Clause
80
Delegation
of local authority
functions
Graham
Stringer:
I beg to move amendment No. 84, in
clause 80, page 70, line 3, at
end add—
‘(5) An order under
this section may be made only if the local authority whose function is
to be delegated by the order has consented to the delegation of that
function.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 85, in
clause 81, page 71, line 19, at
end add—
‘(13) An order
under this section may be made only if each council which would be
subject to a direction made pursuant to the order has consented to the
Secretary of State making the
order.’.
Graham
Stringer:
I shall be brief. The provisions in clause 80
will remove powers from local authorities, and the set of decisions
under clause 84 will hand powers to local authorities after the failure
of an integrated transport authority. Amendments Nos. 84 and 85, as
well as amendment No. 86 to clause 84, would require the local
authority’s consent before the Government could take a decision
to move powers one way or the other. We have debated this matter during
debate on earlier clauses, so given the time I do not want to pursue it
at length, but I am interested in the Minister’s thinking on
it.
10.15
am
Ms
Winterton:
As my hon. Friend says, we have had this
discussion before. We hope that when an ITA is established or changed,
there will always be the full support of the authorities involved, but,
as I have said, in certain situations a small minority of authorities
might wish to oppose reforms that are seen to be in the wider interests
of the conurbation or the city region as a whole. We are trying to
account for the fact that, in such a situation, the Secretary of State
could proceed with a governance order, if that was felt to be in the
wider interests of the area, without every authority having to agree
every aspect of that order. There are requirements to consult each
authority and to have regard to the identities and interests of local
communities, and a governance order would be subject to parliamentary
scrutiny under the affirmative procedure. I hope that that explanation
re-emphasises our points about allowing enough
flexibility.
Graham
Stringer:
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
80 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
81
Conferral
of a power to
direct
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Stephen
Hammond:
The clause confers on an ITA or a local transport
authority a power to give a direction to a metropolitan district
council, a county council or a unitary authority. Such a direction will
take the form of an instruction as to how those bodies should exercise
their functions as a highway authority or traffic authority. The
principal uses of the power would seem to be in the areas of the
ability to install traffic management measures and traffic calming
measures, and the carrying out of maintenance measures. In theory, all
that is fine, but the practice is often rather
different.
Subsections
(8) to (11) offer conditions so that the exercise of the power is, in
some ways, constrained at times, because they say that the directed
body would have to do certain things or obtain consent. Conditions
would be imposed on the directed body’s power, and powers could
not be used in certain circumstances. The directed body must use the
power if the directing authority meets the cost of
compliance.
The
question, yet again, is that of local versus regional. I shall cite a
couple of examples from my constituency in which what the directing
authority does is not in tune with what the local authority, or,
perhaps more importantly, local people, want. In my constituency, the
directing body is Transport for London. It wanted to impose a regional
cycle network. There was little dispute over the objective, but what
was in dispute—and is always in dispute—was some of the
routeing.
At
one point, TfL decided that the route through Wimbledon should come up
one residential road, cross a local main road and go on to another
residential road, before proceeding on to another main road and on to
Raynes Park. On paper, that looked like a simple exercise, and no one
disagreed with the aim of a cycle route. The point at issue was that it
involved coming up a local road, skewing across a main road and then
going down another local road on a blind bend. That was a death trap
for local cyclists, and that point was made in representations by the
local residents association, the local cycle group and local
councillors. However, the directing authority continued to insist on
the route, despite the fact that it was proven to the authority that a
similar scheme could be enacted 100 yd up the road without the death
trap for
cyclists.
The
route was imposed, and consequently there was an accident, and now
almost no one uses that part of the cycle route. That illustrates that
the caveat that the Minister appears to have put into subsections (8)
to (11)—that of obtaining consent—needs to be
reconsidered. Local authorities and residents often know more than the
regional integrated transport authority. Although its wishes and aims
might be laudable, unless it takes
account of the local context, it is very likely that, in a number of
cases, it will do more harm than good. Wimbledon
hill provides a similar example. It is a three-lane—one up, two
down—road connecting Wimbledon village to the town centre.
Transport for London wanted to insert a bus lane and a new set of
traffic controls. We were told that that would speed up the buses,
after which TfL would re-engineer its lighting system so that the
lights at the bottom of the hill would go through the town in a green
wave. If that were to have happened, it would have been entirely
laudable and no one would have opposed it. Indeed, no one opposed it
initially. However, when TfL came back with its detailed model, a
number of consequences of the proposal became apparent, the first of
which was that it could not re-engineer the lights for more than two
years. Even with the introduction of the bus lane, that would actually
slow down bus
journeys.
Once
again, TfL was asked to reconsider, but four years on, it still has not
been able to re-engineer the traffic lights, so we now have not only
bus journeys taking longer than they did four years ago, but cars
idling, increasing CO2 emissions all the way up the hill.
Although I fully accept the need for regional traffic strategies and
the benefits that integrated transport authorities can bring, a
question mark remains: are we clear that subsections (8) to (11), and
particularly the caveat about obtaining consent—the question
mark is that the powers cannot be used in certain
circumstances—could be used to protect very local, but highly
important,
circumstances?
Mr.
Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con): My hon. Friend is
making a very good case. Is not the nub of it
that very often those with these regional powers exercise them with
arrogance and the attitude, “We know better than local
opinion,” when in reality the converse is the
truth?
Stephen
Hammond:
That might well be my right hon. Friend’s
experience. It might be arrogance, but it might just be that they wish
to push ahead with their strategy because they believe that it is
right. All too often, unless local circumstances are brought into a
strategy, it will not bring the benefits that we all seek. I hope that
the Minister will confirm how she expects the caveats in subsections
(8) to (11) to work. I am concerned about the need to obtain local
consent, or if not consent, at least a proper local consultation so
that the appropriate examination takes place and local circumstances
can be built in to the regional strategy. I am concerned that
subsections (8) to (11) do not deal with that.
We had this
debate earlier when we were talking about the constituent parts of the
integrated transport authorities. If they take account of proper local
representation, there is a chance that local circumstances could be
built in to the regional strategy. However, if that local
representation is not there, it cannot be built in. I want the Minister
to reassure us that subsections (8) to (11) will ensure that the degree
of power that must be given to the integrated transport authority can,
in certain circumstances, be restrained by local consent. I am not
convinced that those subsections necessarily do that. Without those
constraints, an authority’s good intentions might be entirely
negated.
It
being twenty-five minutes
past Ten o’clock,
The Chairman
adjourned the Committee
without Question put, pursuant to the Standing
Order.
Adjourned
till this day at
ten minutes past
One
o’clock.
| 
