HL Deb 20 July 2004 vol 664 cc128-34

4 Leave out Clause 20

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—

4A Because intervention powers are necessary in order to enforce the duties in Part 2

5 Leave out Clause 21

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—

5A Because intervention powers are necessary in order to enforce the duties in Part 2

6 Leave out Clause 22

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—

6A Because intervention powers are necessary in order to enforce the duties in Part 2

7 Leave out Clause 23

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—

7A Because intervention powers are necessary in order to enforce the duties in Part 2

8 Leave out Clause 24

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—

8A Because intervention powers are necessary in order to enforce the duties in Part 2

9 Leave out Clause 25

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—

9A Because intervention powers are necessary in order to enforce the duties in Part 2

10 Leave out Clause 26

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—

10A Because intervention powers are necessary in order to enforce the duties in Part 2

Lord Davies of Oldham

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 4 to 10, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 4A to 10A. I shall also be speaking to the other amendments in the group—Amendments Nos. 11, 11 A, and 11B and Amendments Nos. 12 to 15.

In considering these amendments there was much debate in the other place which led to the reinstatement of these vital clauses.

We have said repeatedly that local authorities are in the best position to deliver improvements in their area and to ensure that optimum use is made of the existing road network. If they fail it would be wrong for the Government to do nothing. But these powers would not be used lightly.

We have put on record that these powers would be used only as a method of last resort. We would look for every opportunity to resolve problems with the local authority before considering the imposition of a traffic director. Even where that was unavoidable, the provisions are constructed in such a way that the intervention order can only confer the powers that are needed to do the job.

Concern was raised that a traffic director's appointment would be open-ended, and that it would be difficult for him to disengage. One of the traffic director's objectives would be to help the authority improve to the standard where it could take back full responsibility. As such, there would be a natural and sustainable conclusion to the appointment. But in any event it is in no one's interest to have a traffic director for any longer than absolutely necessary.

It has been said that intervention would be difficult to justify given that the traffic director would have no local knowledge or accountability.

On the first point, I would normally expect intervention to be the result of a breakdown in the arrangements put in place by an authority. Here the traffic director would apply sound business management principles. However, in any case a traffic director would be expected to work with the local authority, drawing upon its experience and local knowledge.

On accountability, it is important to bear in mind that intervention would occur only where an authority was failing. While I accept that a traffic director would be accountable to the appropriate national authority, the appointment may indeed be made to protect local people.

That said, we would expect a traffic director to have regard to existing obligations, policies and objectives of the authority when undertaking his activities.

It was also mentioned during Third Reading that intervention was an unjustifiable cost for the local authority. On one side we need to keep in mind the cost of failing to manage effectively the road network—delays for businesses and travellers and inconvenience for everyone. But, in terms of the cost to the local authority, the provisions in the Bill allow the appropriate national authority discretion on whether to reclaim all or part of the cost.

Clearly, we need to guard against rewarding failure through the provision of a resource aimed at turning the service around. But I accept that it would be in nobody's interest to force payment if that draws funds away from meeting the duty in the future.

It has been said that the intervention provisions mark a fundamentally different approach to dealing with local government. Not so; the Local Government Act 1999 allows intervention in a council as a whole. There is no significant difference between the way those powers can be exercised and the provisions in the Bill.

Finally, a key concern expressed during Third Reading was about how failure would be assessed. The Bill provides that if the appropriate national authority is satisfied that a local traffic authority is failing, it is able to intervene. But it also provides for that authority to publish guidance about the criteria which it proposes to apply for the purposes of deciding whether to give an intervention notice or to make an intervention order.

Not only is the guidance on those criteria being drawn up by representatives of all the interested parties, including the Local Government Association, but it will also be subject to consideration by Parliament through the negative resolution procedure.

I am confident that this inclusive process will deliver an outcome that is acceptable to all stakeholders. However, to allay any outstanding concerns—and I appreciate the concerns that have been expressed during the passage of the Bill—should either opposition party wish to participate in this work, we would be more than happy for it to be represented on the working group which is to be established.

To conclude, I would hope that I have offered suitable reassurance that these powers are not a big stick with which we plan to beat local government. Instead, they offer a flexible and proportionate approach, for use very sparingly, which is consistent with the protocol governing intervention in a failing authority. As such, these provisions should be part of the Bill.

Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 4 to 10, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 4A to 10A.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

Lord Rotherwick

My Lords, I stand in the place of my noble friend Lord Astor, who sends his apologies for not being here today, especially as the topic in question is a straightforward matter of principle close to his heart.

It is a great disappointment to these Benches that the Government have seen fit to reintroduce the clauses on intervention into the Bill. Indeed, I go so far to say that it is a slap in the face for local democracy and the changes we implemented to protect the interests of local government in this country. As my colleague in the other place explained, this shows that the, new localism in new Labour simply equalises the old centralism. When push comes to shove, the Government want to control all details and all aspects of every policy".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/7/04; col. 1598.] Indeed, the Local Government Association has said that the reinstatement of these clauses undermines local freedoms and accountability.

The imposed traffic management officer will not be accountable to those who elected the local authority. He will be able effectively to overrule their democratic decisions on who they want to run the roads, and thus not necessarily take into account local traffic schemes—although I accept that what the noble Lord said earlier is possible—and plans on matters such as environmental issues which local authorities have a duty to care for. Will the Minister explain how he can justify letting such an individual, or many individuals, be unaccountable to those on whom their actions will have a daily effect?

As the Government are putting the clauses back into the Bill, perhaps the Minister will clarify for the House some issues of great concern that have so far gone unanswered. I accept that the Minister has answered some points about how the Government will decide whether a local authority is failing. However, we look forward to seeing the criteria that will be used to decide that one local authority is managing the traffic well, and another is not. Will the Government have to prove that a local authority is failing before they intervene? How long will the intervention last, and on what basis will the intervention be reconciled? How may a local authority appeal against an intervention decision? Will the Minister outline a set timetable that will be used for disengagement? Will the National Audit Office be given a role to decide if this method of intervention provides value for money, particularly in terms of additional costs that could be forced on a local authority by intervention?

It is clear that there remains much uncertainty as to how this power will be used, and who will ensure that it is used only as a method of last resort, based on a set of clear criteria available to all. It is an inadequate means of achieving the desirable end of less congestion, especially when a tool for sensible and practical intervention is already available.

Does the Minister agree that a scheme under the Audit Commission's comprehensive performance assessment already exists that could be utilised to judge how effectively a traffic authority was performing? Attached to the commission's comprehensive performance assessment are improvement mechanisms to assist and aid local authorities, in the form of peer reviews; the Local Government Association; and the Improvement and Development Agency for local government, which I would have thought would have made the role of the external traffic director completely unnecessary. What discussions did the department have with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister prior to the drafting of this Bill?

It is with a heavy heart that we have decided not to further oppose this Bill. We do not want to hold up the Bill over an issue that the Government are refusing to back down on.

Lord Bradshaw

My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, said. The restitution of the clauses to the Bill is totally unnecessary and, as I said on Report, smacks of a Stalinesque attitude to local government. With the production of local transport plans, which must be submitted to the department, and which do measure progress year on year, and with the comprehensive performance assessment, which the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, has referred to, there are plenty of opportunities for the Government to deal with a failing authority.

The approach of appointing a traffic director from outside, whose presence will be bitterly resented wherever he is appointed to, is a heavy-handed and clumsy method of dealing with someone, bearing in mind that the Government have the mechanism of withholding money from that local authority in the annual grant review if they believe that the local authority is failing.

However, like the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, I do not intend to divide the House or call for the Bill to be rejected, because there is much in it that we like and that we want to see. I say to the Minister that with so much transport legislation likely to come in the next Session, which I imagine will be the last before a general election, much of it requiring considerable co-operation from this side of the House to get it through, we feel badly let down over this. Our reasons for sending this hack to the Commons were soundly based, and if we are going to have things thrown back at us time and again, the battle over the next lot of legislation will be fierce indeed. We will not withdraw so easily again. However, I am content to let the legislation pass.

5.15 p.m.

Lord Borrie

My Lords, I am glad that the other place has restored these provisions to the Bill. I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw—who I admire as an expert in these fields—has today used somewhat extreme language in referring to the Government's "Stalinesque" approach. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, was overstating the case when he said that this was a slap in the face for local democracy. It is a reserved power for the Government in an extreme situation. How can it be a slap in the face for local democracy when it can only be applicable if one, or possibly more, local authorities at some point in the future fail in their important traffic management duties set out in the Bill? There should be a power for central government by way of traffic directors to intervene.

