Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Berkeley and Lord Jenkin of Roding

Monday 3rd November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I support my noble friend on this group of amendments. I will briefly develop his theme by looking at the amendments in the group that relate to the monitor. I have proposed that the name of the Office of Rail Regulation should be changed, but that does not matter very much.

In Clause 9, the Government have introduced Amendments 41 and 43, both of which are welcome. They are a step forward from our discussions and I am certainly pleased to see them there. I have one or two amendments to those two amendments on the Marshalled List, which are complicated to go through and I am not going to attempt to go into any great detail now. Their purpose is twofold. One relates to safety and the other efficiency.

On the railways, one of the two tasks of the Office of Rail Regulation is to ensure that the network is operated as safely as possible under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, which is slightly modified for railways. As my noble friend Lord Whitty said, the approach of the amendments is to do the same for the roads. Let us not forget that, as my noble friend said, just under 2,000 people were killed on the roads in the past year compared with none on the railways—no passengers, very few rail workers and I am not sure about the road workers. Sadly, suicides are a separate issue. The difference between 2,000 on the roads and none on the railways indicates that the structure of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act is working very well on the railways. In these amendments, I propose that a similar thing should be done on the roads, supervised by the Office of Rail Regulation.

The other relevant matter in this group is that, as we discussed briefly in Committee, the monitor should not only have the ability to check on the efficiency of the strategic highways company, but have powers of enforcement if it felt that the efficiency was not as it should be. Again, that is contained in the amendments. One thing worries me about the Government’s amendments. There is a constraint on the independence of the monitor, which is serious. The rail regulator is totally independent. He cannot be sacked except under extreme circumstances that we do not need to go into. But in Amendment 43 on general duties that the monitor should act under, the Government say that the principles are that:

“(b) regulatory activities should be targeted only at cases in which action is needed”.

Who decides when that takes place? Who decides which actions are needed? Surely it must be the regulator who decides. If that is the case, then proposed new subparagraph (b) in Amendment 43 is superfluous. If it is the Government, I suggest that they would be interfering in the independence of the regulator.

In Amendment 48, the guidance that the monitor would receive in proposed new subsection (2) includes:

“The Secretary of State and the Treasury, acting jointly, must give the Office”,

of Rail Regulation,

“guidance as to the circumstances in which the payment of a fine under [this] section … should be required”.

Whereas the ORR can fine Network Rail whenever it likes if it has due cause, when it comes to the strategic highways authority it has to ask the Treasury’s permission first. That sends completely the wrong message. It would be good if the Minister could agree to look at those two things and the general safety outline as to how it will be implemented under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act as part of the discussions between now and Third Reading.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, I have listened to the argument with interest and some incredulity. Seeking to compare the number of deaths on the railways with the number of deaths on the roads ignores major differences between the two forms of transport. The roads are essentially a matter for individual drivers and many accidents and deaths are caused by serious driver error. It can be because the vehicles have not been properly inspected. Older vehicles always have to have annual road testing. Of course, there are many other causes, such as the terrible bonfire that swept smoke right across the motorway and caused serious accidents. But none of those can conceivably be laid at the door of the highways authority.

The design of the roads, signposting, warning signs and a whole range of things are the responsibility of the highways authority and would be the responsibility of the strategic road company, but a great many of the issues for which the strategic highways authority would be made directly responsible—the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, talked about legal liability—cannot conceivably be laid at the door of that authority. The language that he has used in his various amendments simply does not draw the distinction between issues that are clearly the responsibility of other authorities, notably the whole question of licensing, inspection and testing of vehicles and the question of skills of drivers and so forth. I do not see how the highways authority could be made responsible for all that.

I studied the noble Lord’s amendment and listened to his eloquent speech in which he made it clear that he has a very real interest, although non-pecuniary, in road safety, but it is overstepping the mark to try to lay the liability for that sort of thing at the doors of the strategic highways authority. I will listen to what my noble friend says having studied her amendments on this issue with interest. For the moment, I am not persuaded on this occasion by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.

Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Berkeley and Lord Jenkin of Roding

Tuesday 8th July 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I support my noble friends on this amendment. It may well be that in her reply the Minister will refer to more than one of the five documents that she referred to in last week’s Committee sitting and kindly e-mailed to us the next day. I have now read them but they do not tell me a lot about the questions that we were asking. I hope that before we get to Report we will have the detail—I think that the Minister suggested that more would be forthcoming—of the relationship between a strategy, if there is to be one, a licence for this company, directions and guidance, articles, duties, governance and things such as that. However, in the case of this amendment, who is going to decide how much the staff of the new company are paid unless it is the Secretary of State?

As my noble friend said, it is beginning to look as though the only reason for making this change is so that the staff can be paid more than they are at the moment. It may be that the people who proposed this looked longingly at the remuneration and bonuses received by the senior staff at Network Rail in recent years without seeing that that is changing quite dramatically to a lower figure. Of course, once Network Rail is fully owned by the state, it may change even further. It would be interesting to hear how we are going to know who is in charge of remuneration, management, financial arrangements and staffing if it is not the Secretary of State. Therefore, I think that this is a very good amendment and I fully support it.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding (Con)]

My Lords, I take this opportunity to thank my noble friend and her private office for the help that we were given after last week’s sitting with the supply of the documents to which she had referred and to which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has also just referred. I am very grateful. I, too, have read them, and the draft licence in particular, with all the caveats surrounding it, which I totally understand, is a very helpful indication. It might have been helpful if I had known about it when we were discussing the purposes of setting up this body and what its objectives would be.

I would have expected a remuneration committee to be the sort of thing to be covered by the articles of association. Indeed, the paper that the Minister has circulated, entitled Strategic Highways Company: Approach to the Articles of Association, makes reference to the,

“Model Articles for a company limited by shares”.

Of course, this company cannot be the same as that because, in a sense, it is rather different with all the shares owned by the Secretary of State. However, I would have expected the whole question of a remuneration committee to be covered by the articles when they are finally drawn up and issued.

It is absolutely within the powers of a board of directors to decide how that is going to operate, but I think that it is not unreasonable that the Secretary of State should keep a very close eye on this issue. Some of the remuneration that has been paid—not only in the private sector, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, implied, but sometimes also in the public sector—has been a bit absurd and given rise to a good deal of criticism and uneasiness. I should have expected the Secretary of State to want to keep a close eye on what the company is doing. As I understand it, it will primarily be for the articles of association to spell out this sort of thing, and I would be most grateful if my noble friend would be willing to confirm that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley]

I am going to confuse the Committee because my Amendment 42, which we will come on to shortly, suggests that the name should be the transport infrastructure and services council. However, after I tabled this amendment I had a discussion with the chief executive of the Rail Passengers’ Council, who said that a much better name than anything anyone has suggested before, including the Government, was the transport users’ council. I will just throw that into the ring and see what the Minister and other noble Lords think of it.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

It sounds a very good name. However, might there not be some confusion with another body with the same initials—the TUC?

Civil Aviation Bill

Debate between Lord Berkeley and Lord Jenkin of Roding

Monday 2nd July 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Berkeley]

I suppose my noble friend is thinking in particular about those bankers who are now all over the press for possibly having committed criminal acts to fiddle the LIBOR. They are probably the only people who could afford to spend an extra £2,000 or so to save five or 10 minutes—or maybe several hours—coming into the country. There is just one thing that I would add to this. There is some benefit in having famous people who are prepared to speak out going through the same process as everyone else. Occasionally, they get so fed up that they go to the media and complain about it. I suspect that part of the reason why things are getting better at immigration in airports is that one or two people have had the guts to speak out and say, “This is iniquitous”. If these people were tempted to jump the queue by paying £1,000 or £2,000, we would lose that. My noble friend has made a very strong argument for having this in legislation on the basis that people should not pay extra for special treatment.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

I should like to be reassured that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, does not seek to insist that everyone must stand in the same queue for check-in. If you buy a first-class ticket, many airlines have special check-in counters for such travellers. That seems entirely appropriate and entirely different from going through immigration, either outwards or inwards. The amendment specifically mentions check-in. However, it seems entirely appropriate that if you buy a first-class ticket you can go to a first-class check-in desk and not wait as long as you would if you had bought a standard fare.

Civil Aviation Bill

Debate between Lord Berkeley and Lord Jenkin of Roding

Wednesday 27th June 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

I think the local authorities would have some difficulty planning together an orbital railway joining up the HS2 to HS1, with a branch to a potential Thames Estuary airport. It is a very imaginative scheme.

