HL Deb 01 November 1999 vol 606 cc630-40

266B.—(1) This section applies where, by virtue of an order made by the Greater London Authority under section 14B(2) above, a highway or proposed highway becomes, or ceases to be, a GLA road.

(2) The Greater London Authority may, if it is necessary in connection with the highway becoming, or ceasing to be, a GLA road, by order make schemes containing provision for or in connection with the transfer from the former highway authority to the new highway authority of rights and liabilities under contracts of employment.

(3) The rights and liabilities which may be transferred by such a scheme include rights and liabilities which would not otherwise be capable of being transferred or assigned.

(4) Subsections (5) to (7) below apply where any rights or liabilities under a contract of employment are transferred by virtue of this Act.

(5) Anything done by or in relation to the former highway authority in respect of the employee before the day on which the transfer of the rights and liabilities takes effect shall be treated on and after that day as done by or in relation to the new highway authority.

(6) For the purposes of Part XI of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (redundancy payments etc) the employee shall not be regarded as having been dismissed by virtue of the transfer.

(7) For the purposes of that Act, the employee's period of employment with the former highway authority shall count as a period of employment with the new highway authority, and the change of employment shall not break the continuity of the period of employment.

(8) An order under this section shall be of no effect unless—

  1. (a) it is made with the consent of the relevant highway authority; or
  2. (b) if that consent is refused, it is confirmed (with or without modification) by the Secretary of State.

(9) For the purposes of subsection (8) above, the relevant highway authority is—

  1. (a) in a case where the order under section 14B above directs that a highway or proposed highway shall become a GLA road, the former highway authority; and
  2. (b) in a case where the order directs that a GLA road shall cease to be such a road, the new highway authority."

(10) Section 266A(9) above also applies for the purposes of this section.".").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 267 [GLA side roads]:

Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 68: Page 162, line 16, after second ("roads") insert ("or part or parts thereof")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 68 I suggest that the House discusses also Amendments Nos. 69 to 71. This group of amendments follows the considerable new clauses that were added to the Bill at the Report stage and had originally been sparked off by the suggestion that there was confusion between what would be GLA roads and what would remain borough, or, in the case of the City, City Corporation roads. Particular reference was made at the time to the so-called "ring of steel".

When I saw the amendments that were accepted by the House at the Report stage I thought that they were ingenious. The problem is how to deal with the side roads and the junctions. The anxiety of the boroughs and of the City Corporation had been that the short lengths of all the side roads adjacent to GLA roads would become the responsibility of Transport for London. The question was raised as to whether Transport for London would be the body, for instance, to deal with loose kerbstones or broken paving stones. That is a function of a highway authority whereas Transport for London is concerned with traffic.

The solution was chosen—I thought that it was sensible—that for those lengths of the side roads the boroughs and the City Corporation would remain the traffic authority (which is what TfL is primarily concerned with) while leaving the boroughs and the City as the highway authority. However, since those amendments were tabled and agreed by the House at Report stage the City of Westminster has taken legal advice about the drafting of the new clauses. It was intended that the Bill should affect short lengths of the side roads adjacent to the GLA roads but, as drafted, the clauses now appear to transfer the traffic authority for the whole of each side road to Transport for London. If this is intended—I do not believe it is—the effect would be to hand control to TfL of a great many local authority roads, particularly in central London where the GLA road network is already expected to be more dense than elsewhere in London.

Westminster City Council has been advised by the Minister's department that it is intended that the division should mirror the current powers of the traffic director in relation to red route returns, as the side roads to red routes are called. However, that is not a valid parallel; the legislation is quite different. The traffic director currently is neither the traffic nor the highway authority for red routes or their returns.

Section 50 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 allows the Secretary of State to designate any road in London as a priority or red route. He did this in a 1992 statutory instrument without any reference being made to side roads or red route returns. Section 53 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 requires the traffic director to produce a network plan of what he wishes to see on red routes. The traffic director's network plan states that he expects red lines to be extended into the junctions with red routes by 10 or 20 metres. I recollect that at earlier stages of the Bill those were the numbers mentioned as the extent of TfL's interest in the side roads.

To legislate for a standard pattern such as that is not very sensible. Westminster now has a good many red routes in its area. The council has put round some extremely informative leaflets and other information to residents in dwellings adjacent to red routes. The length of the red route returns varies. In each case it has been decided on an individual basis after discussions with consultants and with the traffic director. Westminster City Council is concerned that the clauses added on Report will potentially give the mayor and Transport for London much more power in their role as traffic authority than the city council would want to see or than the Government have informally indicated they intend.

This issue was not raised fully on Report because by that time the amendments came so thick and fast—we have just had several more pages added—that it was difficult for the authorities to keep up with it. However, having looked at the issue and discussed it with officials in the Minister's department, Westminster City Council feels anxious that the Bill does not fulfil the Government's intention. The department suggested that it could not be put right; that it was too difficult to amend. Westminster City Council has sought to do so, and I have tabled these four amendments. They seek to implement what the Government really intend; namely, that the division of functions should apply only to short lengths of side roads adjacent to GLA roads. I beg to move.

Earl Attlee

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding explained the issue far better than I ever could. It would be advisable to have a definite limit as to the extent to which a GLA road goes down a side road. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

My Lords, the amendments introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, are interesting. I am speaking from memory but I remember that we were reassured by the Minister when he introduced these clauses—which it is suggested should now be subject to amendment—that they had been put together as a result of consultation with the London boroughs and the Common Council. We now hear that one of those is alarmed about the clauses. Many people will wish to be reassured that these clauses will not result in conflict between the GLA and the London boroughs. At the time of the GLC, one of the major sources of conflict between it and the London boroughs was on precisely this issue of side roads, about where they began and where they ended. That was one of the most common causes of conflict. We would like to be reassured that Clause 267 meets the concerns of the London boroughs, which I know were expressed at an early stage of the Bill.

7.15 p.m.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, the amendments are not necessary. Some of the anxieties to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred are misplaced. Clause 267 is designed to allow the Secretary of State to designate the kind of roads which are currently subject to red route controls, including red route returns in red routes and in other GLA roads.

It is true that some of those roads do not directly join the main road. They have none the less been included in the red route return arrangements because they allow effective management of traffic and parking on the main roads. That is the established position. It is not therefore limited necessarily to junctions and a few yards down from the junction. Although this legislation is slightly different, we are seeking to give the mayor and TfL the red routes for traffic purposes and to leave the Highway Authority structure as it is. There is no intention under this clause or Clause 265 to designate vast new swathes of side roads as GLA roads. We will use it to replicate as far as possible the current boundaries of the red route network and those few other cases to which I have referred.

The intention behind this is that the GLA, the boroughs and the City will discuss areas of dispute. At the end of the day, the Secretary of State will have the final say on designation.

I regret to say that I fully expected the noble Lord to raise as an example the City of London. I therefore do not have the precise figures for the City of Westminster. But the noble Lord is interested in both cases and perhaps I may use the City of London to illustrate my point. The lengths of side roads that are subject to red route controls at the moment—and this will continue to be the case in existing red routes—vary from nil at Spital Square to 56.3 metres in Threadneedle Street. We are therefore talking about relatively short amounts of road within the City. There are some roads in the City which are not currently red routes but which will become GLA roads. I think the noble Lord is familiar with those. We do not envisage any significantly different pattern from the existing red route roads. We shall be discussing with the City corporation what should be the boundaries for traffic authority purposes.

I can assure the House that this matter will be approached on the same basis as the red routes and that a similar pattern will emerge. The extent of a side road so designated will be limited; disputes about future designation will be subject to conciliation between the boroughs, the City, the GLA and TfL; and the Secretary of State will have the final say. In no sense are we attempting a major grab of borough or City roads. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will not pursue his amendments.

Lord Jenkin of Roding

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. He has taken some pains to explain the position of the Government and what they intend to do. It seems to me at this stage that is what is most important. The noble Lord indicated that he would be discussing with the City Corporation the application of these clauses to its roads. Having heard what has been said, I am sure that discussions with Westminster will be continued. That council now has a number of red routes and will also have GLA roads in its area. Of course, if amendments are found to be necessary, there is an opportunity for them to be added in another place because this is an amendment to the main clause and amendments have been added in this House. In the circumstances, it would be quite inappropriate for me to press these amendments and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 68.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 69 to 71 not moved.]

Clause 290 [Road user charging]:

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 72 Page 181, line 44, at end insert— ("(4) Subject to subsection (6) below, any charging scheme established pursuant to this section shall cease to take effect and may not be revived if at any time after 12 months from the commencement of the charging scheme there is not in existence a scheme to improve transport arrangements (including schemes to assist the movement of pedestrians) within Greater London ("an improvement scheme") in the operation or establishment of which the net proceeds of the charging scheme (within the meaning given it in Schedule 22) are applied. (5) For the purposes of subsection (4), an improvement scheme shall be regarded as coming into existence on the commencement of works to give effect to the improvement scheme and shall be regarded as terminating when the improved arrangements in question first become available for use by the public. (6) Subsection (4) above shall not apply at any time if, in the preceding four years ended on the day in question, a ballot of the residents of the area to which the charging scheme applies resulted in a vote in favour of the continuation of the charging scheme by a majority notwithstanding that there might be no improvement scheme in place.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, just as Clauses 290 and 291 are different although they both deal with the same thing, so Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 differ. They differ in respect of one word. The first deals with the issue of charges—congestion charging—and the other deals with the question of licences: that is, licences for workplace parking.

We have discussed these issues fairly fully at previous stages, but it is worth noting two things. First, although I suspect that the noble Lord the Minister may not be prepared to listen to me tonight and accept the amendments, I hope that he will agree that in drafting the amendments we at least have listened to his remarks made at Report stage. He said then that we had not given either the mayor or Londoners the opportunity to consider the future of these two charging schemes. They are two putative charging schemes, because they do not come into effect until the mayor decides to introduce them.

It is important to remember that, together with the fact that the terms upon which they are introduced include restrictions which appear in Schedules 22 and 23, which say that they can be introduced only if they are used to further the mayor's transport aims and strategies. That is the way the Bill stands so far as the introduction of the schemes is concerned. These are local schemes, but it is worth noting in parenthesis that one hears that they are beginning to attract some note in other parts of the country outside London. Indeed, it is understood that one or two leaders of other authorities are beginning to speculate on what they might or might not do if they were given the opportunity to consider similar schemes. The leader of Birmingham City Council was speculating this morning that he might have some difficulty with a workplace licensing scheme until he had managed to improve public transport quite considerably. That is a perfectly valid position for him to take. I say nothing about the politics of the situation.

I do not expect the noble Lord the Minister to comment on this. After all, he cannot comment on provisions that might be introduced in legislation at some point in the future. We have to accept that. However, it looks as though there may be national legislation which may result in this sort of scheme being adopted on a wider basis. If that were to happen, what has been decided in relation to London could be taken into account at that point and, if need be, amended as a consequence of that national situation.

However, I come back to the main point that I was seeking to enunciate at Report stage, which is that this Bill is a Bill for London. It is a Bill about London and for Londoners. If the mayor in due time introduces schemes either for congestion charging or for workplace licensing he will be doing that for and on behalf of Londoners, because he is satisfied that he can persuade Londoners that this is a worthwhile thing to do. I think all that is perfectly reasonable. The question he will have to ask himself when he comes to make that decision is whether the limited time for which he has certainty of revenue is sufficient.

As the Bill is drafted, he has certainty only for 10 years, or at least that is what it appears that the Government intend. After that, it is a lottery. You can see the sticky fingers of the Treasury itching already, almost going red with rubbing, at the thought that they might be able to get hold of these sums of money. I have to say that this will be a considerable disincentive to anyone who actually has to take the odium of deciding to introduce these charges.

I am absolutely clear in my own mind—I have the support of noble friends behind me—that we are discussing a Bill about London and for Londoners. As I have said already, if that is the case, we should accept these amendments. They actually take into account the points which were raised about the possible long-term future of such schemes and the possibility that the mayor, on behalf of London, or, as the noble Lord the Minister was hinting at Report stage and as we have put it ourselves, the people of London themselves should have the opportunity to decide to continue with such schemes so that the revenue is available to Londoners and for London even if there is not a scheme of transport improvement immediately available on which to spend the money.

This is provided for on the basis of a motion, which could be put on to a ballot paper within the area of the scheme or indeed across the whole of London if that was required, at an election prior to there being no future schemes available on which to spend the money within the original terms of reference set out in the schedule. There would be no particular extra cost involved in that, because the four-year time-scale permits a London election to come within that time and any mayor worth his salt will be able to see this situation coming and therefore provide for it at a normal election.

I think that has answered the criticism of the amendments that were put forward at Report stage. We have listened to that criticism, and I think these present amendments are such that the Government really ought to accept them. I say that in the knowledge that a national scheme may come along at some point in the future. If it does, and if these schemes have to be altered in the light of such a national scheme, that is fair enough; that is the way the system works. However, at the moment we are talking about London. In that context, these amendments are good and I am pleased to propose them in the interests of London and Londoners at large. I beg to move.

7.30 p.m.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

My Lords, we have grave doubts about these amendments. One of the implications of the second part of the noble Lord's proposed additional text will be to limit the length of time during which an improvement scheme may be paid for by a system of charging. That seems a strange idea, particularly when one considers how consistently we have argued that that timespan should be lengthened and not shortened.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Lord has listened to a number of arguments that I put at the previous stage. However, his solution to the points I made has been to table an even more complicated system whereby he has set down what could be rather subjective criteria to decide whether to fund further value-for-money transport schemes and then to provide an override so that the whole of London would have the chance to end such schemes.

We have put in place a far simpler approach. The schemes will be totally hypothecated for 10 years. While I note the noble Lord's graphic description of the Treasury, I should say that the Treasury has been imaginative and forthcoming in its support of this novel approach. Furthermore, I have the full support of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A system has been put in place that will review the schemes after 10 years. Whether further value-for-money transport schemes will be made available will be one criterion; indeed the total financing situation of the GLA may be a criterion. We are looking for a review in financial and transport situations that we cannot fully envisage at this point. It seems sensible to review for the reasons I have argued at previous stages of the Bill. However, it is not sensible to set down on the face of the Bill the criteria against which that review will take place.

I believe we all agree that after 10 years there are almost certain to be additional value-for-money transport infrastructure projects in London. We accept that; nevertheless, there should be a review of the process, and 10 years seems a sensible period for that. However, we do not wish to set down in concrete terms the details of that review. When the mayor enters office, he or she will have the assurance that any scheme introduced under these clauses either on workplace parking or on road user charges will run for 10 years and that the money will be hypothecated for 10 years. It may be that after the review in 10 years' time that situation will continue, or that, if the review should so indicate, the situation could continue on a different financing basis.

However, it is necessary not to be so prescriptive on the face of the Bill. The noble Lord has admonished the Government for being too prescriptive about what will happen next year and therefore I ask him not to be prescriptive about what will happen in 10 years' time. Clearly my remarks relate to London and nowhere else, but it may be the case that experience gained elsewhere may influence London in 10 years' time. I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue the amendments.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, perhaps I may deal, first, with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. The second part of my amendment does not place any form of time limit on anything. It defines only the time for which an individual scheme may run. However, there is no limit to the number of schemes, and those individual schemes could run for a very long time indeed.

The Minister expressed concern that I am being over-prescriptive. We have debated this issue before and the truth of the matter is that this whole Bill is one huge great prescription. It is getting bigger all the time. When we have finished with the Bill tonight, it will be an even bigger prescription. The thought that I am being over-prescriptive by adding something like 25 lines does not make sense.

The Minister has stated that there will be a review after 10 years. That review may go extremely well. However, the mayor is to have the opportunity to establish major infrastructure projects and those are financed over very long periods. Of course the Minister may say that such schemes will need to be funded for as long as is needed. However, if I were the mayor, I would come up with two or three schemes with 40 to 60-year payback periods and ensure that London benefited from them for a long period of time in that way. That course is open to the mayor.

I am afraid that I disagree with the Minister on this issue. We have debated the matter before and he has been kind enough to say that I am consistent in my views. I believe that we should test the opinion of the House.

7.35 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 72) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 134.

Division No. 4
CONTENTS
Alexander of Tunis, E. Cross, V.
Anelay of St. Johns, B. Denham, L.
Astor of Hever,L. Dixon-Smith, L.
Attlee, E. Dundee, E.
Belstead, L. Fookes, B.
Biddulph, L. Geddes, L.
Blatch, B. Glentoran, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L. Higgins, L.
Bridgeman, V. HolmPatrick, L.
Burnham, L. [Teller] Hooper, B.
Carnegy of Lour, L. Jenkin of Roding, L.
Chadlington, L. Liverpool, E.
Cochrane of Cults, L. Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Colwyn, L. Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L. Mackay of Drumadoon, L.
Mancroft, L. Park of Monmouth, B.
Marlesford, L. Patten, L.
Miller of Hendon, B. Seccombe, B. [Teller]
Mills, V. Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Monro of Langholm, L. Strathcarron, L.
Napier and Ettrick, L. Torrington, V.
Norrie, L. Trefgarne, L.
Northbrook. L. Trenchard, V.
Northesk, E. Wade of Chorlton, L.
O'Cathain, B. Wise, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Acton, L. Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Addington, L. Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.
Ahmed, L. Hollick, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V. Hollis of Heigham, B.
Alli, L. Howie of Troon. L,
Amos, B. Hoyle, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L. Hughes of Woodside, L.
Ashley of Stoke, L. Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B. Islwyn, L.
Bach, L. Jacobs, L.
Barker, B. Janner of Braunstone, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L. Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord
Berkeley, L. Privy Seal)
Blackstone, B. Jenkins of Putney, L.
Blease, L. Judd, L.
Brett, L. Kennet, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Kilbracken, L.
Brookman, L. Kintore, E.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L. Kirkhill, L.
Burlison, L. Lea of Crondall, L.
Carlile of Berriew, L. Lipsey, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. Lockwood, B.
Carter, L. [Teller] Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L. McCarthy, L.
Clinton-Davis, L. Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L. McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Crawley, B. [Teller]
Dahrendorf, L. McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
David. B. Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
Davies of Coity, L. McNair, L.
Davies of Oldham, L. Mallalieu, B.
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B. Mar and Kellie, E.
Desai, L. Milner of Leeds, L.
Dholakia, L. Molyneaux of Killead, L.
Dixon, L. Monkswell, L.
Donoughue, L. Morris of Manchester, L.
Dormand of Easington, L. Nicol, B.
Dubs, L. Orme, L.
Eatwell, L. Patel, L.
Elder, L. Pitkeathley, B.
Evans of Parkside, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L. Prys-Davies, L.
Falkland, V. Puttnam, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B. Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L. Redesdale, L.
Filkin, L. Rendell of Babergh, B.
Fitt, L. Rennard, L
Gale, B. Sainsbury of Turville, L.
Gilbert, L. Scotland of Asthal, B.
Glanusk, L. Sefton of Garston, L.
Goldsmith, L. Sharp of Guildford, B.
Gould of Potternewton, B. Shepherd, L.
Grabiner, L. Sheppard of Liverpool, L.
Grenfell, L. Simon, V.
Grey, E. Smith of Clifton, L.
Hacking, L. Strabolgi, L.
Hamwee, B. Strange, B.
Hardy of Wath, L. Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Harris of Greenwich, L. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Harris of Haringey, L. Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Harris of Richmond, B. Thornton, B.
Harrison, L. Tope, L.
Hayman, B. Tordoff, L.
Varley, L. Whitty, L.
Walker of Doncaster, L. Wilkins, B.
Williams of Crosby, B.
Wallace of Saltaire, L. Williams of Mostyn, L.
Warwick of Undercliffe, B. Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Lord Burlison

My Lords, I beg to move that further proceedings after Third Reading be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the House does not return to this business before 8.45 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.