of the House in another place. I have a considerable interest in making sure that we get this right. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I am very pleased to support the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, on this group of amendments. He has articulated very well the problems which the CIL could cause developers. It is particularly important for bigger projects, which might be taken through a hybrid Bill process, through the IPC or the Transport and Works Act, where the decisions are effectively made by Ministers. Ministers will approve—or not—a deal which ends up as a Section 106 agreement. The worry is that, completely separately, the local authority might want to put a CIL charge on the project. One must think of the effect on business confidence when considering ports, airports, logistics centres, railways, roads, power stations or anything else of that size, and of the figures involved.
The people who run Gatwick Airport have told us that they are committed under a Section 106 agreement to contribute about £1 million annually to public transport via a levy on their car park revenues. If they had also been required to pay a CIL to the local authority—probably retrospectively, because it may well have happened after the Section 106 agreement was signed—they would not know what liability they would be stung for, frankly. To give two bigger examples, Hutchison Ports had a Section 106 agreement to extend the ports at both Felixstowe and Bathside Bay. It was committed under the agreement to spend about £100 million on upgrading the railway line to Leeds. We can question why it should be Leeds, but that is what was agreed. I think that the London Gateway port project, downstream on the Thames, had to contribute a similar amount for road improvements between there and the M25. If, having signed up to all that, they are suddenly stung for a CIL, it will put off developers from going ahead with these projects. It is after all the Government’s wish to develop new projects—I return again to the Secretary of State for Transport’s plan to build a high-speed railway line to Birmingham and beyond. You can imagine that people in villages along the route who do not like the plan, having had their referendum to vote against it, will then try to sting the promoters, whoever they may be, for a CIL. It could get quite interesting. It will put off business and I hope that when the Minister responds he can strengthen the assurance that was given in another place that a CIL will not be levied on projects for which a Section 106 agreement has been entered into and agreed.
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 Berkeley
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, suggested that Section 106 might be being phased out. Is that correct?
Localism Bill
Lord Berkeley Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I support these amendments. In some ways they are no-brainers: it is so obvious that they need to be there to close the gap that my noble friend mentioned.
Proposed new subsection (1A)(b) in subsection (2) of the amendment covers flooding risk, which gets greater all the time. However, many local authorities, sadly, do not take that into account when they allow new developments. Going back 20 years, there was an amazing story in Cornwall where someone wanted to develop a site near the beach in St Austell Bay. The developer produced the plans and everything went fine but the local people said, “The sea will overtop it”—many tens of millions of pounds had been spent on this development by then—but the developer said no and the council said nothing. A week later the sea did overtop it and flooded a large area. It was a high tide, which happens every now and then. Five years on, planning permission was finally obtained for this enormous development but with a very much higher sea wall. The amount of money and time wasted by people not taking into account the risks of climate change are tremendous.
I remind the Committee that proposed new subsection (1A) means including policies to encourage walking, cycling, public transport and much less use of the car; and the location of schools, hospitals and other such places where there is so often a consolidation which means that people have to travel much further to use them through no fault of their own. These issues never seem to come into the assessment. I hope that when the Minister responds he will support the amendment or come back with one in his own words if he thinks it is defective in its drafting, which I have heard him suggest before.
Lord Boyd of Duncansby
This is the first time that I have spoken in this stage of the Bill so I declare an interest as a solicitor in private practice, mostly in Scotland but also to some extent in England. I want to make two quick points. First, the Climate Change Act establishes legally binding objectives and targets for the reduction of carbon emissions by 2050. The development plan is the way in which the built environment is shaped for the future. It is really important that we ensure a seamless see-through in meeting these targets. The development plan is an important element of that.
Secondly, the national policy statements on nationally significant infrastructure projects all have within them considerable sections targeted at climate change. The Government are to be congratulated on taking forward those national policy statements in that way. There is an argument that, if the national policy statements make such a priority of ensuring that developments meet the carbon target, surely the development plan fulfils a similar function.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think I gave the noble Lord the answer to this when I said that the presumption would be that the planning should be in accordance with the NPPF and any other material considerations. Outside that, the presumption must be that approval is given, so there is an incentive for local authorities to get these plans in place.
Lord Berkeley
Could the Minister clarify that? Is there not going to be a sort of bonanza before the LDP is finally approved? Before that, all the applicants will have to do is comply with the NPPF, which must be a very high-level document. Will there not be a flood of planning applications that, as the Minister said, the local authority will probably have to approve?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, there is an incentive for local authorities to get these plans in place—I think I have made that point throughout our discussions on these amendments—and all other material considerations have to be met, so it does not happen totally in the void. Local authorities must have regard to their own circumstances when taking other matters into account, which is all the more reason for them to be working on these plans at the present time.
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.
Diplomatic Missions: Unpaid Congestion Charges and Parking Fines
Lord Berkeley Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Localism Bill
Lord Berkeley Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Valentine
I declare an interest as chief executive of London First, a not-for-profit business membership organisation that includes developers, infrastructure providers and others who may have an interest in the practical implications of the Bill.
As a general point of principle, it is unreasonable to transfer the financial sanctions that emanate from European law to a subsidiary body unless that body has been given adequate powers and resources to meet the law and, furthermore, the UK Government have fully discharged their own obligations. Fairly attributing responsibility for who has infringed the law and the extent to which they have done so is not simple, as other noble Lords have already pointed out. Therefore, I support Amendment 117, which would introduce an independent panel to determine such matters. However, the amendment still leaves the final decision about who will pay the fine with the UK Government. I should like to see the powers of the panel taken a step further, with it being given the power to make this decision. The legitimacy to do so would be derived from its independence, which is not something that the UK Government can claim to have.
In London, this has been raised as a matter of particular concern in the context of the air quality and waste water directives by the GLA, local authorities and private organisations that exercise public functions. Who, for example, is to blame for poor air quality at Marble Arch? Is it the GLA, Westminster City Council, taxi firms or the bus companies? These are complex issues that require independent consideration and a panel with the power to determine who should pay the fine.
While on the subject, I am also concerned about the provisions in this part of the Bill that relate to EU fines, which would allow the UK Government to transfer liability to local and public authorities that exercise a public function. This is an issue addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in Amendment 117A, which I support. The problem is that, for the purpose of the Bill, public authorities include private organisations that are already subject to existing government legislation and the power of independent regulators. Private organisations may also be subject to contractual obligations, including financial penalties, for providing services outsourced by the public sector.
In relation to EU fines, private organisations should not be held accountable for something that it is not wholly, or even largely, in their power to achieve. It is the UK Government who negotiate with the EU. It is their role to ensure that EU directives are transposed effectively into UK law, and that the right policy and regulatory framework is in place to achieve that. I would welcome any reassurances that Ministers can provide on that matter.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I support all those who have spoken so far to express concern about this group of amendments. I thought it would be interesting to examine just how many of these directives, infraction proceedings, reasoned opinions, pilots and so on are likely to be in place at any one time. I start with those relating to transport. In a Written Answer on 7 June the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said that 21 transport proceedings under Article 258 are currently unresolved. We do not yet know how many of those will result in a fine. One hopes that very few or none will, but that is the kind of number that we are talking about in transport. Therefore, one could suggest that there would be several hundred across the whole Government. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us how many are at stake across government.
The next thing I am concerned about is who this should apply to. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, mentioned private water companies and he is quite right. It would be useful to look at some examples. I have two examples. The first is the Channel Tunnel, which I spent 15 years helping to build years ago. The Commission has a pilot, which is the first stage of these proceedings, against the British and French Governments alleging failure to implement European legislation. The two Governments subcontract, if that is the right word, the regulation of the Channel Tunnel to something called the intergovernmental commission, which is actually part of government, which is meant to regulate the infrastructure manager in order to comply with the legislation. In the first stage of that situation, the Government would have to fine themselves. They would then have to fine the intergovernmental commission. Perhaps the intergovernmental commission would then pass it on to the private sector infrastructure manager. It sounds a little complicated to me and I do not think that it would work legally. The same could be applied to Network Rail, which is in the private sector, if the Government decided to follow the line suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.
The figures are big. Many speakers have talked about the air pollution problem in London. The figure I have heard from the Commission is that the likely size of fine could be £300 million. Whether it was the present mayor—it could not be the previous mayor even though he came from a different party—the present TfL, the Government or whoever else, £300 million is a very big figure. We should bear this in mind when we talk about how this should be resolved.
The other example I have is an interesting one because it applies to most local authorities in this country. It is the first stage in the complaint from the Commission that local authorities are not complying with the green vehicle procurement rules. The directive—2009/33—came into force on 4 December 2010 and it,
“requires the public sector to use its purchasing power to promote clean and energy-efficient vehicles. Every time they purchase a vehicle for public transport services, they must take into account energy consumption”,
and so on. The obligation extends to all purchases of road transport vehicles by public authorities or transport operators. There are many experts in your Lordships’ House who know how many local authorities there are in this country—in England anyway, and Wales if Wales is included in it. However, working out a £300 million or £200 million fine between all those local authorities and then allowing each one to take this arbitration route, which I hope will be implemented unless the clause is lost completely, is just unthinkable.
I shall be interested to hear from the Minister how the Government will deal with that kind of failure to comply with the green vehicle procurement rules which apply to every local authority. How do they propose to apportion the fine even before it gets to arbitration? How much would this arbitration cost each time it was used? We all know who is going to pay for it. It will be the taxpayer in the end or the local authority ratepayer, depending on whose side you are on or who gets legal aid. With this kind of enormous scope for potential failure, before one starts apportioning blame, the whole thing should be scrapped.
Earl Cathcart
My Lords, as this is the first time I have spoken in Committee, I should declare that I am a landlord, a landowner, I have been a councillor in Norfolk for a number of years, and I am chairman of my parish.
When I first saw these provisions, I did wonder who on earth had dreamt them up. It is all too easy and tempting to blame Brussels, but in this instance, I do not think we can. I do not know of any other EU country that is bringing in similar provisions. Here I am confused. If it came from the British Government, which I think it did, why does it apply only to English councils? Why the urgency? What have English councils done, or rather, not done, that merits these provisions?
We all know that Britain gold-plates all EU directives so that Britain complies, or rather, overcomplies, with all directives, unlike some member states. Why are these provisions necessary? After all, Britain has never been fined by the EU. Are the Government worried that we are about to be fined? If so, given that we gold-plate all EU directives, it must be that we face a possible fine for something we have signed up to that has been impossible to deliver. In that case, why penalise local authorities? After all, they were not party to the negotiations with the EC. This makes me wonder whether a fine will apply to things that have happened, or rather, have not happened, in the past. Will these fines be retrospective or will they apply only to future events and future non-compliance? The EU treaty quite clearly states that only Governments are liable for any fines. Here we have provisions that allow the Secretary of State to lay off the blame and the fine onto local authorities.
If the Government persist with Part 2 of the Bill—I hope that they do not—and they are successful in pinning the blame on local authorities, the big question is how local authorities are going to find the money. We know that local government finance is already under tremendous strain. To have to pay an EU fine might mean cutting front-line services. That cannot be the right answer and I do not believe that would be acceptable. After all, local authorities already have big enough trouble cutting their budgets. To do so again to pay an EU fine would be untenable.
How are local authorities going to find this extra money to pay the fine? They could increase council tax, but again that would be unacceptable. Why should households be penalised for something that is totally out of their control? Anyway, any increase in council tax can now be challenged. The only other source of income that local authorities have is from the central government grants. That would be like robbing Peter to pay Paul. There are provisions in the Bill that require the Minister to take account of the effect of any fine on a local authority’s finances. So presumably, if a local authority is strapped for cash—and they all are—then no doubt central government will end up picking up the tab. Here we have a situation where the Government pass on their fine from the EU to local authorities which they, the Government, may well end up having to fund themselves.
Why bother with all these procedures: the Secretary of State publishing a statement of policy and then determining how the amounts are to be paid; apportioning the blame across various local authorities; giving warning notices; issuing a final EU financial sanction notice; the appeal process; the protracted legal battles between local authorities and the Government; and perhaps an independent arbitration system to ensure the Minister is not, as other noble Lords have said, judge, jury, executioner and co-defendant? There is all this protracted bureaucracy and legal wrangling when, at the end of the day, the final bill will probably be picked up by central government anyway. All because in the past the Government have signed up to something with the EU that they cannot deliver, because if they could deliver, we would already have gold-plated regulations.
Therefore, rather than squabbling among ourselves, would it not be better if the Government concentrated their efforts and firepower on challenging any fine, if and when one is imposed? They should renegotiate with Brussels, if necessary, and, in future, ensure that Britain does not sign up to anything that is not in our interests or that we cannot deliver. As things stand, I cannot see the point of all this. It is a clear case of cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.
Lord Empey
My Lords, I wanted to speak briefly to Amendment 110 and to make a few other comments, but it would be a brave Ulsterman who would take on the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on a Welsh amendment. However, I assure him that I want merely to talk about the principle here. Although the Bill does not apply specifically to Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Local Government Association has asked me to raise some matters of principle, because if the principle is established in the Bill that local authorities will or could be liable for EU fines, sooner or later it will have national significance. While some EU directives may often have specific geographical implications, others have wider national implications.
I do not have a problem with the principle that the polluter pays, but it has to be understood that local government throughout the United Kingdom is not a universal picture. Local authorities in Northern Ireland have far fewer powers than those in the rest of the United Kingdom. They also raise most of their own money—more than 80 per cent—by rates. Consequently, they do not have a large central government grant, as is the case in England. Therefore, it is not possible for the Government simply to reduce the grant that local authorities in Northern Ireland receive in order to take the money off them, because they do not get it in the first place. If you impose a fine on a Northern Ireland local authority, you impose it directly on the ratepayer. That has to be understood.
The other matter is that the powers of local councils vary considerably. The Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland is largely responsible for local government, but other groups and public bodies will perhaps share policy implementation with local councils. Air and water pollution have been talked about. Local councils obviously have or could have an environmental health role in this, but other public bodies might be responsible for other aspects, including water pollution, sewage and so on.
The Northern Ireland Local Government Association, in consultation with other local government bodies, including the LGA, has expressed concern—not only because they have not been consulted about the measures, but because, although the Bill does not directly affect them at present, they believe that sooner or later it will. That is because EU fines have a national implication, as well as a local one. It was, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who said that he was not aware that EU fines had started to be imposed. I can assure him that they have, because I know, at home, our Department of Agriculture is being fined very heavily over issues concerning mapping. Grants were being distributed on the basis of maps, and now we have armies of planners who, as a result of not having much to do during the recession, are poring over aerial maps, because in the designation of fields, the boundaries of areas of rough ground may have become unclear. Brussels is now saying that people have been double claiming and doing all sorts of things. I can assure the noble Lord that fines are being imposed, exemplary damages are being applied, and the fines are vastly in excess of the amount of money that may have been inappropriately spent or given to a particular claimant. The Government are being fined millions of pounds above that. We are talking about substantial issues.
Lord Berkeley
I should like to say that it was not me who suggested that the British Government had not been fined.
Lord Empey
I beg your pardon; I may have picked up a comment from someone else.