Having lived with the concept of a Thames Estuary airport for about 20 years, the first proposal put forward for it envisaged an orbital rail link around the north of London. In which case, therefore, you do not have a situation where people have to come right into London and cross from one station to another in order to get out to their airport. There is a substantial issue here; however, as I said a moment ago, I cannot see that this could be a function of the Civil Aviation Authority. It has issues that go much wider than what falls within their level of responsibility. One would suspect also the competence of the advice that they have—it must be from my honourable friends in the Department for Transport.

Perhaps I could ask one question. I have asked my noble friend if he would meet some of the people who are proposing to put forward the case for the extension of the HS1—HS2 to go around the north of London—and he has undertaken to consider whether that would be appropriate. I hope I do not misrepresent him. I wonder whether he is yet able to give me an answer: can he meet those who have done a great deal of work on this subject and would be able to offer very valuable advice that may well not be available within the Department for Transport itself?

It cannot be right for Ministers to keep at arm’s length, as it were, outside expert evidence that could greatly improve the quality of their decision-making. It arises only peripherally from this amendment, but we are talking about surface access, and therefore it is highly relevant.

While I am in some sympathy with my noble friend’s amendment, I am not able to support it for the reasons that I and others have mentioned, that it cannot possibly be the responsibility of the CAA to have to make provision for surface access in the way that the amendment suggests.

[Lord Berkeley]

Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may press him a little further on what he said with respect to the proposed airport in the Thames Estuary—that it could apply anywhere. As the Government want, and as is suggested in this Bill, the airports are effectively in competition with each other. If they then want to expand, they will have to apply for planning permission in some way or another, then demonstrate what transport plans they have, and who will pay for them. That will then go back to the Government, who will decide which development happens where according to whether they are prepared to pay for the transport links. Is that the way the noble Lord thinks it should happen?

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

Certainly, the question of paying for it would have to be considered in some detail. The great advantage of the Foster + Partners proposal as put forward is that they recognise that this would be financed not by the taxpayer but by investment which they would attract perhaps from around the world. There should be a great deal of investment interest in a project of this kind. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is absolutely right, of course, that when this goes to the IPC or its successor, this is precisely the sort of thing that would need to be demonstrated, along with all the other things that the planning system requires. If, however, the Department for Transport is unable to meet the proponents of such a scheme, it will start with not one but two hands behind its back. That is why I have pressed my noble friend to say that in the context of the HS2 consultation he will meet the people concerned, and I very much hope that his officials will feel that it is appropriate for him to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

I will be very interested to hear my noble friend’s response as to why the obligation contained in earlier legislation has not been repeated in the present Bill. I do not want to repeat what others have said. I, too, feel that Amendment 69 is likely to be the more acceptable of those in the group. One consequence if such an obligation were imposed is that it would go a long way to answer the question that I put to my noble friend at Second Reading on what Clause 84 is about. Clause 84 obliges the CAA to give all sorts of information. When I asked my noble friend at Second Reading what that meant, he said the Bill was,

“designed to require the CAA to publish such … information as it considers appropriate to draw passengers and freight owners into the Government’s wider efforts to address the environmental impact of aviation”.—[Official Report, 13/6/12; col. 1378.]

If the CAA does not have any sort of duty, I find that a very difficult paragraph to understand. Of course, as my noble friend Lord Cathcart said with eloquence, and as has been moved by the Opposition Front Bench, if the CAA had that duty then that would fall into place. It would be quite right, if it had that duty, that it should publish that information. The information by itself, without a duty, seems a pretty off way of drafting the legislation.

My noble friend the Minister was extremely good at answering several of the points that I raised at Second Reading but he did not quite have time to answer them all and he did not answer my question about what that paragraph in the Explanatory Note meant. I merely mention this as a consequence of the amendments to restore a duty to have regard to the environmental consequences of aviation and of the airlines.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Worthington said in her opening remarks, it is useful to reflect on some of the industries which are regulated in this respect and to reflect that these industries have, for their own rights and reasons and in order to comply with the regulator’s duty, made big improvements in the areas of emissions, noise, water, energy and construction. The rail industry has been required to reduce its diesel emissions, as has the road sector. I am not sure that it will be quite as easy to persuade some ship owners to change their fuel but the European Commission is intent on doing so. I am sure that it will happen one day and that it will be either voluntary or forced upon them. As my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis said, the air industry has made significant improvements.

