Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lord Jenkin of Roding

Monday 3rd November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 53A, which is in my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham, Lord Bradshaw and Lord Jenkin of Roding, whom I am delighted to see in his place at this late hour, I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group, which were tabled by the Minister and by the same group of four of us.

I start by expressing my very genuine thanks to the Minister for listening so closely to the arguments which were put forward in Grand Committee and for accepting the principle that the Infrastructure Bill is an appropriate vehicle to put right the anomalies surrounding the jurisdiction and powers of the British Transport Police. That is why I was happy to add my name to her Amendment 53. I shall not repeat the arguments that I made in Committee on 8 July, not least because the Minister has accepted many of those points.

However, there remains the one unresolved issue, to which the Minister referred, and that concerns Section 100(3)(b) of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. The Minister said that she wants to keep that in being and the purpose of our amendment is to take it out. In effect, subsection (3)(b) states that when a BTP officer is off-jurisdiction he or she has to decide whether to act and use the power of arrest. That involves a judgment call—indeed, the Minister used those words. This aspect has been addressed very directly by the chair of the British Transport Police Authority, Millie Banerjee, who wrote to the Minister about subsection (3)(b) last Friday. She wrote:

“This subsection requires BTP officers to work through a complex legal test, often in quick time, which can result in uncertainty, challenge and delays in responding to the public.

I illustrate the problem with subsection (3)(b) with a practical example on metal theft. BTP is the ACPO Lead Force for metal theft and officers regularly conduct visits to scrap metal dealers’ yards, which are outwith BTP jurisdiction, to inspect their record keeping. This enforcement activity has a proven deterrent and detection function which has been a critical factor in the substantial reductions in metal theft crime on the railways and other sectors across the UK.

Although BTP officers exploit intelligence to target their visits, there will often be an absence of specific grounds to suspect that stolen railway metal will be at the yard. In the strictest sense of the current legislation, under subsection (3)(b), BTP officers should arguably call upon local Home Office colleagues to attend the yard and exercise any relevant powers. This would be duplication of effort and is hard to justify to a public who understand the pressure on police resources. In reality BTP officers exercise the relevant powers but are having to make their action fit the complex provisions of this subsection. This is not in the view of the Authority satisfactory and introduces risk of legal challenge where none should exist. It is to the detriment of the fight against metal theft”.

The Minister is apparently concerned that if this provision were removed the BTP would go off-piste, as it were, and not dedicate their time to railway duties. That is simply not true. Indeed, Ms Banerjee answers that point directly:

“Should you feel able to support the removal of subsection (3)(b) I can allay any fears that BTP will stray from its clear focus on the railways. Chief Constable Paul Crowther has committed to reducing crime and disruption on the railways by 20% by 2019. This focus, reinforced by the oversight of the Authority and the requirement to satisfy BTP stakeholders, will ensure that strong control will be exercised with regard to any wider jurisdictional power granted for BTP”.

Very similar points have been made in letters and e-mails to me from Dame Shirley Pearce and Chief Constable Alex Marshall, the chair and chief executive officer respectively of the College of Policing, and by Roger Randall, the general secretary of the British Transport Police Federation. They all say that our original amendment should be supported because it removes the whole of Section 100(3) of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Dame Shirley Pearce, in her letter to me, says:

“The general public expect the police to act and behave consistently and to work to consistently high standards. It is in the public interest that a parity is sought in the way in which police officers are able to discharge their duties and that, wherever practical, obstacles to consistency are identified and removed”.

We know that legal challenges are occasionally made on the issue of jurisdiction. I shall share with your Lordships an extraordinary case from Scotland. On 21 May 2011, there was a disturbance—a fight—at a car boot sale in the car park of a primary school in Glasgow. A BTP sergeant, who was off-duty and not carrying his warrant card, happened to be there and made an arrest for breach of the peace. The arrested person made a legal challenge stating that it was an unlawful arrest because the officer did not have his warrant card on him. BTP had to pay £1,000 in damages and £240 in costs—not a good use of public money when all the officer was doing was acting in the public interest and conscientiously doing his duty when not on jurisdiction.

In conclusion, I am genuinely grateful to the Minister for moving such a long distance since we debated this in Grand Committee. Indeed, her amendment relating to level crossings in Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act is an improvement on ours, since it does not restrict the wording to railway offences. This is good news because road traffic offences occur on service roads and railway property and it is important for the BTP to deal with offences such as drink-driving or dangerous driving on those roads. Our only area of disagreement is subsection (3). I urge the Minister, please, to take account of the views of Members in all parts of this House, of the chair of the British Transport Police Authority, of the chair and chief executive officer of the College of Policing and of the general secretary of the BTP Federation, and agree with our amendment to remove it. I beg to move.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding (Con)]

I echo the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, in my thanks to the Minister for having gone so far to meet the case made very forcefully in Committee last July. As I said briefly then—I shall not be any longer tonight, I assure the House—I found the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, advanced on that occasion to be absolutely incontrovertible. Like him, I am disappointed that the Minister has not gone the whole way.

I listened with great care to what the Minister said about why the Government have found it necessary to retain those restrictions, as they indeed are, on the British Transport Police’s activities in Section 100(3)(b) of the 2001 Act. Frankly, I find the suggestion that a British Transport Police officer will somehow be distracted from his primary duty of policing the railways because he finds it more exciting to do things, as it were, off his main beat to be a frivolous argument. I am sorry to sound a bit condemnatory, but I simply cannot see how it could conceivably happen.

I have not seen any of the correspondence that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has had and from which he quoted a few moments ago. However, one of those letters made it absolutely clear that the writer, a very senior officer in the British Transport Police, regarded this as so unlikely that it ought not to be seriously considered. That is exactly my view and I am very sorry to hear my noble friend advance that as an argument.

One knows that behind this is the long-standing argument between my noble friend’s department and the Home Office, which is responsible for the constables in the rest of the country, except of course in London. However, to try to compromise with that department on this issue is something that no noble Lord in this House or Member of Parliament in another place would feel was reasonable. For that reason, I very much hope that my noble friend—I recognise that we are not going to vote tonight; it would be a slightly weird Division—will reconsider this between now and Third Reading and bring forward another amendment, or, as the Bill was first introduced in this House, consider with her colleagues whether she might put this nonsense right in another place. Having got this far with something for which Parliament has argued and waited over many years, falling at the last fence would be very sad indeed. I beg my noble friend to recognise that her argument does not carry much weight and she should face up to the Home Secretary and say, “I’m sorry, we are going the whole way. We are going to repeal paragraph (b) also”.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lord Jenkin of Roding

Monday 4th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, I start by thanking the Ministers—the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon—for taking the time to see me with their officials last Thursday to talk about the amendments I have tabled to Clause 23 in the next group and also about my objections to the inclusion of Clause 22 in the Bill.

Your Lordships may recall that I spoke about special parliamentary procedure—SPP—at Second Reading. That was based on my experience of serving on the Rookery South Joint Committee. I shall not repeat the arguments that I used then, other than to repeat the point that SPP has been triggered very rarely—only three times since 1990. While the eventual majority decisions of the Rookery South Joint Committee were not ones I supported—both the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, and I felt that the promoters of the resource recovery facility had a case to answer in terms of demonstrating the need for such a large project—I believe that the public interest was served in our deliberating in a Joint Committee. Had this Bill been an Act last year, with Clauses 22 and 23 contained within it, the Rookery South Joint Committee would not have taken place.

Since Second Reading, I have been sent two pieces of briefing on why Clause 22 should be removed from the Bill. The first relates to a battle against road-builders in High Wycombe in 1965. The redoubtable Kate Ashbrook, general-secretary of the Open Spaces Society, has described what happened on her blog, from which I shall quote some extracts:

“Wycombe Rye is a stretch of public open space on the east side of High Wycombe, Bucks, extending alongside the River Wye … The rye is a treasured spot, 68 acres of land vested in Wycombe District Council and its predecessor body … since 1927 … Looking at it now you might think it had always been safe. Not so. In 1962 part of the land was threatened with a compulsory purchase order, to enable the inner-relief road to be built across it”.

That road had been approved following a public inquiry. She goes on:

“There was a further inquiry into the appropriation of 2.4 acres of open space, but on the inspector’s recommendation, the minister”—

of the day—

“confirmed the appropriation order, under the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946, on 5 February 1965. Fortunately no land was offered in exchange, so the order was subject to special parliamentary procedure … That meant that objectors could petition parliament and present their case to a joint committee of both houses ... Magnificently, the committee ruled that the orders be annulled. The rye has remained intact to this day, saved by legislation which gives parliament the final say on the theft of open space where no suitable alternative is provided”.

However, that protection will disappear if Clause 22 remains in the Bill because,

“instead of such cases being referred to a parliamentary committee, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government himself can decide the fate of open space. In future, when compulsory purchase of open space is proposed for development which the government thinks should go ahead quickly, and there is no suitable exchange land or that land is considered to be too expensive, the minister can cast aside SPP and rule that the development proceeds without regard to the open space”.

Powerful arguments in favour of retaining SPP have also come from the Inland Waterways Association, which makes the point that the Canal & River Trust, the body set up following the passage of the Public Bodies Act, holds the waterways it cares for in trust on behalf of the nation in perpetuity. If the CRT is threatened by a compulsory purchase proposal, it has at present the option to go down the SPP route. This, says the Inland Waterways Association, makes the authority threatening compulsory purchase treat the CRT with greater respect and encourages constructive discussion. It claims that if the Bill is passed, the CRT will lose the right to request an SPP. Will the Minister confirm whether it is right in that assertion? If it is, how does he explain the anomaly whereby the National Trust retains the right to call for an SPP on its own land but the Canal & River Trust is denied that? It appears to be the case that the Government are, by their amendment to Clause 22, strengthening the position of the National Trust but at the same time doing nothing to give protection to other bodies with heritage responsibilities. As the Inland Waterways Association puts it, how can the Minister justify the situation where the River Wey Navigation, which is owned by the National Trust and dates back to the 17th century is protected, but the River Lee Navigation, which is five centuries older, is not?

Finally, if Clauses 22 and 23 stay in the Bill, a decision, which was vested in Parliament, will now be taken by the Executive. I caution the Minister to take care in what he wishes for. One advantage from the Government’s point of view about SPP is that it cannot be subject to judicial review and does not apply to decisions taken by the Secretary of State, which can be challenged by JR and will take far longer to resolve than SPP. Certainly, if the Government are threatening open space, they should anticipate the possibility of numerous judicial reviews. I suggest that the Government should now drop Clause 22, take it back for further consideration and perhaps come forward with fresh suggestions on Report.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, Amendments 76 and 77 are in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and myself, and this perhaps is the moment when I should make my contribution to the debate. I read the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, at Second Reading and his reference to Rookery South. I approach this issue from a rather different angle. If one looks at the history of that energy-from-waste project in Bedfordshire, the SPP—a post-consent process; planning consent had already been given—simply allows the objectors a further opportunity to object. A lot of people feel strongly about energy-from-waste projects.

The noble Lord says that that gives rise to parliamentary accountability. I have to say that until I had studied the briefs on these two clauses, I had been entirely unaware as a Member of Parliament of the activities of the noble Lord and some of his colleagues—the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, was mentioned. I know that my noble friend Lord Brabazon has been involved in similar SPP processes and has regarded them as very long and drawn out.

