The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con) 29: After Clause 10, insert
the following new Clause— “Duty to consider making regulations
under section 10 on request by elected mayor (1) The Secretary of
State must consider making regulations under section 10 in relation
to roads forming part of the key route network in a relevant area
if—(a) the mayor for the relevant area...Request free trial
-
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
29: After Clause 10, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to consider making regulations under section 10 on request
by elected mayor
(1) The Secretary of State must consider making regulations under
section 10 in relation to roads forming part of the key route
network in a relevant area if—(a) the mayor for the relevant area
makes a request for such regulations to be made,(b) conditions 1
and 2 are met, and (c) the Secretary of State considers that the
mayor has complied with any prescribed requirements before making
the request.(2) Condition 1 is that the Secretary of State is
satisfied that, before making the request, the mayor—(a)
published proposals for regulations to be made under section 10
in relation to roads forming part of the key route network in the
area, and(b) consulted—(i) persons who would be likely to be
subject to requirements under the regulations (if made), and(ii)
such other persons as the mayor considers appropriate,in relation
to the published proposals.(3) Condition 2 is that the mayor has
given the Secretary of State a summary of the responses to the
consultation referred to in subsection (2)(b).(4) The Secretary
of State may disregard a request to the extent that it relates to
the definitions of “large fuel retailer” and “service area
operator”.(5) For the purposes of this section—(a) “relevant
area” means the area of a combined authority or Greater
London;(b) a road forms part of the key route network in a
relevant area if—(i) in the case of the area of a combined
authority, the road is one in relation to which functions are
exercisable by the combined authority as a result of an order
under section 105A(1) of the 2009 Act;(ii) in the case of Greater
London, the road is a GLA road (within the meaning of the
Highways Act 1980);(c) the mayor for a relevant area is—(i) in
the case of the area of a combined authority, the mayor for the
area elected in accordance with section 107A(2) of the 2009
Act;(ii) in the case of Greater London, the Mayor of London.(6)
In this section—“the 2009 Act” means the Local Democracy,
Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;“combined
authority” means a combined authority established under section
103(1) of the 2009 Act.”
-
My Lords, this group of amendments considers an interesting
and important point around the role of Metro Mayors in enabling the
installation of charging infrastructure. I explained in
Committee that we would reflect on the points made in that
debate and my response has been to table Amendment 29.
Cities, regions and counties play a hugely important role
in local environmental strategies and dealing with air
quality challenges. Charging infrastructure will need to be
a part of these strategies and this provision would give
them a lever to help deliver it locally. As discussed in
Committee, it is important that the relevant highways
authorities and combined authorities work together with
industry to deliver local solutions, supported by
government. We spoke on earlier groups about how local
authorities and Metro Mayors are working together
and I welcome the London EV infrastructure task force,
launched by the Mayor of London last week, as a good
example of this working in practice. We look forward to
what it achieves.
Government Amendment 29 would enable Metro Mayors—the Mayor of London and
mayors of combined authorities—to designate locations
defined in Clause 10. As we have just discussed, this is
limited to large fuel retailers and service area locations
installing charging infrastructure within their defined key
route networks. Mayors would be required to consult on such
premises and notify the intent for regulations to be made
to the Secretary of State, who must then decide whether to
make regulations. Reasoning would be provided to applicant
mayors should the Secretary of State choose not to
introduce such regulations. It is intended that these
powers could only be exercised once the definitions of
large fuel retailers and the factors that would determine
the suitability of a particular location have been adopted
in regulations. We think this would provide clarity and
ensure appropriate scrutiny prior to the power being
exercised.
I shall speak also to Amendments 30A, 31, 32A and 33A in
this group, as we can make some movement on them. Amendment
30A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, as an
amendment to Amendment 29, seeks to introduce requirements
that when proposed by mayors the Secretary of State must
either introduce requirements following a mayoral request
or provide reasoning why not when notifying the applicant
mayor. I assure the noble Baroness that the Secretary of
State intends to bring forward the regulations on the basis
that they are appropriate, but it is right and proper that
the Secretary of State would have the ability not to
introduce the regulations should, for any reason, he not be
satisfied that the requirements have been complied with.
Should that be the case for any reason, as I said in my
opening remarks, it is certainly the intention that any
reasoning would be fully explained to the relevant mayor.
Amendment 30A would also delete proposed new subsection
1(c) of Amendment 29, which we want to maintain. It is
important to ensure that no unreasonable burden is placed
on retailers, that any approach is in line with agreed
definitions and that any appropriate consultations have
been undertaken. I confirm that I will bring forward at
Third Reading a government amendment similar to Amendment
30A but with that provision maintained.
Amendments 31 and 33A, also tabled by the noble Baroness,
Lady Worthington, seek to widen the scope of designation
by Metro Mayors beyond large fuel
retailers on the relevant key route networks or red routes
in London. We have some concerns about widening the scope
beyond the key route networks if motorway service areas
were also included. We think it is most appropriate for DfT
and Highways England to maintain a strategic national-level
oversight of service areas, given their responsibilities
for these motorway routes and the need to ensure sufficient
infrastructure at these strategic locations. However,
removing the limitation of the key route networks may be
appropriate so Metro Mayors can take a strategic
view of large fuel retailers across their areas. To be
absolutely clear, this would be appropriate for charge
points at large fuel retailers only, not on the roads
themselves. I know local authorities have been concerned.
Amendment 32A seeks to clarify that Metro Mayors should consult the
relevant local authority. This is something we would fully
expect to happen. It is important that local authorities
are involved in infrastructure provision, and I confirm
that at Third Reading we will look to bring forward
government amendments similar to Amendments 31, 32A and
33A, but removing the reference to service area operators
for the reasons I have mentioned. I hope that will address
the noble Baroness’s concern. I beg to move.
Amendment 30A (to Amendment 29)
Moved by
30A: After Clause 10, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
“(1) If the mayor for a relevant area makes a request for
regulations under section 10 to be made in relation to the
relevant area and conditions 1 and 2 are met, then the Secretary
of State must either—(a) make the regulations, or(b) notify the
mayor of his or her decision not to make the regulations, and
include reasons for that decision.”
-
My Lords, in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady
Worthington, I shall move the amendment she has tabled. I
shall not speak at any great length on it. The change which
has been tabled is welcome, but it falls considerably short
of what we were hoping for and, in particular, what the
mayors were hoping for. They do not feel that the Bill
gives them the powers to tackle the fundamental problems
they have with air pollution. They see it as an important
part of several pieces of equipment they need to tackle air
pollution. In particular, as I said in my earlier
intervention, they have to be able to bring pressure to
bear to ensure that there are more electric charging points
in car parks. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, made the
point very clearly. Most people using electric cars are not
concerned about long journeys. They have bought their
electric cars for good green reasons and for other reasons,
and they are using them principally in cities. They are
looking for the infrastructure to back them and, in
particular, they find that in many areas in which they park
there is no facility.
The mayors recognise this. They know what their cities have
and what their citizens want. I am sure they will feel that
while they welcome this change, there are a lot of words
but little change and little benefit for them. Others may
speak on this but we hope that the Government might take
this away, reflect on it and see if they can come back and
do better on it next time around. I beg to move.
-
Lord
I am somewhat confused. I thought we were still debating
the group starting with Amendment 29, and my understanding
of the rules is that no other amendment is yet moved.
Anyway, I will make the speech that I was going to make. I
thank the Minister for her help in trying to get me to
understand the amendment, those that preceded it and the
amendments to the amendments that preceded the latest
amendments to the amendment. I have to admit that I am now
totally confused. Hence I am absolutely delighted that the
Minister has assured us that this group of amendments will
be translated into a single government amendment. I will
reserve my views on that amendment until I have seen it,
and I hope it turns up quite soon. Because that amendment
will be tabled, we may choose to bring forward amendments
to it at Third Reading, but I will refrain from using the
time of the House any more at this point.
-
My Lords, I am totally confused as well because I thought
we were still on group 7. I am going to confuse everyone
even further by moving and speaking to Amendment 33.
-
The Deputy Speaker (The Countess of Mar) (CB)
My Lords, it might help the noble Baroness to know that she
cannot move her amendment at this stage because it has not
been called.
-
I shall speak to Amendment 33, which seeks to amend
government Amendment 29. This would allow the Secretary of
State the power to extend the provisions in Amendment 29 to
other local transport authorities as well as
to Metro Mayors. This is where I differ
from the general view that has been expressed so far, and
have differed from it in our past debates, because in our
view it is unfair that this power should apply only to
areas with Metro Mayors. Perhaps that is because I
come from Wales, where it is the policy of the Government
not to have Metro Mayors so, however large the
city, you have no Metro Mayors.
However, I can think of other areas that might want to take
a lead in encouraging modern transport—for example,
Cornwall, which was granted special powers on bus
franchising but clearly does not have a metro mayor. I
remember reading recently that a list of the most congested
towns in Britain was topped by Bournemouth, which has no
metro mayor. Those are all areas that would quite likely
wish to encourage the use of electric cars and
ultra-low-emission vehicles which in some areas suffer from
considerable congestion. As we all know, congestion means
increased emissions, and that is why they would have a
legitimate reason to want extra powers along the lines that
the Metro Mayors are being allowed.
The new amendment was picked up by the DPRRC in its 28th
report, to which I draw the attention of the House. In its
previous report, the DPPRC highlighted the fact that the
power to make regulations under Section 10 should be made
by affirmative procedure, and was not convinced by the idea
that only the first set of regulations should be
affirmative. In its 28th report, it argued that the new
clause further undermines the Government’s argument. It
states:
“Allowing mayors to request different regimes for their own
areas, in our view, must imply that provision which will be
made in such area specific regulations will be
significantly different from that made in relation to the
UK generally. Accordingly, we consider that the affirmative
procedure should apply to all exercises of the power where
regulations under clause 10 are made in response to a
request under the new clause”.
We are asking for the Secretary of State to have additional
powers to devolve powers, no matter what local government
structure is in place because, as others have said, in
urban areas, there is a strong need to encourage the use of
ultra-low-emission vehicles.
-
My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Baroness,
Lady Randerson, and others in this group. Local transport
authorities ought to be able to deal with particular
problems that arise.
We have a problem in Eastbourne, surprisingly enough, with
high levels of particulates—seemingly related to the
geography of the place. The local authority therefore
wishes that we should be able to reduce them. We do not
have a motorway. My noble friend Lord Young said that
service centres had not yet been defined. I should be
interested to know how the Government are thinking of
defining service centres. In Eastbourne and, I should
think, most metropolitan areas, we have a petrol station as
part of a large, shared area where there is a lot of
parking and a lot of other retail. Will this be defined as
a service centre? It is as close as we get to a service
centre. That would enable the benefits of Clause 10 to
extend to an area such as ours and, if the amendment of the
noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is accepted, we might even
get the full benefits of Clause 10. As that is clearly a
direction in which our community wishes to move, I would
very much like the Bill to give it the power to do so.
-
(LD)
My Lords, I need to begin by declaring an interest that I
did not have in Committee, because I think that this
morning, I was elected co-president of London Councils. No
one has confirmed that yet and, as a Liberal Democrat, I
know only too well not to take things for granted but, just
in case I was successful in an unopposed election, I
declare an interest as co-president of London Councils.
When we debated this in Committee, there was considerable
concern about the apparent slow progress of London boroughs
in acting on rapid charging units. It is therefore only
fair that I put on record a response, although I do not
want to dwell on it. I am told:
“The TfL transformation has impacted heavily on their
ability to engage efficiently and consistently with the
London boroughs and other stakeholders. We have been told
by a number of boroughs that they had identified and
submitted numerous locations for rapid charging points to
TfL, only for the engagement to end, in some cases for
months, with little or no information provided to the
borough on whether the plans are progressing. In many cases
local authorities have done all that is necessary and are
waiting for TfL to complete the installation”.
I thought it was fair to put that on record, but I really
do not want to get into the blame game—none of us do; we
want rapid progress to rapid charging points. To that end,
now that the London borough elections are out of the way as
well, I am pleased to know that discussions have taken
place and continue to take place between the GLA, TfL and
London Councils. I think that I mentioned in Committee that
London Councils had already established a sub-group of
members to deal rapidly with these issues, and I am pleased
to say that that is now progressing. As a consequence, I
understand, TfL has said that it will not pursue its wish
for permitted development rights—and that is welcome to the
boroughs and to me, having had some considerable experience
as a member of the GLA and as a London borough councillor.
So far, all that is good.
I turn to Amendment 29. I seek clarification; I think that
I understood the Minister in moving the amendment to say
that the government intention was that it would apply only
to large fuel regulators and service area operators—and the
Minister nods in agreement with that statement. That is not
what the amendment actually says. It could certainly be
interpreted—and indeed I think that it says this—as
relating to all roads in the key route network. Anyone
reading the Bill would take that as applying to all roads
in the key route network—and, indeed, the other amendments
apply it to all other roads. I understand that the
Government intend to come back with a further amendment on
that.
I think that the Minister has clarified this issue in
moving the amendment and in nodding in assent to my
interpretation of it. However, if the Government are
bringing back further amendments in respect of what is
before us—Amendments 30A, 31 and 33A—would it not be better
also to take back Amendment 29 and rewrite it clarifying
what the Government want it to mean: that it applies
specifically to those two areas, to area operators and
large fuel retailers, rather than to all roads on the route
network? That seems to me a very sensible thing to do,
given that we are going to come back to the issue anyway at
Third Reading next week.
Those are my points. I went through in Committee at some
stage as to why it is not a good idea to give Metro Mayors the power over things
which, certainly in London’s case, are properly the matter
for the borough councils as both parking authorities and
highway authorities. I do not need to repeat that; I could
give many instances of how that has not worked and does not
work—but I hope that we are not going to go down that route
and that TfL is not going to pursue that route, as I hope
is nobody else. When we come back to Third Reading, I hope
that the Government will bring before us amendments that
make the situation absolutely clear, and we can progress to
actually getting on and installing rapid charging points.
-
My Lords, we may not be in the blame game, but the noble
Lord has actually made a strong statement there about the
response of TfL to the boroughs. I reserve my comments
until, perhaps, we have had a response from those who
almost stand in the dock—and perhaps I can raise my
comments on Third Reading.
-
My Lords, I apologise if there is any confusion on this
issue. Obviously, having amendments to a government
amendment can lead to confusion. As I said, we will bring
forward a government amendment, taking on board other
comments, and we will endeavour to do that as soon as
possible.
On Amendment 33, on extending the power to local transport
authorities, we have a number of combined authorities with
a directly elected mayor which are designed to deliver
their strategic transport priorities across their city
regions. We support the devolution of powers to authorities
when local decision-making will support improved delivery
of transport outcomes. Mayoral combined authorities and the
Mayor of London provide an appropriate level of democratic
accountability and strategic oversight, which individual
local authorities do not necessarily have. We have made the
decision to devolve certain strategic powers
to Metro Mayors and Metro Mayors only and, in this
case, we do not think that we should extend them to other
local transport authorities.
I will move on to the issues involved in Amendment 29. We
discussed London councils, TfL and the mayor at length in
Committee and I mentioned this in my opening remarks. We
welcome the new taskforce which has been set up and is well
represented by all these organisations. There is a real
will to work together to deliver these rapid charge points.
We are encouraged by that and look forward to seeing
progress made.
-
Lord
My understanding from the Minister’s opening remarks is
that Amendment 29 is in the pot to be brought together with
the other amendments in a new amendment being brought
forward at Third Reading.
-
Yes, the plan is to bring forward one amendment. We aim to
combine Amendments 29, 30A, 31, 32A, 33 and 33A into one—we
hope simplified—government amendment. On the point made by
the noble Lord, , I make it clear that
these are only regulation-making powers under Section 10,
which is solely for large fuel retailers and service area
operators. That is what these devolved powers refer to. I
acknowledge that they do not go as far as the Metro Mayors want. I do not suggest
that we get into another conversation about widening the
scope of the Bill and the powers of the Metro Mayors. The Government’s amendment
is related purely to those operators. We will come back to
this ahead of Third Reading.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, referred to the DPRRC
memo. We will go back to the committee with our response
and I will copy in all noble Lords. Under Regulation 16(4),
the first regulations made following a request by a metro
mayor would be subject to the affirmative procedure so the
first use of the powers would be debated by Parliament.
However, any further exercise of the power is expected to
raise similar issues to the first such exercise. Any such
regulations would also have been subject to two periods of
consultation: the metro mayor would be required to
undertake local consultation before asking the Secretary of
State to make regulations, and under Regulation 16(3) the
Secretary of State would be required to undertake
consultation before making the regulations. We think that
is sufficient. I am afraid I only received the letter
yesterday evening, but we will reply in the coming days and
I will make sure that all noble Lords are copied in.
As I said, we will endeavour to come back as soon as
possible with a revised government amendment which I hope
will simplify matters.
Amendment 30A withdrawn.
To read the whole debate, CLICK
HERE
|
