Lords Sitting of 5 July 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ely.

Railtrack: Performance
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are disappointed with Railtrack's performance, as highlighted by the rail regulator, in relation both to increasing capacity on the west coast main line and in meeting agreed targets for reductions in delays.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, better punctuality and more capacity are both fundamental to the high-quality, high-growth railway that we want to create. Railtrack clearly needs to do more to meet its obligations. We shall look to the new regulator, Tom Winsor, who takes up his post today, to ensure that it does so.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. It is a matter of satisfaction to many people that the new rail regulator has described himself as determined to ensure that things go better in the future than they have done in the past. Nevertheless, it must be a matter of grave concern to the Government that in this country we are renewing our track about half as quickly as other major European countries; that Alastair Morton, who is the Chairman of the shadow rail authority, has described the investment plans of British Rail as a sham because so much of it is really maintenance money; and, finally, that there is now a wide assumption that the west coast main line upgrade will not make available the extra capacity for slower passenger and freight pathways which were originally promised.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in so far as that was a question, Railtrack's position is clearly not up to scratch. It is certainly an issue which the new rail regulator must address. However, it is true that Railtrack has managed to double the level of investment. The jury is still out as to whether that has met the requirements of the operators and the Government, even in the short term. Clearly, we shall have to make a judgment on the totality of Railtrack's proposals in the medium term. We hope that the combination of a sharper rail regulator—I have every confidence in him—and the way in which Railtrack is now involved in improving performance, along with the operators and the Government, will lead to a significant improvement in that performance over a relatively short period of years.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the noble Baroness's Question is extremely appropriate? I travel regularly from Birmingham New Street to Euston. This morning, there was not a train out of Birmingham New Street until eight o'clock because Railtrack is undertaking engineering works at Coventry. By how much is Railtrack subsidised by the Government and how does that compare with pre-privatisation subsidies?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, Railtrack is not subsidised directly by the Government. Government subsidies are paid to the operators and the operators pay access charges to Railtrack. The question of whether a direct subsidy should be paid to Railtrack will be addressed by the strategic rail authority when it comes into being. As the House will know, the Deputy Prime Minister indicated that he intends very shortly to introduce a railways Bill in another place.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the regulator has the power to fine Railtrack up to 10 per cent of its annual turnover if it fails to deliver? Will he confirm also that, as that money goes to the Treasury, it does not help reinvestment in the railway network? Will he ensure that included in that new railways legislation is a provision that the money is reinvested in the railways?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the provision to be able to fine Railtrack up to 10 per cent relates to competition legislation, not all of which is in place. But those regulations will allow the regulator to do as my noble friend says. The question of hypothecation of that revenue will no doubt be a matter for interesting discussion among Ministers. I note the point which my noble friend makes.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the railways were nationalised because under private ownership they could not be run at all satisfactorily in the national interest. Bearing that in mind, does my noble friend agree that the new railways legislation to be introduced should include the option of renationalisation if it is demonstrated again that the private sector cannot run the railways?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is our aim to make the current structure of the railways work, difficult though it has proved in view of the structure we inherited and the inadequate regulatory powers. We believe that the combination of an effective regulator and the new powers which we intend to introduce for the strategic rail authority, through the Bill, will give us the power to make that system work.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, in connection with delays, if a train is recorded as having arrived on time, does that mean it has arrived spot on or is it allowed a few minutes' delay? That seems to happen to my train most mornings.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that a delay IA a few minutes is allowed, but I should need to write to

577
the noble Lord to give him a precise Answer. If the operator's performance has been 90-plus per cent, I can assure the noble Lord that the delay will not have been significant. We are looking for that level of performance; but it has yet to be met in all parts of the railway network. That is due in part to the railway operators and in part to the inadequate infrastructure.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, no man can have two masters. With its involvement in the Tube system, will Railtrack work under two regulatory regimes with conflicting interests? If Railtrack's performance leaves so much to be desired, why involve it in the Tube system?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, although in many respects Railtrack has poor management and poor project performance, it has much expertise. There are considerable advantages in integrating the overground network with the sub-surface London Tube network. If we succeed in reaching an agreement with Railtrack in relation to that which is not yet delivered, there will be considerable benefits to the travelling public. Railtrack would be operating under a contract to London Underground, whereas the rest of the rail network operates under regulations.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the line from London to Anglesey has improved a great deal? Is he also aware that when I travelled on the nine o'clock train the other day I had a splendid breakfast for nothing?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am so gratified that my noble friend had that experience and that there has been some improvement on that line. I am sure that the House will register its appreciation that he has brought that to our attention.

Women's Issues: Consultation
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe Baroness Seccombe asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why no women's organisations were consulted over the decision to legalise buggery with girls under 18, and whether this is consistent with the declared policy in the document Better for Women, Better for All—Listening to Women of consulting women on all matters of concern to them.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn wrote to the noble Baroness on 7th June explaining the context and scope of the Home Office consultation on the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill. A copy of that letter was placed in the Library. The Listening to Women forums, which have been taking place in the last few months, are not relevant to that consultation by the Home Office.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the vast majority of people in the country
578
have no idea that the legislation proposed in the Bill presented to the House and rejected by your Lordships had any effect on young girls of the ages of 16 to 18? Since we last spoke about this subject, I have spoken to many people and I have been unable to find one person who knew that girls were implicated in any way in the provisions of the Bill. Does the Minister agree that it is an absolute duty of any government to alert major institutions—in this case women's organisations—as well as the general public of such a change of great importance? The Government pride themselves on communicative and consultative skills. Will the Minister ensure that there will be a wide-ranging and a country-wide debate before the Labour Government brings forward a similar Bill to promote a way of life that is unnatural, dangerous and physically harmful to girls of that age?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I disagree with about three of the premises of the noble Baroness in that extensive question. In answer to her point that all people in the country think one thing or another, the Government have clearly set out consultative arrangements for consulting women's organisations. We have the Women's National Commission. As I mentioned in answer to her first Question, we have been undertaking a series of forums around the country. Twelve regional meetings have been held on the subject. Subsequently, 25,000 postcards have been received by the Women's Unit. On no occasion has that particular issue been raised. I respectfully point out to the noble Baroness that it was made clear in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill that there was a distinction between homosexual acts and buggery and that the explicit nature of the distinction between the relationship of gender was made clear in that way.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that while there was evidence of pressure from certain quarters to lower the age for consensual buggery for boys to the age of 16, there was little evidence—perhaps no evidence at all—that there was pressure to reduce the age comparably for girls to 16?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thought I had made it clear in my Answer, but perhaps I was not sufficiently explicit. It was made absolutely clear on the face of the Bill and in the Explanatory Notes that if one seeks to achieve equality before the law on sexual behaviour in this way, that equality will include both genders.
On the other point raised by the noble Lord, he will be well aware, as my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn has reported this on the many occasions that the subject has been debated in your Lordships' House, that a large number of organisations concerned with the sexual health of young people supported this measure.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, bearing in mind the point that the Minister has made—I understand that she regards this matter as important—can she consider

579
giving a report to the House from time to time on what progress she has made and what assistance she may require from other noble Lords?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that suggestion. The Listening to Women forums that we have undertaken are ongoing. My noble friend may be interested to know that the last one is due to take place in Cardiff later this month. I shall be happy to give any reports to the House on the consultative procedures that we undertake.
Baroness Young: My Lords, will the noble Baroness reconsider her earlier answers to my noble friend Lady Seccombe? She did not address the issue as to whether or not women's organisations were consulted on this. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, made it perfectly plain in his helpful letter that no women's organisations were consulted. If I understood the Minister correctly—I read the document to which reference was made—women's organisations were not consulted at all. The question is: how will women know that this change in the law is to take place? Most women do not read Hansard or follow the intricacies of legislation.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I can only repeat what I said before. My noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn—as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, pointed out—made clear in his letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, that the part of the Bill on which consultation took place was that part relating to abuse of trust and not to the age of consent. The age of consent was an issue raised under an ECHR obligation on the Government. It was not put to either House of Parliament as an issue of government policy; it was put as a free vote and was therefore considered in that way.
I can only say to the noble Baroness that, as she would expect, I am very much involved through the Women's National Commission and other women's organisations with the opinion of women. In none of those organisations, nor in this sensitive, nationwide consultation which we have just finished, was that issue raised at all.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, will women's organisations be consulted before any similar Bill is introduced into this House?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, that will be a question for the Home Office.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that this is not so much a matter of women's rights as a matter of public health? Does she agree also that anal sex, whether undertaken heterosexually or homosexually, gives rise to a much higher risk of infection and damage? Also, a young man or boy involved in such a case, if it is heterosexual
580
intercourse, is also at risk. Are not the Government concerned about the health of young men as well as young women?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, of course. I understand from my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn that the Home Office has been in close consultation with the Department of Health on this subject, as I would expect. The noble Lord and other Members of the House may be interested to know that the last time in which the sexual offences issue was considered formally was by the previous government in 1984. The recommendation produced to Parliament by the Home Secretary of that time was,
"Most of us are of the opinion that girls do not need the protection of criminal law against anal intercourse once they have reached the age of 16".
It has obviously been a consistent position for some time.

Kosovo: Reconstruction Opportunities
2.52 p.m.
Viscount Falkland Viscount Falkland asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps are being taken to ensure that British enterprise plays an effective role in the reconstruction of Kosovo.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, at the initiative of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, a joint government/private sector taskforce has been set up to promote and co-ordinate the UK's response to the reconstruction work arising in Kosovo. All the private sector members of the taskforce are aware that they are on it as representatives of the UK business community generally, not of their own companies.
The taskforce has already met twice and a website at www.dti.gov.uk/ots/kosovo has been established. My colleague, Energy and Industry Minister John Battle, led a group of six businessmen to Kosovo on 28th and 29th June to assess the initial reconstruction opportunities. He hosted a post-visit conference on 1st July so the findings of the business mission could be disseminated more widely to UK companies.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that full and helpful Answer. Does he agree that what has to date been an Anglo-American campaign has now changed to what is de facto a European protectorate? One feature of that is that British names are not to the fore as perhaps they were during the campaign. The admirable Dr. Kouchner takes over as the United Nations representative and we are likely to see General Jackson replaced by a German general. In those circumstances, how optimistic is the noble Lord that the criteria and the judgments needed to decide who does

581
what in this massive reconstruction programme and what companies will be involved will give the British a fair crack at the whip?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know that it is proper to draw an analogy between those who took part in the air campaign—after all, 19 countries took part in that campaign—and the opportunities for reconstruction work. This country can do what it has been doing; that is, ensuring that British companies are fully informed of the opportunities; that those who are commissioning work—the European Commission set up a reconstruction agency in Pristina to deal with European Union and World Bank aid—are fully aware of what British companies can provide. I do not accept the analogy of the noble Viscount.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, will HMG be encouraging all British enterprises and the taskforce that the Minister mentioned to co-operate with the relevant Balkan businesses by contracting out locally in the countries that not only were badly affected by the war but were also extremely supportive of the NATO cause? I refer to countries like Macedonia and Bulgaria.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the original Question concerned Kosovo and that was the Question I answered. It is well recognised that there will be reconstruction needs and therefore opportunities in other parts of the Balkans, including ultimately in Serbia and Montenegro, though that depends on political decisions which have yet to be taken. But the answer to the noble Baroness is that we aim to take an active part in reconstruction, not only in Kosovo, but also in the other Balkan countries.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind the international reputation of British civil engineers in bridge building, will my noble friend advise the House that the Government will take all the action they can to ensure that British civil engineering firms win the contracts to rebuild the bridges over the Danube?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the civil engineering industry is well represented on the taskforce. The membership of the taskforce was chosen by Nigel Thompson of Ove Arup who is the chairman of the taskforce. It includes a number of civil engineering companies. The priorities for the business mission which took place last week were supply contracts, project and facilities management and consultancy. The most urgent work appears to be in restoring the power and water supply systems.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I understand a French civil/military taskforce reached Kosovo before the formal end of the war? Our own taskforce may therefore need to develop a sense of urgency. Also, can the Minister say something about the involvement of the voluntary
582
sector, particularly given the important part it can play in education in citizenship and building democratic institutions in that country?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know that we are competing entirely on dates, but the taskforce to which I referred was set up before the end of the air conflict. The noble Baroness is right that we have to involve the voluntary sector, NGOs and the DfID field office in Pristina, which is particularly concerned with relief for refugees. As regards emergency relief, it is working through NGOs.
I should also have said to the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, that when it comes to housing, school and civil construction work, it is anticipated that a great deal of the work will be done by local resources.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, will my noble friend go a little further and say how this essential aid is to be financed? Unless we obtain a comprehensive statement in that regard, we will find ever greater expectations that the European Union budget will pick up the cost and the people who pay for it are the accession countries which we are all seeking to welcome into the European Union.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. There will, of course, have to be continuing and ongoing discussions about financing. That is why the reconstruction agency is bringing together the work of the European Union and the World Bank, which is responsible for aid for refugee housing and jobs. It should not be assumed that all of the money will come from the EU budget.

The Asian Community in England
2.59 p.m.
Lord Paul Lord Paul asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the current state of relations within the Asian community in England.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, relations within the Asian community in England are excellent. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary received a delegation of South Asian High Commissioners on 10th June. They praised the Government, the police and the community for their efforts in the wake of the recent bombings. They also reassured the Home Secretary that, whatever difficulties might arise between their own countries, they are determined to ensure that communities here live in peace and harmony.
Lord Paul: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply. I should like to say that the Asian community in Britain—that is, Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and others—live in great friendship and harmony. They are law-abiding citizens and are very proud of being British and good citizens of this country. Although they may sometimes fail the "Tebbit test" when supporting the cricket teams from their countries of origin, they pass the test of good citizenship. This was evident at the India v Pakistan World Cup Cricket

583
match at Old Trafford and the final contest at Lord's where, despite predictions of disorder, the behaviour of the community was exemplary. Can my noble friend tell me whether Her Majesty's Government have commended this good behaviour?
However, attempts are made by various groups from the sub-continent to export their domestic politics to the south-east Asian community in Britain with, it would appear, the intention of causing unnecessary discord. Can my noble friend confirm that Her Majesty's Government rigorously discourage such action?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comments. I note his support for the cricket teams and their recent activities. I believe that many people were very surprised at the harmonious way that certain teams competed; and, certainly, at the support that was given by various individuals. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister attended a Muslim Council of Britain reception, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary also spoke at a special lunch which it organised last December. Both my right honourable friends attended recent celebrations of the 300th anniversary of the Sikh Khalsa in London and Birmingham. My right honourable friends applauded the vital contributions made by the Moslem and Sikh communities to our multi-cultural nation. They honoured their traditions based on shared values of tolerance, decency and justice.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Government will do everything possible to make clear to the media that most Moslems and Hindus in this country—and, for that matter, in the rest of the world—are not extremists or fundamentalists but people who share most of the beliefs of those of us who are Christians? Incidentally, this was confirmed for myself and for some other noble Lords this morning at a memorial service in St. Paul's when a passage from the holy Koran was read.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I agree with what he said. Indeed, I believe that most fair-minded people in Britain would also agree with his remarks. The Government's proposals for new UK-wide counter-terrorist legislation, published in a consultation document on 17th December, proposed a new definition which would enable serious violence by so-called "domestic" terrorist groups to be treated as terrorism. These are areas and aspects that I think we all agree need to be tackled in the future. I am sure that this Government, like any fair-minded government, will wish to tackle these issues and aspects in as positive a fashion as possible.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I welcome the Question tabled by the noble, Lord, Lord Paul. Although I agree with much of the sentiment he expressed, I cannot support him on the cricket because I support England. However, is the Minister aware of the concern of the Asian community in this country about the recent events in Kashmir? Is he also aware that ethnic minority
584
newspapers report such news in a substantial manner? Therefore, when debates are held in your Lordships' House would it not be appropriate for him to take this into account and ensure that great care is exercised so as not to destabilise the situation among the Asian community, especially as regards exaggerated claims?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the point he has made. I know how difficult it is for each of us to deal with issues concerning countries abroad, especially the circumstances surrounding Kashmir. This Government have been totally even-handed in their approach. That will be the position that they will pursue in the future.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, notwithstanding the very good practices of this House, can my noble friend the Minister explain what is being done by the Government to encourage more women, especially Asian women, into playing prominent roles in public life?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her question. I should like to make it clear that young Asian women in Britain today are excelling in education, both at school and at university, and, indeed, in business and in professional life. However, we recognise that it can be hard for maturing Asian women to access the opportunities for a fulfilling career or participation in public life. We would welcome any ideas that my noble friend, or any noble Lords, may have on this particular issue for consideration in the future.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister comment on what success is being achieved in recruiting more police officers from the Asian community than has been the case in the past? This is clearly an issue which needs desperately to be tackled.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, as far as concerns this Government, attracting able young people from ethnic minorities into public services is a priority. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is setting targets for the Home Office and all its services to ensure that they visibly represent the communities that they serve. Some of the services, like the police and the Prison Service, are predominantly white, male institutions. So we are keen to see more women entering the service; and, indeed, more people from the ethnic groups. I believe that, only today, the Home Secretary issued a statement on this issue.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 4.15 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on Northern Ireland.

Protection of Children Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Greater London Authority Bill
3.8 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Whiny.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 186 [Duty of the PPP arbiter]:
[Amendments Nos. 282 and 283 not moved.]
Clause 186 agreed to.
Clause 187 agreed to.
Clause 188 [Provision of information to the PPP arbiter]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 283A and 283B:
Page 100, line 32, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
("(c) any person who has entered into arrangements falling within section 172(2)(6) above.").
Page 100, line 36, leave out from ("to") to ("in") in line 37 and insert ("answer any question or produce any document which he would be entitled to refuse to answer or produce").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 188, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 189 to 191 agreed to.
Clause 192 [Interpretation of this Chapter]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 283C:
Page 102, line 1, at end insert—
(""PPP arbiter" shall be construed in accordance with section 181(1) above;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 192, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 284:
Before Clause 193, insert the following new clause—
(" . No agreement made under section 193 shall reduce provisions for concessionary fares that exist on the day before this Act comes into force.").
The noble Baroness said: This is a simple amendment to ensure that the present concessionary fares system for people aged 60 or over living in London continues. I was in this Chamber when the issue of concessionary fares was debated some years ago. At that time the Government were defeated by an amendment brought forward by Lord Pitt of Hampstead. The original scheme was to start at 9.30 in the morning and cease at four in the afternoon. Lord Pitt moved an amendment to make
586
the scheme operate from nine in the morning with no interruption. As I said, the Chamber thought that made sense and accepted the amendment.
Afterwards Lord Avon, who was dealing with the Bill on behalf of the government, told me that he was about to have a meeting with the then Secretary of State, Nicholas Ridley. He asked me whether I thought that the original scheme should be reinstated. I felt strongly that the new scheme should not be abandoned merely on grounds of political expediency as the Chamber had debated the matter and had decided that the new scheme was worth while. I was fortunate enough to persuade Lord Avon of the validity of my argument. He in turn persuaded the Secretary of State not to overturn the amendment. The people of London have benefited greatly from that decision. One of my main reasons for supporting the amendment was that I was on the GLC at the time and I received many letters of complaint from people who had missed the four o'clock bus because it had not turned up and at that time they had to wait until seven o'clock for the concessionary fare. London Transport was always refunding fares to people because the relevant pre-four o'clock bus had not turned up.
The scheme, which has now been in operation for many years, has worked marvellously well. However, I believe that nothing that is done in the future should damage the present scheme. To alter the start time of the scheme would make a big difference to people's lives. By nine o'clock those who are going to work have gone and the rush hour traffic is over. This scheme does not inconvenience rush hour travellers. I know that for years a group of people known as the "twirlies- have used the buses. These people get on a bus at five minutes to nine. They wave their passes at the inspector. When he tells them it is not yet nine o'clock, they reply, "Am I twirlie?"; that is, "Am I too early?" There are still a few such "twirlies", but whatever time the scheme started I am sure there would still be such people. Of course, on Saturdays and Sundays there are no time limits on the scheme. This amendment asks the Government to ensure that this concessionary scheme, which has huge social benefits for the people of London and keeps them mobile, should continue. It reduces social services costs in terms of employing home helps and people to help with shopping. I ask the Minister to assure us that the scheme will continue. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I shall speak briefly to my Amendment No. 285 which is in the group we are discussing. In our view the way the Bill is drafted leaves open to doubt whether the travel concessionary scheme would continue as at present. Clause 193(1) states that any local authority "may enter into arrangements". Our amendment obliges Transport for London to make arrangements with the London authorities,
"within six months of the establishment of Transport for London".
The amendment provides that these popular travel concessions which are so valuable for a number of groups, including the old, the blind and the disabled should continue on a compulsory basis. I support my noble friend's amendment.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord who have spoken for agreeing to group their amendments with the Government's amendments as it is sensible to have an overall debate on the future of the concessionary scheme. The Government's amendments should clarify the position.
This Bill essentially provides for continuation of powers which have been in existence since 1984, which may be the period mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. The amendments that the Government are bringing forward essentially update and improve the operation of the current arrangements to the benefit of both users and local authorities. They bring the times of operation of the free travel scheme into line with the times of the scheme that the local authorities currently agree voluntarily. They clarify the costs of the free travel scheme and they give the local authorities powers to set up a statutory joint committee to take decisions on concessionary fares on the basis of qualified majority voting. These amendments have been drafted in accordance with the principle that at the end of the day concessionary fares are a matter for local discretion.
Government Amendments Nos. 286A and 286B are purely technical in nature. Amendment No. 286B relates to penalty fares but is being taken here because it is similar in effect to Amendment No. 286A. Amendment No. 286A ensures that it will be possible for the London local authorities to offer travel concessions on services provided under an agreement with London Transport under statutory powers contained in the London Regional Transport Act 1984, after the relevant sections of that Act are repealed. Amendment No. 287B ensures that the penalty fares schemes currently in operation by the Docklands Light Railway under that franchise will be able to continue. This is already the case for LT services.
Amendment No. 286AA is more substantial. It gives the London local authorities the option of exercising their power under Clause 193 to enter into concessionary travel arrangements with TfL and train operators through a joint committee to which special provisions apply. Decisions of the joint committee would have to be unanimous, unless the authorities themselves had already unanimously decided that all decisions or decisions on particular matters could be taken by a specified majority of the members. The majority so specified could not be less than two-thirds.
These powers, if the London authorities choose to make use of them, could make their decision-making on concessionary fares much more secure. They avoid the risk, inherent in a process which requires the unanimous agreement of all 33 local authorities at every stage, that travel concessions for London's elderly and disabled residents cannot be agreed because one local authority fails to signal its agreement in time. The powers in this amendment will be available to the London local authorities only if 'hey choose to use them. It would not in my submission be right for the Government to seek to impose the joint committee arrangements on the London local authorities.
588
Amendments Nos. 286B, 286C and 286D change the times of operation of the statutory reserve scheme, bringing them into line with those currently in the voluntary scheme. In the event of the London local authorities failing to agree a satisfactory scheme, TfL will be obliged to put a scheme in place which will provide free travel concessions on all services under its control. TfL would recover the cost of the free travel scheme from the London local authorities. The statutory reserve scheme has never been activated but its presence has always been a reassurance to London's elderly and disabled residents that the travel concessions they rely on will not be taken away. These amendments will reassure users of the scheme that if the free travel scheme is ever activated they will be able to use their travel permits at the same time as they currently do.
Amendments Nos. 286E and 286F require TfL to take into account the costs of travel concessions in previous years when calculating how much the boroughs would pay for the free travel scheme. TfL is also required to take into account fare changes and changes in the information available to it for calculating the costs. In the event of the London local authorities failing to agree a satisfactory scheme, TfL will be obliged to put a scheme in place which will provide free travel concessions on all services under its control. TfL would then recover the cost of the free travel scheme from the London local authorities. I hope that explains the slightly complex, interlocking government amendments.
Perhaps I may now make a few points on the other amendments before us. Amendment No. 284, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, seeks to impose a particular level of concessionary fares provision on the local authorities. The local authorities in London currently choose to fund free travel concessions for their eligible residents on London Transport services, Docklands Light Railway and the railway services. They have provided such concessions for many years and I have no reason to believe that any of the boroughs have plans to change that. Nevertheless, to follow completely the noble Baroness's amendment would mean the Government seeking to interfere with the local boroughs' discretion by prescribing the concessions that they must provide. It is right that the boroughs themselves should make such decisions and be accountable for them. The Government believe that that should remain the position, while recognising the powers that we propose to bring forward in our amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, indicated that the main point of Amendment No. 285 was to require boroughs to enter into agreement rather than that they "may" enter into agreement. The drafting of the Bill follows that of the 1984 Act, which is the basis of the present scheme. That Act also said "may". At the end of the day, for reasons similar to those I have set out, it is for the boroughs to agree the scheme. If the boroughs do not agree, then the reserve scheme comes into play; that will still guarantee concessionary travel. However, in the first instance, it should be a permissive power for the boroughs themselves, hopefully, to agree a scheme. Bearing in mind those reserve powers, I do not think the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon—

589
which seeks to turn "may" into "must"—is appropriate. I would therefore ask the noble Lord and the noble Baroness to withdraw their amendments.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Before the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, tells us what she proposes to do with her amendment, perhaps I may welcome some of the government amendments, in particular the change of period in Schedule 12 from what it was to, in effect, 9 a.m. until 4.30 the following morning. That satisfies many concerns about the concessionary schemes. After all, quite a lot of people will be able to use them go to work; previously it was difficult for them to go to work at all on a concessionary ticket.
We also welcome Amendment No. 286AA and the arrangements for the joint working of the London authorities in relation to the setting up of the schemes. The reserve scheme will be at least as good as the existing scheme and not, as it has been in the past, slightly less good. One can unreservedly welcome the government amendments.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The noble Lord asked me whether I would withdraw my amendment; I have not yet moved it. However, I am grateful to him for his explanation. I shall read what he said, but I think I am satisfied that my amendment is not necessary at this stage. I join with the noble Baroness in welcoming the government amendments.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am delighted by the Minister's explanation. My one objection to Schedule 12 concerned the hours set out there because the fallback scheme was just not good enough. The amendments have changed the fallback scheme and have answered our concern. This carries on the marvellous work done by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, many years ago. I am delighted that it is no longer necessary to move my amendment. It is appropriate that the boroughs should take the first decision and that the matter should be in their control. However, the fallback scheme is very important in case some of the boroughs fail to meet what we hope they will achieve. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 193 [Travel Concessions on journeys in and around Greater London]:
[Amendment No. 285 not moved.]
Baroness Darcy de Knayth Baroness Darcy de Knayth moved Amendment No. 286:
Page 103, line 32, at end insert—

("(5A) Each local authority shall, in consultation with organisations of disabled people, make and keep under review criteria as to what constitutes a disability or injury which seriously impairs a person's ability to walk, having regard to any guidance issued by a joint authority established to run the concessionary fare scheme.

(5B) All criteria and guidance under subsection (5A) above shall be made available to the public.").

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 286, which stands in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, and myself. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, regrets that he cannot be here today. He is setting up a telemedical link between Bangladesh and hospitals in this country. Noble Lords may consider that that matter is every bit as important—I see that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is impressed—and perhaps even more exciting than taking part in the debates on the Bill.
Amendment No. 286 seeks to reduce the wide variations which exist at present in the criteria used by different boroughs to determine eligibility for the disabled person's freedom pass. Many boroughs say that a disabled person who is an orange badge holder is not eligible for the disabled person's freedom pass. I am told that that stance is illegal. A disabled person's eligibility for a disabled person's freedom pass should not depend upon in which borough he or she happens to live.
The London Accessible Transport Alliance, which has been mentioned before in Committee, is formed of groups of older and disabled people who are all door-to-door transport users, including the Greater London Action on Disability. I should declare I am a patron of GLAD. Perhaps if I declare that once today I need not do so again, otherwise the Committee may be bored rigid during the course of the evening.
The London Accessible Transport Alliance believes that the boroughs should frame their local eligibility criteria for the disabled person's freedom pass in the light of guidance issued by the joint authority running the scheme London-wide and that organisations of older and disabled people should be consulted in the preparation of the guidance. Amendment No. 286ZA, standing in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, omits the requirement to consult disabled people and their organisations. I do not know whether they feel that that is unnecessary because the matter is covered elsewhere or because they feel it is undesirable. I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and her colleagues have to say, and to the Minister's reply.
Lady Thomas of Walliswood: We support the amendment. Amendment No. 286ZA seeks to do the same thing in a slightly different way. I accept that the consultation element may well be desirable. At present I think it is more important to press the principle involved. In our last debate in Committee a number of issues affecting people with mobility disabilities of one kind or another were raised. At that time, the question was raised—I cannot remember by whom—of how one determines who is disabled and who is not. These amendments attempt to answer that question. Perhaps the Government can say how that question is answered in the legislation before us. It is obviously important that the determination of who is to receive concessionary travel is perceived to be fair, both by people who have disabilities and impairments of one kind or another and by others. I do not need to bore your Lordships with the whole question of

591
special tags for cars and how irritating that can be. That was also mentioned during the course of our debates in Committee. Can the Minister say how the question of defining criteria is resolved at the present time and in the Bill?
3.30 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester: I welcome this further opportunity to debate the problems and needs of disabled people with severe mobility handicaps. In doing so, I am again most grateful to my friend the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, for having tabled his amendment in close rapport with Greater London Action on Disability of which, as my noble friend the Minister knows, I am, like the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, a patron. I am most grateful also to her for moving Amendment No. 286. As she said, its purpose is to reduce the wide variation that now exists in the criteria that different London boroughs use to determine eligibility for the disabled person's freedom pass.
For my part, I do not believe that a disabled person's eligibility for a freedom pass should depend on which borough he or she happens to live in. I believe that boroughs should frame their local eligibility criteria for the pass in the light of guidance issued by the joint authority running the scheme London-wide.
I believe also that organisations for disabled and older people should be consulted in the preparation of the guidance. I do so on the basis of the recent experience of organisations of and for disabled people of contacting 18 London boroughs and asking for the criteria they operate when determining eligibility for the disabled person's freedom pass. A number were unco-operative. The City of London Corporation required prior permission from the Lord Mayor's office.
Amendment No 286 is important to disabled people and their organisations. I know that my noble friend the Minister will want to reply to it as helpfully as he can. Meanwhile I am most grateful to him for his letter to me of 5th July, which I received by hand during this debate, about the amendments I moved earlier in Committee on exempting disabled people from road user and workplace parking charges. My noble friend informs me:
"The Government will endeavour to agree the structure of concessionary arrangements for disabled persons in local authority schemes in time for them to be included in the GLA Bill at Lords Report".
That is a most welcome response to my amendments. When I moved them, I said that I knew my noble friend's reply would be a positive one. He has been as good as his word in promising carefully to consider the case I argued and I am sure that Members in all parts of the Committee who have taken part in our debates on the problems and needs of disabled Londoners will honour him for his reply.
Lord Whitty: I am deeply grateful for my noble friend's response. I had not realised that my letter had
592
reached him. I am glad that it has done so in time for this debate, although the issue to which it refers will arise later in the proceedings. My response indicates that the Government are trying throughout the Bill to meet the concerns of disabled people.
My noble friend may not be so positive about my response to Amendment No. 286. As I indicated on the last group, the principle, at least in the first instance, should be that discretionary affairs are a matter for local discretion. The section of the Bill dealing with disabled persons' permits is drawn from previous legislation, which says that they should be issued to people who suffer from a disability or injury that, in the opinion of the local authority, seriously impairs their ability to walk. Although that definition is fairly broad, its intention is clear.
I regret that my noble friend encountered some difficulty in getting information from particular local authorities. Nevertheless, we believe that local authorities themselves should decide whether they need to draw up further criteria for issuing permits to disabled people or rely on the definition in the Bill. Regardless or whether or not they have such criteria, if a London borough refuses to issue a pass to those considering themselves eligible under the Bill, the borough would be open to legal challenge over its decision. Anyone who felt they had been treated unfairly would have recourse to the local government ombudsman.
As to whether such criteria should be made public, both existing and planned legislation cover that area. The present access to information rights in the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 mean that all papers put to a council are open to the public. Under our new proposals in the draft Local Government (Organisation and Standards) Bill, such papers will continue to be made available. In addition, if decisions are taken at an official level, those decisions, together with the reasons for them, must also be made public. I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, and others who support the amendment to consider whether current and planned legislation providing rights of access deals with the issue of publication. The Government are bringing forward an amendment that would give boroughs the power to establish a joint committee to take decisions on the arrangements for concessionary fares. I quickly look around to make sure that my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon is not in his place. Those decisions would be on the basis of qualified majority voting, which is an issue on which he jumps up in a different context. That also reflects our commitment to subsidiarity and the hope that boroughs will act jointly. Then there is the reserve scheme we debated earlier. If the London boroughs decide that the criteria for issuing disabled persons' permits ought to be drawn up and published, they could use the joint committee to do so.
Although I have some sympathy with the experience of my noble friend Lord Morris and others who tabled the amendment, I cannot agree that it is the appropriate

593
vehicle for achieving their objectives. I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I wonder whether the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, wishes to come back on her amendment before I withdraw mine.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: It is kind of the noble Baroness to give me that opportunity. The best that one can do is to read carefully the Minister's long answer to make sure that it satisfies the points raised. That is what I propose to do.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I thank all who have spoken and particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, for her points and the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for his comment about subsection (5B) and publicity. I am grateful also for what he told us about the Minister's letter to him, which we will come to later. I am deeply appreciative of that response and cheered by it.
I am reasonably cheered by the Minister's response on subsection (5B). He has he set my mind at rest. I shall be happy to read his comments on subsection (5A). I think I probably am satisfied.
Given the myriad of amendments about disabled people and transport, the wide range of fears and concerns that have been expressed, and the importance of getting it right, would the Minister be willing to meet the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen and Lord Morris, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and our advisers between now and Report, to discuss all those matters?
Lord Whitty: I would be most happy to proceed with such an arrangement.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I thank the Minister very much. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 286ZA not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 286A:
Page 104, line 21, after ("233") insert ("or 324").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 193, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 194 agreed to.
Schedule 12 [The free travel scheme]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 286B to 286F:
Page 228, line 21, leave out ("the daytime, evening or late-night") and insert ("an eligible").
Page 228, leave out lines 24 to 26 and insert ("the eligible periods are—

(a) the period from midnight to 4.30 a.m.; and

(b) the period from 9.00 a.m. to midnight.").

Page 228, line 27, leave out ("daytime, evening or late-night period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3)") and insert ("periods which are eligible periods for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(b)").
Page 229, line 6, after ("year") insert ("(referred to in this paragraph as the "current financial year")).
Page 229, line 34, at end insert—
("(5) In fixing the charges payable by London authorities under this paragraph Transport for London shall take into account—

(a) the sum applicable by virtue of sub-paragraph (6) below; and

(b) the matters specified in sub-paragraph (7) below.

(6) The sum applicable by virtue of this sub-paragraph is—

(a) where the free travel scheme does not have effect during the current financial year, a sum equivalent to the total of the costs agreed to be reimbursed by local authorities during the current financial year under arrangements made by virtue of section 193(1) of this Act; or

(b) where the free travel scheme has effect during the current financial year, a sum equivalent to the charges payable by London authorities under this paragraph in respect of the current financial year.

(7) The matters specified in this sub-paragraph are-—

(a) the coming into operation of a service falling within section 195(3) of this Act, or the variation or discontinuance of such a service,

(b) changes in the fares payable in respect of any such service, and

(c) changes in the methods or information available to Transport for London for calculating the amounts specified in sub-paragraph (4) above, since costs were last agreed to be reimbursed by local authorities under arrangements made by virtue of section 193(1) of this Act or, if more recent, since charges payable under this paragraph were last fixed.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 195 and 196 agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 286AA:
After Clause 196, insert the following new clause—
EXERCISE OF FUNCTIONS BY A JOINT COMMITTEE
(" .—(1) If all the London authorities enter into arrangements under section 101(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 for the joint discharge of their functions under—

(a) subsection (1) of section 193 above, or

(b) subsection (2) of that section,

and the arrangements so provide, then this section shall apply.
(2) The arrangements shall have effect for such period as may be specified in the arrangements or until otherwise terminated by the unanimous decision of the London authorities.
(3) The arrangements must provide for the function to be discharged only by a joint committee under section 101(5)(a) of the Local Government Act 1972.
(4) The joint committee must consist of one member of each London authority.
(5) Decisions of the joint committee must be unanimous decisions of those present and voting.
(6) Subsection (5) above is subject to a resolution of the joint committee, passed unanimously by those present and voting, that—

(a) decisions of a kind specified in the resolution, or

(b) decisions generally,

may be made by such majority of those present and voting as may be specified in the resolution.
(7) The majority specified in a resolution under subsection (6) above must be not less than two-thirds of the members of the joint committee.
(8) In consequence of the preceding provisions of this section—

(a) section 102 of the Local Government Act 1972 (appointment of committees) has effect in relation to the joint committee subject to those provisions; and

(b) paragraph 39(1) of Schedule 12 to that Act (questions to be decided by simple majority), as applied to a joint committee by paragraph 44(1) of that Schedule, does not have effect in relation to the joint committee.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 287:
After Clause 196, insert the following new clause—
DISABLED PERSONS' TRANSPORT SERVICES
(" . The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for and in connection with the provision of transport facilities and services provided for the purpose of meeting the needs of disabled persons resident in Greater London.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment has been widely debated. I now rise to move it formally, as I have had the benefit of reading in Hansard the discussion and Minister's response to it. I shall ask him to comment on what he said the other day.
The Minister said:
"As was indicated in our White Paper … responsibility for Dial-a-Ride and Taxicard will transfer to the new authority".
He later said:
"The mayor will also be able to take responsibility for Taxicard or operate a similar scheme".
The comments were made during a general debate on a number of mixed amendments. My concern is that they seem to run contrary to the Bill as presently drafted. While I understand that the mayor will be able to seek clarification on the role of the Taxicard within his or her local implementation plans, my concern is that funding for the Taxicard scheme is already being eroded in many boroughs. There seems to be no mechanism for the mayor, or indeed the Secretary of State, to ensure that the funding is not simply salami-sliced in boroughs on an individual basis. If that happens, there will be no Taxicard scheme for which the mayor can take responsibility.
Again I quote the Minister:
"Both schemes [Taxicard and Dial-a-Ride] are very important and need to be developed for disabled people".—[Official Report, 1/7/99; col. 462.]
I simply seek a reassurance that there will be a safeguard for maintaining borough funding for Taxicard during any interim period that may arise if the schemes were to be transferred to TfL. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: The principle is there, and it is reflected within the Bill. If a transitional problem of the sort alluded to by the noble Baroness arises, I am confident that the powers cover that. However, to make doubly sure, perhaps I may undertake to write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the Minister for that reply. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 197 [Penalty fares]:
[Amendment No. 287A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 197 agreed to.
Schedule 13 [Penalty fares]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 287B:
Page 232, line 20, after (" 233") insert ("or 324").
[Amendments Nos. 287C to 287G had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 288:
Page 233, line 51, leave out ("the Secretary of State and").
The noble Lord said: This is a very small amendment. Schedule 13 deals with penalty fares on London buses and tubes. The amendment basically rewrites the whole of the London Transport Regional Transport Penalty Fares Act 1992. We shall shortly debate a more substantial amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty.
As I understand it, the powers are to be transferred mainly to Transport for London and to the mayor. The penalty fares are set at a certain level—£5 on local buses and £10 on the Underground. Paragraph 5(2) states that,
"The Mayor may by order prescribe that the amount of the penalty fare in either or both of the cases set out … above shall be different (whether higher or lower)".
Sub-paragraph (3) goes on to state that,
"No order may be made by the Mayor under sub-paragraph (2) … unless he has consulted the Secretary of State".
That is a blow for subsidiarity, for the power of the mayor. We do not understand why the mayor cannot be allowed to get on and do this without consulting the Secretary of State. The mayor already has to consult local authorities and,
"such persons or bodies representative of those who travel on local services … and … such other persons or bodies",
as he may wish to consult. But I cannot understand why the mayor has to consult the Secretary of State as well. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: This provision does not give the Secretary of State powers, but the reason why there is a requirement to consult is so that there can be consistency about penalty fare levels on all relevant modes of transport. That is particularly the case where a number of stations are served both by London Transport and by the operating companies. At those stations there could be some confusion were the two forms of penalty charge to be completely out of line with each other. At the end of the day, the decision lies with the mayor, but the mayor needs to take that into account, and therefore needs to consult the Secretary of State on those matters.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Given that explanation, although I am not entirely happy that it is necessary to consult the Secretary of State, it is not an important enough point to pursue to the end. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Clancarty The Earl of Clancarty moved Amendment No. 288A:
Page 234, line 18, at end insert—
("Penalty Fares Appeals Service
.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, the Authority shall establish a body, separate from either Transport for London, or from any person providing a transport service to which this Schedule applies, to be known as the London Penalty Fares Appeals Service.
(2) Any body established by, or with the consent of the Rail Regulator to consider appeals against penalty fares issued on the national railways under Section 130 of the Railways Act 1993 may be appointed by the Authority in fulfilment of its duties under sub-section (1) above.
(3) Any person who has been issued with a penalty fare pursuant to paragraph 3 or 4 above, whose representations to the person providing the service in relation to which the penalty fare was issued has failed to result in that penalty fare being set aside, may appeal to the body, appointed under either sub-paragraph (1) or (2) above, for a determination.
(4) The Authority may, after consultation with Transport for London and the London Transport Users Committee, give guidance to the body appointed under either sub-paragraph (1) or (2) above as to the criteria it should adopt for the judging of appeals against penalty fares issued in accordance with the provisions of this schedule.
(5) The costs of the service provided under this paragraph shall be borne by Transport for London.
(6) Except as provided for in sub-paragraph (4) above, the London Transport Users Committee shall not consider penalty fares appeals except in so far as they give rise to questions as to the procedure followed by the body appointed under sub-paragraph (1) or (2) above in relation to the consideration of an individual appeal.").
The noble Earl said: First, I should like to apologise for not having spoken at Second Reading. The intention of this amendment is to establish an independent appeals body for penalty fares. This is an important amendment, and I am happy that it has the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. There is currently considerable concern, shared both by passengers and the London Regional Passengers Committee, over the judgments made by London Transport, particularly concerning penalty fares applied by London Underground, and 82 per cent of representations on the London Underground to the LRPC are about penalty fares.
Sub-paragraph (4) asks for what I believe should be the bare minimum of guidance and consultation over the criteria by which appeals are judged. I understand the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, to catch those intending to defraud, which she stated when the 1992 legislation was introduced. But London Underground's present effectively unregulated penalty fares regime is draconian. There needs to be a fair and sensitive balance—300,000 penalty fares were issued last year on the Underground. That is an absurd figure and includes, I believe, many bona fide passengers who are caught out for a wide variety of reasons, including the complexities of the fares and differing ticketing systems, such as the carnet system for which London Underground makes no allowance for inadvertent errors.
In particular, the option of buying an excess or add-on ticket should be restored, since there is no reason whatsoever why a passenger who has a ticket showing evidence of his or her starting-point and who offers to pay the excess fare should not be allowed to do so, rather than have to traipse up and down the escalators
598
to buy a second ticket for the same journey. For many, the £10 penalty paid on the tube at their destination point is not an expression of guilt; it is simply more convenient to do so rather than to raise an objection. Ten pounds for most waged people is not a lot of money, although for an unemployed person it is. The major problem, then, becomes the inflexibility of the conditions of travel, including for instance the inability to change one's mind about a journey once one is in the system in order to carry out a longer journey.
The main point to be made here is that London Underground is acting autocratically. A wider consultation process is needed—something that London Underground is resisting. Ideally, Transport for London, the authority, the London Transport Users Committee, the Rail Regulator and other operators from whom TfL can learn—including Nexus, for example, which runs the Tyne and Wear Metro and whose penalty fares regime is "exemplary" according to the Rail Regulator—should all be sitting down in the same room. The Rail Regulator is keen to encourage best practice sharing of penalty fare schemes.
Whatever criteria are agreed upon, they do not invalidate the important principle also that the appeals body should be independent. It is worth quoting the Rail Regulator's view on this principle as expressed in the 1995 consultation document on penalty fares:
"The normal requirement of criminal law provides for an appeals mechanism, independent of the prosecution, against conviction. In the case of penalty fares, the operator fulfils the role of both prosecutor and judge. In the Regulator's view, this makes it all the more important to ensure that an appeals mechanism is in place which operates impartially and independently".
I entirely agree with that and beg to move the amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I am happy to support the noble Earl's amendment. He has pursued the matter by most methods open to a Member of this House and, as a result, has received interesting answers from government Ministers. It is obvious that one point we must deal with on penalty fares is the way in which the fare and penalty fare structures operate. However, an equally important element that we are dealing with at present is appeals. The current system of appeals laid down in the Bill is not satisfactory. I support the noble Earl's amendment and look forward to hearing what the Government have to say on the issue.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: As mentioned, I achieved this legislation in 1992 when I took it through as a Private Member's Bill for London Transport. At that time there was a desperate need to try to make up some of the vast amount of lost revenue. Sadly, the revenue is still being lost and, if I am to believe the Evening Standard, there is an even greater loss now than years ago.
It is important for us to maintain a tough but fair stance on penalty fares. All those who legitimately pay their fares do so at a higher cost because of the great loss being carried. The time has gone when people used to pocket the excess fares when the passenger arrived at the end of the journey. That used to be a great fraud in

599
the past. People used to set up arrangements to close the ticket office at one station in order for their friend to collect all the money at the next, then they would share it later. That was well known at the time. However, all that is a thing of the past.
Now the remaining issue is the appeals system. As a general principle, it is not right in any field and it does not accord with our sense of justice that people should have the right to be both judge and jury in any situation. For that reason I support the noble Earl's amendment.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: I also support the noble Earl. Many Members of the Committee may have read the case of the nun who fell asleep on a bus. They took her through the courts. Cannot common sense be applied'? Does the Minister realise that we all remember the advertisements saying: "If you are caught not paying your fare. you are a criminal"? That is how the lady felt when she was dragged through the courts. Admittedly, she got off in the end, as is being whispered on the Front Bench., but the matter still got into the press and was unpleasant.
Will the Minister consider all that has been said? I agree totally with the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, that when fares are not paid there must be a system for collecting them. It cannot be fair that those who are willing to pay should pay higher fares because the company does not receive the full income. Of course I understand that. But also, as the noble Baroness said, it is not right to have a judge and jury situation. I hope the Minister will consider the matter.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I, too, hope the Government will consider the amendments. As I understand it, and as the noble Earl explained, this is not about penalty fares but appeals against penalty fares. There is no mechanism for them at the moment, other than an internal one operated by London Transport.
My noble friend Lord Archer pre-empted my criticism of the actions of London Buses the other day, widely reported in the press, in pursuing the most ridiculous claim against the nun who happened to fall asleep. I am glad that the magistrates dealt with it in the best way they could. Nevertheless, it caused the victim of the incident a good deal of disquiet. No doubt it also cost the fare-paying passengers of London Transport a good deal of money to pursue the exercise through the courts. It seemed to me completely unnecessary.
When the noble Earl last raised the issue at Question Time, I said that one of the best solutions would be to introduce more automatic ticket barriers at outlying stations. I reported that at the station I use in Zone 2 the barriers had been put in but were not yet in operation, owing to a lack of power at the station, according to London Transport. I cannot remember how long ago the Question was—at least a month—and I have to report that the barriers are still not in operation. I do not know whether there is a problem with the electricity in Fulham; I have not found one at home, where it seems to work well for me, but obviously it does not at Putney Bridge station.
600
I digress from the purpose of the amendment and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says on the subject of appeals.
Baroness Hamwee: The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, said that in the case of the nun who fell asleep on the bus the magistrates dealt with the matter in the best way they could. That described it precisely. As I understand it, the nun was not found not guilty, but was given a conditional discharge. That goes to the heart of the complaints made by Members of the Committee about the criminalisation of something which should not be treated as a criminal matter. If I were taken to the magistrates' court on whatever charge and received a conditional discharge, I would leave the court feeling very unhappy.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: As I understand the penalty fare system, certainly the one I introduced, there is no criminal charge involved. The nun must have been charged under some other process; perhaps fraud. It is one of the important features of the legislation that when you are asked to pay a penalty fare no criminal liability or criminal record is involved.
4 p.m.
Lord Whitty: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for both her earlier intervention explaining why we introduced the penalty fare system in the first place and for the clarification of the position. The nun in the case was prosecuted for travelling with intent to avoid payment. I am not clear why she was not able to pay a penalty fare, but we are making further inquiries in that regard.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: I believe the nun tried to pay the penalty fare.
Lord Whitty: We are trying to establish the exact circumstances and why she was not permitted to pay the penalty fare. The noble Baroness is correct that the penalty fare system was introduced to avoid criminality and taking people through the courts. It was to provide a penalty fare, irrespective of proof of intent. Nevertheless, it was free from the label of criminality.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, said, there is a problem of fare evasion on the London Underground. Some of it will be dealt with when the whole network has been gated under the prestige project. I am not sure why the gates at Putney Bridge do not currently work, but no doubt when the full system is in operation they will. We hope that that will restrict evasion in the sense of intent to travel without a ticket. But there will still be people who travel beyond the duration of the ticket, for whom the penalty fare should apply.
The current legislation does not formally recognise the concept of an appeal. The appeal process was well established by London Transport, at the request of the previous government, at the time the penalty scheme was introduced. We are aware of the concerns of the noble Earl and other Members of the Committee in this matter. The Government have asked London Transport and the London Regional Passengers' Committee to

601
review the whole system of penalty fares. A draft report has been produced and has, we hope, already led to some improvements in the operation of the scheme by London Transport. The final version has not yet been produced, and I must ask the Committee for a further period of patience before we see the final recommendations. The draft form is currently being considered by my colleague Glenda Jackson.
The amendment would compel the mayor to establish an independent appeals body without having the opportunity to assess the merits of that body in that situation. For example, the mayor may instead conclude that the administration of penalty fares can best be improved by other means. The review has already resulted in a much closer convergence of approach between the London Transport system and that which applies to the national rail network.
Changes arising from the penalty fares review are already being phased in by London Transport. I believe that London Transport should be given a little time to demonstrate that it can operate the scheme more effectively, including the appeals dimension thereof. I recognise the concerns of the Committee, but I believe that it is better to deal with the issue in that context rather than by way of an amendment to the Bill.
The Earl of Clancarty: I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, suggested that there should be more ticket barriers. I do not believe that we should await technology in order to have a fair and sensitive penalty system in operation right now. I am disappointed that the Minister does not immediately see the merits of this amendment and accept it straight away. I await with interest the recommendations relating to penalty fares. I shall certainly return to this matter at Report stage, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 198 agreed to.
Clause 199 [The London Transport Users' Committee]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 288B:
Page 106, line 37, after ("use") insert ("public").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 288B takes us to that part of the Bill which deals with the Transport Users' Committee. The amendment provides that the new committee shall represent the interests of those who use public transport facilities and services, as distinct from all passenger transport facilities and services. Later the Committee will consider Amendment No. 294A in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and my noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood (who is to be congratulated on spotting this matter in two places). That amendment also provides that the matters referred to in Clause 200, which deals with representations to the committee, are restricted to public transport.
We understand that the Government are concerned to encourage all of us to think about integrated transport, not just integrated public transport, and that is entirely
602
right. However, we do not believe it means that every reference to transport should deal with all transport. We do not believe that the new Transport Users' Committee is an appropriate vehicle to deal with the rights and concerns of all transport users. The Bill makes clear in dealing with the duties of the committee that the remit of that body is primarily public. If the definition included all transport it would cover almost everything, not just users of buses and so on but car users, pedestrians and cyclists. I do not deny that these people have rights, but there would be considerable problems if the committee was required, and resourced, to acquire the detailed knowledge and necessary representativeness to cover the wider agenda.
The committee may also have directly conflicting interests; for example, the respective claims of bus users and motorists where road space is scarce. The London Regional Passengers' Committee has put to me what is probably the worst case scenario with which the new committee may be faced: an appeal from a householder whose property fronts a GLA road and who wants to park his or her car outside the house but TfL wants to site a bus stop at that point. In our view, it would not be appropriate for the Transport Users' Committee to be required to deal with that situation. It will not be able properly to voice the concerns of the users of public transport, which must be its primary purpose.
We do not believe that the benefits that might be gained by including the interests of all transport users within the LTUC's remit would outweigh the dilution of its commitment to passengers which would inevitably occur. It is not the task of the new committee to take decisions about priorities between public and private interests that are likely to arise. The LTUC will have quite enough to do looking after the needs of public transport users, and its effectiveness could be very badly prejudiced if its remit was widened. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Reading the Explanatory Notes on the Bill, the whole point of this arrangement is that the new Transport Users' Committee will not try to sort out the problem but refer it to whoever has that ability. With great respect to noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench who are working so hard on this Bill, I do not believe that it is any good to go on about integrated transport and then to say that they do not want to integrate the public transport system with the private one. If cars are parked in a road where a bus stop is required, that issue must be sorted out. Surely, a complaint can be made to the committee, which will then refer it to whoever can deal with it. The committee is more a channel of communication than a body to sort out problems, unless I am mistaken.
The Earl of Clancarty: I rise to support Amendment No. 288A and speak also to Amendment No. 294A, which I believe the Government Front Bench has agreed can be debated at this stage. Like Amendment No. 288A, Amendment No. 294A seeks to ensure that a statutory watchdog is in existence to deal only with issues of public passenger transport. I speak simply as a regular user of public transport in London who is very

603
worried that in dealing also with private transport the new Transport Users' Committee will have the effect of diluting, or even eliminating entirely, the voice of the public passenger, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has already pointed out. Clearly, that would be disastrous. The private passenger, unlike the public one, already has powerful lobbying organisations to turn to: the AA, the British Road Federation and so on. There is also the possibility of conflicts of interest. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has referred to the classic issue of whether a bus stop or private parking space should be provided outside a resident' house. It should not be up to a statutory watchdog to resolve differences between these two interests.
This amendment also has the strong support of the National Consumer Council and the Central Rail Users' Consultative Committee. One wonders whether the Government are falling between two stools. On the one hand, they appear to promote public transport; on the other, they are clearly very keen to develop overall strategies. But the assembly will be the executive and should make such decisions based on the evidence and advice given to it. from wherever they come. Have the Government properly thought out the effect that combining the two interests of public and private transport would have on the new body?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would prescribe the factors to be taken into account when drawing up membership of the London Transport Users' Committee. Clause 199 indicates to the assembly what factors to take into account in selecting members of the committee. However, it is not an exhaustive list of criteria.
Amendment No. 288B proposes that the assembly takes into account the users of public passenger transport facilities rather than simply passenger transport. Even having listened to the noble Baroness, I am not sure why she would wish to append the word "public", given that the committee will have to consider representations from a wide range of transport users and the assembly would be expected to select the membership of the committee so as to reflect the full diversity of experience. I therefore hope that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 294A also reflects a misunderstanding of the Government's proposals for the London Transport Users' Committee, or a difference of opinion on them. The committee is intended to be a new body, drawing on the strengths of the London Regional Passengers' Committee, but doing so within a new context of London governance and with a wider remit.
Transport provision in London will be largely concentrated in a single integrated body—TfL—which must have due regard to the mix of demands represented by transport users. We believe that the new LTUC remit should reflect that integration and represent transport users who will be affected by the full range of TfL activities. LTUC will inevitably
604
consider more representations about public transport because its highways functions are primarily connected with only 5 per cent of the road network in London.
As the Minister for Transport in London explained in the other place, while the LTUC will be capable of considering complaints from all transport modes, it will still represent passengers. We do not accept that a valuable voice will be weakened.
When considering complaints about GLA roads, the committee will be under a duty to consider the interests of all those who use the road, not just car users. There is nothing in the Bill to indicate that the committee should give particular attention to complaints from motorists rather than those travelling on public transport.
Perhaps I could remind the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and other noble Lords who spoke, that LTUC will not be a decision-making body. It will not itself be able to resolve a dispute about the use of a particular road. It can only recommend a course of action to TfL, and the mayor and the assembly will also see the advice. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Before the noble Lords whose amendments we are considering speak, I wish to make a intervention. There is a profound difference of opinion between those who have moved the amendments and the Government who have written these clauses into the Bill. The difference of opinion is about exactly who the new passenger representative body should represent. Our contention is that they should represent the interests of, and speak up for, public transport users.
A curious suggestion seems to have arisen from this debate that somehow that unelected body, which has been appointed and not elected and which does not directly represent anybody, should take extremely important decisions about the balance of interests between one sort of transport and another and make a recommendation to TfL as to the decision it should take. Our contention is that it is precisely that sort of decision—such as where the balance should be struck—that should be taken by those people who act for, on behalf of or as part of the new GLA, and not taken on behalf of people who use transport.
There are several powerful bodies which represent the interests of freight on rail, cyclists, and especially those who travel in cars, so it seems to us to be more sensible to leave those bodies to continue to represent the interests of passengers in non-public forms of transport direct to TfL. That would leave the new body the task of representing direct to TfL the interests of those who travel by public transport. It would then be up to TfL to resolve any difficulties, ultimately backed by the power of the authority.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It is perhaps necessary for us to bring forward amendments to clarify the structure. The LTUC will be appointed by

605
the assembly and we will bring forward amendments to allow the assembly to issue guidance and directions to LTUC. It may be that the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, will then feel able to accept that point.
Baroness Hamwee: Does the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, wish to say anything before I deal with my amendment?
The Earl of Clancarty: I am not convinced by the Minister's argument. I agree very much with what the noble Baronesss, Lady Thomas and Lady Hamwee, have said. The question still remains: what will happen to the smaller voice of the public passenger? What structure will allow that voice to be heard?
Baroness Hamwee: I am interested to have heard the Minister's comments and look forward to seeing government amendments. As the Minister will appreciate, and as my noble friend Lady Thomas made clear, there is a clear difference between us as to the appropriate remit of the new body. The appointments will be made by the new assembly and, no doubt, in making the appointments the members of the assembly will have the needs of an integrated transport system for London in mind, especially the strategic nature of the whole job. I must make it clear again—and I am sorry that it was not clear to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour—that we are not suggesting in any way that London's public and other forms of transport should not be integrated. That is as far from the case as it could possibly be.
I am puzzled by the wording of Clause 199(3). I read it again during this discussion and it states that the assembly is to have regard to the desirability of ensuring that members of the committee between them represent the interests of those who use passenger transport facilities and services in greater London. I suspect that, as drafted, that means everybody who does not stay at home all day every day. The Government may understand why, having read that clause, we felt that it was necessary to try to pin the description down a little more. However, we shall return to the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may remind noble Lords that questions and comments from Back-Benchers on the Statement should be brief because the time is limited to 20 minutes and taking longer can use time available to other noble Lords.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Northern Ireland
4.20 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, with permission I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
"With your permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on last week's talks on Northern Ireland. Last Friday, I proposed a way forward for Northern Ireland.
"The starting point was the Good Friday agreement, which set out an agreed basis for a peace settlement in Northern Ireland. It offered the unionists what they have sought for the last 70 years: the principle of consent; no change to the status of Northern Ireland without the agreement of the majority of its population; changes to the Irish constitution, with Dublin dropping its legal claim to the North; and devolution of powers to Northern Ireland, with an elected assembly, an executive and other institutions. The Good Friday agreement offers the Nationalists and Republicans equality, justice, and the normalisation of Northern Ireland society; for the first time since partition, the ability to share power and responsibility and not have their electoral mandate set to nought; a range of new institutions, including North-South bodies; and over time, as the security situation improves, demilitarisation.
"Above all, the Good Friday agreement offered all the people of Northern Ireland the prospects of permanent peace and an end to violence. It is the only true way forward for Northern Ireland.
"Of course, difficulties remain. There is still violence, much of it by loyalists opposed to the Good Friday agreement. There is still conflict and bitterness, as we can see in Portadown, where I will continue to work for a settlement of the Drumcree issue.
"But life in Northern Ireland has improved immeasurably since the Good Friday agreement. Normality has returned to most parts of the Province. Whatever their disagreements, the two sides now talk to one another regularly. But one vital issue is unresolved: how to secure the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons. The Good Friday agreement required all parties to use their best endeavours to secure decommissioning.
"On 25th June, the Taoiseach and I secured the commitment of all the parties which signed the Good Friday agreement to three principles on which the rest of our work was then based. First, an inclusive executive should be formed exercising devolved powers. Secondly, all paramilitary arms should be decommissioned by May 2000. Thirdly, decommissioning should be carried out in a manner determined by the International Commission on Decommissioning under General John de Chastelain.
"Both sides need certainty. Unionists want certainty that decommissioning will happen, and a guarantee that, if it does not, they will not be left in an executive with those who refuse to do so.

607
"Republicans want the certainty that Unionists are serious about participating in a genuinely inclusive government. Our agreement last Friday provides both. In more detail, our proposal is as follows. Northern Ireland Ministers would be nominated by the parties, using the d'Hondt procedure, on 15th July. The devolution order would be laid before Parliament on the following day, and powers transferred on 18th July.
"The de Chastelain commission would require a start to the process of decommissioning. The general has already said that he expects this to be within `literally a couple of days'.
"The 'process of decommissioning' begins when a paramilitary group,
'makes an unambiguous commitment that decommissioning will be completed by 22nd May 2000 and commences detailed discussions of actual modalities (amounts, types, location, timing) with the Commission through an authorised representative'.
"So there would have to be a definitive statement of intent, certified by de Chastelain literally within days. If it does not happen and de Chastelain certifies a breach of this process, then at that point the executive is unwound. So we will know within days whether the decommissioning is to happen or not.
"The commission then sets a further time limit, within which there is to be a start to actual decommissioning of weapons. The general has said that he would expect this to be within a few weeks. Again, should the actual decommissioning not come as de Chastelain has laid down according to the Good Friday agreement, then again the failsafe kicks in. De Chastelain is due to make reports on progress on actual decommissioning in September, December and May 2000, by which time it is to be complete.
"This is all entirely in line with the Good Friday agreement. Under it, parties are expected to use their best efforts to secure decommissioning. Last Friday's agreement is the basis for how that will be judged.
"Should default occur, the institutions are suspended automatically while we find a way forward. We are all then, in effect, back to where we are now, but with these two vital differences. The blame for default I s clear, and the parties are then free to move on in an executive without the defaulting party.
"I cannot make the other parties agree to a new executive. I cannot force anyone to sit in a government with anyone else. But I can make sure that Sinn Fein does not continue in an executive with the UUP should there be a default of the de Chastelain process. All this will be set out in legislation.
"It is a far better deal than was on offer at Hillsborough. That offered a token act of decommissioning, dependent on reciprocal steps by the British and Irish with no clear framework for completing the process by May 2000. This provides a guarantee of a complete process of decommissioning, plus a failsafe that protects fully the interests of the Unionists.
608
"So there is a challenge here to all parties: to Unionists to agree to a power sharing executive; to Republicans not just to give up violence, but to decommission weapons in accordance with the undertakings of the Good Friday agreement; to nationalist opinion to support parties implementing this agreement and not support those who refuse to do so.
"If last Friday's agreement is put through, we will know in days whether the paramilitaries are serious about decommissioning their weapons. After 30 years of bloodshed, grief-stricken families, terror-torn communities, is it not worth waiting 30 days to see if the undertakings made here are fulfilled? If they are, then peace will come—real peace. If they are not, then we will know that the challenge of true democracy was too much for those linked to paramilitary groups. Either way, we will know. So I say to people: discuss the detail. Debate it. Engage. But do not throw away the best chance for peace we will have this generation".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Prime Minister's Statement in the way that she has. The whole House, I am sure, will understand the difficulties of this process and appreciate the efforts of all those who are negotiating in good faith to find a way forward.
It is, of course, some years since this process was begun by my right honourable friend Mr Major. We in the Conservative Party have supported the process all along. We continue to give full support to the Good Friday agreement. We are committed to making it work and seeing it implemented in full. I am sure that the Government will agree with me when I say that an essential part of the process is the decommissioning of all illegally held arms and explosives. So far it has not yet happened. I should have thought that parties genuinely committed to peace do not need weapons in their armoury.
Will the noble Baroness the Leader of the House agree with me that in matters such as this it is therefore essential to proceed with caution and with remorseless attention to detail? Does she agree that it is not appropriate to apply all the pressure on Mr Trimble? The democratic parties have already done all that was required under the agreement; and the Unionist leader has made the historic statement that he is prepared to sit with the political representatives of terrorist organisations provided those organisations show a genuine intent to disarm. Is the noble Baroness concerned that although the process of decommissioning is supposed to be completed within 10 months it is still to begin? The Government are asking the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland to take on trust claims by Sinn Fein—which does not, the House will remember, even profess to speak for the IRA—and by other political parties linked to paramilitaries that once they are in the executive, disarmament will begin.
It is for that reason that we have two main areas of concern. The first relates to the question of a guarantee. Is it the case that there is still no cast-iron guarantee that

609
the IRA will decommission illegal weapons, although the Prime Minister has said that that will happen? Can the noble Baroness give the House more details about how soon decommissioning must start after the formation of an executive that includes Sinn Fein? Does she agree that, if the House is to be able to debate this proposal meaningfully—and I think that it should—we may need a more precise and transparent timetable from General de Chastelain on which to form such a judgment?
On a fail-safe guarantee, Friday's document said that, without decommissioning, the Government would:
"suspend the operations of the institutions set up by the Agreement".
Does the noble Baroness agree that that would penalise democratic politicians for the intransigence of terrorists—and, incidentally, give paramilitary organisations leverage over the continuance of the executive? Yet today the Prime Minister said that if the IRA does not express a willingness to decommission,
"it is open to us all to formulate a new way forward without Sinn Fein".
The key question that arises is: what do the Government mean? Do they mean an executive only with Sinn Fein or an executive without Sinn Fein if need be—because it cannot be both?
Will the noble Baroness also confirm what appeared to be the meaning of the Prime Minister's words this morning—namely, that without decommissioning he would seek the suspension of Sinn Fein or any other defaulting organisation from the Assembly and invite the Assembly to choose a new executive? Finally, will the noble Baroness confirm that, without decommissioning, the Government would not hesitate to stop the early release of terrorist prisoners onto our streets?
The Government have said that they will ask us for assistance with emergency legislation. On behalf of these Benches, I would like to say that we will work with the Government to provide a speedy approval for that legislation. First, is the noble Baroness in a position to tell us whether it will be primary or secondary legislation? Secondly—I say this in the knowledge that we have a great deal of business to complete before the Summer Recess—I think that it would be fair for there to be some negotiation with those individuals who find themselves on the Cross Benches, who have a great deal of interest in Northern Irish matters and who might have some difficulties with whatever arrangements I, or indeed the Liberal Democrats, come to.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, from these Benches, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating in your Lordships' House the Prime Minister's Statement in another place—even if, to be realistic, nothing that we are likely to say here will determine in any way the immediate events in Northern Ireland. We congratulate the Prime Minister on everything that he has done personally to resolve the crisis, just as we applauded John Major from these Benches for his brave attempts to solve the problems of Northern Ireland.
610
As for the Statement, we agree with what the Prime Minister said about the Good Friday agreement. We agree also about the three principles to which all parties were committed on 25th June and with the current challenge to those parties that progress represents.
I think it is correct to say that those of us here must recognise that it is desperately difficult to trust Sinn Fein in the present circumstances, given its past record. However, this must be done, given the situation that has now been reached based on the assumption that its leadership genuinely wants the Good Friday agreement to work. Indeed, I think that the evidence of the Statement and all that has happened in the past few days shows that we are very close to the further agreement that would make the Good Friday agreement meaningful. It should be possible to find a way in which the timing is such that the gap between setting up the executive and the commencement of decommissioning is so narrow as to be almost simultaneous.
I see in the Statement reference to "within a couple of days". That is reassuring to a degree, but I wonder whether, in practice, it might become an even shorter period. It would be a tragedy for the people of Northern Ireland who want peace if their leaders cannot now go the whole way regarding the agreement presented to them. They must—here we reach an inevitable cliché—have a leap of the imagination and an act of courage in which personal reputations do not matter because peace does.
I have three questions to put, perhaps tentatively, to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. First, can she say something more about the present timetable for decommissioning? If the executive is set up on 15th July, when is it assumed that decommissioning will begin? Is it the two days referred to in the Statement—which seems to be a shorter period than mentioned hitherto? Secondly, if Sinn Fein fails to deliver, would it be open to the executive to continue without Sinn Fein? As I understand it—perhaps the noble Baroness will clarify this point—it will be open to the rest of the executive to choose what to do or for the Assembly to make that decision.
The third point is a difficult one, and I may be very wide of the mark. Would it not help if General de Chastelain made more frequent reports so that, if the worst happened and decommissioning stopped, action with regard to the executive would be immediate? At present, I think that he is expected to report every three months; a shorter interval might be helpful. However, none of this should be taken to be any attempt to negotiate. It is uniquely the case that, as in times of war, the Government must be supported in their endeavours to reach objectives that we all share.
4.36 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their support of the broad outlines of the Statement. I shall of course echo back to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister the words that have been spoken about his role—particularly last week, with his strenuous efforts on behalf of the agreement. I of course acknowledge the

611
enormously important work of the right honourable gentleman Mr Major in beginning this process. One of the tremendous virtues of the process so far has been the bipartisan nature of the efforts that have been made. I am grateful to the noble Lord for confirming that that will continue. We obviously hope very much that it will do so both in words and in practice.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, has said, we are all united in our broad aims of trying to achieve an inclusive executive in Northern Ireland for a devolved form of government and to achieve decommissioning. Both noble Lords rightly place great stress on the nature of the decommissioning process and the timetable—or the "sequencing" as it is called in the Northern Ireland jargon—of the decommissioning and the establishment of the executive. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that there was no decommissioning precondition in the Good Friday agreement, but there is an obligation. That obligation is reinforced and made much more explicit by the statement of Friday.
I think that one point has changed, which was emphasised in the Statement: we are no longer dependent upon trust—I agree with those who are suspicious of trust in this area—but upon action. As I repeated in the Statement, that action is set out clearly in the timetable that has been agreed with General John de Chastelain about the benchmarks that he will require on the decommissioning beginning immediately after the executive has been established.
Of course, there are always concerns about whether any group of people represented in the political process is speaking for the paramilitaries, on either side, whom it claims to represent. However, I think that the House will have noted the words of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister this morning—uttered not in the other place but in an interview—when he said he believed that last week he was listening to the authentic voice of the IRA. However, as I have said, this is not a time to depend solely on words. We can, in this instance, depend on the actions that have been set out in the agreement and which are put forward clearly in terms of a time frame.
Both noble Lords were concerned about when the fail-safe agreements will kick in if anyone defaults on the agreement. As my right honourable friend said in the Statement, if default occurs, the institutions would be suspended automatically while we find a way forward. However, as he also said, there would be two vital differences from where we are now. The blame for default is clear and the parties are free to move on in an executive without the defaulting party. I hope that it is explicit to noble Lords who raised the issue that the situation could be taken forward without Sinn Fein being part of the executive. I hope that I have reassured noble Lords about the Statement's interpretation in parts of the media that some parties might be penalised if the paramilitaries did not decommission.
It is worth repeating that the parties have the option of excluding any party from the executive if it does not meet its commitments. Only if that does not happen would the Government here take action to suspend the
612
institutions. That would be a drastic step but it would be prompted by a clear breach of faith by the party responsible.
The point about the arrangements for the failsafe on the executive is clearly set out and would kick in immediately if there were any breach of the undertakings under the de Chastelain benchmarks. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, wanted more detail about the timetable. I repeat that the first report on decommissioning will take place in September. There will then be a report on the decommissioning process at three-month intervals until May 2000 is reached.
The point of the reports is to enable the fail-safe arrangements, which will be brought forward in the legislative process, to take place. I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that that will require primary legislation. I take the point, as I did last week when we spoke of the possibility of there being a Statement and order on devolution, that Cross-Benchers should be included in the process. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, when he raised the point last Thursday, I am sure that the usual channels will extend their consideration to the Cross-Benchers in this particular instance.
The noble Lord raised the issue of the prisoners, which is always an extremely difficult issue. He is only too well aware that the release of the prisoners is dependent on whether organisations are maintaining complete and unequivocal ceasefires. I am sure that he will have noted the statement of the chief constable last week that nothing the Secretary of State has done in this context was in his view inappropriate on the basis of the briefings he had been given about the security situation and the ceasefire.
I say to noble Lords in general that the anxieties which surround the whole issue, specifically as regards prisoners and more broadly as regards trust, are more than clear to those who have followed the history and been involved in the political decisions for so long. I re-emphasise what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, in his concluding remarks, that it would be a tragedy if we reached this point and then, in the words of the Prime Minister, had to rewind the whole process. I simply echo his words that this is the best hope for a generation and hope that the legitimate anxieties can be assuaged.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, will the noble Baroness the Leader of the House accept that one can have only admiration for the Herculean character at the efforts of the Prime Minister and of the Taoiseach in seeking to secure from all parties fulfilment of their obligations under the Good Friday agreement? Every one of us must hope to see an agreed and fair way forward.
However, will the noble Baroness also agree that there has developed what was described on the BBC at lunchtime today as a fog of confusion as to what really is on offer? For that reason, the fail-safe agreement to the deal promulgated on Friday speaks of the Government's commitment to the automatic and

613
immediate suspension of the Assembly, the executive and other institutions in the event of certificated failure to meet an obligation to decommission. It will be automatic and immediate, which is all one gets from the agreement of last Friday.
However, today, again on the BBC, the Prime Minister said that it would be open to the Unionist and other parties to go forward with devolved government without Sinn Fein and that he would expect them to do so. Does the Minister agree that that is a very different outcome and, to those who do not wish to see improper influence being accorded to terrorists, a very much more acceptable outcome? That is not least because if the Unionists were to suffer the loss of devolved government, which to them has been such a special prize, it would be deeply unjust if the cause were simply the failure of the IRA to decommission.
Does the noble Baroness agree that it is necessary for the Government to make more sharply clear that they would invite the parties to proceed on the executive without Sinn Fein in those circumstances and to continue to repeat that? I am sure that she will agree with me that the public's fear that the Government are being taken for a ride by extraordinarily adroit politicians and practitioners on the Republican side are rational and never ever to be underestimated.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, for allowing me to repeat and underline some of the points which were made more explicit in the Statement than in previous media interviews. It is the case that if the de Chastelain process records a default by one member or one party to the executive, the organisation is suspended. Indeed, the Government would encourage other parties to the executive to go forward. Perhaps I may repeat that the Prime Minister said that we should be back to where we are now, but with the two vital differences. First, the blame for default would be clear, which is not particularly relevant to the noble and learned Lord's point but is still in the text; and secondly, all the parties would then be free to move on in an executive without the defaulting party.
I am happy to repeat what my right honourable friend said in another place. The Government would encourage them to do so. But, as he also said, he cannot make people sit down in the executive and he cannot force them to form a government. However, it is his position that the UK Government, working closely with their Irish colleagues, will do what they can to encourage the process to continue. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for drawing attention to the role of a Taoiseach in that process.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House clarify that point? Have the Government had any indication from the SDLP whether it would support the exclusion of Sinn Fein because of an adverse report from de Chastelain either in September, December or May? I understood that exclusion would have to be voted upon under the
614
d'Hondt system and that if the SDLP did not support that exclusion that would act as the impediment to the process.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot offer any insight as to the position of the SDLP. However, the noble Lord is right to draw attention to its significance, particularly in terms of the possible vote within the executive. I can only say to the noble Lord that if the black scenario which he projects were to occur, the fail-safe proceedings on which there will be legislation would kick in. Although the situation would be less productive than the one I suggested in response to the question asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, a view could be taken about proceeding with the executive without Sinn Fein.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Perhaps I may join the admiration which has been expressed on all sides of the House for the Prime Minister's dedication, patience and skill in pursuing these negotiations. He has made a remarkable effort and I believe that it should be recognised as such by everyone.
May I also add to that my expression of admiration for the work of the Northern Ireland Secretary, Dr Mo Mowlam, without whose skill and charm the Good Friday talks might never have been held? We should not forget that, because she has not had an easy task in trying to be number two to a Prime Minister who is so obviously shining in his success. Would the Leader of the House not agree with me that it is time to stop the nit-picking? Every time she is asked a question, "Would the Prime Minister dot that T; Would the Prime Minister cross that and "Is the Prime Minister being misled here and fooled there?", it counteracts the impression we have all been giving of belief in his sincerity. We are in fact saying that we do not trust his word and we do not trust what he has achieved. Is it not true that all the verbal safeguards that anybody can devise will be no guarantee that the peace process will in effect lead to a peaceful Ireland unless there is a change of heart on both sides of the sectarian divide? I think that we have enough evidence of that change of heart on one side and I hope the Unionists will parallel it on theirs.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for what she said about the Prime Minister's efforts, re-emphasising, as it were, our personal congratulations to him. I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, used the expression "Herculean" about the undertakings in which he had been involved last week, and I think that is quite appropriate. I am also very grateful to her for what she said about my right honourable friend, Dr Mowlam. We all seek to congratulate her. The combination of skill and charm to which my noble friend rightly referred has been unparalleled and extremely important at difficult moments in this long process.
My noble friend referred to nit-picking. We have to be a little careful about how we distinguish between what we regard as irritating attention to detail and appropriate anxieties, to which I was hoping to refer

615
in the contributions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. I would agree with her that obviously we must not allow the attention to the minutiae to distract us from the enormous achievement that has been made, but I would also just remind noble Lords of the final words of the Prime Minister's Statement, which I repeated, in which he said that this should be discussed in detail, that it should be engaged with, but again his final sentence was, "But don't throw away the best chance for peace we will have this generation". I am sure my noble and learned friend would agree with that.
The Lord Bishop of Ely: My Lords, I join other Members of the House in most warmly welcoming the Statement of the Prime Minister this afternoon and in asking the noble Baroness the Leader of the House whether she agrees that the form of argument which might be used with Loyalist politicians would be strengthened if it were admitted that they were faced at this moment with a forced choice between the lesser of evils? On the one hand, there is the evil that people of violence appear not unequivocally to have renounced the use of violent means before their nearest political neighbours sharing the same political aims benefit from, or apparently benefit from, the campaign of indiscriminate terror that has been waged. On the other hand, there is the greater evil that the process itself, which was begun on the richly symbolic day, Good Friday, should grind to a halt and the Province return to the appalling circumstances of the past 30 years.
My mother was an Irish woman—born in County Sligo—and was separated a child from her father because of the religious politics of her day. I am therefore passionately concerned for the future of Ireland. If ever there were a just case for warfare, it only presents itself in the form of a choice between evils. Is it not conceivable that the making of peace at this moment too involves such a choice, but may we not ask the Unionist community to make it and thereby enjoy the support of very many other people of goodwill, both on the mainland and much more widely throughout the world?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sure the whole House is grateful to the right reverend Prelate for putting the whole situation in Ireland, both historically and today, in such vivid terns. I think he made a very important plea for a non-sectarian future for Northern Ireland and I am sure that that is one that the House would echo. I simply say to the right reverend Prelate that we would hope that the choices he presents are less bleak than the ones which he outlined in his vivid contribution, and would hope that the twin aims of decommissioning and the inclusive devolved assembly would bring people together in that non-sectarian venture which requires courage on every side but, as he rightly says, is probably the only way forward.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that 30 years ago next month, her father, the then Home Secretary, was responsible for sending British troops into Northern Ireland in the wake of the trouble which had broken out then. At that time, I think around
616
about 15 people had been killed. Since then, more than 3,000 people have been brutally murdered in Northern Ireland. The passions which existed in 1960 have been multiplied time and time again and, at this present time, there is a great deal of distrust between both communities in Northern Ireland.
I have said repeatedly in this House and outside it that the one big mistake made in the Good Friday agreement was not to have contained the issue of decommissioning. It has been hanging over our heads like the sword of Damocles every minute since then. Now we must answer and try to grapple with the circumstances which have arisen because that issue was not contained.
Is it a question of 24, 48 or 72 hours on which this whole process hinges because Sinn Fein has said that, unless the executive is formed, it is not going to give any undertaking on decommissioning? The Unionists say, "Our manifesto, our party policy, is that you must enter into the process of decommissioning before you are admitted into the executive". Is it realistic that the whole process of peace in Northern Ireland should hinge on 24, 48 or 72 hours? Again, I have to support what has been said by many people in Northern Ireland. There is a good deal of confusion as to how the fail-safe device will work. It looks at the moment that if Sinn Fein does not give an undertaking to General de Chastelain that it will decommission—people will interpret it to their own satisfaction—then the whole Assembly could be brought to an end. I think it would be very, very unfair if democrats elected to that Assembly should be cast out to the wilderness because the members of Sinn Fein, the perpetrators of murder, have not agreed to disarmament.
I have not read in any great detail the commentaries which have been given by the Loyalist paramilitaries. At least the Sinn Fein representatives who are to be appointed to the executive have not been convicted of murder. There are Loyalist representatives in the Assembly who have been convicted of murder and have served a long time in prison. What happens if their ceasefire breaks down? Are they to be excluded from the Assembly? Are the Sinn Fein representatives on the executive to be banished from the executive but still maintain their positions in the Assembly?
Before one can begin to envisage peace in Northern Ireland, the Government must be seen to be acting equally and bringing out equality on both sides.
Over the past two or three days, there has been an absolute avalanche of criticism mobilised against the Unionist party. There are two communities in Northern Ireland. I believe that David Trimble has gone out of his way to do all he possibly can in this process and the Government should go out of their way to assist him. Otherwise, he will be abolished by his own party and the whole agreement will fall into the abyss.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Lord speaks from an extremely authoritative background on this issue. He reminded me of my long-term family connections with the situation in Northern Ireland. But even so, I cannot match his experience.

617
I simply remind the noble Lord of what I said in response to an earlier question on the issue of exclusion of parties from the assembly. The parties have the option of excluding any party from the executive if it does not meet its commitment. That was extremely clear. He is right to draw attention to the role of the Loyalist paramilitaries. He will have noted that the Statement referred to the fact that a great deal of the recent violence has come from that source.
The particular point about the executive, which is at the nub of the present concerns about the fail-safe arrangement, is that the Loyalist paramilitary groups would not be represented within the executive because the parties which are, as it were, the democratic face of the loyalist paramilitaries do not have sufficient seats, under the d'Hondt system, to be represented on the executive. Therefore that issue is constitutionally irrelevant.
However, I repeat that there are all the concerns to which the noble Lord rightly drew attention about the detail of the decommissioning process. That process will have been said to have started if, within a couple of days—I use General de Chastelain's phrase—the commitment on decommissioning is given by the IRA and it appoints a link person to negotiate all the precise details with his team. That will set the decommissioning process in train. As I said in answer to other questions, that will be followed by certain benchmark activities which must be satisfied during the coming months.
However, I merely say to the noble Lord and to the whole House that if we do not follow through and we are not able to deliver on the agreement, there will be no decommissioning at all.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for the way in which she has handled questions so far. She has shed light on some difficult points.
However, the fog persists. Does she not agree that one of the main reasons for that confusion across the water is the way in which Sinn Fein and IRA spokesmen seem, day by day, to be saying one thing to their own supporters and another to the Prime Minister? If that ambivalence persists during this crucial month, the chances of the Unionists reaching a satisfactory conclusion are bound to be greatly reduced.
The second point has not yet been made. Will the noble Baroness accept—I am sure she will—that the Statement today and the events over the weekend put a huge burden on General de Chastelain? His integrity and good sense impress anyone who meets him. However, he now carries that burden. It is his job to be clear and not to throw a cloak over any ambiguities and things which are going wrong. The whole process depends not just on the Herculean efforts of the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach but also on the capacity and integrity of that Canadian general. Will the noble Baroness assure us that he will receive full support in the independent carrying out of his role?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, for allowing me
618
to say that there is an enormous burden on General de Chastelain. Our Government and the fish Government have recently recognised that explicitly. He will receive the full support of both Governments in the extraordinarily delicate work which he undertakes.
I go back to the noble Lord's earlier comments. The ambivalence which he describes must be resolved by actions, not words. That is why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has set out in such detail the way in which the defaulting system, if one can call it that, kicks in once the devolution process, if it does begin, begins. After two days—and General de Chastelain used the expression "a couple of days"—we need to see the agreement from the IRA to the decommissioning process. If in September and further on in subsequent months General de Chastelain is then able to report that the benchmarking process has been agreed, those actions will in a sense reinforce the whole political process. They will be crucial to it. That is why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has insisted on those objective tests of movement on decommissioning rather than, as I said in answer to the original point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, relying on people's good faith. That has been sorely tested in this process.
I repeat to the House—because it may not have been clear, judging by the questions which have been asked—that all those fail-safe arrangements will be set out in legislation. That is being consulted on urgently and I know that my right honourable friend is hoping to bring forward the legislation within a matter of days.

Greater London Authority Bill
5.7 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 199.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 288C:
Page 106, line 38, leave out ("Greater London") and insert ("the Greater London area").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 2888D. These amendments are proposed to Clause 199 which deals with the appointment of the London Transport Users' Committee.
The first amendment proposes that rather than simply and precisely "Greater London" being the area relevant to the use of transport facilities and services, the area is described as the "Greater London area".
It is in the nature of transport that one cannot set a political or administrative boundary. The term "the Greater London area" is used in the Railways Act 1993 to define the area with which the current committee—the LRPC—is concerned. We believe that there should be a similar provision here and that membership of the committee should be able to cover the whole area.
When the matter was raised by my honourable friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton in another place, the Minister said that she was prepared to consider the

619
issue further and return to it at a later stage. On that basis, he withdrew the amendment. I hope that the Minister may have some news for us about that.
The second amendment seeks to exclude the mayor from membership of the new committee. That is because of a concern on our part about a possible conflict of interest. Members of the assembly, Transport for London and the staff of those organisations may not be appointed. Of course, the mayor falls within one of those categories.
In response to this amendment in another place, the Minister said that it was unlikely and unacceptable that the assembly would appoint the mayor in such a capacity. She said:
"As it is inherent that, although it is unlikely, there may be criticism of the mayoral transport strategy as well as Transport for London, the amendment is unnecessary".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee A, 2/3/99; col. 885.]
It seems to me that by saying that it would be unlikely and unacceptable for the assembly to appoint the mayor to the new committee rather makes the point that the amendment is necessary and desirable.
On the Bill, the Government's response to amendments has been that such and such is inconceivable. We take the view that our role is to say, "What if?", and to ask that question of the Committee. The amendment was tabled in that spirit I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We have similar difficulties with these amendments as with Amendment No. 288B. Amendment No. 288C seeks to define the geographical area covered by the LTUC. Noble Lords will recognise—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said—that the boundary of LTUC in its role as a rail users' consultative committee is much wider than Greater London or indeed the outer boundary of TfL services. However, the assembly is not prevented from selecting people from outside the boundary of the Greater London Authority, and it is important to recognise that the rail regulator has the opportunity to contribute to the process of appointments. If the noble Baroness remains concerned on the issue of boundaries, I am prepared to consider whether the geographical area covered by the LTUC may be more clearly defined in the Bill.
We do not believe that Amendment No. 288D is necessary. Decisions about appointments are taken by the assembly in consultation with the rail regulator. A basic purpose of the committee is to assist the assembly in the scrutiny of the mayor's policy and the performance of TfL. It would clearly be perverse for the mayor to participate in the proceedings of the committee as its chair while his or her policies were under debate. We believe that that is so obvious that the assembly does not need an express provision in the Bill to point it out.
I am conscious that the noble Baroness, in speaking to her second amendment, was commenting on the strength of the language. I hope she feels reassured by the clear expression that it would be perverse for that to happen and will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: On Amendment No. 288D, I believe that it is the job of this Committee and the
620
House as a revising Chamber to exclude any possibility of perversity. Nevertheless, I shall admit to an argument that the noble Baroness has not used against me. We have sought all the way through the Bill to give the assembly as much flexibility as possible vis-à-vis the mayor. Perhaps there is logic in my accepting the rather odd situation with which we are presented on that amendment.
I am grateful for the comments of the Minister on the first of the amendments. It would be useful to provide for what we are agreed upon. On the basis that the Government will consider returning with an amendment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 288D not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 289:
Page 107, line 2, at end insert (", or
(e) any officer or employee or member of a company having business with the Authority or with Transport for London, or any company in which Transport for London has an interest, which generates revenue in any twelve month period (measured according to generally accepted principles of accounting) in excess of £10,000, or any officer or employee of any company under the control of such a company, or which is controlled by a company which also controls such a company").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 289, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 290, 292 and 293. This group of amendments is concerned with the transport users' committee. Amendment No. 289 seeks to add to the list of those who may not be appointed to that committee—assembly members, members of TfL, members of staff and so on—those who have a business interest with Transport for London, or with the authority, in excess of a certain amount of money. I am prepared to be flexible about the sum of money. The principle is that those who have business interests with the authority should not be members of the users' committee because there could be a potential conflict of interest.
Amendment No. 290 requires that,
"The Assembly shall appoint and fix the remuneration of external auditors"—
and that it shall conduct,
"an annual audit of the finances of the Committee and submit an annual report on such finances to the Assembly".
As I understand it, the transport users' committee has no requirement to be externally audited. We are dealing with fare-payers' money—those who use the London transport system—and we believe it is right that an audit should be carried out by external auditors and a report made to the assembly.
Amendment No. 292 deals with public sessions of the users' committee. The amendment merely suggests that the committee should give three days' notice of such meetings. At the moment I can see no requirement lo give notice of such meetings. Unless the public is given notice—we suggest three days—there is little value in having public sessions of the users' committee.

621
I understand that local authorities are obliged to give three days' notice and that would be a good principle to apply here.
Amendment No. 293 deals with business taken at the meeting from which the public should be excluded. We have no objection to the fact that it may be necessary for the public to be excluded from some items, but we are suggesting that if such an exclusion is to take place, the public should be told what items are involved and given a brief reason why their attendance is not allowed. That seems a perfectly reasonable requirement to put on the committee.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: These amendments cover a range of matters concerning LTUC, including provisions on membership, on audit and public accountability, and on the actual subject matter to be considered by the LTUC.
Amendment No. 289 is similar, as the noble Lord acknowledged, to one we debated last week in relation to the independent bus permits appeals body. The Government wish to see public bodies, such as LTUC, representing the full diversity of the communities who use the services. Yet the effect of this amendment would be to debar a significant number of people from applying for membership of LTUC. For example, the amendment would disqualify those working for firms providing office supplies, financial services and catering contracts to TfL, none of which is directly linked to transport provision, and many of which could easily be in excess of the £10,000 threshold contained in the amendment. On Thursday, the noble Lord acknowledged that the figure of £10,000 was perhaps too low.
At present, members of the London Regional Passengers' Committee, in common with members of the other rail users' consultative committees, are asked to disclose financial interests in the transport sector, and may be asked to divest themselves of such assets prior to appointment. That non-statutory method of managing conflicts of interests has worked effectively. We see no reason why the same practice should not be followed.
Moreover, it is the assembly which is to appoint members of LTUC. The assembly will want the LTUC to be independent, and will no doubt make appointments accordingly. We believe that the amendment is disproportionate, and that this is a matter for common sense rather than one requiring legislation.
Amendment No. 290 would require the assembly to appoint external auditors for LTUC. The Government plan to bring forward technical proposals of their own at a later stage to ensure that the audit provisions for LTUC fit within the overall structure for the Greater London Authority and its constituent parts. I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lord in that respect. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Some of the amendments are proposed with the best of intentions but can cause practical problems. Amendment No. 292 is such an example. I am sure that, as a public consultative body, LTUC will strive to give
622
timely notice of its meetings. However, the amendment would prevent LTUC meeting to discuss issues within a shorter timescale. A consultative body such as this should be allowed the flexibility to react to events in a timely way.
Amendment No. 293 would require the committee to give notice to the public of items from which they may be excluded. It would cause administrative difficulties. Although the confidentiality provisions in the Bill permit some items to be taken in private session if provided in confidence by the rail regulator or franchising director, other items can only be held in private session if the committee formally resolves to do so. Such decisions can only be taken at the relevant committee meeting.
I should perhaps add that it is the LRPC's normal practice for confidential items to be taken together so as to minimise inconvenience to members of the public who wish to attend the relevant meeting. That is not always possible and it would be inappropriate to limit LTUC in this way. I hope therefore that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: These are small points but if things went wrong they could cause a great deal of trouble. Have the Government thought about this? Three days is a very short time in which to give notice of a public meeting. Would it not be a good idea to have something on the face of the Bill.
We all know that there will be occasions when a body such as the new London Transport Users' Committee will want to be able to say it has held a public meeting but is not keen on too many people expressing their views at that meeting. Putting a minimum period of notice on the face of the Bill is certainly desirable, and I cannot imagine that less than three days would ever be required.
In relation to Amendment No. 293, will the agenda containing the items to be discussed in private be publicly available, or will the agenda of those items also be private? If the normal access to information applies, the agenda will explain what the items are. If the public know what the items are, then the chairman will have to give an explanation in order to get the members of the public to leave the meeting. One can trivialise this matter a little too much. Trouble could easily arise at these meetings.
Baroness Hamwee: When similar issues were raised from these Benches in connection with meetings of the assembly and public meetings, we detected—without commitment—a little sympathy on the part of the noble Baroness that they require careful attention. I hope that we can return to those earlier amendments at a later stage and that the Government will be prepared to agree to some minor alterations of the Bill simply in the interests of the good working of the new authority.
The points made in this current debate are very much in the same category. No ground is lost if this matter is conceded; it simply enables the Bill to provide what it should provide for the right sort of regulations. Will the

623
Minister be prepared to consider these aspects of this part of the Bill with the equivalent provisions relating to another part of the new organisation?
Lord Avebury: Before the noble Baroness responds, can she give the Committee some idea of what matters are likely to be of such an emergency nature that it would be impossible to give three days' notice of their discussion at a meeting? Presumably, meetings will be held on a regular basis at fixed intervals and there would be no problem in giving the three days' notice provided for in the amendment. The Minister says that if we write this into the Bill it will prevent the committee having special meetings to discuss some item which requires prompt consideration. Can she tell us what kind of items might be likely to be taken at such a meeting?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: A matter of public safety would be an example. I cannot think of another example off the top of my head. If a restriction was placed on the committee, it would not be able to convene in a situation where there was that nature of urgency. I am happy to give the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the assurance that we will give careful thought to this matter when we come back with amendments on the issue of guidance to LTUC from the assembly.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Can the Minister tell me if the agenda will be public, even if some of the items are private? Will people know what the private items are if they come to a public meeting?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: That is a matter to which we can return in terms of guidance. Obviously, there would need to be enough information for people to be aware of the decisions being taken. I am sure the noble Baroness can remember from her distinguished days in local government that there was always enough information on an agenda to be able to tell that the nature of the business being taken had to be taken in private.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: That was because of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act, which I do not believe applies here.
Lord Berkeley: Another example of when a meeting might have to be convened at short notice is if a major bus operator suddenly went into liquidation. There may need to be quick discussions taking place in such a situation.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I shall write to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, as to whether that Act applies.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who felt able to support at least the principle of two of the amendments. I shall read with interest what the noble
624
Baroness had to say in relation to the first amendment. It may be that the provisions for disclosure of information will satisfy me.
In relation to the second amendment, I look forward again with interest to the technical proposals on audit which the Minister intends to bring forward. On the matter of allowing three clear days' notice, the explanation that there might be a matter of urgency which would need less than that is difficult to accept. Frankly, there will be up to 24 members on this committee plus the chairman, and I feel it would be difficult to organise a meeting of that number within three days in any case. It is not easy to arrange such a meeting at short notice.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, gave an example of the possible liquidation of a London bus operator. I would have thought that was more a matter for Transport for London than the new London Transport Users' Committee. It might be something with which the LTUC will have to deal, but I doubt that it would need to do anything immediately. It would be for Transport for London to produce an alternative operator if that was required. The reasons therefore for not allowing three days' notice are pretty thin. As I understand it, local authorities are required to give that amount of notice and I cannot understand why the LTUC should not be able to do so also.
The explanation to be given to the public as to why they are being excluded from the meeting relates to a very small request. As my noble friend Lady Carnegy said, it could lead to trouble if people find themselves being thrown out of a meeting without being told why. However, I shall not pursue the amendments at this point. Nevertheless, I shall study the Minister's response with care and reserve the right to return to such issues. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 199 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 290 not moved.]
5.30 p.m.
Schedule 14 [London Transport Users' Committee]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 290A:
Page 236, line 33, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment deals with a small point and I have tabled it in order to probe a little a matter which was discussed in another place. Paragraph 7 of Schedule 14 provides that the assembly,
"may after consultation with the Rail Regulator make arrangements for the Committee to be provided with office accommodation".
Our amendment proposes that the assembly "shall" provide such accommodation. That is not because we believe that it should or should not do so but in order to ask the Government to explain why it is that the provision needs to be here at all.
In another place, I understand that the Minister said that the objection to this amendment was that it would prevent funding to provide offices for the committee; in other words, saying that the assembly "shall" provide accommodation would disqualify it from providing funding as an alternative.
I am concerned about the detail of the provisions in Schedule 14. One has to be so careful over this sort of provision. There is a provision in paragraph 5 of the schedule which allows the assembly to provide for the "expenses" of the new committee. Would that not be adequate to cover arrangements for office accommodation, which is the subject of paragraph 7? Moreover, as a subsidiary point, why should this apply to the rail regulator? He has many functions and sensible things to say, but does he really need to be concerned with this decision? I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: This amendment is unnecessary and could impose undue restrictions on the provision of accommodation for the committee. It is unlikely that the assembly would not provide accommodation for the committee that it had just appointed. However, there could be a situation where the committee is provided with accommodation in which the assembly had no hand. The assembly is already under a duty to provide the committee with funds for expenses incurred, and these could include accommodation costs.
Under Schedule 14, the assembly is under a duty to make funds available for expenses which could cover accommodation. The committee may want to make its own arrangements with funds provided by the assembly. Therefore, there is no need to make it a duty for the assembly to make arrangements for accommodation.
The rail regulator is involved here because of his role as sponsor of the rail users' consultative committees, of which LTUC would be one. With those explanations, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps my amendment should have sought to delete the paragraph. By tabling an amendment in the same form as it appeared in another place, I now realise that I tempted the answer I have received, which I fear does not deal with my concerns. However, they are not the most major issues in the Bill.
I see that the Minister is looking puzzled. It seems to me that paragraph 5, which talks about the assembly providing the committee with funds to "defray" expenses, should be all that one needs to provide for accommodation. However, I shall not pursue the point at this stage. As I said, it is not the most important issue in the whole scheme of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 290B:
Page 237, line 5, after ("sub-committees") insert ("or officers").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment relates to paragraph 10 of Schedule 14, which allows the committee,
"to delegate the exercise and performance of any of their functions to … sub-committees".
Our amendment would allow for delegation to "officers" as well as to sub-committees. In another place, the response to a similar amendment was that this would be
626
inconsistent with the regulations applying to other rail users' committees. However, whether or not it is inconsistent, we believe that it should be allowed if it is a sensible arrangement. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Officers of a committee such as the London Transport Users' Committee are responsible for much day-to-day activity and integral to its success. It is indeed right that it should work without the risk of possible legal action. However, the right level of protection under the law comes from acting within the broad framework of committee policy and considering representations accordingly. The officers are able to do so under the Bill without the proposed amendment. We are not aware that any problems have arisen under the present arrangements to which LRPC is subject. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Before my noble friend decides what to do with her amendment, I should point out that this issue was also debated in another place. In the course of the argument that took place, the Minister said that the amendment would make LTUC's arrangements inconsistent with those for other rail users' consultative committees—indeed, an argument which the Minister used when dealing with the other amendment that we have just discussed. I find that quite an interesting way of putting things. To my way of thinking, it takes us back to the previous amendment which was directed at trying to ensure that the new representative organisation represents the interests of public users of transport rather than the users of all transport. It is as though the Minister was saying that it will be like a rail users' committee; but it is not. It is going to be a different sort of committee. The Government must make up their mind as to what sort of committee we are talking about.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Reverting to the previous amendment, the answer is that in this case the rail users' consultative committee for the area is LTUC. The other answer is that, although it is that, it is that plus; in other words, it has a value added over and above that. I hope that that satisfies the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hamwee: We are used to being not quite as satisfied as we would wish. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth Baroness Darcy de Knayth moved Amendment No. 291:
Page 237, line 5, at end insert—
("() The Committee shall appoint a sub-committee whose sole responsibility shall be to deal with complaints about door-to-door transport.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment has been tabled in my name and that of the noble Lord, Swinfen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. In moving this amendment, I should like briefly to speak to Amendment No. 294B which is grouped with it

627
and stands in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope.
The aim of Amendment No. 291 is to ensure that in the new arrangements whereby the London Regional Passengers' Committee is replaced by the London Transport Users' Committee, there is a body capable of dealing with the specialised area of complaints from disabled people about door-to-door services. Door-to-door services are a new, expanding and specialised area. The London Accessible Transport Alliance feels that the users of these door-to-door services will require a body dedicated to dealing with these complaints, probably a sub-committee of LTUC which will still deal with accessibility issues regarding mainstream transport. But it must be an adequately resourced body purely dedicated to dealing with this complicated area. The majority of members should be disabled people and users of the door-to-door services because they have the required expertise in these matters.
Amendment No. 294B would leave such matters to be dealt with by the main committee. I look forward to hearing what other Members of the Committee have to say on both these amendments, and particularly to the noble Lord's reply. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Manchester: Again I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, for tabling Amendment No. 291, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, for moving it this afternoon. She did so with all her customary persuasiveness. I welcome the amendment and underline the importance of her point about ensuring that the body helping users of door-to-door transport is adequately resourced and dedicated to dealing with this complicated area of provision. I will not detain the Committee further except to say that this is an important amendment to which I know that my noble friend the Minister will want to reply as helpfully as he can.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I rise briefly to support Amendment No. 291 and to refer to our Amendment No. 294B which states that the functions of the authority that relate to transport should include transport for those with mobility impairments. The Minister has already told us that he is prepared to have a meeting with those who have taken a great interest in this matter. For that reason I do not propose to discuss this amendment in further detail.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: I believe that the concerns which lie behind these two amendments could perhaps be dealt with in the meeting, as the noble Baroness suggests. It is our view that these amendments are unnecessary. Of course it is right that LTUC should be able to consider representations from all transport users, including in particular those who use door-to-door transport. The Bill already provides for LTUC to consider representations from the users of such services directly provided or funded by TfL, including Dial-a-Ride. However, there is no need to spell that out on the face of the Bill.
628
The reference in Clause 200(1)(a) to the transport functions of the authority and TfL includes precisely those functions relating to the provision of transport services to disabled people. The mayor will of course have a duty to include in his or her transport strategy proposals for the provision of accessible transport and TfL will be responsible for implementing those proposals. LTUC will be consulted and will be able to comment on those proposals. These activities are therefore clearly functions which LTUC can consider.
As regards Amendment No. 294B, clearly what I have said about the provisions in Clause 200(1)(a) relating to transport functions already provide for this matter to be covered. As to prescribing a sub-committee, I believe it would be rare to include provisions on the face of a Bill describing how an organisation should divide itself into sub-committees. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, may be thinking of something rather more than a sub-committee, although Amendment No. 291 refers to a sub-committee.
Paragraph 10 of Schedule 14 already provides LTUC with the power to form sub-committees and to co-opt people on to them who are not members of the committee. The assembly will have to ensure that LTUC truly represents all users of transport in London, including disabled people and so on. I think it would be an unhelpful precedent for us to specify how bodies set up in statute should organise themselves in terms of sub-committees, especially as in this case it is clear that what the noble Baroness seeks is already covered by other provisions in this Bill. Nevertheless if there are remaining anxieties I shall discuss them with those interested, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, suggested.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for his welcome support. He stressed that this is an important amendment and that it is important to get it right. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, for her support. I welcome very much indeed what the Minister has said. I find it greatly reassuring. I think that the matter of the expert body of people is exactly the kind of matter that we could pursue further in the meeting. I am most grateful for the offer of a meeting. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 291A:
Page 237, line 19, after second ("the") insert ("Authority, Transport for London, the").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 291A I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 291B, 294C and 294D. Amendment No. 291A seeks to enable the committee to exclude the public not only when discussing items of business that already fall within paragraph 13(2)(a) of Schedule 14—that is, when discussing information that is furnished in confidence by the rail regulator or the franchising director—but also when discussing information that has been furnished by the authority itself or by Transport for London.
Amendment No. 291B would provide that only commercial, legal or personnel information from the various bodies to which I have referred will be dealt

629
with on the basis I have mentioned. In another place in response to similar amendments it was argued that the committee should be consistent with other rail user consultative committees. As I said on a previous amendment, it seems to me that it is more important to be right than to be consistent.
Amendment No. 294B seeks to place a duty on Transport for London or the authority to provide information to the committee. This again was an amendment proposed in another place for the obvious reason that the committee will need information in order to carry out its duties. I accept of course that this amendment was lost in a Division in another place. The Minister there said that the amendment was not necessary because the committee,
"will inevitably not be able to carry out its function without access to information".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Cttee A, 2/3/99; col. 895.]
The Minister here has alerted the Committee to amendments which the Government propose to table at a later stage which deal with guidance. Can this matter not be dealt with in guidance, if not on the face of the Bill?
Amendment No. 294D seeks to provide for Transport for London or the authority to give reasons to the committee for any decision that it reaches in response to the committee's recommendations. That seems to me to be almost a matter of natural justice. That is perhaps using too technical and "highfalutin" a term, but to give reasons must be more than simply sensible. It cannot be appropriate for reasons not to be given when a decision is made. In another place the Government said that this measure was not necessary because there was a statutory requirement for the committee to be notified of decisions. It was further stated in Standing Committee A in another place that:
"Neither the authority nor Transport for London is likely to supply a decision with no reasons attached. Including an explanation of a decision is a matter of good practice, not a matter for legislation".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Cttee A, 2/3/99; col. 900.]
We are in danger of being criticised for being over-prescriptive but that is in response to what we see as the over-prescription of the Bill. We believe that giving an explanation for a decision constitutes a little more than simply good practice. It is important to the good functioning of the bodies concerned. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: As the noble Baroness has indicated that she does not accept my main objection to the amendments as drafted—namely, that they would clearly make the London Transport Users' Committee operate under a different system from that which applies to the Rail Users' Consultative Committee—I am not sure that I will be able to convince her totally of my position. Nevertheless, as I think she recognised at various points, these amendments would be much more suitable to guidance than on the face of the Bill. For example, Amendment No. 291A would place TfL in a rather odd position. It would give information imparted by TfL the same status as that imparted by the regulatory bodies, whereas TfL is, in this sense, a service provider.
Apart from the fact that it would be inconsistent with the provisions on other rail user consultative committees, Amendment No. 291 B seeks to limit the kinds of
630
information provided by the franchising director and the rail regulator which are subject to being heard in private. If that were restricted it could well hinder the flow of information between the regulatory bodies and the committees, which would be undesirable.
As to Amendment No. 294C, while it is understandable that the committee would wish to have access to information held by the GLA—and, in nearly every case, also by Transport for London—it is equally clear that a constructive relationship is a better way of achieving this than by putting it on the face of the Bill. If there is any difficulty it is, of course, open to the LTUC to approach the assembly to ask for assistance; the assembly will have powers to require TfL to provide information. We hope to avoid that situation if we follow the noble Baroness's view that this is more appropriate to guidance.
As to the final amendment concerning reasons, clearly we would normally expect reasons to be given. If reasons are not given, again it would be open to the LTUC to raise the matter with assembly members in accordance with other provisions in the Bill; they can always question the mayor and obtain answers at that point. Again, we hope that this will be a matter where good practice and a constructive growth of relations will ensure that in most cases the mayor or TfL would automatically give reasons. If that requirement were to be on the face of the Bill, one would have to bring forward an amendment which recognised that there would be certain circumstances where the mayor or TfL were constrained from giving reasons; for example, because of on-going legal proceedings, privacy and so on. It would be a more complicated amendment. I feel that this should be subject to the organic growth of good relations, perhaps subject to guidance, as the noble Baroness has suggested. I therefore request that she withdraws her amendments.
Baroness Hamwee: I do not want to damage the chances of matters we would like to see in the guidance by starting on a path of commenting on what seems to be in the Bill and what seems to be left out—with not, to our eyes, huge distinctions between the two. We should be very happy for quite a lot of the prescription around this subject to go into guidance. I am happy to wait until I see the Government's amendments on guidance.
I, among others of your Lordships, have been lax and have failed to ask when the draft guidance might be available for consideration. The Minister might have thought that he was going to get away without being asked that question. He might like to respond now.
Lord Whitty: We are referring here to guidance by the assembly rather than by the Secretary of State. Although that is normally the question, it is not appropriate at this point.
Baroness Hamwee: I deserved that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 291E to 293 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 294:
Page 237, line 39, leave out paragraph 14.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 294 standing in my name and the names of my noble friends. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has also added his name to the amendment. That is a first for this side of the Committee.
The amendment seeks to strike out that the consent of the Treasury should be required for any determination or approval by the assembly under this schedule. We feel that on the principle of subsidiarity the: Treasury has no right to veto the assembly on the matter of the committee's remuneration and structure. It should be a purely London matter and it would be petty to give the Exchequer the right to interfere. I should very much hope that officials in that great department of state, the Treasury, would have better things to do than to deal with this kind of matter. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, is absolutely correct. At one stage I had thought of making a dramatic concession on the floor of House. It is a matter on which we all clearly agree. Unlike its predecessor, the LTUC is not a government NDPB. Therefore, in those circumstances, it is not appropriate that the Treasury should be involved. I agree with the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 200 [Representations to the Committee]:
[Amendments Nos. 294A to 294C not moved.]
Clause 200 agreed to.
Clause 201 [Recommendations and reports etc]:
[Amendment No. 294D not moved.]
Clause 201 agreed to.
Clause 202 agreed to.
Schedule 15 agreed to.
Clause 203 agreed to.
Schedule 16 [Hackney carriages]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 294E:
Page 240, leave out lines 37 to 40 and insert—
("(5) A fee of such amount (if any) as Transport for London may determine shall be paid to Transport for London—

(a) by any applicant for a licence under this section, on making the application for the licence;

(b) by any applicant for the taking or re-taking of any test or examination, or any part of a test or examination, with respect to any matter of fitness, on making the application for the taking or re-taking of the test, examination or part; and

(c) by any person granted a licence under this section, on the grant of the licence.

(5A) In paragraph (b) of subsection (5) of this section "matter of fitness" means—

(a) any matter as respects which Transport for London must be satisfied before granting a licence under this section; or

(b) any matter such that, if Transport for London is not satisfied with respect to the matter, they may refuse to grant a licence under this section.

(5B) Different amount may be determined under subsection (5) of this section for different purposes or different cases.
632
(5C) Transport for London may remit or refund the whole or part of a fee under subsection (5) of this section.").
The noble Lord said: We now come to Chapter IX of the Bill, which deals with taxis and minicabs. With the indulgence of the Committee, before I turn to the amendments it might be appropriate to record a few words about Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham who, unfortunately, is no longer with us, although he attended the Second Reading of the Bill.
Your Lordships will know that he had a number of diverse interests but in the House he was well known as a champion of the London taxi trade. He drove a black cab himself, which could occasionally be seen in the forecourt, and was engaged in many charitable aspects of the London taxi trade—including accompanying cab drivers taking less affluent children to Disneyland and leading a convoy of lorries to Algeria. The noble Earl's work was well appreciated in the House and probably even more so by the London taxi trade. I regret his passing, particularly before seeing the full passage of the Bill. He will be much missed in discussing the current amendments.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: With the leave of the Committee, I would like to thank the Minister very much for what he said about our much-cherished colleague, Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham. He was not only a man of many interests, which included a profound love and knowledge of jazz, but was the dearest, kindest colleague that anybody could have. I never heard him express a cross word or saw him to be anything except smiling and delightful. He will be greatly missed, not only for his contribution to our debates but for his charm and personality.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I would, from these Benches, like to be associated with the remarks of the Minister and the noble Baroness.
Lord Whitty: I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord.
Earlier in the passage of the Bill in another place, my colleague Glenda Jackson gave an undertaking to take away and consider an amendment to provide for Transport for London to be able to charge fees on application for the grant of a taxi driver's and vehicle licence. That undertaking recognised the considerable support from the taxi trade, members of both Houses and others that the measure has attracted.
The current position is that taxi drivers pay fees only for the grant, including renewal, of drivers' and vehicle licences, but the work involved in the lead-up to the grant of a licence can vary greatly from case to case. For example, some would-be taxi drivers pass the knowledge of London test fairly quickly. Others require a number of tests, with the resources that involves, before they pass—if they pass at all. The effect of the current charging system is that people have no incentive properly to prepare themselves or their vehicles before going forward for a test.

633
The result is inefficiency because the resources of the Public Carriage Office are wasted on testing people or vehicles that are not ready. The result is also unfairness. People who have prepared properly are undoubtedly kept waiting. People who pass the test and gain a licence are in effect paying in their licence fee for people who did not prepare adequately and have failed. That cannot be right.
Amendments Nos. 294E and 294F address that anomaly by providing for TfL to charge for the initial application for a taxi driver and vehicle licence, and for any test or re-test arising from the licence application. The amendments fulfil the Government's undertaking in another place and I commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: The taxi community asked me to bring forward such amendments but it is so good to see that the Minister has done so. I strongly support them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 294F:
Page 241, leave out lines 29 to 32 and insert—
("(7) A fee of such amount (if any) as Transport for London may determine shall be paid to Transport for London—

(a) by any applicant for a licence under this section, on making the application for the licence;

(b) by any applicant for the taking or re-taking of any test or examination, or any part of a test or examination, with respect to any matter of fitness, on making the application for the taking or re-taking of the test, examination or part; and

(c) by any person granted a licence under this section, on the grant of the licence.

(8) In paragraph (b) of subsection (7) of this section "matter of fitness" means—

(a) any matter as respects which Transport for London must be satisfied before granting a licence under this section; or

(b) any matter such that, if Transport for London is not satisfied with respect to the matter, they may refuse to grant a licence under this section.

(9) Different amounts may be determined under subsection (7) of this section for different purposes or different cases.
(10) Transport for London may remit or refund the whole or part of a fee under subsection (7) of this section.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 204 agreed to
Schedule 17 agreed to.
Clause 205 agreed to.
6 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment 294G:
After Clause 205, insert the following new clause—
THE WOOLWICH FERRY
(" . The duty of the Secretary of State under section 16 of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Various Powers) Act 1885 to work a ferry-boat across the river Thames is transferred to Transport for London by this section.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment provides for the Secretary of State's duties to operate the Woolwich ferry to be transferred to Transport for London. The ferry is an important river crossing and is a link in the road network that the Government propose should be the responsibility of TfL. The new clause will permit the use of powers in Part XII of the Bill to transfer the property rights and liabilities associated with the ferry from the Secretary of State. It will allow the replacement of the Secretary of State's powers, to make orders on the use of the ferry with by-laws made by TfL and permit any existing orders or by-laws made by predecessor bodies to be treated as by-laws made by TfL.
The staff who operate the Woolwich ferry are employed by the London Borough of Greenwich, which has an agency agreement with the Secretary of State. TfL will inherit the current arrangements when it takes over responsibility and staff will continue to be employed by the London Borough of Greenwich.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the new clause. I only wonder how the Woolwich ferry could have been forgotten for so long, until the Bill reached a Committee of this House.
Does the Woolwich ferry make or lose money? I suspect that it loses money. If so, presumably it currently receives a subsidy from the Secretary of State. If that is the case, will that subsidy be paid by Transport for London? Will the Secretary of State therefore make a special grant to TfL? If the Woolwich ferry makes a profit, all well and good. Presumably the TfL will enjoy that profit. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: While scribes are scribing in other parts of this Committee, perhaps I may simply rise to welcome the amendment—which is thoroughly sensible and a delightful example of not exactly devolution but, at any rate, devolvement of power. It is most satisfactory.
Lord Avebury: Why was it decided to transfer the powers this way, rather than by the tidier method of repealing the 1885 Act and conferring the powers directly on TfL?
Lord Whitty: The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is correct. The present provisions for the Woolwich ferry arise from the 1885 Act, but we felt that, rather than make an amendment to that statute, it would be appropriate to insert an explicit clause.
As to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, I believe that the requirement is to run a free service. If I am wrong, I will write to the noble Lord. The annual running costs are paid directly by the Secretary of State. Henceforth, the money will form part of the GLA transport grant and be included within that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment 295:
After Clause 205, insert the following new clause—
SMOKING IN LONDON TAXIS
(" .—(1) A person shall not smoke or carry lighted tobacco in a London taxi where passengers are by means of a prescribed notice informed that smoking is prohibited.
(2) For the purposes of this section, "prescribed notice" means a notice or marking of such type, and displayed in or on a London taxi in such manner, as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe.
(3) A passenger who contravenes subsection (1) may be required by the driver to leave a London taxi and, where the passenger refuses to comply with that requirement, may be removed by the driver or, on the request of the driver, by a constable.
(4) Nothing in subsection (3) shall be taken to relieve a passenger from the obligation to any pay fare and where a passenger is required to leave or is removed from a London taxi in accordance with that subsection before reaching his destination he shall be liable to pay the fare up to the point where he is required to leave or is removed from that taxi.
(5) A person who—

(a) contravenes subsection (1),

(b) refuses to comply with a requirement made in accordance with subsection (3), or

(c) resists lawful removal in accordance with that subsection, is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(6) Notwithstanding the provisions of any enactment requiring certain hirings to be accepted, it shall be lawful for the driver of a London taxi bearing a prescribed notice to refuse to carry a passenger who is smoking or carrying lighted tobacco.
(7) In this section "London taxi" means a hackney carriage licensed under section 6 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869.").
The noble Baroness said: It is clear that taxi drivers, having had such success with their last amendment, have not managed yet to persuade the Minister on the issue of smoking—which is why they have asked me to table this amendment.
Amendments Nos. 295 and 296 are much the same. The first covers black London cabs, which always like to be differentiated from any other form of car transport because they are such an exceptional service, to which we pay tribute. Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham would certainly have done so, had he been here. The second relates to other vehicles, to what were previously called minicabs and are now termed private hire vehicles. These new clauses would give drivers the right to choose whether passengers may smoke in their vehicles. They would not oblige drivers to designate their cabs non-smoking—after all, some taxi drivers themselves smoke—but they would increase the individual rights and freedom of choice of drivers of London taxis and also of passengers. More importantly, it would enable drivers to work in a smoke-free environment.
When we go into a restaurant, we are entitled to choose the no-smoking area. When we travel on the tube or by bus, no smoking at all is permitted. The only form of public transport in London where smoking is permitted, unless the situation is different as regards the ferries, is a taxi. It can be very unpleasant for people to travel in a cab after someone in it has been smoking heavily. This provision would not eliminate all smoking in cabs. People who required a cab in which they could
636
smoke would either be able to specify that if ordering by telephone or wait until a cab came along in which smoking was permitted. But it would mean that if a driver had chosen to place a no-smoking sign in his cab, it would be enforceable.
The proposal is set out in considerable detail, and therefore requires little explanation—whereas many amendments that merely propose to replace two words require a long explanation. I shall therefore not go into detail. The new clauses are self-explanatory.
In a letter to the London Taxi Board, which has led this campaign in a most professional way, the chief executive of the British Lung Foundation commented that:
"Drivers should be able to work in a smoke-free environment and passengers should have the right to hire a smoke free cab, for everyone's safety, comfort and health".
Irving Yass, of London First, states that:
"If legislative provision to govern smoking in cabs is not introduced now it could be some years before there is another opportunity".
The Government have accepted the position in principle, committing themselves as far back as July 1998 that the change would be introduced "when parliamentary time permits". The Minister may say that this is not the parliamentary moment. But if it is not, I should like him to tell me when is. It is important with an issue such as this to bring it forward at a time when it can be fitted in and is appropriate. Surely, when we are dealing with transport in London, this would seem to be the moment. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I strongly support the amendment. I particularly support the noble Baroness's previous point. We have just welcomed government Amendment No. 294G, which could have been achieved in a different way; namely, by amendment of another Act. The Government's response was that they felt that this was the more suitable place to introduce the provision. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, has made precisely the same point. This is a good opportunity to put forward this new piece of legislation governing taxis in London.
Lord Berkeley: I cannot resist the temptation to support the noble Baroness's amendment. As a keen anti-smoker, I believe it is right to enable drivers to ban smoking from their taxis. It is rather a long amendment; however, the noble Baroness has provided a ready explanation for that. Perhaps her next move will be to change some of the custom and practice in this House so that we have rather more non-smoking activities here. It certainly seems a good idea.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am neutral in my response to the amendment. As a recent convert, now a non-smoker, I see the force of my noble friend's arguments. I do not have much sympathy for the drivers of black cabs. They can shut the glass window between themselves and the passenger and smoke in the front of the cab, which they frequently do.

637
In principle, we can give some support to the amendment. The only point that slightly concerns me relates to the statement in subsection (3) of the first proposed new clause that a passenger who refuses to comply,
"may be removed by the driver or, on the request of the driver, by a constable".
The second part is fine, but I am not certain that removal by the driver will necessarily be easy to achieve. It could give rise to more trouble than is envisaged. That is particularly the case in regard to the second amendment relating to private hire vehicles. I wonder what would happen if someone got into a cab late at night after being at the pub and lit a cigarette and the driver tried to eject him. I leave that for the Minister to comment on.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: This was an area of high policy that was subject to an enormous amount of discussion in another place. More broadly, as the noble Baroness said, my honourable friends in another place indicated that, in principle, we were quite strongly in favour of such a proposal. But there are serious problems in regard to how it is done and what the consequences might be. It is therefore the Government's view is that we need the widest possible consultation before we can consider bringing forward legislation; and that legislation should be on a national basis rather than specifically a London basis.
That commitment to consult on a national provision still stands. A consultation document is being prepared. Our aim is to issue that document during this summer. It should set out all the issues and options, their merits and problems, and will give all concerned a chance to have their say.
As the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, hinted, there are some serious difficulties. There is the problem of evidence. There might be substantial trouble with the driver or police constable ejecting people from the cab. By the time the police arrived, if passengers were quick enough on their toes, they would presumably have thrown away the cigarette, and there are unlikely to be other witnesses. Would the police or the Crown Prosecution Service take up those new tasks?
Safety issues are also involved. In the kind of situation referred to by the noble Lord, the passenger might be a young woman, possibly slightly drunk late at night. If she insists on smoking, what does the taxi driver do? Does he have a legal right to throw her out anywhere? There are serious complications as regards the enforcement of such a provision: for example, how soon the taxi driver has the right to throw someone out and how the police become involved. All those are difficult issues.
At present, a taxi driver can request someone not to smoke in the back of the cab; 99 per cent of the time that occurs and there are relatively few problems. With this provision, I can see the possibility of some quite nasty problems. They may be resolvable. If there is overwhelming public support for the proposal, clearly it will be the Government's intention to legislate in the
638
light of that consultation. However, the consultation should take place first. The views of the enforcement authorities as well as taxi drivers and consumer interests should be taken into account. I hope that the noble Baroness will recognise the weight of that argument.
Lord Avebury: The point that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, is making is that this is the legislative opportunity. If we miss the cue, there is not likely to be another chance for several years.
Lord Whitty: If everyone were agreed that this was the way to go, and if the difficulties that I have spelt out and the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, hinted at could be overcome, there would be a strong argument for legislating for London now—although, strictly speaking, there is no reason why this provision should apply only in London. Given that there are uncertainties and difficulties with the implementation of such a scheme, I do not believe that we are on firm enough ground to legislate at this stage.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank those who have supported the amendment. They brought forward very good points and I wish to reply. My noble friend said that those in a black cab can close the glass screen; they are not too worried about the driver. That is true, but there are between 40,000 and 80,000 minicabs in London which do not have the glass screens. I hope that the day never comes when we have to have them, as in New York, for the safety of the driver. That protection would be of no benefit for the driver of a private hire car vehicle, unless it were a luxurious limousine.
I understand the point on subsection (3). Perhaps it is too onerous and there is some other way of doing it. I believe that if taxi drivers had the right to say, "Mine is a non-smoking cab", the majority of people would abide by it and consider it law. The cases that arose would not be so many as to cause the degree of difficulty that the Minister suggested. The taxi trade is distressed that, having been told that it had a commitment from the Minister in the other place, Glenda Jackson, to an immediate consultation exercise, it has heard nothing since. I am pleased to hear the Minister mention today that consultation papers are being prepared, but the summer is too late for London. We are dealing with this matter now. Therefore I shall come back to it. We now have a legislative opportunity. Lord Winchilsea was mentioned: when I took a minicab Bill through this House he strongly opposed it at Third Reading. It was about 10 years before we got the minicab legislation, and the last time, when it became law, he was strongly supportive and everyone had come around to thinking how necessary it was.
I would hate to think that we might wait years before this provision was passed. If the proposal introduced a prohibitive ban, I could understand the objection. But not all taxis would be obliged to be non-smoking, so the case is quite different and we should come back to the matter. Between now and Report stage, I hope to persuade the Minister that he could find a way round the problem and bring forward a permissive amendment

639
which would allow the provision to be brought in for London easily without new primary legislation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 296 not moved.]
Clause 206 [Introductory]:
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 296ZA:
Page 109, line 30, at end insert ("outside the City of London").
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon, I wish to move Amendment No. 296ZA and it may be convenient if I speak to Amendments Nos. 297YA, 297ZA, 297XGA and 297XGB.
Among other things, Clause 206 amends Section 1 of the Highways Act 1980 and inserts a new subsection, so that TfL will be the highways authority for all GLA roads. Amendment No. 296ZA prevents TfL's authority from extending into the City. Thus it retains the spirit of Section 10(9) of the 1980 Act which provides that no highway within the City shall be a trunk road.
No doubt the Minister will describe the amendment as a wrecking one because there is no consequential amendment to make any other person the highways authority. However, all I seek is some understanding as to why TfL powers will extend into the City. The other amendments in the group cover the same points. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My noble friends on the Front Bench, supported by many behind, have been carrying on this debate during the Committee stage and have earned my undying admiration. I thought it right to leave them to it; they have done it extremely well.
However, at Second Reading I mentioned the concerns of the City of London about the Bill's effect, in Clause 206 in particular, on the powers which the City has hitherto had and under which the authorities introduced the ring of steel. The Committee will remember that following the bomb outrages in the City, particularly following the second Bishopsgate bomb, profound concern was expressed, not least by the representatives of some of the overseas banks and financial institutions in London, that unless the authorities took pretty drastic action to protect them from the outrages they would have to reconsider carefully where they maintained their European base. I do not need to labour the point about the City. As a financial centre, in many aspects of the financial world the City is pre-eminent.
That threat was real and, accordingly, using its traffic powers contained in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the City Corporation introduced as an extreme emergency the ring of steel. It was so christened, notwithstanding that all the physical features that created it were made of red and white plastic. But the ring was manned and then enforced strictly. Every vehicle that could not account for itself was stopped and investigated. Nowadays, the ring is not manned; instead there is a sophisticated system using television and other electronic devices which have enabled security to be maintained.
640
The powers that the City authorities use are not specific to the City, but the fact is that the City retains its own dedicated police force and has its own local authority provided through the City Corporation by the Common Council. Those facts have undoubtedly facilitated the introduction of what became known as the "ring of steel". However, under this Bill without the amendment, once the GLA is established, Transport for London will become the highway authority for GLA routes. They will include the arterial routes passing through the City which my noble friend Lord Attlee mentioned. Those have always been excluded from administration by other authorities. The Bill would mean that the City Corporation would no longer he able to proceed with any traffic management scheme unless Transport for London were agreeable. The initial introduction of the ring of steel was quite controversial for the reason that it was felt to be giving in to the threat of terrorism. However, within almost days it was recognised that it was an extremely valuable feature, widely appreciated. Within a few weeks, it was recognised that the environmental impact of steering large quantities of traffic away from the City of London was appreciable. Therefore, there is no doubt that it is a good thing.
The question must now be asked whether that would be able to continue under the Bill. An organisation like TfL, with its close links with the mayor of London, with the assembly may well find it much more difficult to introduce a controversial measure of this nature at short notice, whereas the City Corporation was able to do so. It earned great praise for its initiative.
The City is untypical. It is primarily a place for doing business rather than living in and it has its own arrangements for local authority and police services. In those circumstances, it seems to me that it is highly desirable that the Bill should be amended. The amendment is a probing one and if arrangements could be made under the Bill, that kind of operation could remain within the sole control of the City of London.
There are other aspects, which no doubt will feature in future debates on amendments, about the extent of GLA roads. How far down side roads will TfL's powers extend? It has been suggested that those powers may extend as far as 100 yards, or even 200 yards, down side roads as a necessary concomitant of designating roads which are the responsibility of the GLA. It means that in the City of London pretty well every road would become the responsibility of the GLA and TfL, and the City Corporation would have almost no jurisdiction. Anyone who walks, drives or bicycles round the City of London recognises it as a mesh of roads, courtyards, lanes, places and so on. If the powers extended 100 yards or 200 yards down each side road the traffic powers of the City Corporation would be rendered totally nugatory.
Therefore, for those reasons I believe that there is a strong case for excluding the City from these powers. There has never been a strategic authority with power over the City's roads, and there are some fairly powerful arguments as to why this Bill should not now introduce one. Having said that, I have no doubt that the City Corporation and the traffic committees that deal with

641
these matters will want to consult very widely with the GLA and TfL before any of these powers are exercised. But in the last resort I believe that the City should retain these powers, and this amendment allows it to do so. Under the Bill it cannot do so. I have every wish to support the amendment as strongly as I can.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Tope: I support the intentions behind the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, has explained fully the importance of this matter to the City and all Londoners. Whether or not this amendment is the right way to deal with it I do not know. I await with interest what the Minister says. That it is a very important issue I have no doubt. I hope, therefore, that if the Government are not about to accept the amendment they will at least address the concerns that have been raised so well by the mover of the amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in supporting it.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I support this amendment. However, while my noble friend Lord Jenkin has put the City's case very well I do not believe that the amendment goes far enough. I believe that the whole of the London road system will be completely confused. Under Clause 206 Transport for London will be the highway authority for all GLA roads, and under Clause 208 London borough councils will be responsible for all other roads. There is, thus, a dual responsibility and road users will not necessarily know who is the highway authority for a particular London road.
As a highway authority Transport for London will be responsible for issues such as maintenance, street lighting, signing and so on. That may cause problems. When road repairs must be reported and carried out the public will be confused. Westminster City Council understands why Transport for London should as part of its strategic functions be the traffic authority, but not the highway authority, which deals with local issues.
The proposals to extend the boundaries of GLA roads down borough side roads which connect to GLA roads will cause the public further confusion and lead to inefficient and bureaucratic operation of highway responsibilities. This is an important issue, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that he will be looking at this matter.
Lord Whitty: I am afraid that I cannot accept the intent of this amendment, which in part misunderstands the situation. The central issue here is that the GLA road network will be the strategic network for the whole of London. Following a lengthy period of consultation with the London boroughs and the City Corporation, we have announced the routes that will form part of the network. To exclude the City of London from that network does not make sense in terms of transport strategy. TfL should have direct control of this key network of roads.
However, some of the observations of noble Lords imply that we are handing over virtually all of the streets of the City to TfL. That is not so. The routes that have been designated as the GLA road network are: the
642
existing red route from Bishopsgate to London Bridge, together with the Tower Hill gyratory and Tower Bridge; the route along the north bank of the Thames; and the A201 northern route which crosses Blackfriars Bridge. Only one of those, the red route, crosses the ring of steel; the others, while in the City boundaries, are outside the ring of steel. There is, therefore, only one route which is already a red route that crosses the ring of steel. Given that it was already a red route and the direct responsibility of the Traffic Director, the situation has not dramatically changed.
When the City introduced the ring of steel and the two crossing points it had to do so in conjunction with the Traffic Director. If there were any recurrence of the unfortunate situation that gave rise to the ring of steel the same would apply to TfL; in other words, there is no change in the balance of responsibilities between the City and the other authorities. All the designated roads were either red routes or other routes where the Traffic Director had a role. The City never had absolute control over the roads now designated.
As to the issue of side roads to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, made reference, there are some short stretches that need to be taken into the GLA network to ensure that the main roads are operated safely and efficiently. In the wider context referred to by the noble Baroness, we are aware of the concerns of the City about the practicality of that proposal. We shall consult upon and consider further the best way to address that during the summer. But that is not a particular problem for the City. Certainly, there is no implication that the power will extend down side roads any further than anywhere else. It would probably be less far in the City given the network of roads to which the noble Lord referred.
As to the ring of steel, we are not changing the position; nor do we wish to do so. The proposal would affect only one road and two crossings, which are already the responsibility of the Traffic Director for London, to be taken over by the GLA.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I understand the Minister's observation on the ring of steel, but he must recognise that the designation of the red route came after the ring of steel was instituted. Therefore, one must ask whether the Traffic Director would have been prepared to agree that given the controversy at the time. It is no secret that it was very unpopular with Ministers in the previous government for the reasons I explained: it appeared to be giving in to the IRA. Would be have done that? The City Corporation, in recognition of the security aspects, was able to do it on its own initiative. While I accept the Minister's point about the two crossings, they came after the system was established.
The more important point, which I believe will give rise to difficulty unless we have a clearer view, is how far down side roads TfL's authority will extend. If one is talking of 10 or 20 yards—equivalent to the frontage of two or three houses—perhaps it is justifiable. However, it has been suggested to me that the powers might extend as far as 200 yards down roads leading off GLA roads, in which case in the City the powers would extend to virtually the whole highways network. Before

643
we leave this amendment I believe that the noble Lord must give a clearer indication of what the Government have in mind in this regard. The problem of the side roads impinging massively on the boroughs' positions as highway authorities in their areas was raised by my noble friend Lord Bowness on Second Reading, but in the City there would be nothing left. I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten the Committee on that point.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I also wonder whether the Minister would consider placing TfL under an obligation to offer contracts for highway maintenance. In the past, it has been common for the Department of Transport to contract out the maintenance of local roads to the local authorities. Does the Minister agree that TfL should be placed under an obligation to offer a contract of highway maintenance functions to the relevant local authority, with appropriate funding of course, so that a seamless service could be provided to local road users? Would that be an answer? Will the Minister think about that before we get to the next stage of the Bill?
Lord Whitty: I am not at all sure that I can bring any further enlightenment to this issue. Clearly the contracting arrangements will be a matter for TfL when established, and it is not immediately obvious that the best value would be achieved on strategic routes by extending a contract that related to local authority roads.
The objective of extending the function a small way down some of the side streets would be to ensure that the junctions were safe and appropriate to the traffic coming on to the GLA strategic road. In some cases, that would be more than 10 yards, but in most cases it would not be significantly more than 10 yards. I suspect that there are not many places in the City in which it would be significantly more.
Without analysing the precise design of every junction on every GLA road, I am not sure that I can give the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, an authoritative assurance that the provision would not affect the City as dramatically as he suggests. However, it is the intention only to take that part of the road that would affect the junctions and the flow of traffic on to and from GLA strategic roads. I do not know whether that is any guidance to the noble Viscount, but I hope that he would recognise that that is as far as I can go tonight. We will consider the issue farther over the summer.
Lord Bowness: Perhaps I could ask the Minister to recognise, when he considers the issue further over the summer, that he has just articulated the problem. One cannot address it without a detailed analysis of every road junction. The fear is that what will happen is that a blanket, overall policy will be applied that will affect every junction whether it is relevant or not. That is one of the problems that will lead to untold delay in the two-tier highway system that the Bill will establish.
The problem goes further than the City of London. When we come to later clauses, the whole question of highway authorities for non-GLA roads taking decisions that, in the words of the Bill, "may affect" GLA roads
644
will have to be considered carefully. We will have to be much more specific than we have been so far this afternoon on the question of the City's roads.
Earl Attlee: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have supported the amendment: it was more successful than I thought it would be and we have widened the debate. I had intended to keep the ring of steel argument for the next group. I do not know whether I am right to do that, and perhaps I should have paid more attention to the management of the groupings. In view of that, I might drop Amendment No. 296AA because we have covered it in such detail.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin talked about the extension of GLA roads. I also intended to speak to Amendments Nos. 296CB and 296AC. which would cover that point.
My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes asked who was the highways authority, and that is a very good question. I have an interest to declare, because I am president of the Heavy Transport Association. One of the association's problems is that it has to notify the highways authorities when it wants to move something and it is often difficult to find out who the highways authority is. That can apply especially if the load will cross a design, build, finance and operate motorway and it is not known whether the bridge belongs to the DBFO operator or to the local county council.
The Minister said that only one GLA road crosses the ring of steel. However, GLA roads can be designated in the future, and my noble friend Lord Jenkin mentioned red routes, so the problem could expand in the future.
I am grateful to hear that the Minister will reconsider the issue over the summer. I accept that the amendment as drafted might not be perfect and I am sure that we shall return to the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 296A not moved.]
Clause 206 agreed to.
Clause 207 [Designation of first GLA roads]:
[Amendments Nos. 296AA and 296AB not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 296AC:
Page 110, line 14, at end insert—
("() An order under this section may be made solely in respect of a road which is considered in itself and on its own merits to be of strategic importance in determining an integrated transport policy for Greater London.
() In making an order under this section, the boundary of any road to be designated as a GLA road shall lie at the edge of the carriageway and shall not extend to any side roads connecting with the road in question and neither shall this section confer any authority on Transport for London over the facia of or any fixtures to any building or structure in the vicinity of any GLA road. "").
The noble Earl said: Clause 207 inserts a new Section 14A into the Highways Act 1980 to define a GLA road. The amendment picks up on a suggestion by the Association of London Government that the boundaries of GLA roads should be clarified, and would make it clear that the boundaries would not extend to

645
side roads. They would be confined to the roads themselves. That issue was raised by my noble friend Lord Jenkin.
The amendment also provides a definition of what a GLA road is supposed to be. When TfL got a road, it would be simpler if it also got the bridge underneath it. I appreciate that some bridges are not owned by boroughs, but belong to other organisations such as Railtrack.
Lord Tope: I am very glad that the noble Lord moved this amendment, because it is worthy of a slightly wider debate than we had just now, with particular reference to the City of London and the possible problems. All of us hope and believe that the mayor and the London boroughs will work co-operatively together, and we are all realistic enough to know that there are some policy areas that are likely to be more sensitive than others. Planning is an obvious example. However, as far as all London boroughs are concerned, this issue is probably the most sensitive of them all.
As I understand it, as the Bill is currently drafted, the mayor will have responsibility for what are known as side road returns. They may extend as little as 10 metres down a side road to as much as 100 metres, perhaps more. Whichever they are, I believe—with some experience—that they are likely to be the greatest and most common cause of conflict between London boroughs and the mayor, and the greatest cause of confusion among the public.
In his previous reply, I understood the Minister to say that the Government have recognised that it is a controversial issue. I am not surprised to hear that. I speak as vice chair of the Association of London Government. For some months we have sought to convince Ministers that it is an area of considerable concern, although it received no attention in another place. If the Minister is to consider this further over the summer, and continues with the useful discussions held to date, I am sure that that will be extremely useful.
First, we need clarity not only for the highway authorities, but for the public. If the mayor has responsibility for a side road return, the mayor also has responsibility for all the related matters—broken lamp-posts, broken paving stones, possibly planning applications, and so on. It gets very difficult. I have not understood why London, uniquely I think, has side road returns whereas I understand that elsewhere in the country the boundary in such matters rests at the edge of the carriageway of the strategic road, as is suggested in the amendment. That seems so sensible and obvious that, despite discussions with the Minister, I have not understood why it is taking so many months to get even as far as an assurance from the Minister that he will consider the issue. Perhaps I may urge him to do so, and favourably, in the interests of public clarity and considerably less bureaucracy and administrative inefficiency.
646
I support most strongly the intention of the amendment and urge the Minister to give it most favourable consideration over the summer.
Lord Bowness: I support the amendment and the arguments adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I do not propose to repeat them. However, the clarity sought is vital in this issue. If there is a planning application, where one has a relatively average property abutting a road return, to which authority will a mundane planning application be referred for statutory highway purpose consultations? The fear is that it will not be referred to the London borough or the local planning authority alone but also to Transport for London as the highway authority.
These matters go much further than the apparent administrative convenience of ensuring that TfL can deal with the junctions to the side roads.
Lord Jenkin of Boding: My noble friend Lord Bowness has made the speech that I would have made. I add only one point. If there were one single issue that caused the maximum ill will between the London boroughs and the GLC it was the overlapping planning powers that had grown up over the years between those two tiers of the authority.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, used the phrase "may even" extend to planning applications. The most serious aspect is the impact that the measure will have on planning applications on these road returns for the reasons that my noble friend Lord Bowness explained eloquently.
During their further consideration, I urge the Government to recognise that if they do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past, this clause must be amended.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: Over the past few weeks, I have received several documents from councils in which one sentiment is repeated again and again. If the Minister is to consider the matter over the summer, perhaps he will consider this one sentence: that a continuing lack of clarity makes us wonder what is actually going to happen. After the Minister has considered the issue over the summer, perhaps the local councils will then be able to say: "I know exactly what is going to happen and I understand".
Lord Whitty: We understand the concerns to which the noble Lord, Lord Archer, refers. We shall be considering the matter over the summer. I do not believe that some of the implications are as wide ranging as has been suggested. Nevertheless there are serious concerns. My colleague, Glenda Jackson, will discuss the matter with the ALG. A meeting to discuss this issue is arranged for, I think, 12th July. It is to be hoped that we can obtain greater clarity, as the noble Lord, Lord Archer, requests.
We did not envisage this as the great problem suggested in this House and by some of the boroughs. We had some experience on the red route designation for side roads. It may be that that raised more complex

647
issues. Nevertheless, we believe that the matter can be sorted out with the London boroughs. There is no blanket-imposed solution, as the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, suggested in an earlier intervention. We are looking again at the issue over the summer. We shall do so in conjunction with the London boroughs. I hope that at this stage the noble Earl will withdraw the amendment.
Earl Attlee: The noble Lord, Lord Tope, referred to the possibility of confusion and disagreement between authorities. I am sure that the Minister will not want that. The Minister said that he will give the issue careful consideration over the summer. He also said—I am relieved to hear it—that Ms Glenda Jackson will also consult the ALG over the summer. We shall return to the issue at the next stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 207 agreed to.
Clause 208 [Orders by the Authority changing what are GLA roads]:
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 296B:
Page 110, line 17. after ("London") insert ("and the London Assembly").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 296C, which seeks to achieve the same purpose: to give the assembly, in addition to the mayor, the duty to keep the highway system in London under review. It is an important issue. The highway network in London will be one of the major issues of public interest and concern; and therefore of interest and concern not only to the mayor, quite properly, but also the assembly.
I understand, I think as well as most, the separation of powers and the scrutiny role of the assembly. The assembly will not be able to carry out effectively its scrutiny role in relation to the highway system unless it is keeping it properly and effectively under review. Therefore it will be as well to make it clear and explicit in the Bill by giving it a duty so to do. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Clause 208 provides that the mayor shall keep Linder review the system of roads other than trunk roads in Greater London. If he or she so decides, any borough roads in Greater London can become a GLA road; and any road can cease to be a GLA road, in both cases by order of the mayor.
The purpose of the amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, is to give this responsibility to the mayor and the assembly. We have given this important power to the mayor and only to the mayor because we see it right and proper that a new and powerfully elected mayor should be able to take an overview of London's roads and, if he or she thinks it right, take a decision to alter the existing road network. We do not believe that it is appropriate for the assembly to have a say in this. In asking the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment,
648
perhaps I may say that the process whereby the mayor may reach such a conclusion and take a decision will be covered in the next two amendments.
Lord Tope: I am grateful to the Minister, and I am of course aware of that. I think that we have a straightforward difference of opinion about this issue—and not for the first time. I will not pursue the matter now and we shall consider it further. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 296C to 296CB not moved.]
Clause 208 agreed to.
Clauses 209 and 210 agreed to.
Clause 211 [Exercise of powers so as to affect another authority's roads]:
7 p.m.
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 296CC:
Page 112, line 33, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (11 A) below,").
The noble Earl said: It may be convenient if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 296CD to 296CH and to Amendments Nos. 297XMA to 297XMD.
I will explain briefly the effects of each amendment. Amendment No. 296CC makes consultation unnecessary if it is irrelevant. For instance, the impact on traffic safety of a road crossover footbridge might not be relevant to a GLA main road. However, it would of course be relevant locally in the borough. The Committee needs to know where the need to consult will stop.
Amendment No. 296CF raises the question as to how far the GLA/TfL will be able to interfere in local decisions through their control over GLA roads. Clause 212 inserts a new section into the Highways Act 1980 giving the GLA a veto over local decisions in respect of roads. Therefore, this appears to be an appropriate place to peg back GLA power by clarifying the basis upon which it can act.
Amendment No. 296CG deletes subsections (6) and (7) of the new clause to be inserted in the 1980 Act. These give TfL the power to act if a borough contravenes this clause. This is necessary because the self-help remedy is totally inappropriate. The exercise of highways powers affects third parties, particularly highway users. They should be confident that they know what they are allowed to do. We cannot have a situation whereby TfL staff remove traffic signs and the borough erects them again. If TfL considers that the provision is not being complied with, it should, if necessary, take the matter to court or to arbitration.
The other amendments in this group are similar and raise the same issue. I beg to move.
Lord Bowness: Perhaps it comes as no surprise to the Committee to learn that I rise to support this group of amendments and to express my fears about how these various clauses will work when brought into force. My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding referred to the fact that one of the greatest problems under the former

649
Greater London Council administration was the two-tier highway and planning regime. That situation led to an enormous lack of clarity, and to citizens not knowing who was responsible for what, in their eyes, were minor and local matters. That problem arose because many issues were referred to the GLC.
I am concerned about the provisions in the Bill that refer to the London borough councils not exercising any power under the Act:
"in a way which will affect, or be likely to affect … a GLA road … a road in another London borough".
There are similar provisions regarding the workings of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. I refreshed myself about those workings earlier this afternoon in the office and I was amazed how many functions are dealt with under that Act. The Minister will no doubt be glad—as I was—that I could not find a copy of the Highways Act 1980, but it deals with a similar number of issues.
Both the Highways Act and the Road Traffic Regulation Act contain the statement:
"No London borough council shall exercise any power under this Act which will affect, or be likely to affect".
I have no doubt that that statement will be interpreted very widely. I believe that, whatever good will may come to this legislation, those responsible will feel that it is necessary to refer to the other authority. For example, London borough councils will feel that it is necessary to ensure that their pedestrian crossings, their one-way local traffic management schemes or whatever are referred to the mayor and to the GLA in order to ensure that they do not adversely affect a Greater London Authority road. They will fear the powers in the Bill that enable the mayor and the authority to reverse the actions of London borough councils if they have not done what they are required to do in the event that their proposals affect a GLA road.
This process is extraordinarily tortuous. I understand that there must be some provision to protect the Greater London Authority roads from what might be described as the "maverick" actions of a London borough council—if there is such a thing as a maverick London borough council. However, I believe that it would be wrong to enshrine in this legislation this kind of provision that will lead inevitably to duplication and to delay.
Those who remember the time of the Greater London Council will recall that it might have taken two years to establish a pedestrian crossing in a relatively minor street. Members will remember that it took a similar amount of time to lay a few yards of yellow paint to make some road safety provision. Signs—which were commonsense provisions in the eyes of the public—could not be erected without referring to somebody else. The truth of the matter is that, when such things start to be referred, they are referred in profusion. To protect the position, queries and objections are inevitably raised while further investigations are made. That is when the delays set in.
I ask the Minister to re-examine these provisions during the summer. He kindly said that he would consider the provisions that we discussed relating to the
650
City and how far around side turnings the writ of the GLA should go. As my noble friend Lord Jenkin said, if the public are frustrated with the operation of the GLA, it will do no one any good. We do not want to live in the past, but we must remember the mistakes of the past. This kind of duplication, delay and lack of clarity led to the unpopularity of the former Greater London Council. That sort of thing was much more responsible for its unpopularity than some of its more exotic policies. Businesses and residents became disenchanted with the GLC when they realised that totally local matters were being referred to the county authority.
These clauses contain a recipe for that to happen again. I ask the noble Lord to reconsider the matter during the summer to see how it can be clarified and simplified.
Lord Tope: I support the pleas from the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, who speaks with 30 years' experience as a London borough councillor—and, for most of that time, he was a very distinguished leader of that council and of London borough government. I speak with a mere 12 years' experience as an Opposition leader at the time of the GLC and as a London Borough councillor in the 13 years since then. The noble Lord and I adopted very different views about what should have been the future of the GLC—and I suspect that that is still the case. However, I recognise absolutely the horror stories that he has told of the borough councils' relationship with the GLC regarding matters such as this.
I am sure that the Minister will say to us, and with justification, that the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, is not understating his case and that we will not replicate the horrors that all of us in London experienced under the GLC. I hope that it will be the case with the mayor and the London boroughs. If we do we shall have failed massively. All this points to the same issue we raised in connection with side road returns; we need greater clarity about where responsibility lies.
While not necessarily speaking in such extreme terms as my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, I support at least as strongly his plea to the Minister to consider the issue carefully during the summer. If, as I suspect, he rejects this amendment, I urge him to bring back amendments at the Report stage which will provide for much greater clarity or—and I repeat earlier warnings—the issue will be the source of the greatest conflict between the mayor and the London boroughs. We all want to avoid that conflict and at this stage we can largely do so.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I wonder whether the noble Lord would support what might be called "direct action" in pursuing the noble Lord's proposal? Some years ago I was a member of a parish council which decided to move a bus stop as a result of the danger involved. The people in the village wanted it so. We applied to change it and discovered that we needed the permission of the district council, the county council and

651
the transport authority. The procedure went on for months and months. So one night, two of us got up, dug it up and changed it and we heard no more about it!
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am tempted to follow the noble Lord's great initiative. However, I want to say only that on Second Reading I joined others in supporting the structure if the assembly consisted of representatives of the London boroughs. It is on precisely such an issue that there will be no constraint on what the mayor does from an elected assembly. If the assembly had consisted of borough representatives, I suspect that many of the fears voiced tonight might have been much fewer. However, that is water under the bridge and it i s clear that we shall not achieve that. Therefore, I join in the plea to the Minister, in so far as it lies within human power, to bring clarity and avoid the bureaucratic nonsense which so disfigured the earlier regime.
Lord Tope: My response to the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, is that whatever might have been possible or appropriate in a parish area, I view with horror bus stops all over London being moved overnight and the chaos that would be caused. Far be it from me as a London borough councillor to support such action on the record; I would rather have the clarity which made it unnecessary.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, I do not want to reopen the issue, but I disagree that a gathering of borough council representatives would sort out such issues. He has given a better illustration than many of why that would be inappropriate. The role for the Greater London Authority is strategic. 'The issues we are discussing here are not strategic in which case they should be clearly and wholly the responsibility of the particular London borough councils. They do not need to meet in an assembly; they deal with it on their own. That is the clarity we seek in the Bill.
Lord Whitty: While it is true that I have expressed some sympathy with the need for us to reconsider certain areas of the Bill, I do not feel the same sympathy for these amendments, certainly as expressed tonight. I would not go so far as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in accusing the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, of being an extremist—
Lord Bowness: He said I exaggerated, and I plead guilty to that.
Lord Whitty: I do not accuse anyone of being extremist. I have never accused my noble friend Lord Dormand but now I begin to wonder. However, the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, and others are exaggerating the problem. We are not talking about a two-tier structure. We are not replicating the problems which I acknowledge existed in the days of the GLC. We are talking about how a borough carrying out works on its roads which are likely to affect a GLA road or the road of another borough should notify the GLA and the other borough.
652
I cannot see the objection to that. Are Members of the Committee suggesting that boroughs should not notify the GLA or other boroughs when they are undertaking work which affects other authorities' roads? It is bizarre that people have become worked up to such an extent about this mechanism. After all, the provisions are modelled on arrangements with which people are familiar—the arrangements for designated roads and priority route. The concept of "affect or likely to affect" is well established. Indeed, in August 1992 the traffic director for London issued guidelines to all chief executives and borough engineers about the practical arrangements for notification of highways and traffic proposals. That situation already exists and when the mayor is in place he will be able to issue guidance on the operation of the provisions. If modifications are required, they will take place under the guidance. For example, some clauses would allow for minor or emergency use of highway or traffic powers to be excluded from the requirement for consultation.
The amendments seek to change the formulation which has stood the test of time. It is not an innovation or a reinvention of the GLC. We do not believe that any of these changes are necessary or desirable. Indeed, they could be counter-productive to the whole spirit of the GLA and TfL operating in conjunction with the London boroughs. If I have missed something, no doubt Members of the Committee will tell me now or at a later stage, but I believe that the amendment could be counter-productive and that we should keep the formulation as it is. I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My noble friend Lord Bowness and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, referred to the problems with the old GLC. Fortunately, those problems occurred well before my time. They referred to problems which inevitably lead to duplication and delay on minor matters. Unless we keep the GLA as a strategic authority, we could fall into the same trap. I am not sure that we could draft an amendment to follow the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington. If we could, I am sure that the Clerks would advise against tabling it. We may return to the issue at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 296CD to 296D not moved.]
Clause 211 agreed to.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare moved Amendment No. 297:
After Clause 211, insert the following new clause—
CHARGES ON UNDERTAKERS OF STREET WORKS
(" . The Secretary of State may by regulations make provisions for and in connection with the establishment and operation by or on behalf of—

(a) the Authority,

(b) any London borough council, or

(c) the Common Council,

of schemes for imposing charges on undertakers of street works in Greater London.").
The noble Lord said: I have tabled the amendment because I worry that if for political reasons a mayor were elected who did not want to introduce a road tax, or any form of it, he would have little opportunity to raise money and do many of the things a mayor might want to do in the city simply because he was restricted to the £3.4 billion, which is currently his budget, 95 per cent of which will be accounted for on the first day.
One of the many things that annoys Londoners—and I do not suspect that the rest of Britain is any different—is continually to pass holes in the road and see no one working on them. In any one day now, I have fun travelling through London and counting how many holes I can see. On average, it is 14 and, if you are lucky, two of them are being worked on. There is one famous one outside LWT which has half-a-dozen cones around it. It only stretches into the road 2 feet and 3 inches but, every morning and every evening, the traffic is held up because vehicles have to stop to let each other pass. That hole is remarkable because I have never seen anyone working on it. We are now investigating who is not working on it. If that were not funny, it would be tragic.
Then there is the situation where people ask, "Do you know they are digging the same hole again? Three months ago, they told us it was for the electricity. Now it is cable television and, in six months' time, they will tell us it is for the gas. Does it not seem simple that they might ring each other up and all agree to dig the same hole at the same time?" "No", is the answer. They are all running their own private lives. They are not going to bother to ring anyone else up. There are holes being dug in the road on one side of the Thames. And if you cross the river, there are holes being dug on the other side. They do not even talk to each other on both sides of the Thames.
I have a simple solution for the Minister, a practical man who, I know, would like the mayor to be able to capture money from these people without having to bother the voters. Would that not be wonderful? I suggest that we tax these blighters per cone per foot. Then they will start ringing each other up. I suggest to the Minister that they will be on the phone to each other all the time saying, "Are you digging a hole to lay your television cable next week because we are digging a hole to put the gas in?" "No, I am filling in another hole where we put in the electricity." If I, or any candidate, or any human being, going for this job were able to say, "I am going to charge them per foot per cone," I do not think you would find many people objecting, whereas the Minister well knows how many people are complaining about the road tax.
Of course, the chairman of BT, the chairman of British Gas, the chairmen of the electricity companies and the chairmen of cable television companies may ring to complain. That is fine. Half-a-dozen of them will be complaining. I have no problem with that at all. I realise that the Minister will not be able to take my actual wording, but I hope he will be able to return in the summer with his own wonderful clause, his own amendment.
I agree very much with President Truman's attitude to these things; namely, that it is amazing what you can get done if other people take the praise. So I say to the Minister that it can be his clause and he can take the praise. I simply want it to be included in the Bill. The Minister is a man who understands how the other place works, and he will have noticed that there was a Bill in the other place to do just this. He will have seen that the Bill failed. He will have seen that the Member who brought forward the Bill made it absolutely clear that the Government approved of it. I would be surprised if the Minister were not able to leap up and say, "This is wonderful, we shall accept this amendment." New York has eight ways of raising tax; this Bill has only three. I say that if anyone who wanted to be mayor removed those three, at least this provision would still exist to bring in the money.
I ask the Minister to take the matter very seriously. I accept that the amendment will not be accepted today. I accept that the Minister will be unable to rise to the Dispatch Box and please me with this small pleasure. But I hope he will be able to rise to the Dispatch Box and say, "We agree and we shall return with an amendment at a later stage." I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: That was a most interesting prefiguration of what the mayor might or might not do in certain circumstances. The assumption that mayors would not be willing to use the powers contained in the Bill to raise taxes for congestion charging or levies on workplace parking is one we are all noting with interest. However, it is impossible not to have some sympathy with the main thrust of the amendment.
When I lived in Richmond, my husband and I decided that the King's Road was the trial area where people were taught how to dig holes and how to fill them in again. In the 10 years or so that we commuted into London, not daily but on a fairly frequent basis, never was there a time when there was not a hole in the King's Road. We thought it was the classroom for undertakers to teach their lads how to dig a hole and fill it in again.
An interesting idea would be to have something approximating to the lane rental charge now levied on people who undertake work on the motorway. I think it could be argued that obstructions on London roads are quite as serious in their effect as obstructions on the motorway. If those mending the roads take longer that they should, they should pay a form of damages to the Highways Agency. That idea perhaps has some merit.
We want people to dig holes only when they really need to; when they are acting in co-operation with each other and with the Highways Agency, and for the minimum amount of time. Nothing is more irritating than to see small amounts of work being done on one day, nothing being done on the next day and then, five days later, they are back again. Meanwhile, the traffic has been held up in the rush hour. There is a place not two miles from here where that is happening at this very moment.

655
I am a little reluctant to accept what the noble Lord, Lord Archer, says in relation to the role of mayor, but what he has to say in relation to the cost of digging holes in the road has some merit.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I support strongly the principle behind the amendment. We have had so much legislation over the years, each time trying to control the utilities. Of course, they always have the let-out that it is an emergency and therefore they can dig any hole anywhere and at any time without consulting any other utility. The amendment would be a good thing.
The charge might help to bring about some changes. In the United States they resurface a whole road overnight. I saw that in Boston. It is certainly time that there was an incentive for people to invest in more expensive machinery so that work on roads could be completed more quickly. A charging system such as that proposed would create such an incentive.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: We all have great sympathy for the amendment of my noble friend and we all have our own personal experiences of holes in the road. I am somewhat embarrassed by this amendment because the very last piece of legislation I took through this House as a Minister back in 1992 was something called the New Roads and Street Works Act. Part of that Act was intended to cure all the ills of the old Public Utilities Streetworks Act of 1950. Clearly, it has had absolutely no effect whatever, which is most unfortunate. It was the only Act with which I was involved to have befallen that fate. Therefore I was very pleased when, earlier this year, my honourable friend, Mr Christopher Fraser, in another place introduced a Bill to which my noble friend Lord Archer has referred which was going to put this right. My honourable friend was most encouraged that the then transport Minister, Mr John Reid, said that he entirely supported the thrust of the Bill and was willing to hammer out the small print.
Now, according to the Evening Standard:
"Ministers scupper Bill to end 'hole in road' misery".
The reason quoted in the Evening Standard for their having done that is that it is said that Treasury officials are unhappy at the prospect of revenue from fines going back to local councils rather than into central government coffers.
We are about to deal with hypothecation in relation to road user charges and non-residential parking charges. Yet here we have the very same Treasury scuppering that Private Member's Bill because it is frightened that the money will go to local councils or, in the case of this Bill, to the GLA and the mayor rather than into central government coffers.
I hope that the Minister will give us a good explanation as to why that Private Member's Bill has been scuppered and why he can no longer support it.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: I am sure that we are all deeply impressed by the bravura performance by the noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, who I know feels deeply about this issue and reflects the views of
656
many drivers and pedestrians throughout London and many other cities in this country. I accept the mea culpa of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, that the New Roads and Street Works Act has not been entirely successful in that respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, was so impressive that for a moment I thought he was auditioning for the Heineken advertisement on that subject, with which Members of the Committee will be familiar, if he is not auditioning for something else entirely. That became apparent when he explained at the beginning of his remarks the real purpose of the amendment; namely, to raise money which he does not wish to raise through road user charging. That is an interesting indication. I have no doubt that that will feature in future debates which are held more widely than in this Chamber.
As regards the current legislation, the Government have issued codes of practice under the street works Act and are now looking at a pilot project to be run by the Traffic Director for London for an area-wide database in east London—in the vicinity of the Millennium Dome—which will explore the possibility of bringing together all those aspects of information and better provision for the utilities and others which are involved to avoid the problems which the noble Lord, Lord Archer, and others have mentioned.
As regards the Fraser Bill in another place, it is true that my right honourable friend John Reid expressed general sympathy for that provision, but in its existing form it would have pre-empted what we intend to do now; namely, to consult widely on how we can introduce a scheme which will apply not just to London and the GLA roads in London. We shall consult on options for an incentive scheme with penalties to minimise disruption and encourage the co-ordination of street works, as we promised in the White Paper. We intend to undertake that consultation shortly. London will be included within the scope of that consultation. We shall need to consider all the responses.
The promised consultation will seek to clarify the practicability of charging, the best type of scheme, if we decide to go ahead with charging, and whether to use the existing provision or to opt for a solution which would allow charging from the very first day of the works, which is what the noble Lord, Lord Archer, seeks.
Therefore, there is no point in introducing a new regulatory power which would largely duplicate the existing provision in Section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 before we have consulted on how to proceed more generally. We need a national provision. London is not alone in suffering from such disruption. If consultation reveals that there are specific problems within London or on GLA roads within London, the 1991 Act already provides that there can be different rates of charges according to the place and time at which the works are executed. Therefore, we already have powers to differentiate. We need to assess how such a scheme would work. We need to consult not only with road users and the utilities but also more widely. We are about to issue a consultative document on that.

657
Therefore, we intend to introduce the powers which the noble Lord seeks for London for the country as a whole. In so far as London is different, current provision would be able to meet the specific needs of London. Therefore, in one way or another, the noble Lord will achieve part of what he seeks, and I ask him to be patient.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Is "the country as a whole" England?
Lord Whitty: In relation to the probable legislation, the country as a whole would be England. However, I should not be surprised if the Welsh Assembly and Scottish executive took similar powers.
Lord Elton: Is the noble Lord saying that the amendment now on the Marshalled List would add nothing to what is available already under existing legislation, or is he saying that we should wait to add whatever may be necessary until the rest of England is ready to benefit from new legislation? I do not believe that many Londoners would be impressed by the idea that we should wait for main programme time to be available for future legislation for the whole of England if the opportunity now exists to provide this sensible provision for London.
Lord Whitty: I am saying that the provisions of this amendment would not enhance substantially the provisions in existing legislation, as the noble Lord's speech suggests they would. Therefore, there may be better ways in which to enhance them which could apply nationally but which could, in any event, be applied differentially to London. Therefore, we should wait for that at least so that we have a scheme which is likely to work. It is not clear that the scheme as proposed by the amendment would work. It certainly needs to be tested by those who must operate it.
Lord Elton: Will the Minister elaborate on the word "substantially"? He said that this will not add "substantially". If the amendment would enable a scheme to be introduced next year which would unblock the potholed surface of the King's Road, for example, then it is "substantial". The amount on paper may be small but the amount in effect would be considerable. I shall not delay the Committee any further but I should like an answer to that.
Lord Whitty: As regards the pothole in the King's Road, that road is in the London Borough of Kensington. I am not entirely sure that that would be affected by the noble Lord's amendment. We are talking about the strategic roadworks in London. I do not believe that the King's Road would benefit. We are looking to introduce a national scheme which will benefit the roads of all local authorities, including the GLA and TfL roads, and not simply GLA roads within London.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: That is a wonderfully ingenious scheme. I was wondering how
658
the noble Lord would reply to my amendment. Where will the money be going? Will it be going to the Treasury or, in the case of London, will it be going to the mayor?
Lord Whitty: The noble Lord may have put his finger on a very important point. That is what I thought lay behind his initial intervention. Under the legislation taken through the House by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, the money would not go to the local authorities. Therefore, using the existing regulatory power, the money would go to the taxpayer, I would prefer to say, rather than the Treasury.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: I put it to the Committee that the Minister has simply stolen my idea, moved it to the whole country and, in addition, has stolen the money. I should tell the Minister that I am not going to bring forward any more ideas for fear that this Government will simply steal them.
The Minister has come to the Committee and delighted us by saying that he has understood the idea and that he is going to go ahead with it. That is robbery of the highest order. Today I shall withdraw my amendment. But, be assured, I intend to table it again on Report and if I fail then I shall go on and on until people realise that the Minister has, yet again, stolen great ideas from the Conservative Party. No doubt, as the next two years proceed and the Government are faced with an election, such an occurrence will become more common. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Local Authority Duties
7.40 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth Lord Hunt of Tanworth rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress they have made on plans, referred to in paragraph 8.8 of the White Paper Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People, to introduce a new duty on local authorities to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of their area and accompanying powers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest in that I am honorary president of the Local Government Association. I also want to remind your Lordships of a report of the 1995–96 Select Committee on Central and Local Government Relations that I had the honour to chair. That report argued that, just as there had been a shift in the role of local government from being service providers to being enablers, so local

659
authorities should be encouraged and helped to play their proper role as democratic community leaders in the complex world of local governance.
Therefore, it was good to read in paragraph 8.8 of Cmd. 4014 that:
"The Government intends to introduce legislation to place on councils a duty to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of their areas and to strengthen councils' powers to enter into partnerships".
That new duty was to enshrine in law the role of the council as the elected leader of the local community, required to produce a strategic plan for the locality and free to enter into partnerships with other bodies. In other words, the council was to take a comprehensive overview of the needs and priorities of its local area and communities in a way that other more specialised and non-elected bodies cannot.
That White Paper was published a year ago, in July 1998, and the new duty still does not figure in either the Local Government Bill, which is to have its Third Reading in the House next week, or so far in the draft Local Government (Organisation and Standards) Bill, currently being examined by a Joint Committee of both Houses.
I want to stress, briefly why I believe that that new duty is so necessary, particularly as I believe that some noble Lords fear that it would open the door to allow local authorities to interfere in the activities of local partners or to force others to work with councils when they do not wish to do so. That is not the intention of the Government. The Local Government Association agrees with the Government that safeguards would be necessary to prevent local authorities unduly impinging on the work of other bodies or prejudicing the latter's statutory functions.
Local authorities are, however, governed by the doctrine of vires and must produce specific statutory authority for their actions. They are not like private individuals who are free to do anything that is not specifically forbidden. Local authorities are unable to act unless given specific authority to do so, with only one limited exception under Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972.
As a consequence, there are already specific examples where local authorities wish to enter into partnerships or commercial activities which all concerned agreed to be desirable and sensible but which were thought that the action would be open to legal challenge over the authority's right to proceed. Those range from matters like the Hertfordshire County Council's plan to set up a company to run its old people's homes and to access private capital, to enable it to improve its facilities, to the way in which the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act inhibits partnership dealings such that the local authority hedge-cutter is not legally entitled to cut a privately owned hedge even if the owner wants him to do so and is willing to pay for the service.
These days we hear much talk of the so-called wicked issues where one agency, acting alone, will not produce effective solutions to deep-rooted problems and of the need for greater cohesion and coherence at the local
660
level for all those whose parallel activities can affect local communities: councils, other public bodies, businesses and voluntary organisations.
The proposed new duty and powers would help to strengthen partnership working in key areas and would also provide an overall framework within which councils would have to perform all their existing functions. So in taking planning decisions, for example, councils would have to consider the likely effects of a decision against the three objectives—economic, social and environmental—and if necessary strike a balance to ensure that the overall well-being of their area is achieved.
Above all, the new duty would remove uncertainties about local government's legitimacy in community leadership and community planning and would encourage local authorities to think and work in a more innovative and experimental way, freeing them to develop partnership solutions, operating across organisational boundaries.
I believe—I hope rightly—that that is also the wish of the Government. I hope when the Minister replies to this debate that he will be able to tell the House that the few clauses needed to give effect to the proposed new duty will be included in the draft Local Government (Organisation and Standards) Bill with which it is so closely linked, as new political structures need to be developed with the community leadership role firmly in mind, or failing that, that it will find some other place in the next legislative programme.
7.48 p.m.
Baroness Goudie: My Lords, the Labour Party manifesto, on which this Labour Government were elected, committed us to place on councils a duty to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of an area. The Government have set about doing just that.
The Greater London Authority Bill defines the principal purposes of the new authority as promoting in Greater London economic development, wealth creation, social development and the improvement of the environment. In furthering any of those principal purposes, the authority will be required to consider the effect that that may have on the remaining purpose or purposes, in so far as that is practicable, and, over a period of time, to secure a reasonable balance between furthering each of those principal purposes. In particular, it must contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.
The new Government lost no time in bringing out their Green Paper, Modernising Local Government: Local Democracy and Community Leadership. That sought views on the implications of a duty to promote economic, social and environmental well-being. The Green Paper made the very valid points that such a duty would spur local authorities more widely to follow the practices of the best in their leadership of their local communities; and would go a long way to remove uncertainty as to the extent of their powers. Removing uncertainty is most important.

661
The Green Paper also sought views on the need to replace Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972. This of course is the subsidiary power which allows authorities to do anything incidental, conducive or calculated to facilitate the discharge of their functions. The Green Paper made the valid points that shortcomings have been identified by a number of prominent court cases in recent years and that confidence has been undermined, in particular in relation to co-operation and partnership activities.
The Green Paper rightly pointed out that a notable area of difficulty arises from the concept that only one incidental action is allowed, thus creating the position that a series of linked actions becomes unlawful by virtue of being "incidental to the incidental". The Green Paper concluded that, to remove such basic uncertainty, the Government were inclined to replace Section 111 with a new, broader power. This would in particular enable participation in the establishment of joint arrangements. I welcome this approach.
Then last July came the White Paper. Paragraph 8.8 states that the Government intend to introduce legislation to place on councils a duty not only to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of their areas, but also to strengthen council powers to enter into partnerships. There is reference to a new legal framework, but no express reference to Section 111. Indeed, the Greater London Authority Bill contains a provision in the same terms as Section 111. I hope that the Minister will be able to inform us of the current state of the Government's thinking on revamping Section 111.
Much uncertainty has been removed by the Local Government (Contracts) Act 1997, which the present Parliament fast-tracked. It effectively addressed the problem of the "incidental to the incidental". It gave a much needed impetus to the private finance initiative. But uncertainties remain. The 1997 Act deals only with long-term contracts—those intended to operate for at least five years.
Due regard should be paid to the fact that local authorities consist of representatives elected by the public on a wide franchise for comparatively short periods. If they are regarded as mere creatures of specific statutes, with unsatisfactory subsidiary powers, they will not be able to provide civic leadership and act, innovate and integrate on behalf of their local communities. I therefore support the Government's approach and am delighted that it has already been partly implemented.
7.52 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity provided by this debate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for asking the Unstarred Question. I welcome it not least because it occasioned me to read the White Paper published a year ago.
The White Paper, Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People, is beautifully produced and readable, but it is full of wish-lists which have not been costed and which could have the unwelcome effect of
662
raising expectations at a local level. The section entitled "Promoting the well-being of communities" certainly falls into that category. Practically every single one of the statements, suggestions and strategy proposals looks fine on paper but begs a significant number of questions.
The last thing I want to be is a "Jeremiah"—a prophet of doom—and certainly I subscribe to the overall wish that local authorities should be in touch with the inhabitants of their areas. But the ambitious White Paper would generate huge demands for massive additional resources, both in the financial and in the skills area.
"Blue skies" planning used to have a devoted following—often described as "shoot for the sun and you might reach the moon". But in an age when expectations are constantly being raised to giddy heights, the non-fulfilment of expectations comes as a rude shock. That, in essence, is my health warning; now to the proposals contained in Chapter 8.
Although the Unstarred Question deals specifically with paragraph 8.8 there are other issues raised in the chapter which impinge upon the successful achievement of the promotion of economic, social and environmental well-being of an area. The White Paper, quite rightly, emphasises the need for leadership. Sadly, leaders are in very short supply. We can debate for hours on whether leaders are born or made, and I do not have very firm views on that, but I have very firm views on the fact that leadership can take a long time to develop. Some people are flexible enough to grasp the opportunities when placed in a leadership position, but I fear they are the exception.
In my experience, both as an erstwhile local authority chief officer and more recently having involvement with my own district council on a matter of liaison between the council and the local doctors on the matter of finding an alternative site for a surgery, I can say that "leadership" qualities are not in great supply. This is not to cast aspersions on the calibre of the staff employed but rather reflects the uneasy relationship that exists between the permanent staff and the elected members. Risk taking is not encouraged; time horizons differ greatly, and training for staff seems to concentrate more on servicing the endless committees rather than on originating ideas. There are, of course, exceptions—probably in every local authority—but the demands of this White Paper call for a very large number of high calibre staff with strong leadership qualities.
Ideally, all would-be councillors should be able to demonstrate strong leadership characteristics and leadership training should be high on the agenda for all officers and senior staff. In order to fulfil the proposals in the White Paper dealing with economic, social and environmental well-being, the following skills are essential: communication skills; strategic planning skills; promotional skills and mindsets that can be both flexible and pragmatic—open eyes, open ears and open minds. These skills are not in great over-supply and have seldom been required of local government employees, or indeed of elected members.
The greatest task facing local government in the fulfilling of the obligation to promote economic, social and environmental well-being is the development of

663
strategic plans. Having spent a great part of my business career as a strategic planner, naturally I support the emphasis on that function in the White Paper. But strategic planning is a tedious, detailed, specialised exercise and I can already foresee problems of a most basic kind. Short-termism is a feature of most elected members, whereas strategic planning is by its nature long term in its work. How will that dilemma be addressed? The Government said in paragraph 8.14 that they,
"will not impose on councils any particular approach to this task [the task of strategic planning]—councils will have flexibility over the precise nature, scope and coverage of the strategy, the level of detailed action it contains and over how they go about preparing it in partnership with other organisations, with the new Regional Development Agencies which themselves will be preparing an economic strategy for their region, and with local people".
Gosh! It really will be the heyday for strategic planners; I am afraid I was born too soon!
I have spent some time on this issue because in my opinion it is fundamental to the promotion of economic, social and environmental well-being. Before any progress can be made the plans will have to be drawn up. Before the plans are drawn up the staff will have to be trained in strategy planning. Before training in strategy planning is undertaken, serious attention will have to be paid to the selection and recruitment of people who can undertake such exercises—or indeed who want to. The last thing that is required is another case like that reported today where a local government employee was moved from one function to another without the necessary training and ended up bringing a successful case against the authority for stress. Financial resources are in short enough supply without having them used for payoffs in such cases.
Of course, there is one way of circumventing the problem; that is, to hire consultants. But I implore the Minister to give us the assurance that this will not be the case. The duties placed on local government are worthy but very onerous. I just wonder how they will be fulfilled. In my own area of West Sussex we have the county council, the district council and the town council. Who is going to be responsible for marshalling the ideas, the background data, the market studies and the business plans which are all a necessary part of the process leading to the promotion of economic, social and environmental well-being?
One thing this White Paper has been most successful in achieving is the Interest created by it:. All sections of the population firmly believe that they are going to be instrumental in developing the well-being of their area. But the "wish lists' are endless. For example, the town in which I live has a population of about 3,000. Various groups are looking at various aspects of the well-being of the town, and I was shown the deliberations of just one of those groups, the one dedicated to the needs of public transport. There are eight recommendations and were they to be accomplished it would certainly improve the provision of local transport. Nowhere, however, is there a single costing; nowhere is there any acknowledgement of the fact that most people are and will be wedded to their car; and even with the eight recommendations very little additional flexibility over and above the current situation would be provided.
664
Yet—and this is a serious point—the people who spent time and energy drawing up this list really do have high expectations of their recommendations being met; in touch with the people, listening to the people. When this list goes to the district council I wonder what will happen. Even more, I wonder what will happen when the list goes to the county council. I think I know what will happen in the latter case. It will be dealt with by the new "Cabinet" which is to be introduced with effect from April 2000, but I fear that the inhabitants of my town will not have the response they either deserve or expect.
The last thing I want to do is appear to be destructively critical of the process and the proposals. I subscribe to the view that local government can and must be improved, but I plead for realism—not least in the allocation of resources and uprating of skills which these exercises will trigger.
7.59 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, like other noble Lords speaking in this debate I, too, welcome the opportunity provided for us by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth. I should like to declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. As a member of the Joint Committee on the draft Local Government (Organisation and Standards) Bill, I must say that I have enjoyed hearing the debate on the overall vision of a modern local council that has been brought together in the Government's White Paper Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People.
The challenge for local government is twofold: first, to ensure effective decision-making and local leadership; and, secondly, to re-engage our communities so that we work better together and arrive at the best in local services. It is for this reason that I, too, welcome the opportunity this evening to discuss the advantages of including a duty of well-being in the Local Government (Organisation and Standards) Bill. Like many other local government leaders, I welcome the publication of the Bill as a draft. The unique recognition of local and central government's ability to work together, to learn from best practice across the country and also to challenge inertia has led to many councils, like mine, embracing the changes contained in it well ahead of the legislation. In fact, it sometimes seems like a race—an obstacle race—to see who gets to the "modernised council" finish line first.
Such competition is healthy and, perhaps, fun but it also needs to be balanced against the ability properly to hear and respond to suggestions for change and improvement. That is why I wish to speak this evening about the advantages of including the duty of well-being, alongside the proposals radically to change and improve political leadership.
The publication of the White Paper gave us a holistic vision of the role and place of local government. It 'was hoped that the six key areas of the White Paper—namely, new political structures, the ethical framework, best value, improving local financial accountability, promoting the well-being of communities and business rates—would be brought together in a cohesive and comprehensive local government Bill.

665
However, and understandably, pressure on the parliamentary timetable has led to an incremental approach. The Minister has said in the past that that will perhaps be a 10-year programme. Councillors in my authority quickly organised to meet the overall vision of the modern council and identified the community councillor role as being crucial to delivering more effective consultation and involvement both from and within the community. Community leadership is very much at the heart of modern local government. The new duties and powers for community planning and social, economic and environmental well-being will bring to life this new and powerful role for all new councillors.
Recent elections have confirmed the other continuing source of concern. Fewer than one in four Britons voted in the European elections and 11 per cent fewer people voted in the English council elections than in those held four years ago. I hasten to add that that was not the case in Brighton and Hove, where we had a near 40 per cent turnout, though that is nothing really to be proud of. There have been many theories and proposed remedies for increasing voter turnout. Local government, the government closest to the people, is failing to make that link. Yet we provide vital services every day that people need to access.
The draft local government Bill offers local authorities the chance to develop a system of local governance that is clearly accountable for decisions and able to deliver dynamic leadership. The inclusion of the duty of well-being would add to the other vital components—the ability to develop a system of local governance that is responsive to people's needs and the ability to work together with a range of community stakeholders, including business and the voluntary sector, with a clear duty to secure social, economic and environmental well-being. This duty, as promised in the White Paper, would enshrine in law local authorities' role as the elected leaders of the local community, with a responsibility for the well-being and sustainable development of their area.
Now is the time for the inclusion of this duty. Councillors are moving away from committee structures and want to make better use of their time. This "freeing-up" of councillors' time is linked to the need to attract a wider range of people into becoming councillors. One attraction must be the ability to work closely with the community and represent its views on how local services should be provided. As well as supporting our councillors in this role, we need to ensure that their views are properly informed. The new duty would therefore act as a "power" within the council and as another effective check and balance in the new executive role.
I would go further and simply ask for the inclusion of the duty of well-being in the draft Bill. Community planning, effective consultation and the production of comprehensive strategies for the promotion of well-being will be a considerable challenge to authorities, not least because we are currently required to produce some 40 statutory or non-statutory plans on various aspects of our work.
666
However, community planning has the potential to deliver significant benefits, including breaking down organisational barriers, contributing to democratic renewal and creating a shared appreciation of the needs of an area and the action required of the authority, its agencies and other groups. To me, this work is essential, not just desirable. It should be about delivering a better form of local government. It is also about engaging with our communities to tackle issues such as deprivation and social exclusion—issues that can only be resolved through effective inter-agency working and a real engagement with local communities.
In conclusion, I believe that the inclusion of the duty of well-being gives a clear message about the role of local government. It gives new and more powerful roles to community councillors and it will provide an incentive for greater involvement with a council which is seen as leading its community. In return, councils will see the benefits of greater co-ordination in planning and in the allocation of resources to meet local identified needs. This, in turn, will give confidence to local people to become more involved in planning local services and, therefore, will sustain interest and involvement.
Last week, the noble Lord, Lord Rogers of Riverside, produced his report on urban renaissance. In it he made over a hundred recommendations, perhaps the strongest and most persuasive of which was that the process of change locally should combine strength and democratic local leadership with an increased commitment to public participation. That observation and frequent references to the important roles that local government perform underline the case for having the power and the duty of general social economic and environmental well-being included early in legislation. We have it for London and I think that that must naturally follow for the rest of the country; indeed, local authorities will be the better for it.
8.6 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I hesitate to begin because I thought that there would be a speaker in the gap—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I received a second request to speak in the gap but said that there was not enough time because someone was about to speak. However, in the circumstances, perhaps the noble Earl would speak briefly.
8.7 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for speaking briefly in the gap. I am prompted to do so by the indication given by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that local government is being re-arranged and more people are being encouraged to become involved in councils. I recently visited the Walthamstow Housing Action Trust. The members of its committee of local residents were all women—indeed, about six or seven women who had become very involved in the development of the trust. Given that the primary cause of youth homelessness among young disadvantaged people is poor relationships with their families, especially with their mothers, it would be most helpful if mothers from housing estates

667
were encouraged to be involved in local government. In that way they would feel empowered, their particular needs would be better met, they would feel better supported and they would, therefore, be better able to support their families.
8.8 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, for introducing this debate. I very much enjoyed serving on the Select Committee which he chaired. It certainly made me think rather more about some issues that I think I had probably approached in perhaps too facile a fashion. I should also declare an interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association and of the Association of London Government.
It is quite clearly widely agreed that the current limits on local government's powers are both undesirable and impractical. I have used the following example before in your Lordships' House because, I confess, it hurt me deeply. I refer to the case of McCarthy and Stone. When I was chairing the planning committee, my borough thought it would be sensible to charge the developers for advice from planners merely at the cost of their time. I think that £25 an hour was what we had in mind. However, we were unable to do that.
Recently, in considering the Local Government Bill, I discovered advice to a local authority that it may not sell advertising space in its own publication. That is a telling measure as best value and good practice require local publications to be made widely available. Advertising income does not seem a sinister way of ensuring that that should happen. Local authorities need to be able to consult economically, efficiently and effectively.
On a more general point, the public are rightly concerned about the outcomes of local authority activities; that is, the services. I share the view that the less central constraint there is, the better. It must help if local authorities are not hamstrung as to how to provide services. Flexibility and local decisions about how to do things are particularly important in community leadership. As the White Paper states—and as other noble Lords have said—this is probably the most important role of local authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has mentioned evidence to the Joint Select Committee on the Local Government (Organisation and Standards) Bill. The aim of the new organisational models is reconnecting people and politics, which I believe is a vital aim, and not just at local level. However, it is notable that the witnesses keep telling the committee that the new duty is more important than the structures. This has been a thread running through the evidence from the Local Government Association and from staff from SOLACE and UNISON. This has not just come from the trade organisations. Over this weekend I have considered evidence from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. It referred to surveys of local authorities that show how many are failing even to make a commitment to produce local Agenda 21 plans. The RSPB states—and I think rightly—that even where there is a
668
non-statutory target a significant minority of local authorities seem to be failing to meet the necessary standard. The target is set by no less a person than the Prime Minister.
The London Forum—a forum of amenity and civic societies—has responded to the committee's request for evidence. It mentions local authorities "listening and responding". It states that,
"the 'listening and responding' issue is not so easily addressed by structural change".
I think that these are important points. It is interesting to note the wide variety of organisations which make them.
In my eyes sustainable development is as much about process as it is about outcome. It is about reconciling demands—the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, talked about a wish list—seeking a consensus across a local community, or indeed across many communities (I think we all accept that one cannot define a community just in terms of geography), distinguishing demands from needs, wishes and aspirations from urgent requirements, and setting priorities. That is about process, but the process itself helps to define the outcome.
Will the new duty be enough? We know all too well the financial constraints that are applied to local authorities. Because the duty—as we have seen it so far—is a duty, do we not rather need a power? The White Paper at paragraph 8.11 mentions that the new duty will be,
"underpinned with a discretionary power",
but is that merely to enable the duty itself to be exercised? The duty is specific but does it merely meet the issues of the day; is it sufficiently wide to see far enough ahead? I wonder whether the duty as it appears to be framed will miss the point. Once it is framed as a duty, flexibility and priority setting may be excluded. The Greater London Authority Bill has had to prescribe on the face of the Bill a reasonable balance between each of its three principal purposes. That Bill amply illustrates the problems of being specific and limiting the scope of activities, or the manner in which a power is exercised.
We have considered the matter of staff for the mayor. We have discovered that the staff whom the mayor can appoint are not full-time equivalents, they are people. In these days of family friendly working practices, as advised by the Government, the mayor cannot appoint more than the prescribed number of people to share a job. Today we have discussed accommodation for the London Transport Users' Committee. I find it difficult to accept that the Bill has to provide in detail how accommodation is to be made available.
As the Select Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said, and as he has mentioned, the new duty should allow for innovation and for local authorities to make mistakes. When we see the legislative form of the new duty I hope that we shall also see that it demonstrates a trust on the part of the Government as regards other democratic structures. That would be for the good of local government and of local people.
8.16 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, for asking this Question which has considerable relevance to discussions that have taken place during the course of the day. While in general I support the Government's intention to introduce legislation to place on councils a duty, as mentioned in paragraph 8.8 of the White Paper,
"to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of their areas and to strengthen councils' powers to enter into partnerships",
I think we have seen in the GLA Bill some reasons why this simple—as one might have thought—little matter has not been included in the draft local government Bill.
The Greater London Authority Bill contains a multitude of checks for the Secretary of State to exercise on how the Greater London Authority can or will work and—if the Secretary of State thinks that it is not working properly—how he may persuade it gently, or forcibly, to behave in a way that he considers proper. Much as I regret that provision, it is perhaps the reason that the Government have hesitated in this regard.
My background in local government does not suggest to me that the Government's attitude in this regard is either wise or correct. I have immense confidence and faith in local government despite the follies of some authorities on some occasions. If we believe in devolution and local democracy and if we believe that local councils will be accountable and will work in the interests of local communities, we also have to believe that sometimes they may get things wrong. We have to be prepared to live with the consequences.
Management structures in local government to improve their relevance, accountability and communications with their communities have been under discussion for a long time. I refer to the Maude Report on management and local government which I think was published in 1968—over 30 years ago. We have come a long way since that time, but the subject is still under discussion and it is still as provocative a matter as it was then. It will still be as provocative in 30 years' time. In this House, where we are long on discussion—unlike local government, which has to take firm decisions which are acted on immediately—that is perhaps unsurprising.
The British public, the electorate and the communities at large—and here I echo the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—are interested in outcomes. As my noble friend Lady O'Cathain illustrated, all the consultation in the world will, on occasions, give rise to idealistic views of what can be done, might be done, should be done. But most people want a clear lead and a clear determination of outcomes. They are not too bothered about being consulted to a great degree provided that the decisions taken on their behalf are the right ones and can be seen to work. I, too, should prefer to see that. One of the problems in the Government's White Paper and their former Green Paper is that we are long on the business of consultation and somewhat short on action.
One aspect which perhaps causes concern appears to be the belief in government—which is inherent throughout the White Paper—that everything should
670
change. It is an interesting ambition. Most people like to leave their mark on the world and it is a good way of setting about things. But I call in aid against that philosophy no less a person than the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who, when sitting on the Woolsack only last week, said:
"My Lords, the fact that some things or institutions call for modernisation does not mean that every one does".—[Official Report, 24/6/99; col. 1061.]
That does not mean that local government cannot modernise itself and improve its procedures. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, illustrated that his authority, without the backing of new legislation—although it has probably run into some limitations—has already been able to improve the way it works. That also is a fact and a record that one sees in progressive local authorities.
Over the years, I have been fascinated by the way in which good local authorities have introduced new practice, which has subsequently been followed by government and all too often comes up somewhat later in the form of legislation.
I should perhaps return to the present Local Government Bill which is passing through the House. That has what I would call a let-out clause for the Secretary of State to operate in the event that local authorities find themselves unreasonably constrained by a particular piece of legislation at the present time. I suggest that perhaps the constraints, the corsets, under which local government may act are capable—or might be capable when the Local Government Bill becomes law—of being relaxed somewhat.
However, that leads to one aspect to which we should pay attention. As we introduce these more general powers, we change the nature of what I call the vires consideration. Up until now, local government has been obliged to act within the law—and the law is precise. But the new clause that we are debating tonight is not precise; it is general. Indeed, we have the same problem with the Greater London Authority Bill. That is precisely why the Government have felt it necessary to place all these checks on what the Greater London Authority might do on the face of the Bill.
Perhaps the Minister in his reply—to which I look forward—will consider carefully the vires implication of these more general clauses. What is the Government's attitude to the problems they might throw up? It has always been a useful constraint on local government in the past—I have chafed against that constraint as much as anybody; but it has been useful—that it has been bound by the law. As we put in general clauses, that becomes a potential source of difficulty. I wonder what is the view of the Government on that particular problem.
I am grateful to the noble, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, for his Question.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, for raising this issue and to all noble Lords who have contributed. It

671
gives me a chance to explain how this issue fits in with the totality of the Government's approach to local government reform.
In the White Paper, which has been referred to, we made clear our commitment to a comprehensive and co-ordinated agenda, which will modernise the way in which local government will work. It will guarantee the quality of local services and will promote the well-being of communities.
We have already taken action to deliver on some commitments. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, the electorate are interested in outcomes, and we wish to deliver them. The current Local Government Bill will set in place a new system of best value. It contains measures to improve the delivery of all local authority services, giving a better deal to local people. A beacon council scheme will establish centres of excellence in delivering local government services from which other local authorities can learn. The first round of successful applicants for beacon status will be announced in November. So we have already taken significant steps to establish the kind of modern councils we want to see.
As my noble friend Lord Bassam, who sits on the joint committee, indicated, the Local Government (Organisation and Standards) Bill is now under consideration by the joint committee. It will introduce new structures. A separate executive to make councils more efficient, effective and accountable will also be an important step in making sure that councils are in a position to provide leadership for their communities.
The White Paper made clear that we see community leadership as being at the very heart of the role of modern local government. It also made clear that to do this successfully councils must be both outward-looking and responsive to local needs. For example, tackling the complex problems which blight some of our poorer communities depends on all public bodies working together. Modern councils are well placed to lead this process and to ensure that action is co-ordinated and focused on locally determined priorities. They need to act together with other public authorities in order to do that. We need to take certain steps to remove the constraints on local government, acting with both other authorities and the private sector, to deliver these aims.
Local government will be required to produce new community plans. I welcome the Local Government Association's support and encouragement to launch that new community planning process. I know that many councils are already involved. The process covers a wide range of issues, including, broadly speaking, the well-being aspect and the sustainability to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred.
Community planning will provide a context for the action which authorities and their partners need to take to address community needs. But it is only part of the framework. Just as importantly, authorities will need new powers to build partnerships with other local bodies and to develop and implement innovative, cost-effective solutions to local problems. A central part of that framework, therefore:, will be legislation which gives local authorities the powers they need to promote the
672
economic, social and environmental well-being of their areas. We are looking at the way in which legislation might be framed. We want to see an effective framework which gives councils real powers to promote the well-being of their areas.
Of course, we are not talking about powers for authorities to do absolutely anything they like. They will need to be sensible and have appropriate limitations on the scope of their powers, if for no other reason than to recognise that there are wider national interests involved. There are constraints, including constraints on the capacity of local authorities to deliver, given the kind of management and other internal problems to which the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, referred. So there will be limits but within them authorities should be given discretion to take action when they feel the need to promote particular aspects of well-being for their local communities.
The powers must tackle the doubts that currently exist about authorities' scope for action. They must enable councils to work with a wide range of agencies and clarify their ability to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, rightly emphasised the importance of providing a framework for improving co-operation between local partners. The noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, referred to the need to take action and we are already doing so. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, drew attention to Clauses 16 to 18 of the Local Government Bill, which provide the means to remove elements of primary legislation that act as a barrier to the achievement of best value. In particular, they will enable best-value authorities to enter into new arrangements across the whole range of their service responsibilities.
Those powers will be used to facilitate joined-up service delivery—working across organisational boundaries to provide integrated services; develop more service-delivery models, with an emphasis on partnerships between and within local authorities; and clarify the circumstances in which authorities can provide goods and services to others. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, gave a couple of examples of where the present provisions are clearly nonsense and inhibit sensible development. The powers will also be used to make better use of local authority assets. Those provisions will go a long way towards removing the constraints that have hitherto frustrated authorities' efforts to improve the lives of local people.
The well-being legislation will build on all those developments. We will not stop there. Over the coming months, we will look at ways of doing more to remove the barriers that prevent councils and other bodies from working together to tackle the problems that they encounter. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, asked whether they will have the capacities and skills to plan strategically. Developing appropriate skills is obviously an important part of the modernisation of local councils. We will work closely with the Local Government Association and others to explain ways of building the necessary capacity within local authorities. We recognise that constraint will have to be tackled.
We need to learn also from government initiatives such as the New Deal for Communities and the various action zones. We need to build on the work of the Social

673
Exclusion Unit on effective means of tackling social exclusion. In building on that incremental process through the various legislation that will come before Parliament, we are developing an entirely new approach to local government—but there are some horses for courses aspects. A number of noble Lords cross-referred to the Greater London Authority Bill, which is not far from our thoughts today. I understand the relevance of the cross-references but there are important differences between the GLA and local authorities as a whole. The GLA legislation is concerned with establishing from scratch a new strategic body. Providing it with a purpose—to promote well-being—is a necessary part of the powers of that new body. They need to be explicitly so.
The position for local authorities is historically more complex and a lot of baggage—if I may use that word neutrally—comes with it. Local authorities already have a wide range of specific powers and duties and many developed ways of delivering them. They have an even wider range of restrictions on the exercise of those powers. We are not starting with a blank piece of paper. We need to frame the legislation in a way that clarifies local authorities' powers and removes unnecessary restrictions but which recognises that we are starting with something that has organically developed over a long period.
Queries were raised as to why the well-being provisions are not at present in the draft Local Government Bill being considered by the joint committee. We are committed to a comprehensive and coherent agenda for modernising local government and well-being is a fundamental part of that agenda. It almost goes without saying that the transformation of local government will require strong political leadership. That commodity may be in short supply—although I am not quite so pessimistic as the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. A new environment will help to create more positive and innovative leadership but that will take time and will involve leadership in the community as well as in the local authority.
In terms of providing for well-being, my noble friend Lord Bassam, although he supports it being in the Bill, recognises that our whole programme is a rolling programme of introducing various changes. Although the proposed measures are clearly interrelated, it is not necessarily the case that one cannot have a particular measure before the others. Nevertheless, your Lordships will understand that it is not possible to present detailed proposals for every measure at exactly the same time and to indicate now what will be done next. The reform of the structures will relate to all the functions of a local authority—and its powers and duties will follow.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that in implementing well-being, we need to provide a flexible framework to respond to local priorities and to deliver improvements to the local quality of life. That is the historical responsibility of local government and one that it can fulfil under the new scheme. I agree also with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that authorities need a broad power to enable them to promote well-being. It
674
needs to be sufficiently flexible to allow authorities to respond to future changes and opportunities. That is where we will be concentrating our legislative attention.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked gently whether we will be legislating in the next Session for well-being, in the context of the draft Bill or otherwise. I cannot possibly anticipate what might or might not be in the next Session's legislative programme. Nevertheless, I assure the noble Lord that the Government are concerned, along with local government, that a legislative framework is in place that enables authorities to lead their communities and work effectively with other service providers to that end.
The Government have an ambitious programme to modernise local government. Modern, open and accountable councils with strong leadership are uniquely well placed to lead their communities. The delivery of well-being will be greatly dependent on the other changes we are making in local government.
I have welcomed the opportunity to set out the rolling programme for carrying that forward, and we will doubtless take note of the various comments made during the course of the debate when deciding precisely how to do that.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.35 to 8.45 p.m.]

Greater London Authority Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 212 [Transport for London to be the traffic authority for GLA roads]:
[Amendments Nos. 297YA and 297ZA not moved.]
Clause 212 agreed to.
Clauses 213 and 214 agreed to.
Clause 215 [Transfer of London Traffic Control System to Transport for London]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment 297A:
Page 116, line 34, leave out subsections (3) to (7).
The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment. The clause transfers to Transport for London from the Secretary of State London's traffic signals system for all roads in Greater London other than trunk roads.
The amendment removes specific provision for the transfer of property rights and liabilities of the traffic control systems unit. Such transfers will, instead, be effected under the general provision on such matters under Part XII of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 215, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 216 agreed to.
Clause 217 [Transfer of traffic control systems between Secretary of State and Transport for London]:
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 297B:
Page 118, line 30, after ("and") insert ("the Authority, through").
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. Amendments Nos. 297B to 297E form a series which in effect join the authority and Transport for London, acting as a subsidiary of the authority, in the rather curious Clause 217, which allows traffic control systems to be transferred to and from the Secretary of State and Transport for London. The point that we want to make is that the Secretary of State is a responsible political officer and Transport for London is not a political organisation. It would be more appropriate if transfer was officially to the authority rather than to Transport for London.
The more one reads the clause, the odder it becomes. Clause 215 already says that all the traffic control systems, in so far as they relate to GLA, roads and roads in Greater London which are neither GLA roads nor trunk roads, will be transferred as part of the operation of the Bill. I am not sure under what circumstances the Secretary of State on the one hand and the authority, via Transport for London, on the other, can move or needs to move the powers to and from, or between each of them.
This is an amendment to Sections 74 and 74A—Clause 216 of the Bill. All those parts of the Bill are amendments to the same part of the Road Traffic Act. I am becoming mare and more confused as to why powers which are transferred under Clause 215 are then transferred to and from the bodies again at some later date. We did not like the idea that Transport for London should be the transferee or transferor of the powers; it should be the authority acting through Transport for London. However, I am becoming more and more confused about the matter. I hope that I shall receive elucidation of the broader issue when I receive a reply on the narrower one. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Clause 217 allows Transport for London, with the Secretary of State's agreement, to make schemes transferring all or part of the London traffic control systems from one to the other. Amendments Nos. 297B, 297C, 297D and 297E would mean that instead of TfL, exercising the power to make schemes, the GLA, acting through TfL, would have that power. TfL is under the direction of the mayor and it is the mayor who provides that democratic and political input.
We keep returning to the issue of TfL's functions in respect of the role of the GLA. TfL is not to be closely monitored, supervised and nursed by the GLA because TfL is simply the mayor's transport executive. As well as its many other important functions, TfL will be the highway and traffic authority for GLA roads—those designated by the GLA.
I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree that in that capacity it is quite capable of dealing directly with the Secretary of State over London's traffic control
676
systems. In asking the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment, I was hoping to give her a detailed analysis of the circumstances in which the power will be used, which is extremely important to the functioning of TfL and for ensuring the smooth running of the traffic systems. However, I find myself unable to do that. I am sure it will assist the noble Baroness if I offer to write to her in order to ensure that she has the fullest possible information before we come to the next stage of the Bill.
I am now able to provide further information. TfL and the Secretary of State may need to agree changes in respect of traffic signals on motorways or trunk roads which remain with the Secretary of State. So there is an interchangeability of the roads. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Before the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, decides what to do, perhaps I may say that at present I understand that the traffic control systems are run by the City of London. They are not run from the City of London, but from Smith Square. With other noble Lords, I had the pleasure of visiting the site and seeing the excellent job being done there. I hope that nothing in the Bill would prevent that working as well as at present.
The boroughs have raised concern about the traffic control systems. Therefore I hope the Minister will give me and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, copies of correspondence. I wish to consider the matter before we reach the next stage.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I can say with delight and speed that I shall send a copy to the noble Lord.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I admire the skill with which the Minister kept her response to me going until help and the cavalry arrived. I feel for her in her predicament; it is a difficult clause to follow and to link with the rest of the Bill. However, I have heard what she said and look forward to the letter she will write to us. I am glad she will send a copy to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 297C to 297E not moved.]
Clause 217 agreed to.
Clause 218 agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 297F:
After Clause 218, insert the following new clause—
>ROAD SAFETY INFORMATION AND TRAINING
(" .—(1) Section 39 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (powers of Secretary of State and local authorities as to giving road safety information and training) shall be amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (2) (duty of local authority to prepare and carry out measures to promote road safety etc) there shall be substituted—
"(2) Each relevant authority—

(a) if it is a local authority, must prepare and carry out a programme of measures designed to promote road safety, or

(b) if it is Transport for London, may prepare and carry out such a programme, and may contribute towards the cost of measures for promoting road safety taken by other authorities or bodies."

(3) In subsection (3) (duty of local authority to carry out and act upon studies into accidents arising out of the use of vehicles on roads in their area, other than trunk roads) for the words preceding paragraph (a) there shall be substituted "Each relevant authority—".
(4) In paragraph (a) of that subsection (the duty to carry out the studies)—

(a) after "use of vehicles" there shall be inserted—
"(i) if it is a local authority,";

(b) after "other than" there shall be inserted "GLA roads or"; and

(c) at the end there shall be added "or

(ii) if it is Transport for London, on GLA roads or parts of GLA roads,".

(5) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(3A) The duties imposed by subsection (3) above are without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2) above and—

(a) in the case of a local authority, are to be discharged in pursuance of their duty under subsection (2)(a) above; and

(b) in the case of Transport for London, are to be discharged by exercising their powers under subsection (2)(b) above."

(6) In subsection (4) (definitions) the following definitions shall be inserted at the appropriate places—

""GLA road" has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980 (see sections 329(1) and 14D(1) of that Act);";

""relevant authority" means a local authority or Transport for London;".").