This Bill is about encouraging growth and investment in the infrastructure. It really cannot make sense to continue with these, as it were, statutory procedures for delaying decisions and action on applications for which consent has already been given after the normal processes. I have to confess to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, that I have not studied closely the condition of the waterways, as he obviously has, or, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, the ports.

These two amendments are concerned about, as am I, the application of the special parliamentary procedure for what is called common land,

“open space, fuel or field garden allotment”.

The Planning Act currently provides that a development consent order which authorises compulsory purchase of open space land or a right over such land will be subject to the SPP unless the Secretary of State has issued a certificate confirming that certain prescribed circumstances will apply. I have already said that this is a post-consent approval stage that certainly has the potential to result in—and in some of the cases, not least that of Rookery South to which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has referred, has actually resulted in—very considerable delays for a project that had already achieved planning consent. The procedure can be very costly for the applicants—and, I dare say, for some of the objectors—and hold back the provision of infrastructure projects that support economic growth.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lord Jenkin of Roding

Monday 12th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, I am sure the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for moving this amendment and giving us an opportunity to discuss the case of passenger representation in London. However, it may not surprise him to know that I take considerable exception to the case that he, the mayor and the Greater London Assembly are putting forward because I think it is fundamentally flawed. I am aware that it has come about as a result of the review of London TravelWatch carried out last year by the GLA, which did indeed recommend that it be wound up and its functions folded into the assembly. However, that process was seriously flawed. The assembly consulted a number of stakeholders, but then completely ignored what they said. For example, the Association of Train Operating Companies, ATOC, has written to me and said:

“We firmly believe that the functions of a consumer watchdog, in providing impartial casework and research support, and facilitating the resolution of individual complaints with train companies should be demonstrably independent, not under direct political control.

Assembly Members are keen to point out that taking on London TravelWatch's activities will help them to provide greater scrutiny of the mayor's and GLA's activities. However, we believe the priority for London TravelWatch should be handling disputes from individual passengers as a consumer champion and undertaking independent research, not being sidetracked on to issues of political or electoral interest to Assembly Members. Passengers will not benefit if London TravelWatch becomes merely a means for point-scoring”.

The assembly's review claims—and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has referred to this—that there is scope for substantial savings. The review is vague about where those savings will come from. There does not appear to be any reference to transitional costs or to the cost of the GLA accommodating the staff, although the noble Lord, Lord Tope, did say that a TUPE arrangement may apply, which would undoubtedly have an impact on whatever savings may be possible.

London TravelWatch itself has demonstrated that it can cut its budget by 25 per cent over the next two years, while staying completely independent from politicians and concentrating on its core functions of appeals casework, and policy and investigation. There is a huge danger that the present multimodal work on behalf of the travelling public who use buses, the underground, the Docklands Light Railway, Tramlink, taxis, Dial-a-Ride, and National Rail in and around London would be fragmented if this amendment were adopted. It makes no sense to separate London TravelWatch's rail-related work from its work covering other modes. An example is its excellent, recent report on incomplete Oyster pay, which affects everyone who uses public transport in and around London.

I conclude with one further point: the GLA does not speak for those who are not resident in London. Seventy per cent of all rail journeys begin, end, or pass through London and London TravelWatch's remit extends far beyond the boundaries of Greater London, and includes large chunks of Essex, Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Surrey and Kent, and it is from there that passengers travel into London for work or leisure purposes.

This is a really bad idea, which would lead Londoners to be disadvantaged compared with those outside London, who have independent representation on Passenger Focus, looking after their needs, whether they are rail or bus passengers. It is that independence that is important, and that is why I hope the Government will resist this amendment.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Tope moved the amendment comprehensively and I only want to make two points. The first point, which has been referred to by those who have already spoken in the debate, is that the September 2010 report by the London Assembly was a very substantial document indeed. It was not entered upon lightly and inadvisably. Despite what we have just heard, it was conducted with great thoroughness and we then came to the conclusion that there was no point, if you have an elected assembly already, in having a second, different body dealing with transport. It was a serious piece of work and the degree of support which my noble friend Lord Tope has indicated is sufficient evidence of that.

My second point is that all local authorities are under stringent spending pressures. Here is a proposal which could save up to £1 million a year for London. In the present circumstances, it is rather unwise not to accept that that is something which should be considered very seriously indeed. I understand the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and the case that has been made by London TravelWatch. At the same time, there is here a formidable piece of work. It will save £1 million and the proposals in the report should be accepted. I therefore put my name to this amendment in order to give the House a chance to make that change.

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lord Jenkin of Roding

Monday 28th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and for the important comments that have been made. I was amused by my noble friend Lord St John of Fawsley, who congratulated me on my persistence. I have to say that that is wholly undeserved. I did not move Second Reading. The people who can be congratulated are the promoters, the London boroughs and Transport for London. I shall take his kind words about that and simply comment that at a very early stage in my career, someone said to me, exactly as my noble friend has said, “Patrick, if you want to achieve anything, keep pegging away”. In my life I have tried to follow that nostrum. However, I am grateful to my noble friend.

I turn to my noble friend Lady Kramer. I have a lot of sympathy with her on her suggestion that much of this ought not to come to the Floor of the House in a Private Bill in this form. All I can say to her, in some comfort, is that before 1992 a great many more Private Bills came on to the Floor of the House. However, in that year the Transport and Works Act was passed and all the railway Bills, all the major road Bills and all the rest of it have now disappeared, and what is left are the occasional local authority measures, such as we have here and we had earlier in the previous Parliament from Manchester and others; and, of course, occasionally the universities need to have legislation to amend their statutes. However, I am sure that my noble friend on the Front Bench will have heard her plea for something on more general powers.

I have to say in relation to London—and I have lived in London almost the whole of my working life—that it has conditions and circumstances that are very different from any other city in the country, and I am not surprised that both the City of London and the London local authorities have felt the need from time to time to introduce legislation to deal with the problems which they face. My noble friend also welcomed the negotiated agreement—I will come to the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner and Lord Rosser, in a moment. All I can say at this stage is that I was grateful for my noble friend Lady Kramer’s support on that.

As for the deal done with the Football League and the Premier League, I understand the indignation that noble Lords may have felt that this was done outwith the consideration of the Select Committee. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said, the Select Committee examined the authorities from Hammersmith and Fulham. It heard the evidence and felt that the promoters had made a good case for their clauses, and here we are with an agreement having been reached outside the committee. Whether or not it was a smoke-filled room, I do not know; but, nevertheless, it was reached without the full scrutiny that it would have had if it had gone before the Select Committee. I have some sympathy with that point. I asked a number of questions myself about whether there was any reason why the sporting authorities were not aware of what was in the Bill. It is their job to make sure that they do. They are very wealthy organisations; they spend billions of pounds, as one noble Lord said, on buying footballers and so on. I do not see why they could not have done this before, but the fact remains that they did not. They did not put up a petition. The committee therefore could not hear the petition and reach a conclusion on it.

So what have we got? As I explained in my opening speech, after very prolonged discussions a memorandum of understanding has been reached. In each case the club that falls within the definition, which has a reasonably substantial attendance at its events, has to enter into agreement with the local authority to cover the costs that would have been covered by these two clauses. If someone says to me, “An agreement to agree is not worth the paper that it is written on”, I would have to say that I was brought up in my legal studies entirely to accept that. However, there rests behind this the fact—and the sporting authorities are in no doubt about this at all—that if they do not reach agreements of the sort envisaged in this memorandum of understanding within a clear time limit which is spelt out here, then future legislation will be brought forward to reinstate these clauses.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

Does the noble Lord agree that it would have been courteous to this House if the detail of that memorandum of understanding had been made available to your Lordships before we had this debate today? Can he at least give an assurance that it will be published and will be considered in proper detail when the Bill reaches another place so that it can at last be given proper scrutiny?