Railways: High-speed Rail

Lord Marlesford Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Lord has asked me a detailed question about route strategy, and I shall be delighted to write to him.

[Lord Marlesford]

My Lords, given the huge success of the port of Felixstowe in the 25 years since it was bought, developed and now operated by Mr Li Ka-Shing using Hong Kong Chinese capital, will the Government consider encouraging China, which has much resource to invest overseas in infrastructure, to finance, build and, if possible, operate the new line?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am sure that Her Majesty’s Government look at all possible sources of finance.

EU: Financial Stability and Economic Growth

Lord Marlesford Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Marlesford]

My Lords, I want to suggest a specific course of action in the debt crisis, but let me first put it in an abstract context. The result of increasing the size of a rescue fund is that it creates both a precedent and the expectation that it will be increased again—or, as the jargon has it, a moral hazard. And if that rescue fund is based on a central bank, which by definition cannot go bust in the way that other banks can because it can turn on the printing press, that can have only one of two consequences: either in an extreme case it will feed through to inflation, if you believe as I do that inflation is a monetary phenomenon; or you may be able to achieve such a rapid rate of growth that the inflation is absorbed and subsumed in a gradual but slow drift upwards of prices at a lower rate than the nominal rate of growth.

Last week the European Financial Stability Facility rescue fund was increased from its original level in May 2010 of €440 billion to a potential €1 trillion, and there is already talk of it being necessary to raise it to €2 trillion or even €3 trillion, larger than the GDP of Germany. Then remember that the world tends to be divided between those who save and those who borrow. The inclination of borrowers is, as the old advertising slogan has it, “take the waiting out of wanting”. There is normally, however, a fear of having to repay loans. If a debt is forgiven or partly forgiven by the lender, then there is sometimes the irresistible temptation—indeed, the clear message—to borrow more. This is made even more tempting if the lender apparently has an unlimited supply of funds.

Now we have Greece, which has been offered a bailout apparently with no enforceable strings attached. That way lies contagion and thus a further crisis. I believe that Greece should be required to leave the euro area but certainly be allowed to remain inside the EU. Greece will then have the opportunity of deciding whether to invent a Mickey Mouse currency, which it might choose to call the drachma, or to continue to use the euro. Greece outside the euro area will have no borrowing capacity underwritten by the European Central Bank. If it reinvents the drachma no one will take that currency seriously. Remember that the three classical functions of a currency are as a store of value, as a unit of account and as a medium of exchange. A reinvented drachma is unlikely to have any of those. If Greece continues to use the euro it will be in the same position as any of us. It will only get the number of euros that it can earn by selling its goods and services. Greece will have to devalue, which in this case would mean cutting pay and prices from previous euro levels. Without help, in the short run it will not be strong enough to survive the political pressures this would cause.

I am so glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, drew attention to the important role of the International Monetary Fund in all this. I totally agree with him. In fact, I would propose that Greece should become a ward of the IMF. The IMF, which of course cannot print money, will dole out to Greece such sums as it has provided over the decades to other economic basket cases to prevent them becoming failed states. There are plenty of precedents for countries in crisis using a currency other than their own. Yugoslavia, after Tito died, used the deutschmark, and various South American countries have from time to time used the US dollar.

The other advantage of what I propose is that other countries will not wish to leave the euro area and will therefore have a real incentive to accept the necessary tough political decisions in order to avoid a default that would have that consequence. First in line would be Italy. Germany, with 27 per cent of the euro area GDP, is big enough to absorb all the debts of Greece, which has only 3 per cent of the euro area GDP. Italy, of course, represents 17 per cent of the euro area GDP and is therefore too big for Germany to swallow. That is why Greece should be treated in the way I am proposing, but I would say straightaway that Greece is historically and culturally central to Europe, and I would hope that in due course, if these disciplines were used, it would come fully back into the European family.

Localism Bill

Lord Marlesford Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Marlesford]

195ZA: After Clause 30, insert the following new Clause—
“Litter deposited from motor vehicles
(1) Local authorities may make byelaws about litter deposited from motor vehicles.
(2) Such byelaws may include provisions about—
(a) the application of section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (offence of leaving litter) to litter deposited from motor vehicles;(b) the procedures for identifying the person in charge of a motor vehicle; and(c) the information which the registered keeper of a vehicle may be required to provide the local authority.”

