Deregulation Bill

Debate between Lord Cameron of Dillington and Earl Cathcart

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, I support these amendments but first I must declare an interest as a farmer and landowner, as an ex-chairman of the Countryside Agency and as an ex-president of the CLA. I really rose to support Amendments 17 and 18, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. Both amendments seem to bring forward consistency and clarity; certainly, Amendment 17 does that while Amendment 18 creates greater flexibility and less red tape. I endorse the question that the noble Baroness put to the Minister as both these amendments were agreed by the stakeholder working group. The reason, as enunciated by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, is that we have fairly limited reform of the rights of way legislation in Clauses 21 to 27 because those were the only agreed reforms put forward by the stakeholder working group. However, these two amendments were also agreed. Why has Amendment 17 been rejected altogether, when it seems to be very consistent with a deregulatory Bill to bring consistency across the country?

Frankly, Amendment 18 has been gralloched—a good expression meaning to remove the guts of something, in this case the amendment put forward by the stakeholder working group. It has been limited to applying only to byways open to all traffic. The other reasons for erecting gates, which are well enunciated in proposed new subsection (2) of the amendment, seem perfectly reasonable and appropriate. As I say, they have been agreed by the stakeholder working group.

On the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, I am on the side here of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker: I agree with their principles but they are a step too far. They ought to be thrown back to the new, reformed stakeholder working group for it to look at carefully and see where it can agree amendments about diversions or closures—preferably not closures but certainly diversions—so that they would be easier to make around domestic premises. That would be a very good idea.

[Earl Cathcart (Con)]

My Lords, I support these amendments, particularly the ones in the name of my noble friend Lady Byford. I do so because they go a little further than those of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, which would include only gardens and driveways. My noble friend Lady Byford’s amendments also reflect the recommendations of the stakeholder working party on this subject, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron.

Although the Government have issued guidance they have put nothing in the Bill, which I find odd. My honourable friend Tom Brake, speaking for the Government at Third Reading in the other place on 23 June, said:

“It is clear, however, that there has to be a change in the way in which both legislation and policy operate if people are to get a satisfactory hearing, and that is what the Government are doing in the Bill”.

He goes on to say that it,

“will be supplemented by guidance that will effectively act as a presumption to divert or extinguish public rights of way that pass through the gardens of family homes, working farmyards or commercial premises where privacy, safety or security are a problem”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/6/14; cols. 77-78.]

Unfortunately, that is not what the Government are doing in the Bill because they have not put anything in it on this subject.

We have the guidance but we do not have the legislation, which is what my honourable friend said was needed. Guidance is only guidance; it is not obligatory. We need legislation in this Bill. I am sure that this omission by the Government may be an oversight so I hope that the Minister will accept my noble friend Lady Byford’s amendments, which reflect the working party’s recommendations. If the Minister cannot accept them today, I hope that he will agree to take them away and consider them further.

Water Bill

Debate between Lord Cameron of Dillington and Earl Cathcart

Monday 31st March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Earl Cathcart]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, on his use of De Mauley Street. I think it was clear what he was saying. It seems to me that if you have a property to let, as landlord you should buy the insurance. It might not just be the bog standard property and contents insurance that you buy: you will probably also buy owners’ liability insurance, public liability insurance and any other commercial insurance that you might buy as a landlord. That is one reason why they are excluded from Flood Re, because we are not talking like for like. The owner occupier in No. 2 De Mauley Street, for instance, will buy their own bog standard property and contents insurance. As a landlord you buy other things as well, which makes it a commercial risk.

I too read somewhere that to qualify for Flood Re, you had to live in the property. Therefore, I come to the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, regarding which he said that 78% have one property, which they let. If the occupier has to buy the insurance, why does not the landlord get the occupier to buy the property and contents insurance, which would qualify it for Flood Re? If the landlord then wanted to buy his public liability or owners’ liability insurance, he could buy it as a separate policy. That might be one way in which a number of these cases can get into Flood Re.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington]

I understand what the noble Lord is saying but the problem is that the tenant does not have an insurable interest. He cannot insure the property. No insurance company would accept his insurance of a property in which he is only a tenant.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Cameron of Dillington and Earl Cathcart

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Dillington]

My Lords, I have had a note from the government Front Bench saying, “Do say what you wanted to say”, but I believe that it is far too late at this time of night for me to say what I wanted to say. Like all good bedtime stories, as in The Arabian Nights, I will leave the next episode until we meet again.

[Earl Cathcart]

My Lords, obviously, I support Amendment 136ZD, ably proposed and argued for by my noble friend Lord Gardiner, to which I added my name. I shall not go over that ground again. I also welcome the opening remarks of the Minister. I did not catch all of it, and will read with interest in Hansard tomorrow exactly what she said. She may well have allayed some of the fears that we have heard about relating to this chapter.

Some months ago—it may have been many months ago—I recall the Prime Minister saying that he would bring forward measures for communities to save their village shop, pub and post office. That is an admirable idea, and here we have Chapter 4 before us, but now we have a huge expansion of the assets that communities can save to include all assets from which members of the community derive some benefit. That has put the cat among the pigeons for those landowners and others who allow their communities to enjoy the open spaces of their farms in one way or another. As other noble Lords have said, the unintended consequence of the way that the Bill is written is that landowners will withdraw permission for any activity on their land, a point powerfully put by my noble friend Lord Moynihan. That would be disastrous. If it were to happen, it would go against the grain of the big society, which is what the Bill is meant to be all about.

Amendment 133D goes some way to remedy that, as it focuses on business assets—that is, the village shop the pub and the post office—which, after all, was the original intention of the Prime Minister.

There is another amendment in the names of my noble friends Lord Jenkin and Lord Greaves, Amendment 136ZZB. That would leave out subsection (1) and insert that,

“the local authority will determine whether or not a building or other land is of community value”.

I am afraid that I do not share the view of my noble friend Lord Jenkin. I am slightly nervous of leaving it to a local authority to say what it thinks an asset of community value is. What if the local authority is signed up to the idea that all assets should be to the benefit of communities? That would be very dangerous for landlords and I do not think that I could support that.

In this area, I was having a similar thought about tabling an amendment that would try to take the matter back to business assets rather than all assets. My idea was to provide that “a building or other land may be of community value if it is used on a commercial basis by the local community”. That is very much in the same vein as the first amendment in the group—Amendment 133D—on business assets.