| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I want to take up the issue of the MoD police authority. As I recall, it has a majority of MoD officials on it. But, with demonstrations outside bases over the years, the MoD Police have now had some considerable and long-term contact with the public. That is partly why there has been so much controversy.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the point that I was making was: what are the similarities and dissimilarities between, on the one hand, the British Transport Police and, on the other, the MoD Police? The reason that it is thought appropriate to have a BTP authority is because of the interests of the railway industry and the public in adequate policing. I am sure that the noble Lord is right. More interface takes place between MoD Police and the public than was previously the case. However, the conflict does not exist between the railway industry and the public as it does in relation to the BTP. Therefore, they are in a different position. With regard to the consultation paper on the BTP, it would be quite wrong to seek to build a similar argument in relation to the MoD Police.
I move on to the issue of powers. We propose to extend to the BTP certain powers already available to the Home Office police forces. These range from the routine, such as powers to remove from the railway young people playing truant, which will improve the effectiveness of the BTP, to powers to erect cordons
and to stop and search people and vehicles under the Terrorism Act. Since 1997, more than half of the terrorists attacks on the mainland have taken place on the railway network. The BTP are second only to the Metropolitan Police in dealing with the number of terrorist threats that are made within their jurisdiction.In the current climate of heightened security alert and the continuing terrorist threat, particularly to our transport systems, it is vital that the BTP have access to those powers in order to ensure public safety. Again, certain of those powers will be taken forward in the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill.
Finally, as I have already mentioned, we propose to set up an independent police authority, which will be based on the model of Home Office police authorities. It will oversee the management of the force and link it through the democratic process to proper accountability to the public that it serves.
During the preparation of their proposals, the Government considered alternative options for funding the BTP, including full and partial public funding. However, we concluded that the force should continue to be funded by the industry. The railway industry has played an important role in scrutinising and exercising downward pressure on costs while endeavouring to reach a balance between the overall policing level and the overall policing cost. The Government want the industry to continue that role. The move to an independent authority for the BTP will reinforce the existing arrangements for ensuring an appropriate balance between the needs of the industry and passengers who, along with the industry, benefit directly from BTP services.
The Government have provided funds for national initiatives where wider public benefits are available. They have provided £2.3 million to allow the BTP to participate fully in the new national police radio system. We have also provided funds to enable the BTP to contribute fully to the expansion of the national DNA database. Operators have also been given funds to provide greater CCTV coverage.
I turn to the issues raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, concerning joint operations. The consultation document also contains proposals for situations where a joint operation takes place between the BTP and a Home Office police force. Arrangements can be made for funding to be sorted out between the two police forces. In default of agreement being reached as to who is to pay for what, arrangements for agreement to be reached in relation to funding disputes are also set out. Therefore, provision exists in the consultation paper in relation to how other police forces will contribute to BTP costs where the BTP contribute to the activities of another police force. I believe that I have covered all the points raised by the noble Lord.
There are two other issues with which I shall deal. First, I turn to the matter of firearms. The British Transport Police will be able to carry only CS sprays and ammunition and no other type of firearm, such as guns, which were referred to earlier. Secondly, the issue of immigration and the Channel Tunnel was also
raised. The Channel Tunnel is policed by Kent police, who operate fully with the British Transport Police and Channel Tunnel operators regarding immigration. Therefore, those bodies operate together.Primary legislation will be required in order to implement many of the changes. The Government will seek to include them in suitable legislative opportunities. As I have mentioned, some of the measures include an extension of BTP jurisdiction outside the railways. The extension of powers related to anti-terrorism activities are to be taken forward in the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill published today.
The BTP have a strong reputation as an efficient national police force, dedicated to the protection of our railways and rail travellers. Our proposals for modernising the BTP will help the force to build on that reputation, improve its ability to protect the public by increasing its powers in certain areas to match those of Home Office constables, and will also ensure proper public accountability.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to pay tribute to the BTP in this debate, and I am grateful for all the comments that have been made. We shall, of course, take them all into account during the process of consultation on the consultation paper.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.27 until 8.33 p.m.]
Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [HL]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 123.
Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 72:
- After Clause 123, insert the following new clause—
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 74, 75, 83, 85 to 87, 92 and 93.
Those amendments form a group whose purpose is to remove the payment of marriage value from the calculation of the amount that someone has to pay when exercising a right of enfranchisement or to obtain an extended lease. Amendments Nos. 72, 74 and 75 deal with marriage value in the case of collective enfranchisement; Amendments Nos. 83, 85 and 86 deal with marriage value in the case of the grant of an
This is perhaps the most important issue that has been raised during our debates on the Bill. It is of great importance to the tens of thousands of leaseholders who may be considering enfranchisement or seeking extended leases and who are concerned about the price that they have to pay for them.
Marriage value in its simplest form arises when the leaseholder of a house buys the freehold and the value of the house as a freehold with vacant possession exceeds the separate market value of the leasehold and of the reversionary freehold sold as an investment. The excess is described as marriage value. The principles relating to the computation of marriage value in the cases of collective enfranchisement of blocks of flats and in the case of grant of extended leases are more complex and it would not serve any useful purpose at this time of the evening to try to explain how they work.
The increase in value—the creation of the marriage value—is due mainly to the fact that the leaseholder is a special purchaser at least in cases, as will frequently occur, when the leaseholder is in occupation. That means that the leaseholder is willing to pay more to buy the freehold than would an investor who was simply buying the freehold as an investment. The leaseholder avoids what would otherwise be the consequences of the expiring of the lease; namely, the fact that he, she or they will have to leave and find—perhaps buy—somewhere else to live. During the years leading up to that, they will go through a period of uncertainty. A leaseholder who exercises a right to enfranchise when the lease is coming towards its end—that is when the leaseholder is most likely to want to exercise the right and when the marriage value is at its greatest—is, as I have said, a special purchaser. In that situation there is no level playing field.
We say that it is right that the market price should be calculated as between a willing seller and a willing buyer, but in such a case the price is calculated on the basis of a willing seller and a buyer who is not only willing but eager to purchase. That means that the leaseholder has to pay because he is a special purchaser.
We believe that that is inappropriate; the leaseholder in such cases should be required only to pay the same as what the freeholder—or reversioner—would get if the reversion was sold as an investment and if the leaseholder was not a special purchaser but was willing to pay only what the purchaser of the lease would pay in order to purchase it as an investment again. We believe that it is appropriate to abolish marriage value in that regard and that the freeholder should be entitled to no more than what he would get for selling the freehold to an investor on the basis that the leaseholder was not a special purchaser. Otherwise, we believe that the freeholder would get the benefit of the potential detriment that would be suffered by a leaseholder who was faced with the threat of the loss of his home.
This matter has been debated at considerable length on earlier occasions and I do not propose to say anything more about it. I beg to move.
"ABOLITION OF MARRIAGE VALUES
In Schedule 6 to the 1993 Act, omit—
(a) paragraph 2(1)(b);
(b) paragraph (4);
(c) paragraph 5A(2)(b);
(d) paragraph 5C;
(e) paragraphs 9 and 9A;
(f) paragraph 10(1)(b);
(g) paragraph 12;
(h) paragraphs 15 and 16; and
(i) paragraphs 19 and 20."
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page