It would be odd if the Bill did not contain a requirement or duty on the CAA to take into account environmental matters. That does not mean that the air industry is particularly bad at doing so but there is evidence from other industries that, because of these regulatory duties, they probably try a little harder and in a way that they would not do otherwise.

I am inclined to support Amendment 69 but it is very important that we include something here so that there is commonality with some of the other regulators’ duties to consider environmental issues, and to encourage airports and the airline industry to go that little bit further.

Many noble Lords will recall the debates when the third runway was last on the agenda about the emissions from Heathrow and whether they were over the limit. Were they caused by emissions from the M4 running past on the north side or from the M25? There were many debates—I do not want to go into who was right and who was wrong—and one solution was to put the M4 in a tunnel. I cannot see the point of that because emissions will still take place in a tunnel and will have to come out somewhere. They might come out further away but, to me, that would be cheating. Again, this concerns the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, of including surface access, which I am sure will come up again.

However, matters have improved since then in the quality of emissions from the air and road industries. It is essential that something along the lines of the amendments is included in the Bill.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Berkeley and Lord Jenkin of Roding

Monday 31st October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I support the concept of this amendment, but we are in danger of making even more laws when we cannot enforce the ones we have. I find pretty incredible the idea of somebody such as a litter warden—I do not think the police would do it—chasing every car that goes down a country lane to see whether something falls out of the window and then trying to identify who threw it via the keeper. The same could apply in parks or on the roads. Who is going to enforce these laws? I wonder whether either of the noble Lords who have put their name to this amendment could actually tell the House how many convictions there have been for dropping litter, even without this amendment, since the law came into effect. I am afraid that it is probably a solution that is nice to have but will not make much difference. We have to do much more to educate people about not throwing litter or dumping things and helping them, as my noble friend Lord Judd said, to have more pride in the environment in which they live.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment, but I have only one question to ask my noble friend who is going to reply. When he replied on 10 October, at col. 1370, it was perfectly clear that he had been briefed about the London Local Authorities Bill currently before Parliament. I had made the point that it was awaiting some technical changes to be approved by the Government. The Ministry of Justice and no doubt the DCLG will also have been involved. Can my noble friend tell me anything more about that? How long are we going to have to wait before that Bill can be made to work? That is what we are waiting for, and at the moment it is in the hands of the Government. Can she tell me anything about that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing his amendment and allowing me to speak to my three amendments in this grouping. He has agreed to respond after this, and it is very welcome that we can do it in this way.

I shall just make a very small comment on government Amendment 53. While I welcome the amendment—it is good to see that the Government recognise that some changes have to be made to the Planning Act in this regard—it does nothing for the point that I shall come on to shortly. In a wider sense, the special parliamentary procedure seems to be an additional safeguard in the 21st century, with a rather heavier touch, as I shall come back to several times, than the approach taken in the Harbours Act or the Transport and Works Act orders, which are two of the principal order-making regimes that the Planning Act draws on and replaces.

I turn to the amendments in my name. The House will recall that, both in Committee and on Report, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, my noble and learned friend Lord Boyd and I moved, and spoke in support of, a number of quite technical arguments, which we thought were pretty important to the Bill, designed to make a number of changes to the provisions of the Planning Act 2008 dealing with the new regime for considering national infrastructure projects, which are currently operated by the Infrastructure Planning Commission. The Planning Act is a distinct improvement on the many regimes that we had before for the types of infrastructure that it replaces, and I think that it is settling down.

My concern, which I expressed previously and will have to return to shortly tonight, is that this Bill should have gone further and made more changes to the 2008 Act that are either a necessary or logical consequence of the IPC's abolition and the return of decisions to Ministers or are simply required to make the 2008 Act work better. I have been briefed in particular by the National Infrastructure Planning Association, which has people with great experience in this field. I welcome the Government's intention to keep the new regime under review, but it would be helpful to hear from the Minister tonight a little more as to quite what they are going to review and when.

The House will recall that the Minister, Greg Clark MP, said in a Written Ministerial Statement that the Government are,

“listening to industry, representative groups and others using the system … and will be exploring opportunities for improvement to ensure the system has the right mix of certainty, flexibility and efficiency”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/3/11; col. 73WS.]

