Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Berkeley and Lord McAvoy

Tuesday 19th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord McAvoy]

The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, always takes a keen interest in the position of the Labour Front Bench. The fact is that the Labour Party supports the Smith commission, as do the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Government. There is consensus. I know the noble Lord does not really like being described as a consensual figure—he would probably regard it as an insult—but devolution is devolution and it can, will and should be worked out in that atmosphere. I know the noble Lord is a bit puzzled by that, but I have accepted devolution and he should do the same and move on.

In March last year, as the noble Lord has indicated, the Scottish Justice Secretary signalled the Scottish Government’s intention that the BTP’s functions would be transferred to Police Scotland following the passing of this Bill. Once the power is devolved to the Scottish Government, that is of course a decision for them to make and to justify to the Scottish public, the Scottish electorate and the communities within Scotland. Having said that, in recent months there have been a number of legitimate question marks over the way in which the Scottish Government have chosen to manage the resources of the police force in Scotland since we have had this Police Scotland set-up, with police stations being shut—as my noble friend Lord McFall of Alcluith has mentioned—call centres being closed and much-needed front-line police doing back-office functions. I make it clear that this is no reflection of the phenomenal work that our police officers do on a daily basis. However, we should view this as a further opportunity, and I have no objection to it, at the very least to assess all the possible implications of a merger between Police Scotland and the British Transport Police.

[Lord Berkeley]

If my noble friend is suggesting that it is Labour Party policy to devolve the British Transport Police, does the same apply to railways? I was not aware of that. Network Rail could be separate, of course; we could even have a separate gauge. I thought the whole idea was that we should actually have an integrated system.

[Lord McAvoy]

I thought I had all the trouble in front of me, but I have some behind me here as well.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Berkeley and Lord McAvoy

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and my noble and learned friend Lord Boyd on these amendments. They are terribly important to help to provide, as near as possible, the one-stop shop for big developments and to give business confidence in the process. As we have said in previous days in Committee, that is one of the most important things: to help get projects developed quickly—and the reason for the 2008 Planning Act and the changes proposed through the Bill.

I shall speak to two groups of amendments in my name. The first is Amendments 166UAA, 166BA, 166 UBB, 166UCA and 166UE, which concern the proposal that the national policy statements should be approved by both Houses of Parliament rather than just the House of Commons. It is interesting that, yesterday, the House of Commons debated and approved the six national policy statements for energy. They have been around for a long time in draft form and been subject to consultation, and it is good that the House of Commons debated them, but I suggest that there is an equal need for this House to debate such national policy statements, because there is a great deal of expertise among your Lordships about issues that are likely to come within the national policy statement framework. It seems equitable that we should debate them too. I am sure that noble Lords will have good contributions to make, and I hope that the noble Lord or the noble Baroness—I do not know which of them will reply—will take that seriously. It should have happened under the 2008 Act, but it did not, so here we are today.

The other amendment in my name, Amendment 166VZB, was proposed to me by Network Rail—which, as the Committee will know, is in the private sector but receives about £4 billion of public money. As the Committee will also know, the Government are rightly putting great pressure on Network Rail to save money. It is involved in a large number of usually quite small investments to create more capacity, meet growing demand and improve network reliability. Of course, many of these investments require planning permissions and other consents to deliver the works effectively on time and within budget. This amendment is designed to facilitate the process and, clearly, to reduce costs.

I am afraid that I have to go into a little of the background on this. Network Rail is the statutory successor in title to the original railway companies and it has fairly extensive permitted development rights, or PDRs, which confer the necessary planning authority, subject to prior approval in some cases, for works. However, it is often necessary to seek additional powers to supplement those powers both for related works outside the existing rail corridor and to acquire land and rights over land.

The methods for seeking authority for railway works has historically been by means of Private Bills—which we do not often see these days, other than for very big projects and then they tend to be hybrid Bills—and more recently under the Transport and Works Act 1992. In England, the procedure is currently also covered by the Planning Act 2008, which requires consent for developments that are, or form part of, a nationally significant infrastructure project, or NSIP, to be authorised by a development consent order. An NSIP is a project for the construction or alteration of a railway, but not where the alteration of a railway is authorised by permitted development rights. Of course, there is no national policy statement for railway projects at the moment. Whether there will be in the future, we do not know, so further guidance is not available. Therefore, many of the Network Rail schemes will not be covered by PDRs, and it will need to seek development consent in addition to using existing PDRs.

It is interesting that, for example, Network Rail is, as noble Lords will know, in the middle of a project to electrify the Great Western main line. It involves demolishing a number of bridges, some track widening and lots of little bits of work over 100 miles or so of track—two track or four track. Discussions with the IPC and the Department for Transport have revealed some questions about the interpretation of the rules in relation to the delivery of rail projects. Most of them are covered by PDRs but some elements of this scheme may not be. They may include a mixture of works authorised by PDRs and those to be authorised in other ways. Where works are covered by PDRs, the Planning Act is not clear whether they can be, or whether they have to be, included in a development consent application as part of an NSIP. That is causing delay and quite a lot of concern.

Network Rail clearly needs flexibility. If it takes, say, two or three years to go through a process between a design being sufficiently advanced and the start of construction, that is going to cause a lot of delay to its projects. Experience to date suggests that the time to be allowed for the full IPC process, from consultation to authorisation, is approximately 30 months. Whether the process would be quicker with a hybrid Bill, as is proposed for the new high-speed line, I do not know. I suspect that it is a bit quicker but no one is suggesting a hybrid Bill for the Great Western.

A procedure carried out by means of permitted development rights can be completed within a matter of weeks where proposals are notified as a matter of policy. Where prior approvals are required, it may take a little longer, but it is also a lot quicker.

There is also the question of minor works. There is no threshold for rail schemes requiring development consent. Where PDRs do not exist, minor works such as alterations to structures, which are not nationally significant, might be caught up in the definition of an NSIP and therefore require consent. Therefore, this all needs clarification.

I am pleased that Network Rail welcomes the changes that the Localism Bill will make to the planning Act, but there need to be further discussions between the Department for Transport and Ministers to clarify some of the issues which I raised and which this amendment would help to satisfy. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response. I am happy to have more discussions, but I hope that they will take Network Rail’s concerns seriously in this regard.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment. I declare an interest in that my eldest son, Thomas, is a ganger with Network Rail; he is not in the high echelons of management, but he is a ganger with firsthand experience of working on the line, doing maintenance and improvements. No one wants a situation in which Network Rail, or any organisation, can disrupt public services by not fulfilling its tasks properly. Carelessness can lead to other things. Nevertheless, Network Rail, like many other companies, needs the process to be transparent and speedy. I know that it is difficult to get planning applications—or indeed any applications, such as applications for improvements to the rail network—processed speedily, but speed is needed. Anything that improves that must be a good thing. I hope that the Minister will be able to give my noble friend a positive response.