Given the other provisions in the Bill, which I will not develop now, as to what the obligations of a local authority are, and how it can be that one can fail, no one expects authorities to fail. All noble Lords are great believers in local democracy and local government. No one expects that more than one local authority in a blue moon will fail in its activities. It would be irresponsible if there was no power whatever, in that rare circumstance, for central government to intervene. Are central government supposed to do nothing in such an instance, when we all regard traffic management, coping with congestion and so on, as so important?

This is not a "Stalinesque" approach to government. It is a modest proposal, it has been made plain what it is all about, and the Minister has explained that guidance will be provided as to what is meant by "failure" to carry out the proper duties. I am only glad that both Front Benches have agreed not to pursue their opposition any further after today.

Lord Davies of Oldham

My Lords, I appreciate the contributions that have been made to this short debate. It will be recognised in the House that I appreciate the contribution of my noble friend most of all. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that it is quite something to be accused by my noble friend the moderate, reasonable, judicious Lord Borrie of having used extremist language and to be warned about the danger of going over the top. My noble friend is exactly right. The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, probably deserved a degree of my noble friend's opprobrium as well. These measures have been dramatised as centralisation measures. They are not; they are measures of last resort. There are a whole series of processes to be followed before any possibility of the imposition of a traffic officer on a local authority would occur.

Lord Rotherwick

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and the Minister have overlooked the fact that we have been put in a very difficult position. We do not know the criteria that are going to be used to judge whether a local authority has failed. It would have been much easier if we had known this before the Bill came along, in which case perhaps this problem would never have occurred.

Lord Davies of Oldham

My Lords, I gave a clear indication, which I have reiterated today—together with a welcome for the Opposition parties if they wish to be represented on the committee which will draw up the criteria—that we do not propose to adopt criteria which are anything other than acceptable to local authorities and in which the LGA is to play a prominent part.

Even in the extreme circumstances of a traffic officer being appointed, he will have to work with the grain of the local authority. I made it quite explicit in my opening remarks today that it is not conceivable that he will operate like a deus ex machina with regard to the local authority, but it may be necessary in the extreme circumstances of failure. It goes without saying that the failure would impact upon the local people, and the traffic officer would be employed in order to remedy that situation.

Traffic congestion spills beyond local authority boundaries. We reflected on this point at Third Reading when we had the opportunity of discussing the congestion charge and its impact on boroughs. I was at pains to point out at that time that of course I recognise that a congestion charge imposed on a discrete area has a significant impact upon the immediate area and the people who live there, but I am sure that we all recognise, by the very definition of traffic movement, that these issues go far wider than the immediate locality. That is why a failure will, in the last resort, need to be addressed.

I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, that the duty is applied in the first instance to local traffic authorities. We place trust in them to deliver the programme outlined in the Bill to reduce traffic congestion, which we all recognise is a blight on our transport system. The intervention powers will come in only in the extreme case of failure.

I recognise that I cannot satisfy noble Lords in every respect today. The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, attempted a small flying wedge by asking whether the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister had been consulted on this measure. But, of course, this Bill, like all other significant Bills, is a product of a Government who are totally seamless in their approach to policy; who recognise the importance of co-operation between departments beforehand and, even more important, recognise that delivery should be a responsibility of government. In sustaining the arguments on the Bill, the Government, as a whole, are in total agreement.

The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, asked about appealing against an intervention. I emphasise that it is a staged process towards intervention; at each stage there is an opportunity for an authority to make representations and to set out its plans for redressing any problems. We all fervently hope and wish that we will resolve problems in this way. By definition, if we reach the position of appointing a traffic officer there will have been considerable delays in remedying the very issues we are seeking to tackle. We want to see a process that is flexible and responsive to local authorities, but which also ensures that they meet their obligations under the terms of the Bill.

I note the element of regret. I note also the incipient threat to future legislation. I understand the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who has been constructive in regard to certain aspects of this legislation. However, he has not had his way in regard to all aspects of it and he is bound to forewarn us of challenges to come. It would be a poor approach for the Government if we put forward transport legislation that was not challenged by the noble Lords, Lord Bradshaw and Lord Rotherwick, because that is in the nature of the process upon which we are engaged. However, they will forgive me if I leave the quaking of my knees to a later date and merely take solace in the fact that, as I understand it, the amendments will not be opposed today.

On Question, Motion agreed to.