| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Listed Buildings: Alterations
Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Further to the Written Answer by the Lord McIntosh of Haringey on 5 February (WA 116), how they reconcile the principle of respect for private and family life and the home, guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, with the current power of government to determine the interior layout of private dwelling houses which have not received state subsidies or tax concessions.[HL1365]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): Buildings are listed because they are of special architectural or historic interest. Listed building legislation provides that listed building consent must be obtained before carrying out work to a listed building which will affect its character as a building of architectural or historic interest. This will entitle local authorities to "determine the interior layout of a private dwelling house" only where the layout of the interior is part of the character of a listed building.
This legislation is compatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8 gives people the right to respect for their private and family life, their home and their correspondence. The Government consider that the restrictions on carrying out works to listed buildings do not interfere with this right to any significant degree and so do not engage Article 8.
If, however, Article 8 is engaged by the listing system, it is justified on the grounds that the system protects our historic buildings, and protects the rights of the general public and of future generations to enjoy the nation's heritage. The system which requires listed building consent before alterations affecting the character of a listed building is proportionate to achieve these aims.
Olympic Games 2012: London Bid
Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
- In view of the statement in the London Olympic bid that "some of the more than £17 billion being invested in London's transport before 2012 will have a direct impact on games traffic", whether they will provide a breakdown of the projects and expenditure proposed.[HL1411]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is not possible to provide a breakdown of the projects and expenditure proposed. This sum relates to the amount of public funding allocated for London Transport in the 10-Year Transport Plan progress report, Delivering Better Transport, published in December 2002. The 10-Year Plan allocates some £18.8 billion for London transport between 2004–05 and 2010–11. The Mayor of London has considerable discretion to spend his budget on his transport policies and proposals in keeping with his
transport strategy under the Greater London Authority Act 1999.
Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What rail freight facilities in the Stratford, East London area are required on a temporary or permanent basis for the London Olympics; what consultation took place with the industry and customers before the bid was submitted; and what commitment was made to find acceptable alternative facilities.[HL1412]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The transport input to London's Olympic bid is in the development stage and how passenger and freight services operate during games is a matter for further development and negotiation.
The area of the Olympic Park in the Lower Lea Valley is covered by the Olympic master planning application, which was submitted to the four relevant London planning authorities on 30 January by the London Development Agency. The planning application proposes that the waste and aggregates rail heads at Bow Midland Yard be relocated for the duration of the games.
There was wide-ranging consultation on the masterplan before it was submitted, and it is now going through the statutory consultation period. In particular, the London Development Agency has been working closely with the Strategic Rail Authority on rail issues affected by the plan, including freight.
Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What assurances were given in connection with the London Olympic bid about restricting the movement of freight trains in the Stratford area, or restricting air traffic approaching Heathrow Airport or London City Airport for the duration of the Olympic Games in 2012.[HL1413]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: None. The transport input to London's Olympic bid is in the development stage, and how passenger and freight services operate during the 16 days of the games is a matter for further development and negotiation.
The pre-qualification questionnaire submitted by London 2012 identified Heathrow as the gateway airport for the Olympics. Security will be of paramount importance for the Olympics but security requirements cannot be second-guessed at this stage.
Business Regulation
Baroness Miller of Hendon asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Further to the Answer by the Lord Sainsbury of Turville on 11 February (HL Deb, col. 1100), whether the calculation that business regulation has
- grown by 53 per cent between 1998 and 2002 is incorrect; and if so, what is the correct figure.[HL1384]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): The percentage growth figure appears to relate to the total number of statutory instruments in the period. In fact the vast majority of these had minimal or no substantial effect on business. Analysis of statutory instruments in 2003 showed that over 90 per cent had little or no substantial impact on business with about 39 per cent relating to temporary road closures or air navigation orders.
It is difficult to assess the level of business regulation other than through international comparisons. The World Bank's Doing Business in 2004 (published in October 2003) named the UK among 10 countries out of 130 with the least regulation.
Baroness Miller of Hendon asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they can provide a figure for the growth of business regulation between 1998 and 2002; and, if not, why not.[HL1385]
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: It is difficult to assess the level of business regulation other than through international comparisons. The World Bank's Doing Business in 2004 (published in October 2003) named the UK among 10 countries out of 130 with the least regulation.
Small Businesses
Baroness Miller of Hendon asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Further to the Answer by the Lord Sainsbury of Turville on 11 February (HL Deb, col. 1100), whether they consider that small businesses in the United Kingdom have faced any additional burden in (a) taxation and (b) regulation since 1997; and, if so, how they expect such business to overcome those burdens.[HL1386]
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: On the contrary, the Government have abolished or cut the corporation tax bill for around 500,000 small firms and since April 2003 firms with turnovers of £56,000 or less have not had to register for, or pay, VAT. Increasing the audit exemption thresholds, which will take effect in relation to financial years ending on or after 30 March 2004, is expected to exempt 69,000 more companies from the requirement to have their accounts audited and is expected to save companies at least £94 million a year.
We regulate only when it is both necessary and desirable, for example, to ensure fairness at work, better health and safety or a cleaner environment. Indeed the World Bank's Doing Business in 2004 (published in October 2003) named the UK among 10 countries out of 130 with the least regulation.
Businesses: Bribery and Corruption
Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What is their policy regarding the prosecution of British companies which use bribery or other improper financial inducements to obtain foreign business opportunities or benefits; and what guidance they have given to British companies on the subject.[HL1407]
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: We condemn involvement in corrupt practices. Since 2002, UK officials have held presentations and seminars for UK companies on UK bribery and corruption issues in several locations in the UK and overseas. Guidance for UK companies is available from a number of sources including the FCO, DTI and UK trade and investment websites. A copy of a joint FCO/UKTI leaflet with the title Bribery and Corruption Law is already available in the Library of the House. The decision to prosecute rests with the Crown Prosecution Service in accordance with the tests outlined within the code for Crown Prosecutors.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they are satisfied that British companies have not during the past two years used bribery or other improper financial inducements to obtain foreign business opportunities or benefits.[HL1408]
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The UK took extraterritorial jurisdiction on bribery offences on 14 February 2002. Since then, I can confirm that the law enforcement authorities have received a number of allegations and have instigated two investigations.
Electricity Generation: Scotland
The Duke of Montrose asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What assessment they have made of the extra electrical transmissions capacity needed from major outlying electricity generators in Scotland to the main areas of demand, and the possible cost in the short and long term.[HL1536]
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The DTI's Transmission Issues Working Group has reviewed the location of future generation and the reinforcements required. The first stage of the work required, the Beauly to Denny upgrade, was recently announced by Scottish & Southern, and will be submitted for consents in the autumn. This 220 km upgrade, costing approximately £200 million, is expected to allow an extra 1 GW of renewables to be connected in Northern Scotland, and should be available by 2007–08. The overall cost in Scotland to connect an extra 6 GW of generation was estimated at £1.5 billion.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |