Skip to main content

1-20 of 46 results for subject:Roads

Member X
Lord Hanningfield
Subject X
Pollution control

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

Hanningfield, Lord (46)
More

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

More
Pollution control (46)

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

I shall also speak to the Question whether Clause 71 should stand part of the Bill. The clauses will allow the Secretary of State to direct a review of respectively non-ITA and existing ITA areas. I will give reasons why we object to both clauses. The ostensible principle of this...

Member
Lord Hanningfield (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 December 2007
Reference
697 c223GC
House
House of Lords

There seems to be the potential for confusion, although I thank the Minister for his fuller explanation. He has clarified what the Government expect from ITAs. We will re-read all that and, if we need to pursue this further, we will do so on Report. I beg leave to withdraw...

Member
Lord Hanningfield (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 December 2007
Reference
697 c230GC
House
House of Lords

I did not hear the Minister talk about the appointed members much. There was some concern that, whatever the policies of an ITA, if you have a lot of non-local people on it, some of them might be interpreted as being imposed on local government in that area. Perhaps the...

Member
Lord Hanningfield (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 December 2007
Reference
697 c229GC
House
House of Lords

Can we have some more clarity before Report about how the Government think the composition and function of ITAs might work?

Member
Lord Hanningfield (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 December 2007
Reference
697 c233GC
House
House of Lords

I thank the Minister for that reply. I somehow think that we have to write provisions into everything these days to make certain that they happen. I am grateful to the Government for saying that, even if they will not accept my wording now, they will take the matter back...

Member
Lord Hanningfield (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 December 2007
Reference
697 c223GC
House
House of Lords

moved Amendment No. 71C: 71C: Clause 67, page 57, line 41, leave out ““and efficiency”” and insert ““, efficiency, integration and sustainability”” The noble Lord said: Recommendation number 34 of the Transport Select Committee makes a good deal of sense. The criteria for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of transport...

Member
Lord Hanningfield (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 December 2007
Reference
697 c221-2GC
House
House of Lords

moved Amendment No. 78B: 78B: Clause 72, page 62, line 18, at end insert— ““( ) A change to constitutional arrangements by virtue of this section is to be made only with the consent of the authorities comprised in the ITA area.”” The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment...

Member
Lord Hanningfield (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 December 2007
Reference
697 c226-7GC
House
House of Lords

I thank the Minister for that answer. I am pleased with what he said. Obviously, guidance will be very important. He said that it would clarify when the Secretary of State might have to take such powers. Generally, one would want it to be the local authorities initiating it. I...

Member
Lord Hanningfield (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 December 2007
Reference
697 c224GC
House
House of Lords

moved Amendment No. 80D: 80D: Clause 100, page 76, line 23, at end insert— ““(2) After subsection (1)(c) insert ““, or (d) vehicle classification and weight thresholds if variable charging is used””.”” The noble Lord said: This matter is related to our last discussion. The Bill makes provision to ensure...

Member
Lord Hanningfield (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 December 2007
Reference
697 c243-4GC
House
House of Lords

I, too, have some sympathy with the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, which covers my earlier points. Non-elected people appointed to ITAs should have some knowledge or be involved in the local situation. Local transport issues are very pertinent to the locality.

Member
Lord Hanningfield (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 December 2007
Reference
697 c231GC
House
House of Lords

We, too, have some sympathy for and empathy with the amendment, but do not know quite how it would work. I hope that the Minister can give some encouragement to some citizens, perhaps along the lines suggested by the Liberal Democrats.

Member
Lord Hanningfield (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 December 2007
Reference
697 c219GC
House
House of Lords

I do not have further questions at the moment but I made a very valid point. I shall read the Minister’s answer to ensure that it clarifies the position sufficiently; otherwise, I may ask further probing questions on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Member
Lord Hanningfield (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
17 December 2007
Reference
697 c244GC
House
House of Lords

moved Amendment No. 17: 17: Clause 12, page 14, line 24, at end insert— ““(3) In subsection (3)(c) (authorities to consult etc) after ““affected by it”” insert ““and neighbouring Local Transport Authorities””.”” The noble Lord said: The Bill does not seek to amend the people and organisations required to be...

Member
Lord Hanningfield (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 December 2007
Reference
696 c90-1GC
House
House of Lords

I speak to Amendments Nos. 9 and 10, which complement Amendment No. 7A. An authority's consultation requirements when producing a local transport plan are stated clearly in the subsection of the Bill to which this amendment applies. I suggest that there is a case to include two further points to...

Member
Lord Hanningfield (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 December 2007
Reference
696 c50-1GC
House
House of Lords

That was very interesting but I hope that the Minister can help us further. I have some of the clarification that I wanted and, with that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 9 to 10A not moved.]

Member
Lord Hanningfield (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 December 2007
Reference
696 c58GC
House
House of Lords

I should like to reinforce that point. I should have raised it because it is important, and I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. I am thinking in terms of a very big local area agreement being constructed. Initially the Government said that the local transport plan could be...

Member
Lord Hanningfield (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 December 2007
Reference
696 c57-8GC
House
House of Lords

Perhaps the noble Lord should have some experience of opposition. When one is in opposition, even if one supports parts of legislation, as I do in this case, it is still one’s job to get clarification—as I am seeking to do through these amendments. My amendment is not to change...

Member
Lord Hanningfield (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 December 2007
Reference
696 c56GC
House
House of Lords

I am rather disappointed that the Minister was so negative about this amendment. If it created a precedent for other partnerships, it would probably be a good precedent. I totally support the partnership working that local authorities and others should do these days. In future most services will have to...

Member
Lord Hanningfield (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 December 2007
Reference
696 c60GC
House
House of Lords

moved Amendment No. 1: 1: Clause 2, page 2, line 12, after ““appropriate”” insert ““following consultation with the senior traffic commissioner and representatives from local transport authorities”” The noble Lord said: In moving these amendments my primary concern is that, despite the increased flexibility of the traffic commissioner network proposed...

Member
Lord Hanningfield (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 December 2007
Reference
696 c35-6GC
House
House of Lords

I thank the noble Baroness for her answer. She certainly sympathised with my view that these people need to be consulted. We would have liked them to have been mentioned. One could say that while local authorities are sufficiently covered, there is no requirement for the rail side of things....

Member
Lord Hanningfield (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 December 2007
Reference
696 c92GC
House
House of Lords