Localism Bill
Lord Berkeley Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would like to speak to Amendments 168 and 169.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly entitled to speak to an amendment that has not been moved because, as the clerks will tell one, an amendment belongs to the House. I have to say, though, that it is totally contrary to the spirit and conventions of this House that someone should seek to speak to an amendment that has not been moved. We cannot stop the noble Lord, but I hope that he will do so extremely briefly. I have a number of other amendments in exactly the same situation, and I do not intend to say anything about them at all.
Lord Berkeley
“Planning permission for subterranean development
After section 75 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, insert—“75A Planning permission for subterranean development
(1) Any proposed development which extends below the ground level of an existing property shall be deemed to be “a subterranean development” and any person seeking to undertake a subterranean development must—
(a) commission a “Subterranean Impact Study” by consultants approved by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the impact of the proposed subterranean development upon—(i) subterranean ground conditions with particular reference to flowing and standing water; and(ii) foundations, footings and structure of any adjacent buildings and other buildings within a radius of 100 metres of the proposed development;(b) provide owners of any adjacent properties and of properties within a radius of 100 metres with a copy of the Subterranean Impact Study and enter into consultation with the respective owners during a period of not less than 90 days;(c) submit a copy of the Subterranean Impact Study to the relevant planning authority, together with the results of the consultation with relevant adjacent and nearby property owners, before submitting any application for full planning approval for the proposed subterranean development from the relevant planning authority;(d) seek the approval of the Secretary of State for the proposed subterranean development;(e) provide an appropriate warranty or bond and security for expenses to a value to be determined by a specialist advisor.””
Lord Berkeley
I wish to move Amendment 168 very briefly and to speak to Amendment 169. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, said, the amendments have not already been debated, in spite of what it says on the groupings list. Amendments 170CA, 170CB and 170CE are not on the groupings list and they have not been debated either, so I hope that they will be debated at some stage.
All I was going to say in moving the amendment—in fact, I was hoping to speak to it after another noble Lord had moved it—was that I supported it. I was also going to ask the Minister whether and how it would apply to underground workings such as cracking. Cracking is the extraction of gas from underneath the ground: one drills many thousands of feet underground and pumps in high pressure water and gas is then extracted. This is a common occurrence in the United States at the moment. A lot of gas is extracted but a lot of houses are subsiding and being damaged as a result. I believe that the same process is being planned or has started in the Blackpool area. I am looking for information from the Minister on that as well. Whether I get it now or whether he writes to me, I do not really mind. I beg to move.
Lord Selsdon
My Lords, as it is my amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is, I believe, a former member or director of the piggy-back club, I assume that he is piggy-backing. My amendment is too big to be discussed here. I consulted my party and it has very kindly given me leave to introduce a Private Member’s Bill which will cover all these areas. I would much appreciate it if the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, would co-operate with me. I should declare that I have lots of underground interests too.
Lord Berkeley
I am grateful for that remark and I look forward to further discussions with the noble Lord.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I think it is a bit unfair to suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was going to weary the Committee. I say to noble Lords that if the issue is a big one and they have other routes for having a debate, why put down an amendment? When amendments go down, we all spend time trying to get our minds around what the issues are so that we can respond. It wastes our time as well.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, just about everything that could be said has been said on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked about gas extraction. I will have a letter written to him before the next stage so that he knows the situation.
Lord Berkeley
“Matters to which local authorities must have regard
(1) When considering planning applications for, in particular, warehouses, distribution sites, ports, airports and airfields, local authorities must have regard to the impact on—
(a) businesses,(b) leisure facilities,(c) the provision of emergency services,(d) the environment, and(e) the local economy.(2) When considering planning applications which are expected to result in a significant increase in the use of local transport infrastructure, local authorities must have regard to—
(a) achieving the minimum disruption to local transport infrastructure,(b) achieving efficient freight access to businesses,(c) encouraging the use of sustainable transport,(d) ensuring pedestrians, disabled people and cyclists are appropriately provided for, and(e) possible alterations to the infrastructure to make use of future low-carbon transport.(3) Local authorities must adopt planning policies to protect transport routes which may reasonably be believed to have a role in providing low-carbon transport in the future.”
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, in general planning terms, this amendment seeks to establish how larger developments, which we discussed yesterday, fit into the local planning framework. Quite often, with big developments—ports, airfields, airports, warehouses, distribution centres or whatever, or even energy projects, that we have discussed at length—there are problems with the local facilities getting overloaded. It is very important that there is a link between the way that these big projects get permissions and what happens around them locally, which may or may not be subject to Section 106 agreements or other agreements.
Looking particularly at subsection (2) of this amendment, one can envisage a significant increase in the use of local transport and heavy goods vehicle transport. Therefore, it seems important to encourage sustainable transport here and also not to forget the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and disabled people and generally to encourage the use of low-carbon transport. It may be seen as an amendment to introduce something we have talked about before—general sustainable development. I hope that it is more than motherhood and apple pie and that the Minister, in responding, may say that it will all be in the national planning policy framework, which is now imminent, I believe. I will look on the website when I leave here and see if it is. It would be good to hear from the Minister whether these kinds of issues will be in the NPPF, or, if not, whether the Government look with favour on amendments such as this. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the noble Lord has introduced an interesting amendment which rustles between two responsibilities. If this were a very big application, such as those in the first part of the amendment—sites, ports, airfields—that would not be the responsibility of local authorities, that would be for the new planning inspectorates or commission. On the other applications, I think that that would happen already—it is all part and parcel of our planning considerations—and while we understand the concern about balancing the transport system in favour of sustainable transport, which the noble Lord mentioned, he should understand that is only part of what is included.
Many of these areas are already taken into account—I am trying to go back to my own limited experience from years ago—and most are things that the planning committee would be interested in, while the bigger applications will be dealt with by other means, although local authorities will, of course, be able to comment on them as they go along. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Berkeley
I am very grateful to the Minister for that response. She is absolutely right that on big projects, these things should be taken into account in the whole, but I still have a concern about something falling between two stools, if that is the right analogy. Perhaps I can have a discussion with her between now and Report, or read Hansard. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Localism Bill
Lord Berkeley Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jenkin of Roding
In moving this amendment, I wish to discuss the other two with which it is grouped. I tabled these amendments before we had the debate last Tuesday in which we discussed the application of the community infrastructure levy. Anxieties had already been aroused with regard to the original purpose of the levy being altered. My noble friend Lord Attlee spelt out that purpose very correctly. It is meant to support infrastructure development and be paid by the developer of a facility such as housing or industry. My noble friend Lord Greaves had moved an amendment which would widen the permitted use of the levy receipts beyond infrastructure matters that support the development of the area. My noble friend Lord Attlee said:
“We want to reflect on whether continuing to limit spending solely to providing infrastructure restricts local authorities’ ability to support and enable development of the area”.—[Official Report, 12/7/11; col. 707.]
He went on to say:
“We want to reflect on the amendments proposed by my noble friends Lord Greaves and Lord Tope to allow the spending of the levy on matters other than infrastructure”.—[Official Report, 12/7/11; cols. 709.]
These words have aroused considerable anxiety. I have a copy of a letter written yesterday by the Institution of Civil Engineers to the Secretary of State. The letter was copied to my right honourable friend Greg Clark and my noble friend Lord Attlee. The institution’s chairman wrote:
“I am writing to highlight concerns regarding the Government’s undertaking to reflect on allowing the use of the Community Infrastructure Levy on matters other than infrastructure. The Levy was specifically conceived and justified to provide for new and upgraded infrastructure—a point reinforced by the Government many times”.
Indeed, they did so most recently last Tuesday through my noble friend Lord Attlee.
The purpose of these three amendments is to try to get clarification on three specific issues. First, Amendment 148ZZBBBA seeks to ensure that the application of CIL is confined to the provision and maintenance of an infrastructure project which is in an approved charging schedule, on the ground that that fulfils the original purpose of the introduction of the CIL. The institution believes—I accept the case that was made on Tuesday and is in the Bill—that this should include what is called in the Bill “ongoing expenditure”, which I understand to mean the maintenance of an approved infrastructure project financed by CIL. I hope that my noble friend can give me a very clear undertaking that there is no question of this levy being used simply to fill a revenue hole in a local authority’s budget. It has to be confined to the provision and maintenance of an infrastructure project.
My second point has been touched on but I would like to be given a much needed assurance. There are plenty of examples of where developers have agreed to make a contribution under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. If a developer has made such an agreement—sometimes it can last for a number of years—he should not be charged the CIL in addition. I hope that my noble friend can give me a clear undertaking on that. It was briefly discussed, and if we had not risen when we did on Tuesday, I would have intervened, because I was expecting to move the amendment on Tuesday night. I said, “Let’s wait until I am speaking”.
My third point concerns the suggestion of compensating communities by allowing CIL receipts to be passed to other persons. I do not quarrel with that—although I know that some object—but it must be spent on infrastructure projects. It must not be allowed to be a financial recompense paid to a community because it has development in its area. I hope that my noble friend can give me a clear assurance on that.
My final point is that the area must not be too tightly defined. There is anxiety that that may be the effect of the Bill. For instance, if the money has to be spent in the area, how will that fund a bypass which may be necessary as a result of the development, or flood defences, which may have to happen well outside the area but are clearly for its benefit?
I have asked a number of questions, and I do not think that I need to go on longer. Those are seen as serious issues by those concerned with re-establishing our infrastructure in this country. I took part in the original debate on the CIL when the 2008 Bill was going through the House. Indeed, I tried to ensure that both Houses would be able to approve the delegated legislation under it. I carried that in this House, but it was turned down by the then Leader of the House in another place. I have a considerable interest in making sure that we get this right. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I am very pleased to support the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, on this group of amendments. He has articulated very well the problems which the CIL could cause developers. It is particularly important for bigger projects, which might be taken through a hybrid Bill process, through the IPC or the Transport and Works Act, where the decisions are effectively made by Ministers. Ministers will approve—or not—a deal which ends up as a Section 106 agreement. The worry is that, completely separately, the local authority might want to put a CIL charge on the project. One must think of the effect on business confidence when considering ports, airports, logistics centres, railways, roads, power stations or anything else of that size, and of the figures involved.
The people who run Gatwick Airport have told us that they are committed under a Section 106 agreement to contribute about £1 million annually to public transport via a levy on their car park revenues. If they had also been required to pay a CIL to the local authority—probably retrospectively, because it may well have happened after the Section 106 agreement was signed—they would not know what liability they would be stung for, frankly. To give two bigger examples, Hutchison Ports had a Section 106 agreement to extend the ports at both Felixstowe and Bathside Bay. It was committed under the agreement to spend about £100 million on upgrading the railway line to Leeds. We can question why it should be Leeds, but that is what was agreed. I think that the London Gateway port project, downstream on the Thames, had to contribute a similar amount for road improvements between there and the M25. If, having signed up to all that, they are suddenly stung for a CIL, it will put off developers from going ahead with these projects. It is after all the Government’s wish to develop new projects—I return again to the Secretary of State for Transport’s plan to build a high-speed railway line to Birmingham and beyond. You can imagine that people in villages along the route who do not like the plan, having had their referendum to vote against it, will then try to sting the promoters, whoever they may be, for a CIL. It could get quite interesting. It will put off business and I hope that when the Minister responds he can strengthen the assurance that was given in another place that a CIL will not be levied on projects for which a Section 106 agreement has been entered into and agreed.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, Amendment 148ZZBBBA, moved by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, seeks to limit spending on the ongoing costs of providing infrastructure to those items that were originally funded by the levy. New developments may create additional demands on existing infrastructure as well as demands for new infrastructure. The amendment would prevent local authorities from using levy receipts to address the intensification of demand on existing infrastructure, despite the fact that this could be exactly what is needed to support a new development.
My noble friend’s Amendment 148ZZC seeks an exemption from the levy for any development that makes a contribution to existing infrastructure through Section 106 planning obligations. This is not appropriate as the two instruments are concerned with different aspects of development. Through the levy, most new development would contribute towards the cost of meeting the cumulative demands that development of an area places on infrastructure. Conversely, planning obligations are concerned only with the site-specific matters necessary to make a particular development acceptable in planning terms.
Local infrastructure may or may not be part of the planning obligation. Where it is any part of a planning obligation, it must satisfy the statutory tests that ensure that they are necessary to make the development acceptable, are directly related to the development and are fairly related in scale and kind. We do not believe that it is appropriate to exempt development that is subject to a planning obligation from making a contribution to the more general infrastructure demands that it places on the area. In addition, the existing legislation already prevents developers being charged twice for the same item of infrastructure through both instruments. That answers the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I will check to make sure that it also answers the concern of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. I am not absolutely certain that it does, but I will check, and I am sure we will return to this at a later stage.
Lord Berkeley
The port down the Thames—London Gateway—committed probably £100 million to upgrade the junctions on the roads and the motorway leading to the M25 to cope with additional traffic reported to be coming from its development. I understood the Minister to say that that is exactly what the CIL might be required to do. I see that as double taxation.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I think that I will come to a point later in my speech that should deal with the noble Lord’s concerns.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin also proposes Amendment 148ZZD, the effect of which would be that where regulations require the charging authority to pass funds to another body, it would retain ultimate control over how those resources are used by confining spending to matters it determines appropriate.
Lord Berkeley
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, suggested that Section 106 might be being phased out. Is that correct?
Localism Bill
Lord Berkeley Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I support these amendments. In some ways they are no-brainers: it is so obvious that they need to be there to close the gap that my noble friend mentioned.
Proposed new subsection (1A)(b) in subsection (2) of the amendment covers flooding risk, which gets greater all the time. However, many local authorities, sadly, do not take that into account when they allow new developments. Going back 20 years, there was an amazing story in Cornwall where someone wanted to develop a site near the beach in St Austell Bay. The developer produced the plans and everything went fine but the local people said, “The sea will overtop it”—many tens of millions of pounds had been spent on this development by then—but the developer said no and the council said nothing. A week later the sea did overtop it and flooded a large area. It was a high tide, which happens every now and then. Five years on, planning permission was finally obtained for this enormous development but with a very much higher sea wall. The amount of money and time wasted by people not taking into account the risks of climate change are tremendous.
I remind the Committee that proposed new subsection (1A) means including policies to encourage walking, cycling, public transport and much less use of the car; and the location of schools, hospitals and other such places where there is so often a consolidation which means that people have to travel much further to use them through no fault of their own. These issues never seem to come into the assessment. I hope that when the Minister responds he will support the amendment or come back with one in his own words if he thinks it is defective in its drafting, which I have heard him suggest before.
Lord Boyd of Duncansby
This is the first time that I have spoken in this stage of the Bill so I declare an interest as a solicitor in private practice, mostly in Scotland but also to some extent in England. I want to make two quick points. First, the Climate Change Act establishes legally binding objectives and targets for the reduction of carbon emissions by 2050. The development plan is the way in which the built environment is shaped for the future. It is really important that we ensure a seamless see-through in meeting these targets. The development plan is an important element of that.
Secondly, the national policy statements on nationally significant infrastructure projects all have within them considerable sections targeted at climate change. The Government are to be congratulated on taking forward those national policy statements in that way. There is an argument that, if the national policy statements make such a priority of ensuring that developments meet the carbon target, surely the development plan fulfils a similar function.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think I gave the noble Lord the answer to this when I said that the presumption would be that the planning should be in accordance with the NPPF and any other material considerations. Outside that, the presumption must be that approval is given, so there is an incentive for local authorities to get these plans in place.
Lord Berkeley
Could the Minister clarify that? Is there not going to be a sort of bonanza before the LDP is finally approved? Before that, all the applicants will have to do is comply with the NPPF, which must be a very high-level document. Will there not be a flood of planning applications that, as the Minister said, the local authority will probably have to approve?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, there is an incentive for local authorities to get these plans in place—I think I have made that point throughout our discussions on these amendments—and all other material considerations have to be met, so it does not happen totally in the void. Local authorities must have regard to their own circumstances when taking other matters into account, which is all the more reason for them to be working on these plans at the present time.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the purpose of the CIL is for owners or developers of land to contribute to the cost of providing infrastructure that supports the development of the area. Almost all development has some impact on the need for infrastructure, or benefits from it. It is fair that such development pays a share of the cost of providing that infrastructure. In setting a charge, local authorities must have regard to the actual and expected costs of infrastructure and its other sources of funding. They must also have regard to the economic viability of development, which includes the need to deliver affordable housing.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, proposes amendments to provide that affordable housing provision will not be prejudiced by any levy charges that an authority may set. As we explained in the other place and to the National Housing Federation, the existing legislation already provides appropriate safeguards to avoid negative implications for the delivery of affordable housing. The statutory guidance issued under Section 221 of the Local Planning Act 2008, to which local authorities are required to have regard, explicitly sets out that a charging authority must take development costs, particularly those for affordable housing, into account when setting a charge. The point of the levy is to support and not frustrate the delivery of a local development plan. The statutory guidance is specifically clear that an examiner should consider whether a local authority’s proposed charges would put their affordable housing target at risk. Where the independent examiner considers that it does, they should not approve the proposed charge.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked me about the Section 106 funding source for affordable housing. It does not follow that the imposition of a CIL charge will result in lower Section 106 contributions. In setting a charge, a council has to consider the impact on the economic viability, including affordable housing, and ensure that the levy does not put it at risk, which will include affordable housing funds. These amendments are clearly well intentioned. We agree that affordable housing is important and must not be harmed by the implementation of a levy. I can reassure noble Lords that the amendments are unnecessary, as appropriate safeguards already exist.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in his Amendments 148ZZZBE et cetera, seeks amendments that would in effect allow local authorities to implement a charge without first having to remedy any deficiency identified by the independent examination of their proposals. Local authorities are in the best position to know what level of charges will work in their area to support development and encourage growth, but we do not accept that they should have complete freedom to set any charges they like. Instead, we are maintaining proportionate safeguards to prevent unreasonable levy charges, which could put development at serious risk. Our proposals rebalance the relationship between the examiner and the local authority, to provide that it is the authority that has the final decision on how any deficiencies in their proposed charging schedule are addressed. However, we are clear that any changes made by the authority must be sufficient and necessary to remedy any non-compliance identified by the independent examination of the proposals.
Noble Lords also seek to remove powers that allow for regulations to make provision about the evidence that a local authority must or must not consider in setting a charge. Our experience of similar examination of local plan-making shows that the decisions of independent examiners vary. Councils have tended to give a great deal of weight to previous decisions, and that has sometimes led to restricted local flexibility and freedom. We want to ensure that that does not occur with the levy. The proposed power will enable the Government to respond in a robust and flexible way to practices which threaten to undermine the ability of councils successfully to introduce their local levy charges. Our proposals strike the right balance between ensuring that local authorities have real discretion to set charges in their area while retaining appropriate safeguards to ensure that proposals do not put development of the area at risk.
Amendment 148ZZBBA, tabled by my noble friend Lord Greaves, would widen the permitted use of levy receipts beyond infrastructure to matters that support the development of an area. My noble friend has raised an interesting point. We are clear that the point of the levy is to support growth and new development. Infrastructure is of course central to supporting new development and unlocking growth, but it is not the only matter necessary to enable and incentivise development. We want to reflect on whether continuing to limit spending solely to providing infrastructure restricts local authorities’ ability to support and enable development of the area. We want to consider whether widening permitted uses of the levy would make the instrument more effective and better placed effectively to promote, support and enable new development.
My noble friend Lord Greaves also proposes Amendment 148ZZBBB, which would do two things. First, it would alter the purpose of the levy so that it is focused on supporting communities rather than development. We have set out proposals to pass a proportion of the funds raised in an area to the parish council for that area and for those funds to be spent on infrastructure to support the development of that area. Control over the remainder of the funds is to be retained by the charging authority—normally the unitary, district or borough council—to provide the infrastructure needed to support the development of the larger area. The point is that the impact of the development and the infrastructure needed to support it are not confined to the geography of the community. Some will be, and our changes to direct a meaningful proportion of funds to the communities where development takes place will deal with that. Other matters, such as transport, span communities—and, indeed, charging authorities.
Secondly, the amendment proposes to allow funds to be used for the building, improvement and renovation of housing. That is unnecessary, as existing primary legislation in the Planning Act 2008 already contains the power to allow for levy receipts to be spent on affordable housing. However, regulations currently prevent that. Allowing such spending is therefore not a matter for the Bill, but the treatment of affordable housing is relevant to the amendments sought. I can confirm that we will consult during the summer on making that change through regulations.
In Amendment 148ZZCB, my noble friend Lord Greaves seeks to remove the provision for regulation to set out the ongoing costs to be funded by the levy. The powers we propose mirror existing ones in the Planning Act 2008, which allow for regulations to set out the works, installations or other facilities to be funded by the levy. The existing powers are currently used to specify that the Mayor of London must use receipts to fund strategic transport infrastructure. London is unique in that the London boroughs may also levy charges in their area, but are free to spend the receipts on any infrastructure to support their areas. We have no plans to use the power to specify the ongoing costs to be funded, but we envisage that it is necessary to deal with similar exceptional circumstances.
Lord Berkeley
Can the noble Earl clarify what is covered by “future ongoing costs”? Is it maintenance of housing or maintenance of a road? It is a bit of an open-ended commitment. You can understand a capital cost but if it is maintenance for roads or housing forevermore, it seems a bit odd.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, perhaps it would be helpful if I first answered the question from my noble friend Lady Hamwee on whether ongoing means maintaining the infrastructure or excludes it. Clause 100 sets out that this includes maintenance and operation of infrastructure.
Amendment 148ZZBBC seeks to allow the levy to fund the provision of infrastructure on a continuous rather than ongoing basis. We do not believe that this amendment would have a material effect. Our changes clarify that levy receipts can be used to maintain the ongoing costs of providing infrastructure but such spending will still have to satisfy the requirement that it also supports development of the area. The reason for our change is that the current provisions are being construed as limiting spending only to the initial costs of providing infrastructure. This could prevent infrastructure that is wanted and needed from being provided where the funds necessary to maintain and run it are not available. This is a perverse outcome and we are making sure that councils have the flexibility to deliver what is needed to support development of their area.
My noble friend Lord Lucas seeks an amendment that would prevent regulations allowing levy receipts to be reserved for future ongoing costs. I have explained that our proposals are concerned with ensuring that local authorities have real flexibility to spend the funds on the matters that are needed to support development in their area. We believe that this amendment would constrain this flexibility and could result in inefficient and ineffective spending by requiring funds to be used now rather than retained for future strategic projects that are planned.
Amendment 148ZZCD, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and others, proposes to remove provisions that provide for regulations to place a duty on charging authorities to pass all or some of any community infrastructure levy received to other persons. Alongside the physical barriers to new development, growth can be slowed or restricted by local concerns about its impacts. We intend to use the powers conferred by Clause 100 to require charging authorities to pass a meaningful proportion of receipts raised from new development in an area to a parish, town or community council for that area where there is such a local council. The local council will be required to spend the funds to provide infrastructure to support the development of its area.
When communities understand that new development is directly contributing towards the cost of the demands that it places on the infrastructure of their area, and see that they will be given real control over how these resources are used to address those demands, they are more likely to accept and indeed support it. Our reforms to the levy will make it genuinely pro-growth. Addressing the demands that new developments place on infrastructure will enable development to happen and it will incentivise communities to accept it. Using receipts to invest in the local area will ensure that growth is supported and sustainable, which will in turn unlock new development and growth.
We want to reflect on the amendments proposed by my noble friends Lord Greaves and Lord Tope to allow the spending of the levy on matters other than infrastructure. It is essential that the levy operates in a way that helps drive growth as effectively as possible. We will carefully consider whether permitting spending on other matters can improve the instrument’s ability to support and enable development. As ever, I am very happy to discuss these matters privately between this stage and Report. I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments at the appropriate point.
Diplomatic Missions: Unpaid Congestion Charges and Parking Fines
Lord Berkeley Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I have had a brush with Transport for London over the congestion charge and, unfortunately, I found it to be deadly efficient.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House whether the President of the United States and his very long and low-slung car—which went aground in Dublin, we are told—and his retinue of 40 other cars paid the congestion charge when they came to London last month?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I expect that they probably claimed diplomatic immunity.
Localism Bill
Lord Berkeley Excerpts(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Valentine
I declare an interest as chief executive of London First, a not-for-profit business membership organisation that includes developers, infrastructure providers and others who may have an interest in the practical implications of the Bill.
As a general point of principle, it is unreasonable to transfer the financial sanctions that emanate from European law to a subsidiary body unless that body has been given adequate powers and resources to meet the law and, furthermore, the UK Government have fully discharged their own obligations. Fairly attributing responsibility for who has infringed the law and the extent to which they have done so is not simple, as other noble Lords have already pointed out. Therefore, I support Amendment 117, which would introduce an independent panel to determine such matters. However, the amendment still leaves the final decision about who will pay the fine with the UK Government. I should like to see the powers of the panel taken a step further, with it being given the power to make this decision. The legitimacy to do so would be derived from its independence, which is not something that the UK Government can claim to have.
In London, this has been raised as a matter of particular concern in the context of the air quality and waste water directives by the GLA, local authorities and private organisations that exercise public functions. Who, for example, is to blame for poor air quality at Marble Arch? Is it the GLA, Westminster City Council, taxi firms or the bus companies? These are complex issues that require independent consideration and a panel with the power to determine who should pay the fine.
While on the subject, I am also concerned about the provisions in this part of the Bill that relate to EU fines, which would allow the UK Government to transfer liability to local and public authorities that exercise a public function. This is an issue addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in Amendment 117A, which I support. The problem is that, for the purpose of the Bill, public authorities include private organisations that are already subject to existing government legislation and the power of independent regulators. Private organisations may also be subject to contractual obligations, including financial penalties, for providing services outsourced by the public sector.
In relation to EU fines, private organisations should not be held accountable for something that it is not wholly, or even largely, in their power to achieve. It is the UK Government who negotiate with the EU. It is their role to ensure that EU directives are transposed effectively into UK law, and that the right policy and regulatory framework is in place to achieve that. I would welcome any reassurances that Ministers can provide on that matter.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I support all those who have spoken so far to express concern about this group of amendments. I thought it would be interesting to examine just how many of these directives, infraction proceedings, reasoned opinions, pilots and so on are likely to be in place at any one time. I start with those relating to transport. In a Written Answer on 7 June the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said that 21 transport proceedings under Article 258 are currently unresolved. We do not yet know how many of those will result in a fine. One hopes that very few or none will, but that is the kind of number that we are talking about in transport. Therefore, one could suggest that there would be several hundred across the whole Government. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us how many are at stake across government.
The next thing I am concerned about is who this should apply to. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, mentioned private water companies and he is quite right. It would be useful to look at some examples. I have two examples. The first is the Channel Tunnel, which I spent 15 years helping to build years ago. The Commission has a pilot, which is the first stage of these proceedings, against the British and French Governments alleging failure to implement European legislation. The two Governments subcontract, if that is the right word, the regulation of the Channel Tunnel to something called the intergovernmental commission, which is actually part of government, which is meant to regulate the infrastructure manager in order to comply with the legislation. In the first stage of that situation, the Government would have to fine themselves. They would then have to fine the intergovernmental commission. Perhaps the intergovernmental commission would then pass it on to the private sector infrastructure manager. It sounds a little complicated to me and I do not think that it would work legally. The same could be applied to Network Rail, which is in the private sector, if the Government decided to follow the line suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.
The figures are big. Many speakers have talked about the air pollution problem in London. The figure I have heard from the Commission is that the likely size of fine could be £300 million. Whether it was the present mayor—it could not be the previous mayor even though he came from a different party—the present TfL, the Government or whoever else, £300 million is a very big figure. We should bear this in mind when we talk about how this should be resolved.
The other example I have is an interesting one because it applies to most local authorities in this country. It is the first stage in the complaint from the Commission that local authorities are not complying with the green vehicle procurement rules. The directive—2009/33—came into force on 4 December 2010 and it,
“requires the public sector to use its purchasing power to promote clean and energy-efficient vehicles. Every time they purchase a vehicle for public transport services, they must take into account energy consumption”,
and so on. The obligation extends to all purchases of road transport vehicles by public authorities or transport operators. There are many experts in your Lordships’ House who know how many local authorities there are in this country—in England anyway, and Wales if Wales is included in it. However, working out a £300 million or £200 million fine between all those local authorities and then allowing each one to take this arbitration route, which I hope will be implemented unless the clause is lost completely, is just unthinkable.
I shall be interested to hear from the Minister how the Government will deal with that kind of failure to comply with the green vehicle procurement rules which apply to every local authority. How do they propose to apportion the fine even before it gets to arbitration? How much would this arbitration cost each time it was used? We all know who is going to pay for it. It will be the taxpayer in the end or the local authority ratepayer, depending on whose side you are on or who gets legal aid. With this kind of enormous scope for potential failure, before one starts apportioning blame, the whole thing should be scrapped.
Earl Cathcart
My Lords, as this is the first time I have spoken in Committee, I should declare that I am a landlord, a landowner, I have been a councillor in Norfolk for a number of years, and I am chairman of my parish.
When I first saw these provisions, I did wonder who on earth had dreamt them up. It is all too easy and tempting to blame Brussels, but in this instance, I do not think we can. I do not know of any other EU country that is bringing in similar provisions. Here I am confused. If it came from the British Government, which I think it did, why does it apply only to English councils? Why the urgency? What have English councils done, or rather, not done, that merits these provisions?
We all know that Britain gold-plates all EU directives so that Britain complies, or rather, overcomplies, with all directives, unlike some member states. Why are these provisions necessary? After all, Britain has never been fined by the EU. Are the Government worried that we are about to be fined? If so, given that we gold-plate all EU directives, it must be that we face a possible fine for something we have signed up to that has been impossible to deliver. In that case, why penalise local authorities? After all, they were not party to the negotiations with the EC. This makes me wonder whether a fine will apply to things that have happened, or rather, have not happened, in the past. Will these fines be retrospective or will they apply only to future events and future non-compliance? The EU treaty quite clearly states that only Governments are liable for any fines. Here we have provisions that allow the Secretary of State to lay off the blame and the fine onto local authorities.
If the Government persist with Part 2 of the Bill—I hope that they do not—and they are successful in pinning the blame on local authorities, the big question is how local authorities are going to find the money. We know that local government finance is already under tremendous strain. To have to pay an EU fine might mean cutting front-line services. That cannot be the right answer and I do not believe that would be acceptable. After all, local authorities already have big enough trouble cutting their budgets. To do so again to pay an EU fine would be untenable.
How are local authorities going to find this extra money to pay the fine? They could increase council tax, but again that would be unacceptable. Why should households be penalised for something that is totally out of their control? Anyway, any increase in council tax can now be challenged. The only other source of income that local authorities have is from the central government grants. That would be like robbing Peter to pay Paul. There are provisions in the Bill that require the Minister to take account of the effect of any fine on a local authority’s finances. So presumably, if a local authority is strapped for cash—and they all are—then no doubt central government will end up picking up the tab. Here we have a situation where the Government pass on their fine from the EU to local authorities which they, the Government, may well end up having to fund themselves.
Why bother with all these procedures: the Secretary of State publishing a statement of policy and then determining how the amounts are to be paid; apportioning the blame across various local authorities; giving warning notices; issuing a final EU financial sanction notice; the appeal process; the protracted legal battles between local authorities and the Government; and perhaps an independent arbitration system to ensure the Minister is not, as other noble Lords have said, judge, jury, executioner and co-defendant? There is all this protracted bureaucracy and legal wrangling when, at the end of the day, the final bill will probably be picked up by central government anyway. All because in the past the Government have signed up to something with the EU that they cannot deliver, because if they could deliver, we would already have gold-plated regulations.
Therefore, rather than squabbling among ourselves, would it not be better if the Government concentrated their efforts and firepower on challenging any fine, if and when one is imposed? They should renegotiate with Brussels, if necessary, and, in future, ensure that Britain does not sign up to anything that is not in our interests or that we cannot deliver. As things stand, I cannot see the point of all this. It is a clear case of cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.
Lord Empey
My Lords, I wanted to speak briefly to Amendment 110 and to make a few other comments, but it would be a brave Ulsterman who would take on the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on a Welsh amendment. However, I assure him that I want merely to talk about the principle here. Although the Bill does not apply specifically to Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Local Government Association has asked me to raise some matters of principle, because if the principle is established in the Bill that local authorities will or could be liable for EU fines, sooner or later it will have national significance. While some EU directives may often have specific geographical implications, others have wider national implications.
I do not have a problem with the principle that the polluter pays, but it has to be understood that local government throughout the United Kingdom is not a universal picture. Local authorities in Northern Ireland have far fewer powers than those in the rest of the United Kingdom. They also raise most of their own money—more than 80 per cent—by rates. Consequently, they do not have a large central government grant, as is the case in England. Therefore, it is not possible for the Government simply to reduce the grant that local authorities in Northern Ireland receive in order to take the money off them, because they do not get it in the first place. If you impose a fine on a Northern Ireland local authority, you impose it directly on the ratepayer. That has to be understood.
The other matter is that the powers of local councils vary considerably. The Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland is largely responsible for local government, but other groups and public bodies will perhaps share policy implementation with local councils. Air and water pollution have been talked about. Local councils obviously have or could have an environmental health role in this, but other public bodies might be responsible for other aspects, including water pollution, sewage and so on.
The Northern Ireland Local Government Association, in consultation with other local government bodies, including the LGA, has expressed concern—not only because they have not been consulted about the measures, but because, although the Bill does not directly affect them at present, they believe that sooner or later it will. That is because EU fines have a national implication, as well as a local one. It was, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who said that he was not aware that EU fines had started to be imposed. I can assure him that they have, because I know, at home, our Department of Agriculture is being fined very heavily over issues concerning mapping. Grants were being distributed on the basis of maps, and now we have armies of planners who, as a result of not having much to do during the recession, are poring over aerial maps, because in the designation of fields, the boundaries of areas of rough ground may have become unclear. Brussels is now saying that people have been double claiming and doing all sorts of things. I can assure the noble Lord that fines are being imposed, exemplary damages are being applied, and the fines are vastly in excess of the amount of money that may have been inappropriately spent or given to a particular claimant. The Government are being fined millions of pounds above that. We are talking about substantial issues.
Lord Berkeley
I should like to say that it was not me who suggested that the British Government had not been fined.
Lord Empey
I beg your pardon; I may have picked up a comment from someone else.
When the Government are finalising what they are going to do on this issue, they need to take into account the significant regional disparities. One understands that the Government are trying to establish the point that the polluter pays. However, the big issue with all this is that we send representatives to Brussels—and I do not know whether the late-night hospitality and the all-night sessions are to blame—decisions can be forced through at 4 am and our representatives keep putting their hands up to approve them. Then, five or six years later, they blame Brussels for enforcing those decisions when it is they who have agreed to them. I have to say: beware the late-night hospitality. We should pick representatives who are good at doing this at night. In a negotiation, I fear that the officials will know full well that a certain Minister has to get away to an event somewhere else, perhaps at 1 pm the following day, and know that if they push for a decision at 3 am or 4 am, the Minister will put their hands up and agree to anything. I seriously suggest that we be careful what we agree to, because it comes back to haunt us many years later.
I accept that the provision in the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland, and it is not entirely clear as to whether it applies even to Wales. The Minister may answer that this is an England-only Bill, but while local government is a reserved or devolved matter in certain areas, EU fines are, of course, a national issue or a reserved matter. The interface where these issues collide is not entirely clear to me, and I sincerely hope that the noble Baroness will take this into account when she replies.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I will be delighted to deal with the noble Lord’s point later in my speech.
I was very interested to see the amendments tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. In considering the merits of these, we would need to be certain that any panel would provide additional value on top of the existing availability of judicial review. Amendment 114A, tabled by my noble friends Lady Eaton and Lord Tope and the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord McKenzie, would take this a step further. I do not feel, however, that arbitration is appropriate. This is not just about deciding between disputing parties on a breach of contract; it is a complex matter that involves myriad decisions, including on the apportionment of resources and most importantly on the ability to pay. It is not appropriate for a single unelected individual to make such decisions, any more than it would be for them to decide the local government finance settlement.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, made a point about the revenue support grant. I go back to my point that it is not about raising money; it is about avoiding the fines in the first place.
Lord Berkeley
The Minister mentioned ability to pay. If a council has no money, does that mean that the Government will not have to pay?
Earl Attlee
Not quite, my Lords, but the decision-making process will have to ensure that what the council pays is affordable. It may hurt them, but there is no intention to bankrupt a local authority, which I think would concern noble Lords. There has to be an affordable fine. However, if an amendment similar to the one tabled by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes were put in place, it would be hard for Ministers to ignore its advice without making themselves vulnerable to judicial review. I am very grateful for the clear way in which my noble friend explained her amendments.
I welcome the tone of the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and I can confirm that we will make clear in the policy statement our commitments to the principles of fairness, reasonableness, proportionality and no surprises. This is why I find the draft document from the Greater London Authority so helpful. Unfortunately, the amendment, which seeks to put tougher tests on culpability by using the criminal standard of law, causes some real practical difficulties. Unfortunately, the European Court of Justice proceedings are based on civil standards of proof. Rather than rerunning the European procedures here in the UK to the higher test, it is better to use a court’s finding to focus on quickly achieving compliance.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding seeks to ensure that the Government cannot designate any private company. I agree that we should not penalise companies for their private services and functions. I believe that this amendment needs further consideration. We need to ensure clarity as to who is to be covered by these provisions.
Finally, to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, whose amendment we are debating, I suggest that there is no need for his amendment. Clause 36 sets out that the powers apply only to English authorities exercising public functions in England.
Earl Attlee
My noble friend Lord Jenkin asked where we are in negotiations with outside bodies. He is of course, correct in what he surmises. However, your Lordships and another place will have to decide what is to be done in the end. In conclusion, I would like the opportunity to consider, in consultation with ministerial colleagues, those suggested amendments which could provide a way forward and a solution.
While I am clear that putting the decision-making in the hands of a single unelected individual is not helpful, I am very willing to take away the other suggestions from noble Lords. I believe that together we can develop good solutions in time for Report. While I cannot accept a veto, I am very happy to continue discussions with outside bodies and noble Lords in order to develop this good solution before Report. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Berkeley
Will the Minister explain his last reference to the different types of organisations that might be covered, which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and I raised, be they water companies or railway companies? Is the Minister going to write to noble Lords who have spoken with more detailed responses to all these things, or is he going to recommend that we put down amendments on Report about which should be covered and which should not?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am very happy to enter into detailed discussions with any noble Lord.
Wreck Removal Convention Bill
Lord Berkeley Excerpts(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 2 for the convenience of the Committee. Before I start on the substance of the amendment, I record my thanks to the Minister and his officials for a very useful meeting yesterday. I look forward to continuing discussions and this debate today.
I remind the Committee that I am a harbour commissioner of the port of Fowey in Cornwall. At Second Reading, we had a good debate. I said that I supported the Bill in principle; I think it is a very good Bill. I want to focus on one issue, that of wreck recovery: who does it and who pays for it. As the Bill says, as the wreck occurs, it is generally marked by a harbour authority or a GLA. However, under the Bill, dealing with the wreck is now the responsibility of the Government, who can instruct—and I mean instruct—the harbour authority, conservation authority or GLA. The idea is that the costs incurred in doing it can be recovered from the ship’s owners or insurance. That also seems fine and complies with the wreck conventions that the Bill is designed to incorporate into legislation.
We are told by the Minister that all ships will be insured because the insurance documents will be inspected at UK ports. The first question one has to ask is how robust the arrangements for this inspection are. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who sadly cannot be with us today, asked a Written Question to which the Answer from the Minister stated that in 2010 there were 12 instances where an inspection of the insurance documents revealed a deficiency in them.
Rather more serious is a recent statement by Vice-Admiral Massey, the chief executive of the Marine and Coastguard Agency, to an all-party parliamentary group, as reported in Lloyd’s List of 28 March. He said that the agency is,
“missing some ‘high priority’ ship inspections”,
particularly at night and at weekends. Therefore, one could argue that there is a certain lack of robustness about the inspections, which could mean that some ships which are not insured will not be caught by these inspections. There is also the question of the ships that go round our coasts but do not enter our ports, which will not have to show their certificates to anyone.
On Second Reading, the Minister said that all ships will be insured and therefore the costs can be recovered, but what happens if the harbour authority or GLAs cannot recover them? As the Bill stands, they cannot refuse an instruction from the Secretary of State. The trouble is that the instruction is not accompanied by a commitment to fund a problematic wreck removal. On Second Reading, noble Lords said that this would not happen very often, it was very unlikely to happen and the cost would not be very high. However, I do not know what would happen if the cost was high. If the cost was high, it could cause severe financial problems, or management problems, for small harbour authorities or GLAs. Of course, they will do their best in this regard but it could put them in financial difficulty. The British Ports Association supports these amendments and strongly opposes a requirement which would mean that the harbour authorities were financially liable for cleaning and removing uninsured, or even occasionally unowned, wrecks. Ports have a problem with small boats the world over, but the association is saying that ports authorities would possibly be less willing to accept boats which are in difficulty into their harbours if they thought that in so doing they would be liable for a big financial penalty. One should take that into account.
We have heard that Trinity House supports the Bill in its entirety, but I argue that it would do so as its job is to mark wrecks. That is part of its work, and it does it very well. However, if it were called on to manage and undertake a major salvage operation, the problem is that it would probably have to pass on the costs of doing so to ships in the form of light dues, because that is the way Trinity House is financed. Trinity House could even argue that—I hope that it would not—it needed to buy bigger and larger ships to undertake this new responsibility, but I trust that it would not do that. The Chamber of Shipping in particular is rightly concerned that the measure puts an extra cost on insured ships that comply with the regulations, and that some of that cost is to cover ships which do not comply, and have not complied, with the regulations. That body has asked whether the Crown will indemnify the General Lighthouse Fund against costs that cannot be recovered, given that the costs arise as a direct consequence of the Government’s decision to sign the convention. We could discuss that for a long time.
We should note that the Transport Select Committee in another place investigated this matter in 2008 and stated that,
“if the General Lighthouse Authorities were to be directed, under new powers in the Bill, to undertake activities other than those which they would have undertaken in the past, there is a possibility that the liability of the General Lighthouse Fund for unrecoverable costs could increase. This legislation should not be used by the Government to transfer further the financial risk resulting from uninsured ships to other shippers through the General Lighthouse Fund”.
Therefore, a lot of people do not think that this is a terribly good idea.
Finally, the Minister for Shipping, Mike Penning MP, said that the Bill enshrines the principle that the polluter pays. He is wrong, because while it certainly makes the polluter pay, in making the GLF pay, it achieves the opposite effect, because the owner of the uninsured wreck will not have contributed to the GLF, but is being saved.
These amendments would remove the requirements for the harbour authorities, conservation authorities and GLAs to comply with a Secretary of State’s instruction to deal with a wreck. If the amendments were accepted, these organisations could still be asked to do so, and in many cases they would accept. However, without the amendments, they could not refuse. Without some financial assurance, those organisations, or the legally operated ships paying light dues, could on a few occasions be put at severe financial risk. It would not happen often and it may not happen for 10 or 20 years—but it still could happen. It is not the polluter paying but the good ones paying for the bad ones.
There is a strong argument for the Government to accept these amendments on the basis that it is a more equitable arrangement for the very few occasions when somehow the costs of dealing with a wreck cannot be recovered from the insurers or the owners. If the Minister and the noble Baroness who has put her name to the Bill do not accept the amendments, it would be important for the Minister to provide some assurance that the Secretary of State will not direct GLAs, harbour authorities or conservation authorities to remove a wreck, unless that can be carried out using their normal vessels and personnel as part of their normal business. That would give comfort to the harbour authorities in particular that they will not be exposed to a small risk with a very high cost. I beg to move.
Lord Addington
My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Bradshaw, I have looked at the amendments and issues relating to the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, may be technically correct, but it occurs to me that if we get away from the fact that people will break the law and you make law only for people who will comply with it, what does the noble Lord think will be the political cost of a Government who went to an authority—whether the harbour authority or the general lighthouse authority—and said, “Do something you can’t do or we’ll bankrupt you for functions that are important”? You would be asking a Minister to pay an almost suicidal political price. The House and another place would rip that person apart. How real is that danger? That is the only thing that comes to mind. The noble Lord may be technically correct, but I wonder how real that danger is in the world in which we actually live. No one will leave in place a dangerous provision that restricts commercial activity and endangers people. I leave that sitting there, because it should be mentioned in these discussions.
Lord Berkeley
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this short debate. I shall not try to respond to all comments, but one or two things come to mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, both suggested that the biggest problem that I was concerned about was the GLAs. That is not the case any more. If it was thought that the GLAs were going to spend too much money on recovering a wreck and would have a serious financial problem as a result, there are enough Members of your Lordships' House who have some relationship with Trinity House who would sort it out by asking questions here. That may well be the case; it is the way the political world works. For a small harbour authority, it might be slightly different. If it were an enormous wreck, I am sure that the Government would see to it that there was some financial settlement. However, there is something in the middle that could just happen, although it is not very likely. I was grateful for the Minister’s response, because it went a long way towards satisfying many of my concerns.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, mentioned Trinity House marking wrecks. That is part of its job, and I said so in my opening remarks. I would not want to see that changed; it is terribly good at what it does.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, whose Bill this is, for her response. If the wording of the amendment is defective in some way, then it needs looking at, but perhaps that will not be necessary. I need to reflect on what she and the Minister said. I was particularly pleased that he mentioned the idea of MOUs with harbour and conservancy authorities, because they are just as important as MOUs with the GLAs. However, he was quite right: the thought of having 30, 40 or 50 different MOUs with every harbour authority around the country cannot be very attractive to him or his officials. I shall certainly try to encourage the representative bodies of the harbours, of which there are two, to try to come together and come up with something based on the principles which he so clearly outlined.
I again thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Olympic Games 2012: London Air Quality
Lord Berkeley Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to respond to the report of the Olympic Delivery Authority that air quality in London will exceed European Union limits during the 2012 Olympic Games.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the Government are committed to working towards the European Union’s air quality standards and have recently made an extra £5 million available to help the mayor tackle some of London's worst pollution hotspots. During the Olympic Games our ambition is that all spectators should travel to London venues by public transport, cycling or on foot. These and other measures will help minimise air quality risks in London during the Games.
Lord Berkeley
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will he say who is responsible for keeping the air at the right quality? Is it TfL, the GLA or the Government? Secondly, if there is very little wind during the Olympic Games and PM10 values exceed the limit, is he aware that the Government could be fined £180 million by the International Olympic Committee? That is what will happen if the pollution is as bad as it was in Beijing. Does he have a contingency plan?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's first question is simple. Everyone is responsible: the Government, the mayor, TfL, LOCOG, the ODA and, most importantly, individuals who make their own transport decisions. As regards the noble Lord’s second question, the host city contract states that the International Olympic Committee can withhold payment from LOCOG if an event in the Olympic and Paralympic Games cannot take place for any reason or if there is non-compliance with the contract. Air quality in the UK is improving and it is very unlikely that air quality issues will result in payments being withheld.
Wreck Removal Convention Bill
Lord Berkeley Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, for introducing the Bill. My noble friend Lord Lea, who is no longer in his place, asked me whether it referred to maritime wrecks or Members of the House of Lords in a restructured Chamber. I hope I can put his mind at rest on that one.
I declare an interest as a harbour commissioner of the port of Fowey in Cornwall, and as president of the UK Maritime Pilots’ Association. I very much support the principles of the Bill. As the noble Baroness said in introducing it, we have got some really beautiful coastline in this country: more than 10,000 miles of it. The Bill will make a great difference to how wrecks are dealt with. We are also setting an excellent example to other states by implementing the international convention. I am pleased that the Government are urging other nations to ratify it; I believe it comes into force when there are 10 signatories. Perhaps the Minister, when he speaks, can tell us how many member states have ratified it and how discussions with them are going so that we can get some kind of a progress report.
My concern, as one or two previous speakers have said, lies with the burden that the Bill could impose on harbour and conservation authorities, the general lighthouse authorities and the General Lighthouse Fund; my noble and learned friend Lord Boyd particularly mentioned that. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, will be aware of my interest in the GLAs and will be very pleased to hear that I am not going to talk about their finances today. The Chamber of Shipping’s view—again, mentioned by my noble and learned friend Lord Boyd—is that it is really unfair to have any liability placed on ships entering British ports because of the activities of a ship which may not be insured and may not even have called into a UK port. The shipping interests have got a point here.
My first problem concerns uninsured wrecks. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, talked about that. Yes, the Bill says that the Government will be checking on the insurance of all ships coming into UK ports and will assist in reclaiming the costs of any rescue/salvage from the insurers. My problem is that there is a small possibility that the insurance may not be sufficient or may not be in place at all. That could particularly occur if a ship was in the widened territorial waters we are talking about but was not calling into a UK port where the insurance might get checked. There is not a high likelihood of that, but there is still a consequential fear that the GLAs, harbour authorities or others might be saddled with a high cost. As the noble Baroness said in her introduction, the problem is that the Bill allows the Secretary of State to “instruct” these authorities. It is an instruction; they cannot say “no”, as I understand it. They could turn around and say, “We haven’t got the capability”, or something like that, but they will be given an instruction. I am sure that the present Secretary of State and his Ministers would never do that, but you never know what is going to happen in the future. We ought to consider how we deal with this. We could perhaps consider it in Committee. If a ship sinks which is not going into a UK port, and is therefore not contributing even by paying its light dues, then this whole procedure does not really comply with the principle that the polluter pays. It means that the responsible ship owners are paying for the actions of the irresponsible ones. How would the GLAs recover the costs from these overseas owners or the insurers if they refuse to pay? The Government have said that they will do this, so possibly the answer would be for the Government to indemnify the GLAs or the harbour authorities against such a loss. I am sure that the Minister will be able to comment on that when he responds.
My second point concerns whether the GLAs and harbour authorities necessarily have the capability to carry out some of this work. The GLAs certainly have the capability of marking wrecks; that is one their objectives. They can probably remove small wrecks but that is really a salvage operation and I do not regard the GLAs as salvage contractors. They could probably undertake salvage operations but why should they have to pay for them as well? Why should not the Government organise the salvage themselves?
Several noble Lords have given examples of wrecks. Sadly, there are many around the coast, but an interesting situation arose in 2008 when the Government asked Trinity House to act as a salvage company to remove the wreck of a First World War German U-boat which was on the bed of the English Channel. The Government agreed with the German Government that they would not ask the latter to undertake this operation. Trinity House did it—I believe, successfully—and it cost £1.5 million, I am told. Ships coming into UK ports had to fund that. A sum of £1.5 million is not a high proportion of the GLAs’ turnover, but the cost could have been a lot higher if a different type of wreck had been involved. The Government should organise these things themselves—that would be much the best way to tackle this—and the GLAs or the harbour authorities should be asked to offer support to the extent that they are capable of doing so.
A further issue arises in this regard; namely, what is the definition of a wreck? The definition in the convention is that it is,
“any object that is lost at sea from a ship”.
I suspect that the drafters of that definition meant to refer to containers, which regularly fall off ships. People run into them occasionally and it does not do them a lot of good. Noble Lords will remember the MSC “Napoli”, which foundered on a beach in Devon a few years ago. A lot of containers were washed ashore, including some with new BMW motor bikes inside, which soon “walked”. However, in 1992—nearly 20 years ago—something like 29,000 yellow rubber duck bath toys were lost overboard in the Pacific Ocean. These ended up around the Pacific. I do not think that they were a hazard to shipping or to anyone else but they illustrate the fact that this definition of “wreck” might need to be tightened up. However, I am sure that none of the GLAs or harbour authorities would want to get involved in that.
The Government’s response to the House of Commons Transport Select Committee's report on the draft Marine Navigation Bill 2008 stated that,
“the Government does not envisage that the new power in relation to the General Lighthouse Authorities would lead to their being directed to do things for which they have no … experience”.
That is a good statement but it would be very nice if the Minister could confirm that or go a little further and say that they would not be asked to do things for which they do not have the funds or the capability. Incidentally, I am very grateful to the Minister and to the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, for arranging a meeting recently at which we discussed some of these matters. I understand that a memorandum of understanding may be being drafted by the GLAs and the Government before the convention comes into force to set out some of these issues in more detail. I hope that the Minister will tell us where the Government have got to with this. Can a draft be placed in the Library? I have concentrated my remarks on the GLAs but the harbour authorities deserve equal treatment as regards MoUs as some of them have very small budgets. They probably have less capability in this regard but may still be instructed by the Government to undertake these operations. That could result in their going bust, which I am sure is not what the Government intend. However, it could happen under the Bill.
To conclude, I think we are all striving for the same result. It is generally a good Bill and we want to ensure that our seas are safe and clean. We want responsible ship owners to behave and to be properly insured. However, we have to get the detail right. We can talk about whether the Bill needs amendment in Committee. In addition to support from the Chamber of Shipping, I have received support from the British Ports Association, which represents most of the ports around the country, except for one or two big ones, and the British Tug Owners Association, which might benefit from doing a spot of salvage. I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say and to more detailed discussion at the next stage.
Lord Berkeley
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I said that I thought that the GLAs were very competent to do that, and they have long experience of doing so. My concern is that they may end up having to fund the salvage.
Lord Greenway
I was just coming to the fact that they are well used to marking wrecks, although, when it comes to the salvage or removal of wrecks, such incidents are very few and far between. Over the past 10 or 12 years the GLAs have been involved in dealing with perhaps a couple of small fishing boats. Therefore, there is no way that the general lighthouse authorities would be involved in something like the MSC “Napoli”. The removal of larger ships is totally beyond their powers, and negotiations between them and SOSREP would very quickly sort out the best way of dealing with a wreck and deciding who should do the work.
I conclude by summing up where the Bill takes us. As I said, it introduces measures that Trinity House very much welcomes. It empowers the GLAs to locate, mark and remove wrecks which are a danger to navigation beyond the territorial sea, clarifying an area of legislation where there has been uncertainty. It makes registered owners responsible for reporting wrecks or for loss of cargo and for the costs of locating, marking and removing wrecks. It requires registered owners of all vessels over 300 gross tonnes to maintain insurance to cover their liability under the convention. It provides for any claim for costs arising under the convention to be brought directly against the insurer or other person providing financial security for the registered owner’s liability, therefore reducing the risk of non-recovery and, in so doing, also reducing the exposure of the General Lighthouse Fund to the cost of dealing with wrecks.
I very much welcome this small but nevertheless important measure. I wish it a speedy passage and look forward to what I hope will be ratification of the convention in the not-too-distant future.
Petrol: Ethanol Content
Lord Berkeley Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
Will the noble Earl tell the House how many petrol-driven tank engines there are in the country? I thought they mostly ran on steam like Thomas does.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Lord is talking about the wrong type of tank. I am talking about a tank at the REME museum in Bordon.
Railways: Cardiff Valley Lines
Lord Berkeley Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, given the success of the service on the Ebbw Vale to Cardiff line, why are there no passenger trains from Ebbw Vale to Newport, for which there must be a big demand? I believe that freight has been running on the line for many years. I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. As I understand it, although there is a freight line to Newport, the signalling is not up to the required standards for passenger trains. Under the new signalling project, modern signalling has been provided for but not fitted. Specifying train services is a matter for the Welsh Assembly Government, so if they want to specify that there will be passenger train services from Ebbw Vale to Newport, they can do so.