That is good. In the impact assessment for the Bill’s provisions on major infrastructure projects, published in January this year, we are told that, in relation to the policy behind the preferred options, which is now reflected in the Bill,

“It will be reviewed 04/2014”.

I would like to hear from the Minister how this review will take place.

Before discussing in more detail the issues focused in these amendments, I want to mention a very recent development that appears to be highly relevant. Apparently,

“The European Union is concerned that the single market is not operating effectively because of a lack of integrated energy, transport and digital infrastructure”—

I certainly support that view—

“and is also not moving to a secure, low-carbon energy future quickly enough”.

On 19 October, only a couple of weeks ago, the European Commission launched two new proposed regulations to address this: the “Connecting Europe Facility”, which is about to spend €50 billion on all three sectors of infrastructure, which is a great deal of money; and a focus on energy infrastructure, for which the Commission will require new authorisation regimes because such projects will have to be subject to a special “permit granting process”. It is a bit complicated, but €9 billion has been earmarked for energy projects.

The Government will have to change regulations or legislation to allow these internationally significant infrastructure projects—which are apparently called ISIPs, as opposed to NSIPs or something—that will sit above, or instead of, the Planning Act regime for nationally significant projects. There are various processes and timetables set out for this and the pre-application consultation requirements are quite prescriptive. I understand that all these are required to be in place by 1 September 2013, which is only nine months after the regulation is due to come into force. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister how the Government intend to do this and make sure that the money being offered from the EU is available.

I am grateful to the Minister for arranging a meeting between his officials and myself and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, between Report and now. We had a very useful meeting and I take the opportunity to thank Ministers and officials for the very helpful discussions. We should have had the meeting some time ago, but we did not—as was said at Report. However, I hope that, even so, we can make progress.

Turning to the amendments themselves, I should say that Amendment 87 relates to the Minister’s amendment about development consent orders and the need to have special parliamentary procedures where there are objections. As the Minister said, it could take about nine months extra if one had to go through these procedures. I still wonder why we have to go through these procedures when there should be a single consents regime with a harmonised set of requirements and procedures, which I call a one-stop shop. I compare the complexity and difficulty of this with the transport and works orders and the harbours orders.

On Report, the Minister referred to the Planning Act drawing on long-standing and well-established protections from compulsory purchase orders for certain types of land. He thought that our proposals then would significantly weaken them, but I do not accept his reference to a two-tier system—why it should go further than happens with the TWA and the harbours order. The House will recall that the only project so far to be approved by the IPC, which is Covanta's proposed incinerator in Bedfordshire, will now have to be approved by this House and the other House under SPP. A lot of people may not like these incinerators but that has gone through a process and, again, will be subject to six to nine months’ extra delay. I hope that the Minister can indicate that these issues will be reviewed in the light of experience.

The next amendment in the group, Amendment 88, refers to the regulations made under Section 150, which deal with construction-related consents in England. Again, we discussed this quite thoroughly on Report—so much for having a one-stop shop, as there are still up to 42 other consents required from regulators in England and a further 36 in Wales. I still have not discovered why there are so many extra ones in Wales but it may be that the noble Earl will take the view that it does not matter very much. Again, the point is that it would be very good for those developing new projects to be able to reduce the number of these other consents which they have to get. I wonder whether the Minister would be prepared to give some kind of timetable and a commitment to reviewing this number, and even to produce a report to Parliament every year for the next few years. That could challenge his colleagues in other departments on whether they really can be brought underneath this umbrella of the one-stop shop.

Finally, on Amendment 89, again, we have discussed the creation of criminal offences in some detail but it is still a worry that the types of offences which can be introduced through this process are not sufficient for the types of projects and offences which might be required. Again, that provides a much greater limit than the Transport and Works Act orders do, which is why I wanted to see whether we could include railways and construction in tidal waters. One example which springs to mind is the question of trespass during construction, which could well occur on the high-speed line—assuming that it gets built—or on some of the offshore wind farms, if people can get around there. Trespass is a very difficult thing to stop if you do not have the right regulations, and it would be good to see whether the Minister would be able to extend the existing criminal offences to the two issues in this amendment.

To sum up, we have made progress on these issues in discussions on the Bill but we have certainly not gone as far as I would have liked to see. However, is the Minister prepared to tell us a little more about the issues that I have raised and about three things in particular? First, there is the impact assessment on how the Planning Act 2008 has worked in respect of projects through the IPC and its successor, which I believe is supposed to be there in 2014. Secondly, there is how this connecting Europe facility will work and whether the Government are keen that projects here should get the extra €9 billion that will be available for energy alone. Finally, can I press him to have an earlier review and a progress report to reduce significantly those 42 consents, plus the 36 in Wales?

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, spoke to his amendment so comprehensively that I want to add only one point. As my noble friend on the Front Bench indicated, the Government’s own amendment came to light only a week ago. I should like to say a very warm thank you to him and to the officials who recognised so swiftly that there had to be a change to the 2008 Act to prevent quite unnecessary use of the special parliamentary procedure, or SPP.

I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said: there are still too many examples where such procedures will or could need to be invoked. If anybody makes an objection—for instance, where one is dealing with local authority land—and that objection is sustained, it will have to go through this special parliamentary procedure. While the decisions on major infrastructure projects were being taken by the Infrastructure Planning Commission, a quango, that may have been a necessary parliamentary protection. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has said, under the new procedure, perhaps from April 2012, these decisions will be taken by a Minister accountable to Parliament. This changes the nature of the necessity for these other protective procedures to be built in.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, I would very much welcome an indication from my noble friends on the Front Bench that they will look at this again. I understand that, in the short time that we have had to deal with this—it came up only on Report in this House—it has been difficult for Ministers to go as far as we would perhaps like. However, with the review coming up, there seems to be an opportunity to have another look at this so that it gets somewhat nearer the one-stop shop that was originally offered by the Ministers in the previous Government as being the major benefit of the new Infrastructure Planning Commission. It most manifestly is not a one-stop shop at the moment. Maybe it never could be a one-stop shop but it could certainly have fewer than the 42 consents that are necessary for these major projects. I hope my noble friends will be able to give us some reassurance that they are sympathetic to this and will, in the review, look at it very carefully with a view to coming somewhat nearer the original objective that was held out to Parliament when the 2008 Act was introduced.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Berkeley and Lord Jenkin of Roding

Monday 17th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 223ZA and the other amendments in this group. I first apologise to the House for bringing these amendments forward comparatively late in the day. I will be as quick as I can although the amendments are fairly technical, with some pretty detailed arguments behind them.

The amendments stem from the issue of the change in responsibility for decision-making from the Infrastructure Planning Commission to the Secretary of State and provide that Parliament, in the form of the House of Commons only, approves the national policy statement series that is supposed to underpin the new regime. There have already been some minor changes to improve the process of planning major infrastructure projects and to streamline the whole process. I suspect that now that the Secretary of State will be the final decider—that is a political decision—rather than an official, many of the checks and balances that were in the original Act could possibly be dispensed with or reduced in scope to try and simplify the procedures.

I know that these points have been made to officials quite frequently over the past few months and that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, moved similar amendments in Committee. When the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, responded to the noble Lord on 19 July, he said:

“I would like to consider the points he has raised in more detail and consult him and others between now and Report to see whether anything further can be done”.—[Official Report, 19/7/11; col. 1319.]

I am not aware of any meetings that have taken place since then, which we probably all regret in retrospect. I will try to go through these various issues as quickly as I can and hope that we can all have a meeting with the Minister between now and Third Reading to see whether any of these particular issues can be resolved. The Government could then bring back some amendments at Third Reading.

To go through them quickly, starting in not quite the right order, Amendment 223ZD refers to Section 127 of the Planning Act, which requires a separate consent to be sought from the Secretary of State in some circumstances when it is proposed to acquire statutory undertakers’ land compulsorily. Again, now that the decision has been transferred back to the Secretary of State, this is probably an element of gold-plating. I suggest it would be sufficient if the Secretary of State was required to take into account the views of the undertakers.

Amendment 223ZE refers to Sections 128 to 132 of the Planning Act, concerning the special parliamentary procedures which are available if there are objections from various organisations and authorities which end up having to go through a Joint Committee of Parliament, which could take quite a long time to resolve. The restoration of the Secretary of State’s decision-making power could allow these provisions to be removed and for it to be left to the Secretary of State to decide whether to grant consent for an application that affects these types of special land holders. The SPP seems to be unnecessarily complex and gold plating.

Amendment 223ZF refers to Section 137 of the Planning Act, which requires a separate consent to be sought from a statutory undertaker or the relevant Secretary of State in some circumstances where the undertaker’s apparatus is installed. Again, the same comments could apply to that. Amendment 223ZG refers to Section 138 of the Planning Act. It inserts an additional test and a consent from the relevant Secretary of State where the undertaker’s rights to use land are being extinguished.

All these separate consents, which will often involve other Secretaries of State as well, fly in the face of one of the main purposes of the Planning Act regime, which was to create as far as possible a single consents regime. There are many examples I can quote but it is well known to your Lordships’ House and Ministers. It seems that the Planning Act provisions set out in these texts go much further than the two key order-making procedures that the Act replaces—TWA and harbour orders. Taking them as precedent there is an argument for saying that there is a bit of gold plating in here.

It is interesting that on 13 October we heard the first IPC decision which was to allow Covanta’s proposed energy from waste project in Bedfordshire. It was made within the statutory timescale of nine months. I am sure we are all happy to see the IPC sticking to its timetable. However, 43 of the 96 plots of land to be purchased are owned by statutory utilities or local authorities and they have made representations about the project. The Planning Act requires the project to be subject to the special parliamentary procedure which could add six to nine months to the programme, which for a big project is actually quite serious. There is an opportunity to put this right and to incorporate some of these amendments to simplify the process and accept that because we now have the Secretary of State making all the decisions he can take all these issues into account.

I will now mention one or two other items as briefly as possible. There are a large number of things that we really cannot go through at this time of night but there is one issue that refers to the construction of these big projects. It means that regulations made under Section 150 of the Planning Act still require the promoters to seek myriad other consents and regulators before they can start construction. The Infrastructure Planning (Miscellaneous Prescribed Provisions) Regulations 2010 lists 42 separate agencies or authorities from which permissions have to be sought and a further 36 for Wales only, which I find quite interesting. Why is Wales so much more complicated? Again, it would be an enormous help to these projects if there could be just one consent which went through the IPC process.

I could spend a lot more time going through the detail of the technical issues. I hope that it might be possible for those of us who take an interest in this to have a meeting with Ministers before Third Reading to see whether we can encourage the Government to make some changes at that stage. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, and perhaps other colleagues, would wish to participate fully in such a meeting. I beg to move.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has masterfully reduced what could have been a very long speech into one that lasted less than 10 minutes. There has been some confusion about this whole matter. The group of amendments that I moved in Committee on 19 July contained a large number of separate and discrete subjects. The amendments that I moved were concerned primarily with ensuring a seamless transition from the existing IPC procedure to the NSIP procedure. I will not go into the details now but my noble friend Lord Attlee very kindly said that there should be discussions on this. Those who were advising me on this matter did have discussions with officials in the department. The result was that when we approached Report stage, when I asked them whether they had achieved what they were looking for, they said yes. Therefore, I have not retabled those amendments. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has rightly said, there were other amendments, a lot of which were aimed at the proposition that there should be a one-stop shop.

As I understand it—I am open to correction—for some reason the meeting with officials did not take place until last week. There was a misunderstanding about who was seeking to organise the meeting and make sure that proper discussions could take place. I think that the meeting took place on 13 October, with the result that the large number of amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, were tabled only on Friday and appeared with an asterisk in this morning’s revised Marshalled List. I had not realised that they would appear on the Marshalled List. I have made inquiries and I have a great deal of information on this issue but most of them are the same as those we discussed on 19 July in Committee, although there are one or two additional ones to which no doubt attention will be drawn at some stage. Whether it was the fault of my noble friend on the Front Bench or of those who have been advising us, the fact of the matter is that there have not been the discussions that there should have been and that my noble friend offered when he wound up the debate on 19 July. Therefore, we are in a slight difficulty on this. I hope that the request of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that serious meetings should be held before Third Reading so that we can, if necessary, retable the amendments, or some of them, at that stage and have them debated will be taken note of.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, this is a completely different subject; it is to do with something which is colloquially called fracking. I raised it very briefly in Committee, but we were short of time then and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the letters that she wrote, dated 5 September. Since that time I have had further thoughts about it. I have had quite an amazing amount of correspondence from people on the basis of a very short entry in Hansard. That is why I have tabled this amendment tonight, because it needs a different solution.

Very briefly, fracking comprises drilling a hole that is probably several kilometres under ground, pumping in water and unspecified chemicals, and sometimes apparently causing an explosion in the hope that gas will come up to the surface. There have been some pretty horrendous stories from the United States, where this is apparently quite common. There, houses have collapsed or settled seriously while water sources, and therefore water supplies, have allegedly been poisoned. In one instance, I believe that gas came out of the water tap, which must have been quite frightening.

I am not saying that that is going to happen here. However, the press release relating to what I believe is the first attempt at fracking in this country, somewhere near Blackpool, by a company called Cuadrilla Resources—the noble Lord, Lord Browne, an ex-chairman of BP, is apparently its chairman—said that it was excited because that could produce 200 trillion cubic feet of gas. I do not know what that means to the ordinary person in the street but it would be something like 30 years of gas. It all sounds very nice, with mouth-watering profits. But what will happen to the people who might be affected not by just the drilling and the things that I have mentioned, but by extra traffic on the roads, construction work and everything like that?

I know that there would be licensing from DECC and others. But if it were to happen around the country, I do not think that one can expect a local planning authority to have the resources to give something that is pretty technical due consideration, especially when it is balanced by potentially exciting numbers of new jobs and extra revenue from rates. It would be unfair to expect local planning authorities to give it the consideration that it deserves. I believe that the right solution is to make another change to Section 14 of the Planning Act to create a new type of project to include hydraulic fracturing of underground rock —it is not called “fracking” in the amendment.

This new type of project would then be subject to the IPC process but, equally importantly, it would have to have a national policy statement in which all these questions that I have been suggesting and more could be investigated, responded to, debated in the House and consulted on. We would all then have confidence that if this process could be done safely with minimum upset to local residents, it could go ahead on a national basis. If not, it will be in trouble. That is the purpose of my amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, it is right that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has brought this matter back to the attention of the House. I have attended a number of lectures and presentations about the development of shale gas. As he said, it is perfectly true that there are substantial areas of shale several kilometres or more under the surface of this country, which could be, in appropriate circumstances, a source of gas for this country. However, a good many people have said to me, “But you would never be able to deal with this properly in a country that is as crowded and as fully populated as the United Kingdom”.

It has happened in the United States—indeed, it is happening on a very substantial scale—but there are wide open spaces there. It is apparently likely to happen in Poland where, again, there are substantial areas where it could be done without interfering with the life of the normal population. But in the crowded areas of western Europe and the United Kingdom, there is a widespread view that this is not likely to happen.

I, too, have had correspondence from a farmer in west Lancashire who has written in terms of being extremely anxious about what is happening. Yes, we had the small earthquake outside Blackpool, which is perhaps a foretaste of what may come. But the real concern is the huge amount of surface activity that has to go on at regular intervals. There is a limit to the amount you can drill horizontally before you need to drill another hole down and have all the equipment and plant at the top to deal with it.

There is quite a movement now to say that there should be a moratorium on this until it has been examined a great deal more thoroughly. I do not know enough about it. The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley, clearly regards it as very important: he is the chairman of Cuadrilla, which is the only company that I am aware of that is drilling so far in this country. One needs to treat this very seriously, as it is a serious prospect. If we could find an acceptable process for recovering very large quantities of shale gas, that would replace a lot of the North Sea gas, which appears to be coming towards the end of its life. At the same time, however, if there are enormous disturbances of local populations and communities because of a huge rash of surface activity, this solution would seem to be worse than the problem.

I do not know what the answer is—whether it is a moratorium, or it is simply sufficient to say that it will come under the NISP process. As I said to the lady who wrote to me, it is going to be jolly interesting to learn what the Minister says in answer to this amendment. All I know is that there is a widespread view that it is not going to catch on in this country for the reasons I explained a few moments ago. I look forward hearing my noble friend’s response.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Berkeley and Lord Jenkin of Roding

Monday 10th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Berkeley and Lord Jenkin of Roding

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[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.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Berkeley and Lord Jenkin of Roding

Thursday 14th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[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.