London Regional Transport (Amendment) Bill (Hansard, 11 March 1985)

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

§ Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for having written to me on the leasing of London buses, which was a point raised by myself and a number of other noble Lords in the debate on 4th March. The letter he sent to me explains to some extent the concern of the Government over leasing, but it does not answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, who, at column 1126, asked the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara: Is he suggesting to the House that because the GLC had acted in a way which he or the Government do not like, that justifies the Government bringing in retrospective legislation? What we have been concerned about all along in this Bill, and which has not properly been explained, is the retrospective effect of this legislation and the firm feeling that the Secretary of State is concerned more with creating a surplus than merely balancing London Regional Transport for the next year.
In fact, on rereading the debate and looking closely at the figures given, it appears to many of us on this side of the House that because of the two-thirds rule, which we discussed earlier in terms of the ceiling which London Regional Transport could ask from the GLC, the ratepayers of London are being robbed of a third of the total value of £50 million. We still believe that it is an unsatisfactory Bill which sets a very poor precedent for the control of London transport by the Government.

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, we on this side of the House also do not like retrospective legislation. But we should distinguish between legislation which comes out of the blue and imposes obligations or removes rights with retrospective effect and legislation such as this which merely seeks to clarify the law and settle a transaction which has been left, as it were, in limbo as a result of a court decision.
Several noble Lords argued during the debate at Second Reading that the Bill is retrospective because it covers the whole of this financial year, most of which has passed. On that definition some element of retrospection was inescapable. If the Government had sought to make a new direction under existing statutory provision to settle LRT's grant for the year, that direction would have been retrospective. I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate that we could not simply leave the position as it stood following the court's decision, with no valid provision in place to cover LRT's grant requirements for the year. The matter had to be resolved somehow.
I put it to your Lordships that it does not make sense to condemn this Bill simply because it refers to a period which has now largely passed. One must look more closely at the effect of the Bill. As I made clear when the House debated the Bill last week, the Bill seeks to settle a transaction which was halted part way through the year. It will make no unforeseen demands upon the GLC and nor does it seek to make lawful the original Section 49 direction which was quashed by the courts. In fact the GLC's liability under this Bill will be £23 million less than it was under that direction. The Bill therefore does not deserve the pejorative tag which attaches to legislation which is retrospective in the true sense of the word.
The Bill will resolve the damaging uncertainty which has existed over LRT's finances for 1984–85. It seeks an outcome which is fair and reasonable to passengers, ratepayers, LRT and the GLC. It will ensure that money which passengers and ratepayers have paid for public transport during 1984–85 is used to help finance public transport services. It will ensure that LRT is not left with large unfunded liabilities to carry forward from 1984–85 which will fall as additional charges on passengers and ratepayers in future years. It will not, on the other hand, give LRT more money than is really needed. After adjusting to the loss of grant resulting from the £23.1 million which this Bill concedes to the GLC, LRT expects to have a cash surplus of about £30 million to set against accrued liabilities of some £37 million.
The Government are quite satisfied that this Bill is necessary to resolve beyond doubt the uncertainties left by the High Court judgment, to protect the interests of passengers and ratepayers, and to ensure that the Government's original intentions, as conveyed to Parliament when the London Regional Transport Act was being considered, are satisfactorily implemented. I therefore commend this Bill to your Lordships' House.

§ Lord Tordoff
My Lords, I had not intended to intervene, but since retrospection was the issue that I raised from these Benches last week, I feel that I must. I merely say this. We have listened with interest to what the noble Lord the Minister has said. I shall read 13 it in Hansard very carefully. I hope that in saying what he said he has defused any possibility of this piece of legislation being used as a precedent for any other kind of retrospective legislation in the future—that is the danger that many of us saw behind this Bill; that was my view and the view of a considerable number of other Members of your Lordships' House—on the wrong side of the retrospective divide. We were defeated in the Lobbies and therefore the House as a whole believed that it was not retrospective. But it was the danger of it coming too close to one side or the other of that divide about which I was worried. I hope that the noble Lord's words will be there for all to see, so that this Bill cannot be used as a precedent for much more retrospective legislation in the future.