Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Earl Attlee (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 28 June 2011. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Localism Bill.


Localism Bill

My Lords, I thank the Committee for the time, effort and thought that has been put into the amendments on these clauses. I particularly welcome some of the sensible comments of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, after he gave me his fairly firm strictures. We welcome such constructive contributions. I have taken on board the strictures of the Committee and I accept that there is much more that we need to do on these clauses. I also believe that the House is well placed to find a solution. Given the significance of these provisions, I intend to give a full reply. However, I will avoid getting involved in a debate about the EU or the desirability of any particular directive. On any relevant points that I do not answer, I will write in due course. The basic principle is, I think, sound. The aim is to encourage authorities not to incur fines for the UK in the first place and, in the unprecedented circumstances that the UK is fined for an infraction, to achieve compliance quickly. We do not want to pay escalating fines to Europe. As many noble Lords have pointed out, we have never incurred fines for an infraction and do not see these provisions as a prelude to being more relaxed about infraction proceedings or fines. My noble friend Lord Tope, in his speech, accepts that it is very unlikely that EU fines would be incurred. The whole point of the policy is to avoid the fines in the first place. My noble friends Lady Gardner of Parkes and Lady Scott of Needham Market, the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, and others raised the issue of the air quality directive and the difficulty of apportioning liability to certain types of directive. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Tope deals with this problem in conjunction with the amendment of my noble friend Lady Gardner, although I have to caution that it may have unintended consequences in this respect, so further consideration is required. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked whether these clauses are aimed at just a few specific EU directives. I go back to my point that that is not the case; they are about avoiding problems in the first place.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
728 c1694-5 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Devolved matters Business Air pollution Arts Fees and charges Land Fines Infrastructure European communities EU action Domestic waste Local government Northern Ireland Pay Payments Property transfer Public sector Business rates Referendums Procurement Local government services Public participation Staff Low pay Scotland Small businesses Wales Waste disposal Tax rates and bands Regeneration Sanctions Petitions
Legislation
Localism Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk