TRANSFERS OF PROPERTY RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES (Hansard, 28 March 1985)

§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

I beg to move amendment No. 40, in page 66, line 23, at end insert— `(3A) Prior to the making of any Order relating to the functions of the Greater London Council specified in subsection (3B) below the Secretary of State shall consult with the statutory bodies, user representatives, and persons principally concerned with each specified function. (3B) The specified functions in respect of Section (3A) above shall be:

(i) Ownership, operations and control of the Thames Flood Barrier and associated flood control structures and facilities.
(ii) Ownership and operations of the Woolwich Free Ferry and its associated plant and facilities.
(iii) Ownership and operation of piers on the River Thames.
(iv) Ownership and maintenance of bridges over the River Thames.
(v) Ownership, maintenance, and control of pedestrian and vehicle tunnels under the River Thames.'.

740 It is entirely appropriate that this may be the last Opposition amendment dealt with on this unsatisfactory Bill, because it deals with the powers and responsibilities of the GLC in respect of the River Thames. The Thames is London's major natural feature and all good government has to do with its control and use.

The GLC, with Government assistance, having spent £800 million of public money on matters such as flood control, on the operation of which it spends over £36 million a year, the Government have made no provision in the Bill for what shall happen to that basic fundamental function. In doing that they show their lack of consideration and understanding for the basic principles of government within Greater London.

My amendment would give the Government power to transfer to any body or person responsibilities currently under the control of the GLC. My amendment makes mandatory on the Government the responsibility of consultation in respect of functions relating to the Thames, in particular, the flood barrier and the Woolwich free ferry, both of which have one end in my constituency, and all its bridges, piers and tunnels. The importance of all those features is that they connect either side of the river or provide features which are common, particularly piers, along the length of the river.

The Government have made one move in that direction. Late last night the Minister of State, Department of Transport handed me a letter which told me that the Government were proposing to the London boroughs of Newham and Greenwich that they should jointly run the Woolwich ferry. There was no mention of how much it would cost. It is a trunk road facility, and relatively few of the vehicles that use the Woolwich ferry originate in either Woolwich or Newham. There is no information about how the existing facilities, which also deal with the Thames water authority vessels, should be used or managed. That is typical of the way in which the Government have dealt with fundamental facilities in London. Flood control and prevention are just two of those facilities. In the closing minutes of the proceedings on the Bill we still have no real idea of what will happen.

If there had been consultation, even with those who know something about the matter, the relatively ludicrous idea of splitting control of the important Woolwich ferry into two would not have been put forward. Moreover, are the Government suggesting that Westminster bridge, for example, should be controlled by the Cities of London and Westminster, on the one hand, and by Lambeth, on the other? Are the bridges to be dealt with borough by borough when a coherent and unified department has been running them not just since the creation of the London county council, but since before 1889? The Metropolitan Board of Works built bridges prior to the creation of the LCC.

As the Bill moves towards the final guillotine, we are faced with the ludicrous possibility of London's bridges being guillotined by the Government so that there are boroughs on either side. I am glad that the Minister of State, Department of Transport shakes her head at that. I am very relieved. But the situation illustrates the parlous state into which parliamentary democracy has fallen. We have £40 million or £50 million of revenue expenditure on London's basic services, and on its flood control, bridges, ferries, piers and tunnels, yet we do not know how they are to be run or controlled, or what will happen to the staff. Therefore the guillotine—