New Clause 1

Greater London Authority Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 3:30 pm on 18 January 2007.

Alert me about debates like this

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.

Photo of Tom Brake Tom Brake Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government), Liberal Democrat Spokesperson (Communities and Local Government)

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.

Photo of Greg Hands Greg Hands Conservative, Hammersmith and Fulham

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.

Photo of Martin Linton Martin Linton PPS (Rt Hon Harriet Harman QC, Minister of State), Department for Constitutional Affairs

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?

Photo of Greg Hands Greg Hands Conservative, Hammersmith and Fulham

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.

Photo of Jim Fitzpatrick Jim Fitzpatrick Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Employment Relations & Postal Services) 3:45, 18 January 2007

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that as a result of the consultation amendments were made to the original scheme?

Photo of Greg Hands Greg Hands Conservative, Hammersmith and Fulham

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.

Photo of Karen Buck Karen Buck Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North

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.

Photo of Greg Hands Greg Hands Conservative, Hammersmith and Fulham

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.

Photo of Andrew Slaughter Andrew Slaughter PPS (Dr Stephen Ladyman, Minister of State), Department for Transport

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.

Photo of Greg Hands Greg Hands Conservative, Hammersmith and Fulham

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.

Photo of Karen Buck Karen Buck Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North

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.

Photo of Greg Hands Greg Hands Conservative, Hammersmith and Fulham

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.

Photo of Michael Gove Michael Gove Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government) (Housing and Planning)

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.

Photo of Karen Buck Karen Buck Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North

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.

Photo of Michael Gove Michael Gove Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government) (Housing and Planning)

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.

Photo of Steve Pound Steve Pound PPS (Rt Hon Hazel Blears, Minister without Portfolio), Cabinet Office

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?

Photo of Michael Gove Michael Gove Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government) (Housing and Planning)

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.

Photo of Martin Linton Martin Linton PPS (Rt Hon Harriet Harman QC, Minister of State), Department for Constitutional Affairs

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.

Photo of Michael Gove Michael Gove Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government) (Housing and Planning)

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.

Photo of Karen Buck Karen Buck Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North 4:00, 18 January 2007

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.

Photo of Michael Gove Michael Gove Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government) (Housing and Planning)

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.

Photo of Michael Fabricant Michael Fabricant Opposition Whip (Commons)

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.

Photo of Michael Gove Michael Gove Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government) (Housing and Planning)

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—

Hon. Members:

Surrey!

Photo of Michael Gove Michael Gove Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government) (Housing and Planning)

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.

Photo of Jim Fitzpatrick Jim Fitzpatrick Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Employment Relations & Postal Services)

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.

Photo of Tom Brake Tom Brake Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government), Liberal Democrat Spokesperson (Communities and Local Government)

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—

Stephen Pound rose—

Photo of Steve Pound Steve Pound PPS (Rt Hon Hazel Blears, Minister without Portfolio), Cabinet Office

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.

Photo of Tom Brake Tom Brake Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government), Liberal Democrat Spokesperson (Communities and Local Government)

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—

Photo of Andrew Pelling Andrew Pelling Conservative, Croydon Central

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.

Photo of Tom Brake Tom Brake Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government), Liberal Democrat Spokesperson (Communities and Local Government)

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 number 19 Nimrod Review — Statement — New Clause 1

Aye: 6 MPs

No: 9 MPs

Aye: A-Z by last name

No: A-Z by last name

Question accordingly negatived.