Localism Bill

My Lords, this is an interesting group of amendments. The Minister explained their purpose very well, but it seems to me that the pendulum is swinging from local authorities, PTEs and ITAs et cetera getting a bit frightened of what they are allowed to do to something that is beginning to look like a Henry VIII clause in the transport field. That is probably quite a good thing, actually. It seems that they are going to be given powers to do anything. Perhaps the noble Earl could explain whether this could include, in respect of the integrated transport authorities or the passenger transport executives, things such as operating rail franchises if they felt like it. Could they take a bigger role in sponsoring and deciding how the franchises were run, and what would be the extent of their financial commitment to it? Could those authorities go as far as was recently planned in Merseyside: for Merseytravel to run a vertically integrated railway and take over the infrastructure from Network Rail? It was interesting that that authority had been lobbying to do this for at least five years, if not 10, but then just as the McNulty report, which might have encouraged them to do it, came out it decided that it was not going to do it because it was too risky. However, it is an interesting option that may be open to other authorities. What will they do in running trams and operating buses? The prospect of even better integration between different types of services would be good, if it happened. Would those authorities run something like Crossrail? I do not know, but then comes another question. Since they cannot borrow money—that seems quite clear—could they introduce road user charging or a congestion charging system, as Manchester tried to do? It was a great mistake that that was voted down in a referendum, but then I suppose you do not really need to ask motorists whether they would like to pay more to come into a town. You know what the answer is going to be. If the money was going to be used for some pretty good transport system such as Manchester has, especially with trams, it is a bit sad that it did not go that way. However, those authorities might be able to do this in future if these amendments are accepted. I wonder whether those authorities would be able to become developers in their own right. We know that there will be a few pence on the business rates to pay for Crossrail within London, but one way to earn revenue for what you might call urban transport schemes is to make some money out of the developments that will happen above the interchange points or stations because the value of the property is enhanced by its proximity to good transport links. That has of course been perfected in Hong Kong over many years. We do not seem to be very keen on that, but it would be rather good if some of these authorities could do it. I do not know whether ideas such as that are included in the powers in this Bill. I have one specific point on proposed new Clause 102C(5), on page 15 of the Marshalled List, which I do not quite understand. It says: "““Section 102B(1)(e) does not authorise an ITA to do things for a commercial purpose in relation to a person if a statutory provision requires the ITA to do those things in relation to the person””." I am no parliamentary draftsman, but the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said that they always get it right. If that is the case, and I am sure that it is, perhaps he can explain what it means because it does not mean a lot to me. I also notice that if any local authority gets something wrong, if the Secretary of State does not like what it is doing he seems to be able to stop anything that he wants. However, that could be quite a breath of fresh air to local authorities, and I hope that they will grasp the nettle and try things out. I hope that they will be able to raise money from those who can afford to pay, because we would get a much better transport infrastructure network in these important areas if that happens.