Clause
54
Short
title, citation, commencement and
extent
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Pelling:
As the Bill will become law under the clause, I
want to take this opportunity, at the invitation of the Minister during
discussions on clause 17, when we were considering the ease of disposal
of land by Transport for London, to ask what ease of disposal will be
provided to the London Development Agency post-Olympics. The provision
that has been given to TFL would be well provided to the LDA, in terms
of disposing of land with a much-increased value after the Olympics. I
am grateful to the Minister for his invitation to raise this
point.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Jim
Fitzpatrick):
Clause 54 sets out the short title of the
Bill and provides for it, when enacted, and the Greater London
Authority Act 1999 to
be
“cited together as the
Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and
2007.”
The clause
determines the extent of the Bill, which does not extend to Scotland
and Northern Ireland. It also sets out the date on which the
Bill’s provisions come into force. Forgive me, but I cannot
identify how the hon. Gentleman’s point is relevant to the
clause or the clause stand part
debate.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 54
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
New
Clause
1
Congestion
charging
‘In Schedule 23 to
the GLA Act 1999 (road user charging) after paragraph 4
insert—
“(4A) In
the event that no inquiry is held by virtue of paragraph 4(3)(b) above,
the Authority shall
publish—
(a) the
responses to any consultation carried out under paragraph
4(3)(a),
(b) an analysis of the
responses, and
(c) in the case
of responses which it proposes to disregard in whole or in part its
reason for so doing.”.’.—[Tom
Brake.]
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Tom
Brake:
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time.
The new clause
brings us back to transport and, more specifically, congestion
charging. The purpose of the new clause, which I am pleased to say is
supported by both Opposition parties, is to ensure that, if an
extension to the congestion charging zone takes place without an
inquiry, the authority must publish consultation responses, the
analysis of those responses and any reasons why representations that
have been received have been disregarded.
The new clause is
straightforward. It is about openness, transparency and providing
additional checks and balances. Although it would not stop the Mayor
proceeding with such an extension, it would make clear the reasons why
he had rejected certain representations. It would also make clearer the
opposition to his proposals, as in the case of the most recent
extension, and provide much more public awareness of it. The Mayor has
been frank in revealing some of the facts behind the extension and the
support that was received—or, indeed, not received. He is on
record as saying that only a quarter of the public responses to the
consultation supported the proposal. He also referred to what he
described to as
“a
representative London wide
survey”,
but even that
found that opposition outweighed support, with 41 per cent. supporting
his proposals and 43 per cent. objecting to
them.
Requiring the
Mayor to make publicly available the analysis, the responses and the
reasons why such a high level of opposition was set aside would act as
another significant check and balance, which really is required when we
are talking about giving the Mayor additional powers. It is therefore
entirely appropriate to introduce additional checks and balances to
ensure that his powers are exercised sensibly.
It is also worth pointing out
that the proposed extension is unlikely to address one particular
concern, which flies in the face of an earlier debate on the climate
change strategy. Our view is that the extension, the 90 per cent.
discount for residents in the area of the extension and saying that
they must pay for a week and nothing less will encourage people to
drive into central London more than they would otherwise do. One
consequence of the proposal would be to work against what the Mayor is
trying to do on the climate change strategy.
The purpose of the new clause
is simple, straightforward and clear. It would make publicly available
much more information about consultation and the Mayor’s reasons
for rejecting an overwhelming response against his
proposals.
Mr.
Greg Hands (Hammersmith and Fulham) (Con): I shall be
brief, because the number of speeches that I have made against the
congestion charge extension in recent years probably runs into double,
if not triple figures. I shall speak briefly about the experience of
some of us in west London on consultation, on both the original zone
and the extension. The consultation strategy is at the heart of the
amendment, and no one doubts the power of the Mayor, of whatever party,
to introduce a congestion charging scheme. It was specifically referred
to in the 1999
Act.
There is a clear
need to reform the way in which consultation is undertaken. At the
moment, there is a statutory duty to consult, but there is absolutely
no duty to listen, to have regard to, or even to read the submissions
to the Mayor. There is not even an obligation to open or count the
letters or e-mails that come flooding in. It gives politics a bad name
when people are asked for their views and no regard is paid, or seen to
be paid, to those views. If we are to have a system of directly elected
mayors—there is a lot of merit in that—we must have a
system whereby the
mayor is accountable, and if he or she undertakes a
consultation strategy, there should be an obligation on him or her to
note the
results. People say
that the directly-elected-mayor model leads to better and quicker
decisions, but a corollary is the long consultation process.
Ironically, even those who believe in extending the congestion charge,
or are in the original congestion charging zone, would take issue with
the length of time that it has taken between the first proposal and its
implementation. The current system gives rise to poor and slow
government. The proposal for a congestion charge extension was first
made in 2003 and will be implemented next month. The consultation was
overwhelmingly opposed to the proposal, but the Mayor decided, none the
less, to go ahead. There was always a suspicion that he would go ahead
with the scheme regardless of the
consultation.
Martin
Linton:
Between 2003, when it was mooted, and 2007, when
it will be introduced, there was a GLA and mayoral election, and the
Mayor gained a majority. People voted in the knowledge that he had
proposed an extension. Does that not take precedence over the results
of
consultation?
Mr.
Hands:
That begs the question, why have consultation? If
the only consultation that matters to the hon. Gentleman is that at the
ballot box, surely that negates the need for any
consultation.
3.45
pm
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that as a
result of the consultation amendments were made to the original
scheme?
Mr.
Hands:
The Minister for London is right, amendments were
made. For example, Chelsea Harbour is now included in the
residents’ discount area after representations that I made.
There were other small changes to the boundaries and, I believe, to the
hours of operation. There have not been any significant changes to the
original scheme or to the
extension.
Ms
Karen Buck (Regent’s Park and Kensington, North)
(Lab): I also made a number of representations, and the
westward extension is not the design that I put to the Mayor or would
have preferred, but during the consultation we won a series of
significant concessions on the northern boundary. It would be unfair of
the hon. Gentleman to claim that there were no such
concessions.
It is
also worth mentioning that part of the dilemma that we discussed when
considering planning decisions was that the western extension and the
whole congestion zone were developed for a wider strategic purpose for
the benefit of Londoners. The local consultation therefore has to be
weighed up against the interests of London as a
whole.
Mr.
Hands:
Of course that is true, but if we were starting
from scratch we would not design a system whereby it took four years to
introduce such a scheme. I am trying to put myself in the position of
those who are in favour of the westward extension. I would be rather
miffed to discover that it was first mootedin 2003 and not
enacted until 2007 because of consultation that was ultimately not
listened to anyway.
Mr.
Slaughter:
I am not quite following the argument. If the
hon. Gentleman is right and the Mayor does not listen to or read
consultations—I am not sure how we could oblige him to read
them—and takes no notice, surely the longer he takes the
better.
I
am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is representing the interests of
Michael Caine and the other residents of Chelsea Harbour. I think we
all have issues. Like the hon. Gentleman, I oppose the western
extension. There were substantial concessions—for instance, in
the Eynham road area of my constituency—but significantly not
for the Edward Woods estate, an important area of my constituency that
is now in the zone against the wishes of the residents. Having said
that, whether or not we agree about particular parts of the zone,
surely the main consideration is that, as my hon. Friend the Minister
said, changes have been
made.
Mr.
Hands:
That is a rather curious intervention. The hon.
Gentleman seems to be saying that changes have been made, but he also
described how he failed to get the changes that he wanted. However,
that brings me conveniently to the position that Hammersmith and Fulham
council took during the
consultation.
Ms
Buck:
Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to that point, he
is asking for the consultation process to bear a heavier burden than it
should. One of the key reasons for the length of time that elapsed
between the initial proposal of the westward extension and its
introduction was the introduction of public transport alternatives,
particularly further improvements in the bus service and road
management schemes. That means that the congestion charge will not
result in people being displaced and having no alternative way to make
their
journeys.
Mr.
Hands:
I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. She
mentions public transport improvements that should have been made and I
am all ears to hear what they are. A package of bus route changes was
proposed as part of the westward extension of the zone and is coming
into force about now. For my constituents, the impact has been minimal.
There is overcrowding on the Wimbledon branch of the District line
before the zone comes into effect in the morning. It is at 95 per cent.
capacity during rush hour, so it is difficult to see how things could
be improved. If there is to be a system in which the Mayor consults, he
must be obliged to pay regard to the results. Otherwise there is no
point in having the consultation in the first
place.
To return to
the point about the previously Labour-controlled Hammersmith and Fulham
council, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush
says that he is opposed to the westward extension of the zone. I find
that curious, given the content of an article that I have here, which
appeared in what was then called the Hammersmith and Fulham
Magazine on 8 April 2004. That was 15 days before the consultation
deadline of 23 April, at the height of the fever surrounding the
consultation.
One would have expected the
council to defend its residents, who had the almost unanimous view that
the westward extension would be a poor thing. In the article, it
said:
“The
council will be guided primarily by the views of residents on the
merits of extending the zone...There have undoubtedly been some
benefits of the existing zone and there may be some in extending it.
However, they appear marginal and it may well be that the disruption
caused by the extension outweighs any
benefit.”
That is hardly
a robust position opposing the westward extension. That was a
dereliction of the council’s duty and also, I believe, a key
factor in its defeat last
year.
We need a system
with consultation—we must back there being consultation behind
congestion charging—but there must also be a mechanism for the
swift appraisal of the consultation before decisions are
made.
Michael
Gove:
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend and the
hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, both of whom made effective
and cogent cases for the new clause. I am also grateful to the hon.
Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush for telling us that
Michael Caine lives in Chelsea Harbour. As the great actor himself
might say, “Not a lot of people know
that.”
The
mention of Michael Caine highlights a material issue of the westward
extension of the congestion charge. Some of us consider the
introduction of the congestion charge to have been a good thing on the
whole and see some merit in similar schemes being employed elsewhere in
the UK. However, we have a few questions about the extension,
particularly in relation to the Mayor, the wisdom of his policy and the
integrity of the
consultation.
When the
congestion charge is extended westward, a variety of wealthy people who
live in Kensington and Chelsea, such as Michael Caine, will be able to
drive into London at a discounted rate compared with what they would
have paid hitherto. Yet some shops and businesses in the extended zone,
particularly the smaller, independent ones, might be denied the custom
from places such as Hammersmith, Fulham and Brentford that they relied
on when they were outside the zone. So, the measure simultaneously
helps rich drivers and penalises independent
shopkeepers.
As we all
know, tomorrow we debate the Sustainable Communities Bill, part of
which tends towards supporting independent shops. I know that
Government Front Benchers are under instructions not to support the
Bill, but there is a lot of support for it among Labour Back Benchers.
I therefore suspect that there is widespread unease on those Back
Benches about the westward extension of the congestion charge, as well
as a desire for communities to be more effectively represented through
the new clause. I suspect that the hon. Member for Regent’s Park
and Kensington, North is about to rise to offer some words of
support.
Ms
Buck:
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will be slightly
disappointed. We must be careful about asking the congestion charge to
bear a heavier burden than it should in protecting businesses, given
that Westminster city council raises half as much as the
entire London congestion zone through its parking policy alone. In
Westminster Hall, a debate on parking is going on as we
speak.
If we are
going to talk about protecting small businesses and other community
interests, which is an important debate, those issues cannot be seen
out of context. A number of issues, not least of which is the cost of
parking, are at least as responsible for the pressures on businesses as
the congestion
charge.
Michael
Gove:
I take the hon. Lady’s point. Both Kensington
and Chelsea council and Westminster city council have parking policies
that impose higher charges closer to the centre of town and lower
charges where there is less demand on services, so there is an element
of gradation and flexibility there. That shows that those
administrations are conscious of the need to balance revenue, traffic
flow and the commercial interests of businesses in their
areas.
More broadly,
all sorts of vehicles, including many of the commercial vehicles that
supply independent retailers and others, will be liable to the
congestion charge, whereas they might not be liable to parking charges,
because of how commercial and customer traffic flows
vary.
Stephen
Pound:
There is a borough slightly beyond Hammersmith and
Fulham, which is the borough of Ealing, where we have considered such
matters in great detail. Normally, the hon. Gentleman brings a
utilitarian analysis to such matters. I admire him for that, because it
is practical, but he says that there has been a negative impact on
commercial activity in the city. However, Oxford street has just
enjoyed its best ever year for
sales.
I see no vast,
echoing commercial canyons of empty shop fronts, with tumbleweed
rolling through the streets. On the contrary, small shopkeepers who
have gone out of business tend to say that that happened because of
either parking restrictions or commercial rents or business rates.
[
Interruption.
] Does the hon. Gentleman at least
accept that the congestion charge is not the root of all evil in the
world of London
commerce?
Michael
Gove:
We were greeted by the tintinnabulation of bells
there, although I do not think that they were tolling the death of
London commerce.
I
entirely take the hon. Gentleman’s point. My point about the
westward extension of the congestion charge is that part of the
cherishable nature of parts of Kensington and Chelsea and of
Westminster relates to the fact that they contain urban villages and
shopping centres with a variety of independent retailers. Part of the
quality of the shopping experience that the King’s road and the
Fulham road offer to residents and tourists depends on the variety of
independent outlets. There is a risk of reaching a tipping point, at
which the westward extension, added to various other factors, some of
which he mentioned, will place such shops under much greater
pressure.
I take the
hon. Gentleman’s point about central London flourishing.
However, there is also an area of conspicuous commercial success in
Marylebone, which is just a stone’s throw from Oxford street.
One reason
for that success is the enlightened approach of the Howard de Walden
estate to the mix of shops in that area. That underlines the point that
there is suppressed demand for independent
retailers. When we consider legislation, and when the Mayor considers
the congestion charge, it is important to ensure that that spread of
independence is not snuffed out by heavy-handed
regulation.
Martin
Linton:
I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman about the
diversity of independent shopkeepers, which is an issue in my
constituency, too. We only wish we had the same situation as Marylebone
high street, where a single owner owns all the shops and can make
decisions as an enlightened shop
owner.
However, surely
there is a big flaw in the hon. Gentleman’s argument that the
congestion charge will have a detrimental effect on retail businesses
in general. There are boroughs outside Hammersmith and Fulham, and
Kensington and Chelsea, in all directions, and for every shop in the
King’s road that will lose business there will be another, on my
side of the bridge, that will gain, because it is outside the
congestion charge zone. It will be up to enlightened retailers and
supermarkets to move their shops outside the congestion zone. If that
is what will get them more business, they will find it in their
interests to do
so.
Michael
Gove:
I accept the logic of the hon. Gentleman’s
point. There can always be displacement activity, but my overall point
is that I would not want regulations to harm independent retailers who
operate in already successful shopping
environments.
4
pm
Ms
Buck:
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for
giving way once more. I suspect that we might be straining your
patience, Lady Winterton, in flexing this debate, but it is also worth
asking the hon. Gentleman whether he agrees with the extensive research
that shows that the average spend per shopper who arrives by public
transport is significantly higher than the average spend of people who
arrive by
car.
Michael
Gove:
I am very interested by that statistic, as I was not
familiar with it. Some shoppers who arrive by car in central London
might be hassled dads with children in tow—as I sometimes
am—whose ability to spend freely might be somewhat constrained,
and not only by their Aberdonian backgrounds. People arriving by public
transport might be coming off the Heathrow express, fresh from having
spent the weekend in Monaco or some other spot where Labour party
funders are inclined to hang out—there might be explanations for
that, but I shall not stray down that
path.
By placing an
obligation on the Mayor to provide his reasons for rejecting evidence
given during consultation and enjoining on him the duty to publish all
those representations, the new clause will make the decision-making
process more transparent. I know that we might have strained your
patience, Lady Winterton, by straying on to the question of independent
shops in west and central London, but it is of great importance to
Londoners and precisely the sort of issue that would have been
ventilated if all the representations had been received and the Mayor
had had to take on, as has the
Committee, all the arguments relating to that vital factor in making
London attractive. In
a way, the debate that we have had in the last10 minutes
underlines the importance of openness to different points of view when
constructing a mechanism, such as the westward extension of the
congestion charge, that might have an effect on
business.
Michael
Fabricant:
My hon. Friend makes his point well, but the
matter concerns not just independent shops. The John Lewis Partnership,
which of course has a major department store on Oxford street, felt
that its representations to the Mayor against the congestion charge
were not dealt with adequately. So my hon. Friend is absolutely right
to talk about the importance of
transparency.
Michael
Gove:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. I
was talking mainly about smaller shops, but the John Lewis
Partnership’s admirable co-operative venture has a voice in the
retail and business sectors that we would do well to pay attention to.
The new clause would ensure that the Mayor pays appropriate heed to its
voice, that the public are aware of the arguments put and that we have
an opportunity to find out why he rejects certain evidence. That
process would be made transparent and taken into the public sphere, and
as a result we would have better decision making.
Throughout the Committee we
have made the point that greater scrutiny of, and openness in, the
exercise of the Mayor’s powers could only be welcomed by an
enlightened Mayor confident in his or her policies. They would of
course have the freedom to push ahead with a westward, northward or
southward extension of the congestion charge, as they felt appropriate.
However, they would have to engage with the arguments of those most
intimately affected.
I
have one final point to make, which is almost a declaration of interest
that I should have made at the beginning. The hon. Member for
Carshalton and Wallington pointed out that as a consequence of the
westward extension some people might make a journey that they otherwise
would not have. The extension is not yet in force, but a person living
in the area covered can apply for a discount that is now in operation.
I mentioned my mother earlier, but my wife made an early application
for an exemption from the congestion charge—she is a much more
prudent guardian of the Gove household finances than I
am—because we live in the area covered. In fact, when we are in
London, during the weeks, and not in the balmy acres
of—
Michael
Gove:
I was pausing because I was not sure whether to say
acres or
hectares.
When not in
the balmy acres of Surrey, we are in the attractive purviews of
Regent’s Park and Kensington, North. Because my wife made that
application, this morning I drove the family car into the precincts
ofthe Palace of Westminster—not a journey that I would
ordinarily have undertaken. That underlines the importance of the point
made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington: the westward
extension might not achieve all the Mayor’s environmental
objectives and his arguments would be more rigorously tested were this
new clause
adopted.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
Having been graciously taken by surprise by
the hon. Member for Croydon, Central, in my first contribution I
omitted to add my welcome to your return to the Chair, Lady Winterton.
I do so now.
The
Government agree that it is right to consult before introducing or
amending a road-user charging scheme. Under the Greater London
Authority Act 1999, it is for the Mayor to decide on the
consultation for the making or amending of the road-user charging
scheme. The 1999 Act gives the Mayor the power, but not the duty to
consult on a road-user charging scheme. It is also for the Mayor to
consider whether to proceed with proposals for road-user charging
schemes following such a consultation. That decision must be taken in
the best interests of London. Such an assessment requires consideration
of the complex nature of transport issues across London and the impact
on other areas such as tourism, and business, as well as transport
users. The Mayor is uniquely placed to do that. Clearly, the Mayor must
be allowed to respond to those consultations as necessary. The Mayor
received nearly 50,000 responses to the consultation on the westward
extension. It would surely have been impractical to respond to all the
points raised and not taken forward as suggested by this new clause. On
that point of practicality and with that in mind, I hope that the hon.
Member for Carshalton and Wallington will withdraw his
amendment.
Tom
Brake:
I have listened carefully to the Minister. In
theory, I am sure that on these Benches we would not want to be
prescriptive in setting out how the Mayor should conduct his
consultation, what publicity he should give to it, how he should make
publicly available the information about representations he received,
and why he rejected them. Indeed, we had a debate earlier today about
how we wanted to be flexible in giving the Mayor scope to develop his
own strategy in relation to climate change. The difference here is that
the Mayor has a track record of disregarding the responses to
consultation. Therefore, in spite of the Minister’s warm
words—
Tom
Brake:
After I have given way, I will make a decision
about how to
proceed.
Stephen
Pound:
I am not entirely sure that I can persuade the hon.
Gentleman to withdraw his amendment. He seems to be talking about a
clever side to a referendum. The clause that he is moving requires
three specific duties mentioned in sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c).
Which of those three duties are not currently implemented by the Mayor?
To my knowledge, when the original congestion charging zone was
implemented and the extension was consulted
upon, each one of those three duties was carried out and was there for
all to see.
Tom
Brake:
I shall look for support from behind me from
members of the assembly who have watched the Mayor’s
consultation in action and his failure to observe the
responses.
Several
hon. Members
rose—
Tom
Brake:
I am about to receive other helpful
interventions.
Mr.
Pelling:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The
response of the Mayor has been to say, “Well, I got elected so I
don’t care what the consultation is”. Surely, that does
not provide a sufficiently good quality response to the residents of
London.
Tom
Brake:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. If
our amendment was passed, the Mayor would be required to go into print
time and time again as saying, “I don’t care. I am the
Mayor and whatever the response is to the consultation I will proceed
none the less”. One would hope that that would embarrass him to
the extent that he may reconsider his position. I was about to conclude
by stating that the Minster had done a good job of presenting the best
case possible in relation to the Government’s position on this
new clause. However, I am afraid that he did not do enough to convince
me and the official Opposition that we should withdraw so we will press
the matter to a vote.
Question put, That the
clause be read a Second
time:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
9.
Division
No.
19
]
Smith,
Ms Angela C.
(Sheffield,
Hillsborough)
Question
accordingly negatived.
| 