[Lord Marlesford]

My Lords, I seek to include a provision to support local authorities in reducing the level of litter from vehicles. The Minister will know that an amendment was tabled in the other place, new Clause 23, on Report. I also tabled an amendment to raise the issue in Committee, but I withdrew it on the understanding that it could be revisited on Report.

A minor change to the law in this area is supported by the Campaign to Protect Rural England and its president, Bill Bryson, the Keep Britain Tidy group and the Local Government Group. More than 100 councils have requested that change so that they can take action against those who litter from vehicles. I should perhaps declare an interest, having previously been for five years the chairman of CPRE and currently being the president of the Suffolk Preservation Society.

I am sorry—indeed, ashamed—to say that Britain is a very dirty nation. It is one of the dirtiest nations on a world scale but would be pretty close to the top of dirty nations on a European scale, which is very shaming. Litter is something on which we can take action. Many years ago, when I was young in the 1960s, I sat for a while at the feet of Ernest Marples. Ernest Marples was one of the most remarkable Ministers I was ever able to observe. He had a maxim in politics: “It is not what you say that matters; it is what you do”. I want to say something about what we can do about litter on roads.

I have followed the issue for a while. There are two basic reasons why there is so much litter on roads. The first, of course, is that it is thrown on to the roads; but secondly, a real problem, is that contractors or subcontractors whom the local authorities designate to clean up roads fail to do their job. I have frequently followed that up, because when I go along a really dirty road, I am inclined to put down a Question for Written Answer to ask the Government when they intend to have it cleared up. Almost always, I get the Answer that it will be cleared up shortly; and almost always it is, but I do not think that that is necessarily the best way to go about it.

We are in no doubt that littering from cars is a serious problem. It is estimated that seven out of 10 pieces of litter which blight in the countryside are dropped from cars. In 2009, the AA found in an online poll of more than 8,000 drivers that 75 per cent of them thought that littering was a serious problem and that 94 per cent of them thought that it damaged their community.

It is clear that Ministers in Defra share our concerns. In December, my noble friend Lord Henley—who has now, of course, moved to greater and even more important things—reported at the first National Litter Convention that the Secretary of State, my right honourable friend Caroline Spelman, had asked him to look at the roadside litter issue. At the launch of the Waste Review in June, I understand that my right honourable friend referred to littering from cars as a perennial bugbear and suggested that there might be a need for a roadside litter summit. Given that the issue is clearly being taken seriously by the Government, I suggest that the Bill is the ideal place to do something, rather than just to talk.

Existing law already allows for people who throw litter from cars to be fined. The problem is that, in practice, councils have found it very difficult to use the power, as it is often impossible to prove who within the car was responsible for throwing the litter. The change in the law that I advocate would correct that problem very simply and allow councils to issue fines to the registered owner of the vehicle, who would be responsible for paying the fine concerned unless another person was nominated by the driver to pay it. That is a standard feature which currently applies to speeding fines, seatbelt offences and fly-tipping. The change is not about more regulation, it is about better and more effective regulation. It is something that we know that local councils are asking for.

More than 1,000 CPRE supporters have written to their MPs to request that the amendment be made. I gather that the Labour Party made a pre-election pledge to make this legislative change, so there is clearly widespread support for making existing powers to tackle roadside littering more effective.

The amendment tabled in another place proposed that the Bill should be amended in the way that I outlined. Amendment 195ZA is very similar, but it would give local councils the power to make by-laws to address the problem. I am not saying that Amendment 195ZA is entirely practical as it stands, but I look forward to the Minister's response because, in the other place, the Minister did not provide the honourable Member for Gateshead, Ian Mearns, with a substantive reply. I hope that the Minister will commit to introducing a government amendment to tackle this problem at Third Reading. We are all on the same side in this, but it is a matter of actually doing something. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Marlesford]

My Lords, I am afraid that that was a real example of talk rather than action. Frankly, it was a very disappointing answer. My noble friend said that we should wait and see how the new penalty worked in London. He spoke of changing behaviour and said that the offence might be disproportionate or unfair. It is a thoroughly unsatisfactory answer. I did not get the feeling that my noble friend was indicating that any action on the Bill would be taken at Third Reading. I will of course withdraw the amendment today, but we may well have to press it at Third Reading. The Minister’s answer really was disappointing. If this Government cannot steel themselves to do something about litter, what can they achieve?

Amendment 195ZA withdrawn.

Localism Bill

Lord Marlesford Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I trust that the Government will give no credence to this intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Reay. Government policy for encouraging the development of alternative energy—which is essential to our future—includes onshore wind farms. If he wishes to pursue his opposition to that policy, he should pursue it under energy Bills and the various regulations that are brought before this House under the energy Bills. He may well have done so. However, this is not the appropriate point to do it.

His amendment would do the opposite of what he is suggesting. It would discriminate against developers of wind farms as compared with any other developer, as well as cutting across what has been a cross-party consensual position in terms of encouraging alternative energy, including wind farms. In reality, the number of wind farms that have been rejected on planning grounds is at least equivalent to those that have gone forward and the number on which a decision has been challenged.

I do not want to use the same intemperate language as the noble Lord, Lord Reay, but, in practice, on wind farm applications, the nimbys have generally won. In this, at least, let us recognise that there is an overriding national consideration that this Government, the last Government and all parties in this House have accepted. This is not the point at which to further discriminate against wind farm developers.

[Lord Marlesford]

In case the House were to think that my noble friend was in a minority of one, I rise to support his amendment strongly. Frankly, the essence of the planning system is that planning decisions should be made on planning grounds. To attempt to distort those decisions is thoroughly undesirable and totally contrary to the whole basis of what was set up by the party of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, when it was in power in 1948. It was one of the great achievements of the Labour Government—the other being the health service. England would not be the country it is if it had not had that planning system.

My noble friend is talking particularly about wind farms, which is quite relevant because of the element of subsidy. However, very undesirable pressures have been put on planning authorities, for example, by supermarkets, which have proposed to build in quite inappropriate places and have threatened expensive public inquiries and local authorities with damages if they presume not to grant the application. My noble friend Lord Reay is absolutely on to the right idea. I strongly advise the Government to think very carefully before they distort the planning system in this sort of way.

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, I must intervene. I had not intended to do so because much the same ground will come up under some subsequent amendments to which I have put my name. However, I point out to my noble friend Lord Whitty, for whom I have great respect and who I regard as a particularly good personal friend, that there is an issue which comes up under a number of amendments.

What the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has said is very telling. I am very proud of what the post-war Labour Government contributed to civilised values in this country through their planning arrangements and commitment to the countryside. I regard that as one of the most precious assets in the history of our party and do not want to see it lightly cast aside. What worries me about the implications of this part of the Bill, to which the noble Lord, Lord Reay, has moved his amendment, and, indeed of subsequent parts, is that all the implicit accumulated evidence, which is becoming increasingly explicit, shows that instead of a prejudice in planning in favour of our rich inheritance of countryside, scenery and the rest, the balance is changing to making economic considerations the priority. We need to get that balance right but I do not want to see the mistakes of the first Industrial Revolution repeated. Our countryside was raped in the first Industrial Revolution, but it could all have been done in a much more civilised way. Do we never learn? The noble Lord, Lord Reay, is absolutely right to be vigilant on this issue.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, with respect, I find myself more in agreement with my noble friend Lord Whitty than with my noble friend Lord Judd. I am bound to say that that is unusual. My advice is that the normal arrangement is that parties bear their own costs in an appeal. I have heard nothing which suggests that we should disrupt that arrangement whether in respect of wind farms or anything else. If we go down that path, we shall have a two-tier system whereby in some circumstances people will bear their own costs whereas in others, because they happen to be wealthier, they will have different arrangements. That seems a rather odd proposition. However, I particularly wanted to—

[Lord Marlesford]

The noble Lord misunderstood me; of course, I am aware of that. The point is that the costs likely to fall on the local authority in a prolonged planning appeal have to be a consideration. In plenty of cases there has been a threat that if it is felt, or can be shown, that the local authority was wrong to deny the planning consent in the first instance, damages for the delay can be claimed by the applicant. That is the point I was making.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I understand that point but it seems to be being proposed that the outcome of an appeal is somehow prejudged, and that some will have satisfactory outcomes with which we are happy but others will not. I pick up the proposition that the planning inspectorate colludes to try to achieve government policy in respect of renewables. As I have said before, I was a Minister in CLG for a very short period. All Ministers get the opportunity—if that is the right word—to deal with inspectors’ reports. Certainly, my experience of probably no more than half a dozen such reports is that they were very thorough and very balanced. Some recommended that an appeal should be accepted, others did not. My experience is that a professional approach was taken to the matter. I certainly did not detect any perceived pressure on the inspectorate to achieve one outcome rather than another, so it is rather unfortunate to suggest that the opposite is the case. I am very well aware that supermarkets push their luck through the planning system but they get knocked back. That seems to me to validate the process that we have.