| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am delighted that my powers of persuasion or my wearing down has finally brought us to this extremely sensible outcome.
20 Jul 2004 : Column 127
Once again, I am grateful to the Minister for being so responsive in this matter. While I appreciate that he has not been totally responsive on all matters, I am glad to have a victory on one or two points. This is an important amendment and an important concession. I am grateful to the Minister.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 11:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 12:
"MEANING OF "LOCAL AUTHORITY"
In this Act "local authority" means any of these—
(a) a district council;
(b) a county council;
(c) a county borough council;
(d) a London borough council;
(e) the Greater London Authority;
(f) the Common Council of the City of London;
(g) the Council of the Isles of Scilly."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 13:
"60A In paragraph 5(a) of Schedule 11 (police and fire services: derelict petroleum tanks), for "fire authority" substitute "fire and rescue authority"."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a consequential amendment to the Local Government Act 1985, which, I am afraid, was not picked up at an earlier stage. It simply changes a reference to "fire authority" in the Act to "fire and rescue authority". I therefore respectfully request noble Lords to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, that the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
Traffic Management Bill
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons and amendments be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
20 Jul 2004 : Column 128
[The page and line references are to HL Bill 47 as first printed for the Lords.]
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, 11A, 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
20 Jul 2004 : Column 129
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
20 Jul 2004 : Column 130
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.)
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |