Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 13th September 2023 Lords Chamber

My noble friend objected in Committee, saying that the amendment would destroy the funding integrity of the British Standards Institution. However, since Committee, it has emerged that Libraries NI, the largest single library authority in our country, has introduced free online access to a full database of more than 100,000 British, European and international standards. This amendment is infinitely more modest. It seeks free online access only to British standards related to planning, which must represent a small minority of the total made available in Northern Ireland. So, the question arises: if what this amendment seeks has already been accepted in Northern Ireland, why not in the rest of our country? I am all in favour of every opportunity to bring Great Britain into line with the many good things that have been found in Northern Ireland. The Government claim to be keen to promote digital accessibility. Here is an opportunity for them to do so. I beg to move.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak after my noble friend Lord Lexden. In this case, I am going to speak about a slightly different subject, although he made his own case very well. I will speak principally to Amendment 282N, in my name, but associated with it are Amendments 302A, 315ZA and 317, as consequential and related amendments. They have been referred to as my ULEZ amendments, but I am not really going to speak about the merits or demerits of ULEZ. Instead, I will talk about the knotty issue of relations between the elected Mayor of London and the elected borough councils and how they work together to make the capital a success. There has always been the potential for this to go wrong.

I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I remind them of my experience. I was the deputy leader of a London borough when Ken Livingstone was mayor. I chaired for two years during that period London Councils’ transport and environment committee, a statutory committee representing all London boroughs and the Corporation of the City of London, irrespective of party, in their relations with the mayor and Transport for London. Then, a little like a poacher turning gamekeeper—or the other way around—I was a member of the board of Transport for London for eight years and deputy chairman of Transport for London for about half that time.

I have therefore seen those relations operating in practice over a lengthy period. It is fair to say that, under the independent and then Labour mayor Ken Livingstone, they were quite often rather scratchy. They improved considerably when Boris Johnson became mayor. I would like to think—if noble Lords would allow me to be a little boastful—that that was because of the number of people working with him who had experience of local government, such as myself, my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley, who is sitting here, my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh, who is not in his place, and others. There was a much more collaborative relationship.

Under the current incumbent, that collaborative relationship has continued in many respects. This is to be welcomed. For example, the boroughs and the mayor have worked together closely on active travel programmes and various other matters. However, it is clear that, in the case of the extension of the London ultra low emission zone, they have collapsed. What we have are two levels of government, each convinced of their democratic authority, locking horns and threatening a sort of paralysis in transport policy. This could also extend to other areas.

What exists in other parts of the country? In London, the Greater London Authority Act 1999 gives powers in relation to road user charging to the mayor to act without being trammelled in any way by the views of the boroughs, beyond the consultation he is required to conduct with them. When we look to other parts of the country, we see that different legislation applies— Part III of the Transport Act 2000, for those who are interested. In the combined authority areas, these powers are held jointly by the combined authority and the relevant constituent authorities, acting as local traffic authorities. Decisions on road user charging in these areas typically require the majority or unanimous consent of members before any scheme can be established.

In the case of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, the constitution is explicit in stating that questions relating to road user charging require all 11 members of the combined authority to be unanimously in favour for any vote to be carried. In the West Midlands Combined Authority, changes to transport matters require either a simple majority or a unanimous vote, depending on the question to be decided and on the members entitled to vote. In neither of these cases could road user charging be introduced without the collaboration and assent of the constituent authorities. It is rather different from London.

I instance these points to say that in this country we can embrace a different pattern of the distribution of power. The essence of my amendment is simply to try to extend, in a small way, some of the co-responsibility that exists in Manchester and Birmingham to the arrangements in London. It seeks to rebalance this by bringing the decision-making in London more into line with what exists in the rest of the country.

The amendment would give London borough councils a new power to opt out from—but not veto—certain road user charging schemes in future. First, it would be operative only where the principal purpose of a road user charging scheme applying in the council’s area is the improvement of air quality. Secondly, it would be available only to London borough councils which already meet air quality standards and objectives under the Environment Act 1995—I say in parenthesis that, currently, no London borough meets those standards—or have an approved plan to do so that is an alternative to the plan advanced by the mayor to be achieved through road user charging.

There is no free ticket here for London boroughs away from their responsibilities for air quality. Where the council can show to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that it has a plan which is likely to achieve and maintain improvements, the Secretary of State would be under a new duty to approve its alternative plan, thus making it eligible to opt out of certain TFL charging schemes.

The combined effect of these various conditions will be that there will be no impairment of the air-quality obligations falling on London boroughs, but there will be the opportunity to show that they can meet them in a way that is more acceptable to their local people, as they judge them on the basis of their democratic mandate. I think that would be a modest and sensible rebalancing of power. It is focused, it is proportionate, and it is good common sense.

I see that my noble friend the Minister has indicated her support for the amendment, and the associated other amendments, and I very much hope that they will find favour across your Lordships’ House.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s Amendment 282N. In opening, I remind the House that I am the leader of the London Borough of Bexley and am therefore involved in both London Councils and the Local Government Association—although I have not quite made the dizzying heights of being a VP of the Local Government Association, like many Members of this Chamber.

It is important to point out at the outset that I firmly believe in improving air quality, having seen the benefits of improved air quality myself. My parents used to live in Lewisham, and my father suffered from chest problems for years, but that all changed when he moved to Bexley—and not just because it has a good council. As council leader, I am proud to report that, in Bexley, we have good air quality, below the legal limits, and we are always looking at ways to improve that air quality. But we fundamentally believe that the expansion of ULEZ to outer-London, and the way it has been done, is undemocratic.

If this amendment had been in place before, the mayor would not have been able to ignore local views, to fail to engage constructively with the boroughs or to have brought it forward in such a quick way that has had a disastrous impact on many of our residents. He also would not have contradicted the statement he made two years ago that he was not going to expand ULEZ. This amendment highlights a way to protect democracy for those in London going forward.

Local councils understand their locations and their residents—I know many Members here have connections. Bexley, like most other outer-London boroughs, is very different from central or inner-London. That is why my borough, like others, has campaigned against the Mayor of London’s insistence on extending ULEZ to the borders of London. We are very conscious of the need to continually look to improve air quality locally, and we take measures to do so, but our lack of transport connectivity—we are one of the few London boroughs without the Tube—makes us heavily reliant on the car. Many of our small businesses and trades men and women depend on vans. Many invested in the diesel vehicles they were told a decade ago were greener and cleaner but now face the ULEZ charge.

One of those measures is lobbying to improve public transport. You would hope that, when the opportunity arises, the mayor and TfL would seek to help, but in neither of the recent proposals for the Superloop or the DLR extension to Thamesmead did they even identify the need to improve the transport infrastructure in our part of the borough.

We have some of the poorest wards in London, and the residents in those wards are more likely to be those with non-compliant cars. Those cars are vitally important to allow residents to fulfil their employment, as well as look after their families. Cars, some on finance arrangements, have become worthless overnight. I have heard of many people taking out loans to replace them, the scrappage scheme not being relevant, or indeed having to revert to leasing rather than owning a car to allow them to get about.

In common with other outer-London boroughs, we also have a high number of older residents, and their cars give them independence to visit their family and friends, get their weekly shopping and attend medical appointments, among other things. How often do we all hear about people buying their last car? In the last few months, the communications I have received have included some revolving around people having to draw down their life savings to replace a car they had no intention of replacing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the South Downs National Park Authority, which is a major planning authority. I am speaking to Amendment 247, to which I have added my name, and the three amendments in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, to which I have also added my name.

The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, has set out with great clarity the rather modest intention of our original Amendment 247, which was to underpin the delivery of nutrient neutrality measures, which are necessary to halt the catastrophic damage to some of our most protected wetland sites. Since then, of course, the Government have tabled a raft of amendments that would have the opposite effect to that which we were seeking to achieve in our original amendment. That Government package goes against many of the fundamental principles of environmental protection to which we agreed during our consideration of the Environment Act.

We have heard reference to the letters from the chair of the Office for Environmental Protection, Glenys Stacey, who has made it clear that the government amendments amount to a regression in law. In the meeting that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, had with Peers this week, she said that that judgment by the OEP was wrong as it had not considered all the factors. That is a serious allegation to make, and I would be grateful if the Minister could update the House on how these differences of opinion between the Government and the independent regulator, the OEP, are being addressed.

Our Amendments 247YYAA, 247YYAB and 247YYAC address the heart of our concerns about the Government’s proposals. First, as the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, has said, they place an intolerable requirement on public bodies to ignore the evidence of water pollution in plain sight and pretend that it does not exist. In fact, I am surprised that these late amendments were not sent back to the lawyers due to defective drafting; as has been said, they now require public bodies to look both ways at once, facing different requirements in different legislation. As Matthew Parris said in his recent Times article, under the government proposals,

“when considering an application to build, the authorities must assume that what poisons rivers does not poison rivers”.

This is madness. Planning authorities currently have a responsibility to take all material considerations into account, including the need for more housing and for environmental protections. The government proposals will undermine our evidence-based planning system and set a dangerous precedent.

Secondly, it is being argued that these measures are necessary to unlock housebuilding. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Best, and normally I agree with him on so much, but I felt that his contribution was rather intemperate and had obviously been swayed by some of the so-called evidence given to his committee. I wish that, as he said, the committee had heard evidence from the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, before it made its decisions on this issue, because delays in securing planning permission are not the biggest barrier—it is the inability of developers to build out schemes that have already been approved. We all know the statistics about how much is already in train but has not been developed.

The further uncertainty caused by the government amendments may mean that fewer houses, not more, will be built. Because the legislation is not retrospective, there will be tens of thousands of homes across the country for which consent has already been given, with nutrient provisions in place, but on which the developers have not yet begun. So planning departments will need to enforce the nutrient provisions in relation to those consented developments, leading to a two-tier system that will last for many years.

Thirdly, as Natural England has confirmed, it is perfectly possible to address the balance between the habitat regulations and housebuilders through non-legislative means. There are already a number of well-established schemes that do this, adopting a more strategic approach to the nutrient migration scheme. The Government and the noble Lord, Lord Best, have suggested that everything has come to a halt. This is simply not the case. Housebuilding is still happening, and people are working with Natural England to make sure it is being done in an environmentally sensitive way.

Finally, these proposals will be a major blow to the rollout of the green finance system, which is necessary to support nature recovery. For example, in the South Downs we estimate that we have about 4,000 hectares of nutrient neutrality offset land in the Test, Itchen and Solent catchment areas alone. That represents around £400 million of potential income to landowners and farmers to support economic opportunities and help with the agricultural transition, while also supporting nature recovery.

Without nutrient neutrality offsetting, the Government have no hope of reaching their private finance targets in the environmental improvement plan of £500 million every year by 2027—so it is a lose-lose situation. I urge noble Lords to reject these ill thought out plans and find a consensual way to deliver a housebuilding programme that enhances, rather than wrecks, our water quality.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to speak, in part in my capacity as chairman of your Lordships’ Built Environment Select Committee, to which the noble Lord, Lord Best, referred. I should explain that we have, perhaps coincidentally, spent the last six months taking evidence—not “so-called evidence” but actual evidence—on precisely this topic. The subject of our inquiry has been the interaction between environmental regulations and development. Inevitably, the question of nutrient neutrality has occupied an important place, because it is so important and live. The noble Lord, Lord Best, has explained that the report is not yet published; it is practically at the printer, and we hope it will appear next week, so we are not in a position today to quote from it. However, I see a number of members of the committee in the Chamber and I hope that they will speak, because we have been very struck by what we have found.

A great deal of what we found was explained by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and I do not propose to repeat all of that. I will speak more briefly, but I would like to draw attention to one conclusion we reached without any dissent. When new environmental legislation is introduced, which is well thought out, consulted on and given adequate time for implementation, it is normally absorbed, adopted and implemented by the housebuilding industry with no disruption or difficulty. That is the right way for us to make environmental legislation; it is what we normally do. However, in this case, that is not what has happened at all.

The root of the problem is a European Court of Justice decision in 2018 in a case related to Dutch farming—which, as we all know, is probably the most intense farming in the world—and the consequences it had in the Netherlands for run-off into watercourses. That judgment created a more restrictive interpretation of existing habitat regulations than had been agreed and understood before. Because we were still part of the European Union—I shall not go into the European consequences of this—Natural England rightly understood that this judgment had an effect in England as well. So it took legal advice on what consequences it had.

It then went off and discussed it with Defra, and Defra look legal advice. I have not seen that advice, but it appears to have concurred with the advice obtained by Natural England. Our committee still does not quite understand why Defra insisted at that stage that nobody should be allowed to discuss this, and that it all had to be kept very secret between Defra and Natural England. The result was that when it announced the consequences of that new decision, as it understood them, there was no warning whatever. There was none of the normal consensus, building of consultation, buying in, or time for implementation. All of a sudden, it appeared in a number of catchment areas covering, I believe, approximately 14% of the land area of England. It is absolutely true that it has not stopped housebuilding in every part of England but, in effect, overnight there was a moratorium in roughly 14% of the land area of England even on the completion of sites that already had planning permission. This is utterly disruptive and completely unplanned and, in my view, evidence and argument for treating this particular circumstance as a special case. The Government need to take steps to sort this out, untangle ourselves and make a plan that allows us to deliver all our housebuilding and environmental objectives over time.