Deregulation Bill
Debate between Lord Judd and Baroness Parminter(10 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Judd
My Lords, I thank most warmly the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for having introduced this amendment. If one looks at the photographs to which he referred and others—the evidence of our own eyes—one sees that this could be described in other circumstances as wilful and irresponsible vandalism. It is the destruction of one of our greatest assets and the people doing it should be treated firmly. Of course, it is going to be a complex area and it will be difficult, but the point is that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is having a go. If his proposals are not right, let us get proposals that are effective but let us stop dilly-dallying on this issue.
Some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, are very valid, not surprisingly, and I am sure that as we take this matter forward they can be considered. If the amendment is brought back on Report, as I hope it will be, perhaps they can be considered by then, which would be very sensible.
Sometimes in this context, there is emotional talk about the right of the handicapped to access the countryside. To those of us who work in the sphere of national parks and the rest, all the evidence suggests that the responsible representative bodies of the handicapped and the others are saying that what is happening is a menace, because it makes walking—for the blind, which is a very obvious example—much more hazardous and difficult. For the deaf—and I understand that problem, being deaf myself—it can be a terrifying experience when this noise suddenly occurs, with no sort of warning.
The point that we need to remember, and it is about social responsibility, is that what a few are doing is placing significant financial penalties on people who are trying to care for these rich and special national assets. This means that the cost of that care very often gets passed on to the taxpayer, to the subscriber and the donor. Is the indulgence of those few in irresponsible behaviour to be subsidised by society as a whole? That is just ridiculous. The financial and Treasury disciplines that apply to most of our lives should mean that we make it a priority to get this situation put right. I therefore again thank the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, most warmly and say that the sooner that we can do something about it, the better.
Baroness Parminter
Can the Minister, in his closing remarks, answer a question that I think will be of interest to all noble Lords? This amendment deals with a very important issue and I think we are very grateful for it having been raised today. The question is how we deal with it. I agree with my noble friend Lord Jopling that a stakeholder group is the best way forward. However, there have been questions raised about how much confidence we can have in that as a route to deliver. Can the Minister say what progress has been achieved in setting up a working group on this issue? Has a timetable been set for that working group and if it does not complete by that point, what actions do the Government intend to take? Perhaps the Minister can say in words of one syllable whether he, like his colleague down the other end, has confidence that a stakeholder working group can address this very real problem. The strength of feeling in this Grand Committee today shows it is something that this House wishes to be addressed quickly.
Growth and Infrastructure Bill
Debate between Lord Judd and Baroness Parminter
Baroness Parminter
My Lords, Clause 8 as it stood would have set an extremely damaging precedent, removing key protections from our most cherished landscapes. My Amendment 36 sought to address that issue, enabling changes in secondary legislation to speed up the delivery of broadband in rural areas but not removing key protections against changing the long-standing duties in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty.
As I made clear in Committee, I can see the argument for adding a further consideration to the Communications Act 2003 for the Secretary of State to have regard to promoting economic growth at the same time as other existing duties, which is what Clause 8(1) proposes. However, the disapplication of the duty to have regard to conserving beauty in other pieces of legislation would be a very disproportionate approach. Clearly the Government do not feel that my amendment gave quite the certainty that they thought they needed, while not undermining key protections for those landscapes. They have therefore drafted their own amendment, which in this group, and with the leave of the House I should like to make a few comments on it.
The Government’s Amendment 36A equates the “have regard” duty to proposed Section 109(2B) of the Communications Act 2003, so that the Secretary of State will be treated as automatically having complied with the “have regard” duties if they have complied with Section 109(2B). It means that the primary legislation in place since 1949 protecting our iconic landscapes remains unchanged. I am extremely grateful to the Government and in particular to the Minister, who has gone well beyond the bounds of the usual standards to listen to Members of this House and to meet with us and hear the seriously held concerns that we championed in Committee about the wider impacts of the clause as drafted. Their willingness to respond to our concerns sends a powerful signal that while the Government are committed to bringing broadband to the greatest number of people they are not intent on nibbling away at essential protection policies for our most valued landscapes. I beg to move.
Lord Judd
My Lords, I am very glad to support this amendment. It seems that what we are dealing with here in this whole clause, as we argued in Committee, is not only the policy inherent in the clause now but the threat that it offers for the future. Since the Second World War, Governments of all persuasions have consistently adhered to the principle that there is something so special in this asset of these unique areas of countryside in our country—which are enjoyed by our people and have this incalculable value as a place for physical and spiritual regeneration—that there must be absolutely no doubt whatever that the protection of what they are about and of their scenic uniqueness takes precedence over everything. The trouble is that, once the door is pushed open and left, after discussion and argument, just a little ajar, there is this danger of still further erosion.
I support my noble friend on the Front Bench, who has paid a warm tribute to the Minister. She has been outstanding in her commitment and courtesy to the House and to the Committee. I have always thought that she was a decent, civilised person, and the way in which she has responded to the criticisms that have been made have left me in absolutely no doubt about that whatever. I would like her to accept that we are trying to uphold her in those values which she so obviously embraces. I was having a private word with her at one point and unfortunately—although I understand it—by the time that legislation is on the Order Paper and being debated there has been an awful lot of intellectual and policy input and people are very committed to the position which they have put forward and on which they have worked in a dedicated way to try to get the draft as true as possible. Sometimes there comes a moment when the logical thing to do is to stop trying to perfect something that is not really right and just to say, “That one was interesting but it is not going to be in the Bill in the future”. However, it is a very difficult thing for all those who have been involved to accept that sort of provision. I hardly dare say, and I do not mean this in any aggressive or patronising way whatever, but in all of us—not least myself sometimes—face is a very important issue, and sometimes it becomes so in the legislative process.
The logical thing for this House to do is to adopt the amendments that have been put so clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. I hope that the House will endorse her position.
Baroness Parminter
My Lords, we all support the deployment of broadband in rural areas, and the key for us is how best we deliver that. I still do not think that the Government have made a conclusive case for the need to change the existing planning regime in terms of proving that existing arrangements are a barrier to delivering broadband. Few cases have been cited outside the national parks, and as my noble friend Lord Marlesford and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, said, the national parks authorities are not inflexible regulators, bystanders or obstacles to broadband rollout.
Equally, I am disappointed that the Government have not published the responses to the latest consultation on their planning proposals prior to Report. Hearing stakeholder views could have helped our deliberations, thus enabling legislation. However, I understand why the Government want to introduce these changes to the planning regime, so we should seek to ensure a strong code of practice that delivers the best outcomes in deploying broadband infrastructure in our most valued landscapes.
I think a statutory code of practice to ensure best practice in siting infrastructure would be best, but I hear the argument that for such a code to be as effective as possible, it needs to be owned by planning authorities and broadband operators. Therefore, I hope that, in responding, the Minister will be able to confirm four things. The first thing is that the code of practice will be clear on mechanisms for dispute resolution between planning authorities and broadband operators when there are disagreements over siting. Given that the proposed changes give operators the final say on siting, it is important to seek agreement to ensure we do not end up with cabinets pepperpotting across our most treasured landscapes, causing detrimental impact to the landscape’s qualities and thus to the tourism industry that underpins economies in rural communities in our most highly visited and iconic landscapes.
The second is that the code will require the sharing of infrastructure where feasible: a critical issue that is not mentioned in the scope and guiding principles that have been drawn up to date. In this, I include pole sharing, where existing poles are available, and introducing processes so that broadband operators can be made aware of the opportunities to piggyback on to the work of energy providers who are undergrounding lines in the area.
The third is that the process for reviewing the success of the code and the trigger mechanism for deciding to make the code statutory is made clear. The final thing is that the anticipated date for the finalisation of the code is stated. Once this code is finalised, adherence to it can be incorporated as a contract requirement into publicly funded broadband deployment projects. As such, it is a key tool to ensuring the best siting of broadband infrastructure, and we need it finalised as soon as possible. I beg to move.
Lord Judd
My Lords, I warmly endorse this amendment and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for introducing it. Across the whole history of legislation, I am afraid there is far too much evidence that codes and the like, without statutory authority, become useless in time. We have to remember—and we all pay tribute to the present Minister—that once new legislation is there, we are not necessarily going to be dealing with people like the current Minister. We cannot be certain who we will be dealing with. The current Minister is determined, and I am sure she means every word she says, that these things will be used to ensure what we all treasure about the parks, and so on. However, when she is gone, who will there be? I suggest to her that there are people with whom she must deal at the moment in her own Government who do not see it quite as she does. They have quite different thoughts about what this wonderful land might be used for. It is therefore really important to give the codes statutory authority.
As a vice-president of the Campaign for National Parks and as a patron of the Friends of the Lake District, I might say that the people who are, with their quality and commitment, turning concern into practical reality in all that they do to further the parks and the rest are deeply disturbed at the dangers that are there. They are not questioning the current Minister’s good intent but asking, “Where are the guarantees that these things that are being said in good will will actually be there for all to observe in future?”. Is this going to be another of those occasions on which we satisfy our own public profile by saying, “Well, we have this code”, or do we really mean what the code says? If we really mean it, let us for goodness’ sake make certain that it has the authority of the law behind it. This amendment is very important indeed.
Energy Bill [HL]
Debate between Lord Judd and Baroness Parminter(13 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Judd
In the cause of cohesion on this side of the Committee, might I say that it has been very intoxicating to have the thesis and the antithesis and, like others, in all humility I would like to put myself on the side of the synthesis? It seems to me that it would be tragic if we got into a vicious either/or battle. The issue is how to bring these things together constructively. I make the observation—no doubt I could be described as an unreconstructed politician of former days—that it seems to bring home to me the hazards of a market-dominated approach in these crucial strategic issues and that we really need very effective strategic planning into which the private sector can then feed its contribution. This debate brings home the need for a strategic approach, not just targets but how they are to be delivered because that is the crucial issue all the time. It is not just to spell out the aspirations; it is actually to have the mechanisms there to ensure they happen.
I take the urgency and importance of the vigorous argument of my noble friend Lord O’Neill seriously, and if I have one anxiety it is on that point. Employment, security, economy, the real immediate needs—those are all crucial and it would be naive to overlook them. However, I am fearful because we seem to keep getting caught up in the immediacy of the management situation, but the Bill should unashamedly take a visionary approach to the long-term future. I am sure that my noble friend Lord O’Neill would be the first to agree that he is talking about what we all know to be finite resources. That is crucial at this juncture. Sooner or later, this country will have to face the issue. It is not an ephemeral kind of idea; it is absolute fundamental practicality that the economy of this has to keep going at some future point without the availability—it is taken for granted—of the finite resources. If we always get into the crude argument, the long-term thinking will always be pushed to the side. We will always hear about all the difficulties and doubts.
Objective considerations about the reality of what is proposed are important, but many of these things are challenges to be overcome and to be got right; they are not excuses for delaying and pushing to one side. I for one put firmly on record that whether or not the idea is acceptable as an amendment, my noble friend Lord Whitty is to be warmly congratulated on again having brought it home to the Committee, in his characteristically firm way, that either we are serious about alternatives or we are not. If we are, we have to start putting some consistent muscle and priority behind those alternatives and stop saying that they are an also-ran to be fitted in when there are no other objections to be raised.
Baroness Parminter
I support the principle of creating a level playing field, to which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred. The question seems to be about whether a reasonable dispute resolution process is in place for future conflicts between renewable energy and oil and gas. That is the heart of the issue, on which the Committee ought to focus. As it stands, the law gives the Secretary of State the ability to terminate offshore wind farm leases early, which implies primacy to oil and gas developments. That is clearly not the wish of the Government or in support of the policy developments with which we seek to move.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has done well to remind us that that could seriously undermine the financing of future developments. While it is fair to say that until now financing has been less controversial and difficult, it is clear that offshore wind projects are moving further offshore, are larger and are going within known oil and gas provinces. That will make the financing of those projects more complex, so we need to consider seriously any barrier to the investment for them.
We all recognise that there is an importance to the coexistence between oil and gas companies and renewable operations. I pay tribute to organisations such as RenewableUK that have put a lot of effort in, with the support of DECC, to draw up protocols and guidance so that the respective companies can work in harmony, as they have done until now, finding a way forward where there are areas of the seabed on which they both wish to operate. The issue is whether a reasonable dispute process is there for the future; we need that level playing field.
Therefore, while there might be questions about this amendment, it is right and proper that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has raised it. As my noble friend Lord Jenkin has mentioned, I too hope that this issue will get further consideration. If this clause is maintained, would it not be more appropriate that there should be compensation if these leases were terminated early in order that there is a degree of parity between the respective businesses in the field?
I welcome the principle of the necessity for a level playing field and I hope that ongoing discussions might look at some of the wider issues around compensation for a reasonable dispute resolution process.