When the Government are finalising what they are going to do on this issue, they need to take into account the significant regional disparities. One understands that the Government are trying to establish the point that the polluter pays. However, the big issue with all this is that we send representatives to Brussels—and I do not know whether the late-night hospitality and the all-night sessions are to blame—decisions can be forced through at 4 am and our representatives keep putting their hands up to approve them. Then, five or six years later, they blame Brussels for enforcing those decisions when it is they who have agreed to them. I have to say: beware the late-night hospitality. We should pick representatives who are good at doing this at night. In a negotiation, I fear that the officials will know full well that a certain Minister has to get away to an event somewhere else, perhaps at 1 pm the following day, and know that if they push for a decision at 3 am or 4 am, the Minister will put their hands up and agree to anything. I seriously suggest that we be careful what we agree to, because it comes back to haunt us many years later.
I accept that the provision in the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland, and it is not entirely clear as to whether it applies even to Wales. The Minister may answer that this is an England-only Bill, but while local government is a reserved or devolved matter in certain areas, EU fines are, of course, a national issue or a reserved matter. The interface where these issues collide is not entirely clear to me, and I sincerely hope that the noble Baroness will take this into account when she replies.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I will be delighted to deal with the noble Lord’s point later in my speech.
I was very interested to see the amendments tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. In considering the merits of these, we would need to be certain that any panel would provide additional value on top of the existing availability of judicial review. Amendment 114A, tabled by my noble friends Lady Eaton and Lord Tope and the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord McKenzie, would take this a step further. I do not feel, however, that arbitration is appropriate. This is not just about deciding between disputing parties on a breach of contract; it is a complex matter that involves myriad decisions, including on the apportionment of resources and most importantly on the ability to pay. It is not appropriate for a single unelected individual to make such decisions, any more than it would be for them to decide the local government finance settlement.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, made a point about the revenue support grant. I go back to my point that it is not about raising money; it is about avoiding the fines in the first place.
Lord Berkeley
The Minister mentioned ability to pay. If a council has no money, does that mean that the Government will not have to pay?
Earl Attlee
Not quite, my Lords, but the decision-making process will have to ensure that what the council pays is affordable. It may hurt them, but there is no intention to bankrupt a local authority, which I think would concern noble Lords. There has to be an affordable fine. However, if an amendment similar to the one tabled by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes were put in place, it would be hard for Ministers to ignore its advice without making themselves vulnerable to judicial review. I am very grateful for the clear way in which my noble friend explained her amendments.
I welcome the tone of the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and I can confirm that we will make clear in the policy statement our commitments to the principles of fairness, reasonableness, proportionality and no surprises. This is why I find the draft document from the Greater London Authority so helpful. Unfortunately, the amendment, which seeks to put tougher tests on culpability by using the criminal standard of law, causes some real practical difficulties. Unfortunately, the European Court of Justice proceedings are based on civil standards of proof. Rather than rerunning the European procedures here in the UK to the higher test, it is better to use a court’s finding to focus on quickly achieving compliance.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding seeks to ensure that the Government cannot designate any private company. I agree that we should not penalise companies for their private services and functions. I believe that this amendment needs further consideration. We need to ensure clarity as to who is to be covered by these provisions.
Finally, to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, whose amendment we are debating, I suggest that there is no need for his amendment. Clause 36 sets out that the powers apply only to English authorities exercising public functions in England.
Earl Attlee
My noble friend Lord Jenkin asked where we are in negotiations with outside bodies. He is of course, correct in what he surmises. However, your Lordships and another place will have to decide what is to be done in the end. In conclusion, I would like the opportunity to consider, in consultation with ministerial colleagues, those suggested amendments which could provide a way forward and a solution.
While I am clear that putting the decision-making in the hands of a single unelected individual is not helpful, I am very willing to take away the other suggestions from noble Lords. I believe that together we can develop good solutions in time for Report. While I cannot accept a veto, I am very happy to continue discussions with outside bodies and noble Lords in order to develop this good solution before Report. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Berkeley
Will the Minister explain his last reference to the different types of organisations that might be covered, which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and I raised, be they water companies or railway companies? Is the Minister going to write to noble Lords who have spoken with more detailed responses to all these things, or is he going to recommend that we put down amendments on Report about which should be covered and which should not?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am very happy to enter into detailed discussions with any noble Lord.