The noble Lord said: The amendment deals with road safety. Today one or two people asked me what insignia I am wearing; it relates to National Road Safety Week which I launched this morning with the organisation Brake.
The amendment seeks to provide Transport for London with appropriate powers and duties in respect of road safety. As the Committee will know, at present road safety powers rest with local authorities. TfL is clearly not a local authority. If the Bill were not amended, then TfL, as the highway and traffic authority for GLA roads, would have no locus over road safety or on GLA roads within the capital. That must be remedied and Amendment No. 297F does that by amending Section 39 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The aim is to leave London boroughs with their existing duty to promote road safety and deal with road safety issues on borough roads. It is also to provide TfL with the power
678
to promote road safety measures and a duty to deal with road safety issues on its own GLA roads. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 297G:
After Clause 218, insert the following new clause—
THE ROAD TRAFFIC REDUCTION ACT 1997
(" .—(1) In section 1 of the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997 (interpretation) the following definitions shall be inserted at the appropriate places—

""local implementation plan", in relation to a London council, means the plan prepared by the council under section 127 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999;";

""London council" means a London borough council or the Common Council of the City of London;";

""the Mayor of London's transport strategy" means the transport strategy prepared and published under section 124 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999;".

(2) Section 2 of that Act (duty of principal councils to make reports) shall be amended as follows.
(3) In subsection (3) (information or proposals which relate to levels of local road traffic and are required by guidance under subsection (6)) in paragraph (b), after "guidance under subsection (6)" there shall be inserted "or (in the case of a report prepared by a London council) directions under subsection (6A)".
(4) After subsection (4), there shall be inserted—
"(4A) A report under this section prepared by a London council must take account of the Mayor of London's transport strategy and the council's local implementation plan; and—

(a) any targets specified in such a report pursuant to subsection (2), and

(b) any proposals contained in such a report pursuant to subsection (3), must be in conformity with that strategy and that plan."

(5) After subsection (6) there shall be inserted—
"(6A) The Mayor of London may give directions or issue guidance to London councils in relation to any matter in relation to which the Secretary of State may issue guidance under subsection (6).
(6B) The Mayor of London must not give any direction or issue any guidance under subsection (6A) which conflicts with guidance under subsection (6).
(6C) A London council preparing a report under this section—

(a) shall comply with any directions given under subsection (6A), and

(b) shall have regard to any guidance issued under that subsection."

(6) In subsection (7)(a) (report to be sent to the Secretary of State) after "Secretary of State" there shall be inserted "and, if the council is a London council, send a copy of the report to the Mayor of London".").
The noble Lord said: When the provisions of the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997 come into force, local authorities which are also local traffic authorities will have a number of duties. First, they must assess road traffic levels; secondly, they must set targets for

679
reducing traffic levels or the growth of those levels; and, thirdly, they must make a report to the Secretary of State. As currently drafted, the Bill does not refer to the Road Traffic Reduction Act, and we need to remedy that. The Government have looked carefully at how the provisions of that Act should apply in London where there will be two types of local traffic authority. We felt strongly that we should not split the duty between boroughs concerned with borough roads and TfL concerned with GLA roads. We therefore concluded that the primary duty should remain with the boroughs.
Amendment No. 297G, therefore, provides that reports prepared by London boroughs under the provisions of the Road Traffic Reduction Act should conform to the mayor's transport strategy and the local implementation plans of boroughs, and that when a London borough sends a report to the Secretary of State it should send it also to the mayor. I commend this amendment to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 297H:
Before Clause 219, inert the following new clause—
DESIGNATION OF PAYING PARKING PLACES ON HIGHWAYS
(" .—(1) Section 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (designation of paying parking places on highways) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), in the second paragraph (which requires a local authority outside Greater London which is not the traffic authority to obtain the consent of the traffic authority to any designation) the words "outside Greater London" shall cease to have effect.
(3) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) Transport for London may not by virtue of subsection (1) above designate parking places on any highway which is not a GLA road."
(4) In subsection (7), in the definition of "local authority", at the end of paragraph (a) there shall be added "or Transport for London".
(5) In subsection (7), in the definition of "the local authority", after the words -in whose area the site is" there shall be added "unless the site is in Greater London, in which case—

(i) if the site is on a GLA road and the parking place is, or is proposed to be, designated by Transport for London, "the local authority" means Transport for London;

(ii) if the site is on a GLA road and the parking place is, or is proposed to be, designated by the London local authority in whose area the site is, "the local authority" means that London local authority; and

(iii) if the site is on a highway which is not a GLA road, "the local authority" means the London local authority in whose area the site is."

(6) After subsection (7) there shall be added—
"(8) In this section—

"GLA road" has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980 (see sections 329(1) and 14D(1) of that Act);

"London local authority" means the council of a London borough or the Common Council of the City of London.

(9) For the purposes of this section and sections 46 to 55 of this Act, Transport for London's area shall be taken to be Greater London.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 297H, with the indulgence of the Committee I shall not read out the remaining amendments in this group to which I shall speak in the course of my remarks. We have grouped these amendments together because we believe that it is sensible to spell out the totality of our approach to parking in London, with the exception of workplace parking charges which arise under a later clause. We intend to do three things in the area of parking and, taken together, this group of amendments provides TfL with all the necessary powers: first, to operate a de-criminalised parking regime on GLA roads; secondly, to provide the mayor rather than the Secretary of State with power to set de-criminalised parking penalties in London, subject to certain safeguards; and, thirdly, to address the issue of parking surpluses.
A number of these amendments arise because parking is normally a local authority responsibility. Although TfL will be the highway and traffic authority for GLA roads, it is not a local authority for this purpose. Our amendments will provide TfL with power to designate pay and parking places on GLA roads, operate the parking account, employ parking attendants and agree with the police that traffic wardens can act as parking attendants. Amendments Nos. 297M, 297P, 297S, 297V, 297X, 297XB, 297XC, 297XD, 297XE, 297XF, 297XH and 297XJ fulfil an undertaking given during the Committee stage of the Bill in another place on 4th March when my colleague Nick Raynsford indicated that, in the light of Opposition amendments, the Government were minded to table amendments to enable the mayor rather than Secretary of State to approve the level of parking penalties in Greater London. Our amendments do just that but provide a reserve power for the Secretary of State to intervene if he considers the proposed charges to be excessive.
The third group of government amendments in this group relates to those matters on which London authorities can spend their parking surpluses. As well as providing that TfL must operate a parking account, Amendment No. 297HA allows the mayor to specify in his or her transport strategy additional categories of activity which further his strategy and can be funded from those parking surpluses. It also enables one borough to contribute to another borough's spending on activities that can be financed from its parking account. This opens the way for a variety of flexible methods for the voluntary pooling of surpluses.
In this group there are also a number of non-government amendments that seek to devolve the setting of additional parking charges to the mayor and assembly. The idea of involving the assembly is a frequent occurrence in Liberal Democrat amendments, but we do not consider that to be an appropriate role for the assembly as we propose to set it up. While we agree that the mayor should approve additional parking charges, we consider that our long stop safeguard of intervention by the Secretary of State is more appropriate than the involvement of the assembly.
In the light of the government amendments setting up parking penalties and the other provisions within this group, I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. Taken together, I believe that these amendments provide an indication of the strategy that we are adopting towards parking in London and its regulatory framework. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: The series of amendments, beginning with Amendment No. 297P which is all about the mayor rather than the Secretary of State approving borough charges and so on, is welcome. It is at least a devolution of power. We are content that the mayor should do it, which is better than TfL being given substantial powers so that it acts in a fairly independent manner.
The Minister has in effect replied to my amendments before I have formally moved them. I understand why he has done so, and at this stage in the proceedings I shall not create about it. Based on what the Minister has said, when the amendments are put by the Deputy Chairman of Committees I shall not move them.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: We shall need to look at these amendments and the shape of the Bill once they have been incorporated. The amendments form a fairly substantial group of provisions; they rewrite this part of the Bill to a considerable extent. I do not say that we have anything against them. However, I am slightly curious that here the Minister has removed "Secretary of State" and inserted "Mayor" in the context of the level of parking charges to be set by individual boroughs, whereas a little while ago he rejected one of my amendments which proposed that the mayor should be responsible for penalty fares and the Secretary of State should not have a say. The argument then used by the Minister was that the level of penalty fares in one area could impact on that adopted in another. That argument could also be used in respect of parking charges. I agree with what the Minister seeks to do in this case, but I just wonder why he could not have been more accommodating earlier.
Lord Whitty: I thought that I had been fairly accommodating. However, my argument then was that the Secretary of State needed to take into account the implications for other means of transport that might not fall within the authority of the mayor and GLA. Whereas clearly between them the boroughs and the GLA have total control over parking, a London Transport penalty fare at shared stations could have an impact on other operators outside what is currently the London Underground network.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: That is true, but one has the same situation where one has a borough or county, whatever it is, just outside the boundary of Greater London that may have a totally different system of
682
parking charges and penalty fares. As now, one will have people moving from one area to another and parking where it is cheaper or perhaps free of charge.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I did not intend to rise again, but the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, has made an important point. Those issues should be devolved. When the Bill is redesigned on the page, it will be easier to see how it links together, but I hope that then we shall see that there are obligations for the mayor to consult on those matters. Nothing is more controversial between authorities than the different levels of parking charges levied. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, smiling at me, and anyone who has experienced different towns fighting to lower their parking charges so as to attract the maximum amount of trade will know what I am talking about.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 297HA:
Before Clause 219, insert the following new clause—
FINANCIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO PARKING PLACES ON THE HIGHWAY
(" .—(1) Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (financial provisions relating to designation orders) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(a) (accounts in respect of parking places on the highway in the case of London borough councils and the Common Council) after "in the case of" there shall be inserted "Transport for London,".
(3) In subsection (3A) (London borough councils and Common Council to report to Secretary of State on action taken with respect to deficit or surplus on their parking account)—

(a) at the beginning there shall be inserted "Transport for London,"; and

(b) for "Secretary of State" there shall be substituted "Mayor of London".

(4) In subsection (4) (purposes for which a surplus on a local authority's parking account may be applied) the word "and" immediately preceding paragraph (d) shall be omitted and after that paragraph there shall be added—

"(e) in the case of a London authority, meeting all or any part of the cost of the doing by the authority in their area of anything—

(i) which facilitates the implementation of the London transport strategy, and

(ii) which is for the time being specified in that strategy as a purpose for which a surplus may be applied by virtue of this paragraph;

(f) in the case of a London authority, the making to any other London authority of contributions towards the cost of the doing by that other authority of anything towards the doing of which in its own area the authority making the contribution has power—

(i) to apply any surplus on the account required to be kept under subsection (1) above; or

(ii) to incur expenditure required to be brought into that account."

(5) At the end of the section there shall be added—
"(8) For the purpose of enabling Transport for London and any other London authorities to discharge jointly any functions conferred by virtue of subsection (4)(f) above by a joint committee established

683
under section 101(5) of the Local Government Act 1972, sections 101(5) and 102 of that Act shall have effect as if Transport for London were a local authority.
(9) In the application of this section in relation to Transport for London, any reference to its general fund shall be taken as a reference to the financial reserves for which provision is made under section 70(2)(c) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 in calculating Transport for London's component budget for the financial year in question.
(10) In this section—

"London authority" means Transport for London, a London borough council or the Common Council of the City of London;

"the London transport strategy" means the transport strategy prepared and published tinder section 124 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 297J:
Before Clause 219, insert the following new clause—
APPOINTMENT OF PARKING ADJUDICATORS BY JOINT COMMITTEE
(" .—(1) Section 73 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 (appointment of parking adjudicators by joint committee of London authorities) shall be amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (1) (London authorities to establish a joint committee within two months of issue of first guidance under section 63 of that Act) there shall be substituted—
"(1) The London local authorities and Transport for London (in this section referred to as "the appointing authorities") shall establish a single joint committee under section 101(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 ("the Joint Committee") before 4th September 2000 or such later date as the Secretary of State may by order specify.
(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, sections 101(5) and 102 of the Local Government Act 1972 shall have effect as if Transport for London were a local authority."
(3) In subsection (2) (functions of London authorities under sections 73 and 74 to be exercised by the Joint Committee) the words "and section 74 of this Act" shall cease to have effect.
(4) For the words "London authorities", wherever occurring, there shall be substituted "appointing authorities".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 219 [Fixing of certain parking and other charges]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 297K:
Page 1 9, line 37, leave out subsection (1).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 297L not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 297M:
Page 120, line 4, at end insert—
("(1A) Before setting the level of any charges under subsection (1) above, Transport for London must consult the London local authorities.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 297N not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 297P:
Page 120, line 8, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Mayor of London").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 297Q and 297R not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 297S:
Page 120, line 15, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Mayor of London").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 297T and 297U not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 297V:
Page 120, line 20, leave out from first ("by") to end of line 21 and insert ("order made by the Mayor of London.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 297W not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 297X:
Page 120, line 21, at end insert—
("(4A) Levels of additional parking charges set in accordance with this section may only come into force in accordance with section 74A below.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 297Y and 297XA not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 297XB to 297XF:
Page 120, leave out line 29 and insert ("have been set in accordance with the provisions of this section.").
Page 120, line 31, after ("section") insert ("or section 74A below").
Page 120, line 35, at end insert ("or section 74A below").
Page 120, line 35, at end insert—
("(8A) Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (exercise of functions by local authorities) shall apply in relation to—

(a) Transport for London,

(b) the London local authorities, and

(c) the Mayor of London,

and functions conferred on them by or under this section as it applies to local authorities and functions conferred on them by or under that Act.").
Page 120, line 42, at end insert—
("Additional parking charges: reserve powers of Secretary of State.
74A.—(1) Where the Mayor of London—

(a) on a submission under subsection (3) of section 74 above, approves any levels of additional parking charges, or

(b) sets any such levels under subsection (4) of that section, he shall notify the Secretary of State of the levels of charges so approved or set.

(2) Where notification of any levels of charges is required to be given under subsection (1) above, the levels of charges shall not come into force until after the expiration of—

(a) the period of one month beginning with the day on which the notification is given, or

(b) such shorter period as the Secretary of State may allow.

(3) If, before the expiration of that period, the Secretary of State gives notice to the Mayor of London that he objects to the levels of charges on the grounds that some or all of them are or may be excessive, those levels of charges shall not come into force unless and until the objection has been withdrawn.
(4) If, at any time before the levels of charges required to be notified under subsection (1) above to the Secretary of State have come into force, the Secretary of State considers that some or all of them are excessive, he may make regulations setting the levels of charges.
(5) Levels of charges set under subsection (4) above must be no higher than those notified under subsection (1) above.
(6) Subsections (5) and (6) of section 74 above shall apply in relation to levels of charges set under subsection (4) above as if those levels of charges had been set in accordance with the provisions of that section—

(a) by Transport for London, so far as relating to GLA roads or trunk roads, or

(b) by the London local authorities, so far as relating to other roads.

(7) Regulations under subsection (4) above are without prejudice to the duties imposed on Transport for London and the London local authorities by section 74(1) above; but where the Secretary of State makes any such regulations—

(a) Transport for London, if the regulations relate to GLA roads or trunk roads, or

(b) the London local authorities, if the regulations relate to other roads,

must not make any further submission to the Mayor of London under section 74(3) above until after the expiration of the period of twelve months beginning with the day on which the regulations are made.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 219, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 220 agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 297XG:
After Clause 220, insert the following new clause—
VARIATION OF SPECIAL PARKING AREAS BY THE MAYOR
(" . After section 76 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 (special parking areas) there shall be inserted—
"Variation of special parking areas by Mayor of London.
76A.—(1) At any time when an order under section 76 above designating the whole or any part of a London authority's area as a special parking area is in force, the Mayor of London may by order under this subsection amend the order so as to vary the area which for the time being constitutes the special parking area.
(2) No order may be made under subsection (1) above without the consent of every London local authority which is the traffic authority for a road which the order has the effect of bringing within, or removing from, the special parking area concerned.
(3) An order under subsection (1) above must not be such as to bring within a special parking area—

(a) any area specified in an order under this paragraph made by the Secretary of State; or

(b) the whole or any part of a Royal Park, except with the consent of the Secretary of State.

(4) No area may be specified in an order under subsection (3)(a) above unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is expedient, on grounds of national security, that no part of that area should be included in a special parking area.
(5) In this section "Royal Park" means any park to which the Parks Regulation Act 1872 applies (see sections 1 and 3 of the Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act 1926).").
The noble Lord said: Since the passing of the Road Traffic Act 1991, the principle of decriminalising parking offences has been well established through the creation of special parking areas. Now, in Greater London, illegal parking remains a criminal offence only on the red routes, in royal parks and in a few places in and around Westminster. In those places, the police and traffic wardens—rather than the local authority parking attendants—undertake enforcement.
The purpose of Amendment No. 297XG is to allow the mayor a simple way to change the boundaries of special parking areas, thereby offering an opportunity to extend decriminalisation of parking offences. The mayor may only do that with the consent of the traffic authority. In practice, most roads outside the current special parking areas are red routes which will become GLA roads, so Transport for London will be the relevant traffic authority. Where a new road is within a royal park, the consent of the Secretary of State is required. The Secretary of State can also exclude any area by order on grounds of national security.
Lord Berkeley: Perhaps I may raise the question of royal parks. Before the next stage, can the Minister consider whether it is necessary to have the approval of the Secretary of State? As regards parking, traffic control and speeding fines—and could we not resurface the Mall, which must be the widest road in London, without closing it for two months?—perhaps they could be incorporated more into Transport for London rather than being set apart with criminalised parking.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: At an earlier stage in the Bill—I can no longer remember quite when—I indicated that we propose to amend the Bill at a later stage to provide that the Royal Parks Agency must consult the highway or traffic authority on traffic management or parking proposals; and, likewise, that the Royal Parks Agency must have regard to the mayor's strategy. Those amendments are still subject to some discussion, but I hope to bring them forward at a later stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 221 [Interpretation of parking provisions]:
[Amendments Nos. 297XGA to 297XGB not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 297XH:
Page 121, line 32, at end insert—
("""Minister of the Crown" has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975;".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 297XJ:
Page 121, line 40, at end insert—
("(5) In subsection (6) (power to make orders or regulations to be exercisable by statutory instrument) after "conferred by this Part" there shall be inserted "on a Minister of the Crown".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 221, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 222 agreed to.
Clause 223 [Parking attendants]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 297XK and 297XL:
Page 122, line 37, leave out ("the Greater London Authority") and insert ("Transport for London").
Page 122, line 38, at end insert—
("() After subsection (5), there shall be inserted—
"(6) For the purposes of this section, the area of Transport for London is Greater London."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 223, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 297XM:
After Clause 223, insert the following new clause—
EXERCISE BY TRAFFIC WARDENS OF FUNCTIONS OF PARKING ATTENDANTS
(".—(1) Section 95 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (appointment of traffic wardens) shall be amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (4) (which confers power to employ traffic wardens to act as parking attendants at certain street parking places) there shall be inserted—
"(4A) For the purposes of subsection (4) above, Transport for London is a local authority."").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 224 [London borough council affecting another authority's roads]:
[Amendments Nos. 297XMA to 297XMD not moved.]
Clause 224 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 225 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Clause 225 adds a new Section 121 C after the new Section 121B of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to provide for TfL to commission or to carry out consultancy services relating to traffic control including pedestrians. This is not required. The general provisions under Schedule 9 to the Bill provide for TfL to commission or to carry out consultancy services relating to traffic control, including pedestrians, thus obviating the need for this specific provision under Clause 225. I beg to move that Clause 225 do not stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: There is more joy in Committee at ore clause removed! That is all I am willing to say.
Clause 225 negatived.
Clause 226 [Interpretation and exercise of functions by the Mayor]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 297XN:
Page 125, line 8, leave out ("definition") and insert ("definitions").
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 297XP and 297XQ. These are technical amendments that regularise the definitions in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 297XP and 297XQ:
Page 125, line 9, leave out ("place") and insert ("places").
Page 125, line 11, at end insert—
("""trunk road" has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980 (see section 329(1) of that Act)".'').
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 226, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 227 [Repeal of certain enactments]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 297XR:
Page 125, line 39, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 41 and insert ("In subsections (6) and (7) below "relevant local plans" means any local plans prepared or in the course of preparation by a London borough council or the Common Council under section 54 of the Road Traffic Act 1991.
(6) To the extent that they relate to roads which are or become GLA roads, within the meaning of the Highways Act 1980, any relevant local plans shall, until such time as they are superseded by the transport strategy, continue in force and have effect as if they were prepared or, as the case may be, in the course of preparation as part of that strategy.
(7) To the extent that they relate to roads other than those mentioned in subsection (6) above, any relevant local plans").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment. As the Bill stands, a red route local plan prepared by a borough continues in force until such time as it is superseded by a local implementation plan under Clause 127 of the Bill. However, the Government intend that the GLA road network should be based largely on the red route network. This means that most, if not all, red routes currently subject to local plans will transfer to TfL. So the red route plans will not be superseded by borough local implementation plans.
Therefore, this amendment provides that local plans in respect of roads that become GLA roads will continue in force until they are superseded by the mayor's transport strategy. Local plans for roads that continue to be borough roads will remain in force until they are superseded by local implementation plans. I hope that the amendment clarifies the issue and I commend At to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 227, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 228 [Road user charging]:
[Amendment No. 297XRA not moved.]
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 297XRB:
Page 126, line 3, at beginning insert ("Where the revenue raised is to be invested solely and exclusively in better provision for public transport, cycling and walking in Greater London,").
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 312ZA. I rise to speak briefly to these amendments, the purpose of which I think is extremely clear. They will put in the Bill, at the earliest opportunity, mention of the new charges and levies that the Bill enables the authority or the London borough councils or the Common Council to make. The amendments seek to ensure that it is stated at this early stage that the revenue raised from the road user charging

689
scheme or from the workplace parking levy is invested solely in public transport, cycling and walking provisions in Greater London. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: At this early hour of the evening by our standards, we come to the vexed issues of congestion charging—or road user charging, as it is called in the Bill—and workplace parking. I put it on record that we on this side of the House are not really in favour of either measure but, as we are going to get them in this Bill, we are advancing a series of amendments—and will do so again in the next stage—to lessen the impact of the charges and to reinforce the essence of the noble Baroness's amendment that they should be used mainly to improve public transport. That does not exclude certain improvements to the road network when that could assist the movement of public transport and cycling provision. However, the point remains the same. We have a number of amendments to the provision to which we shall come in due course, but I wanted to put that principle on the table in response to the noble Baroness.
Lord Whitty: We understand the noble Lord's opposition to the provisions, but we are not entirely clear about his alternative to the congestion problems in London. I also appreciate the keenness of the noble Baroness to put forward a further proposal on what is already a substantial ground-breaking arrangement for the application of charging revenues. But, first, the amendments are out of place in Clauses 228 and 229. They simply empower the mayor and the boroughs to bring forward road user and workplace parking charges. The arrangements for the retention and use of charging revenues are in Schedules 18 and 19. The noble Baroness is already well aware of those because she has tabled amendments to them, too.
I would argue that for the immediate period the amendments are unnecessary because the schedules already make it clear that every penny from the new charges will be hypothecated for at least 10 years for each scheme brought forward within the first 10 years of the GLA. It is true that those arrangements will be reviewed in 10 years' time, but the noble Baroness's amendment is largely met by the provisions.
The amendments are restrictive. They would inhibit the mayor and boroughs from spending those revenues on other areas of transport; for example, the support of river bus services. They would also rule out spending on road improvements and enforcement activity within the capital. Services to bring people into London would not be compatible with the services in Greater London, which is how the amendment is phrased. Those drafting shortcomings are avoided by simply allowing charging revenues to be spent in support of the mayor's transport strategy, which would cover all of those aspects. For those reasons, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: For once, the Minister's reply has made me more enthusiastic about my amendments. I do not agree that supporting the mayor's
690
plan is the same thing as doing what we are suggesting should be done with the revenues. The mayor will have a number of objectives in his plan and no doubt one of them will be to enable whatever traffic is still on the roads, whether it is private or public, to move more smoothly. That is always one of the objectives of everyone in local authority in towns and counties because stationary traffic is polluting, disagreeable and costly to individuals and business. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the mayor to have as part of his strategy sensible measures to improve the flow of vehicular traffic on the road space left to it after the cycle lanes have been drawn.
However, we should like to see the revenues from congestion charging and so forth being put to support public transport and cycling and walking. Both take up relatively little space on the road and are not polluting. The noble Lord said that that would not cover river buses. I contest that; river buses might well be in public transport and if not they might well be set up as part of Transport for London's powers to provide or cause to be provided transport services. Therefore, I am more enthusiastic about the two amendments than I was originally. However, I will do as we always do and that is withdraw these amendments for the present moment. I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, that we may well return to this rather vexed subject, albeit from slightly different points of view as we, of course, support the idea of road charging and workplace parking levies, at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 297XS:
Page 126, line 4, leave out ("the Authority.") and insert ("Transport for London,").
The noble Lord said: These are technical and drafting changes to the Bill, as the notes of my noble friend Lady Farrington inform me—she so often comes to my rescue. Amendments Nos 297XS and 312A are small but significant technical amendments. They are needed because any road user or workplace charging scheme introduced by the authority would be established and operated by TfL on behalf of the authority. It is therefore necessary to empower TfL to establish and operate charging schemes rather than to empower the authority to do so. I should make clear that the decision to allow TfL to establish an operator charge scheme will still rest with the mayor acting on behalf of the authority.
Amendments Nos. 455BA and 455BB are minor amendments to tidy up the drafting of Clause 325(6). Subsection (4) of this clause states that regulations which amend workplace parking charges and amend the definition of workplace parking will be subject to the affirmative resolution in this context in another place. Subsection (6) therefore needs to make clear that all these provisions will not therefore need to be subject to the negative resolution procedure of both Houses. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 298 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 299.
Page 126, line 15, at end insert—
("(4) The purpose of any charges imposed by schemes established pursuant to this section shall be to encourage the use by individuals of public passenger transport services in preference to other forms of transport and regulations issued to establish such schemes shall be drafted, applied and interpreted in the light of this purpose, and any feature of or provision within any purported regulations which is neither essential nor reasonably incidental to such purpose shall be void and of no effect.
(5) In order to fulfil the purpose set out in subsection (4) above, no scheme shall be established which imposes a charge for the use of any road unless it contains a provision for the Authority or any London borough council or the Common Council, as is appropriate (in this Chapter "the charging body"), to make payments to any resident (including the occupier of any business premises) of the area over which they have authority.
(6) The payments referred to in subsection (5) above shall be calculated, as far as is reasonably practicable, to be equal to the charges which would be borne by a person who used the road or roads in question no more than the average during a twelve month period; and the charging body shall review the level of payments each year to ensure that the purpose in subsection (4) is fulfilled.
(7) In order to calculate the payments referred to in subsection (5) above, no regulations establishing a scheme pursuant to this section may be made unless the charging body in question has first conducted research over at least three months into the level of use of the road or roads in question (including such information as the number of persons using such road or roads, the frequency with which they use the road or roads in question, the nature of the motor vehicles used, and the distance travelled by them within the relevant area).
(8) Where the research conducted pursuant to subsection (7) above indicates to a charging body that the payments required by subsection (5) above cannot be calculated with reasonable accuracy, then no scheme relating to the road or roads in question may be established pursuant to this section.
(9) The results of the research conducted pursuant to subsection (7) above shall be available at no charge to members of the public and published electronically by the charging body in a form capable of access by members of the public.").
The noble Lord said: The introduction of road user charging, or of congestion tax as we would prefer to call it, is a significant break with our centuries old tradition in this country that the public highway should be free for use by the public. The Transport White Paper states,
"We will therefore introduce legislation to allow local authorities to charge road users so a.5 to reduce congestion, as part of a package of measures in a local transport plan that would include improving public transport".
That comes from Chapter 4 of the Transport White Paper, Making it Happen, which deals with changing travel habits, tackling congestion and pollution on local roads.
In other words, the purpose of road pricing is to encourage people to use public transport instead. There is an amendment to clarify that this significant breach of the civil rights of the motorist should be subject to an overriding purpose to combat possible abuse, in other words the use of road pricing to raise funds for other purposes. The Transport White Paper states that road pricing will be based upon mileage travelled, in other words acts to cut down distance which motorists travel. To make this effective without penalising the responsible car driver who cannot avoid using his car, there needs to be a mixture of incentives and disincentives.
If everyone stopped using their cars and used public transport, London Transport would collapse from overload. I do not know how many Members of the Committee use the Tube but I can say from my personal experience that even travelling outside the rush hour, as I do most of the time, the system is in serious difficulty, particularly with the closure of the Circle Line and, today, with the closure of a major branch of the Northern Line. There are continuous problems. There is simply no more room on the system at, for example, half past eight in the morning. As a regular traveller in the ordinary way, I cannot bear to think that there may suddenly be a huge number of additional people trying to use London Underground.
Therefore, road pricing should discourage excessive use, but not every use, of the road. The amendment provides for payment of a rebate to people likely to be affected by road pricing, the rebate to be based on likely mileage charge suffered by the average road user; the average mileage to be calculated; and so on. Indeed, it requires research to be conducted, as envisaged by the transport White Paper. It would be good to have that research publicly available.
It would be sensible to ban road pricing where an average mileage cannot be calculated because if that cannot be found by research, how can a local authority justify road pricing to reduce congestion?
I turn to Amendment No. 300. The transport White Paper states that,
"we do not want to restrict car ownership—with our vision for a prosperous Britain where prosperity is shared by all we expect more people to be able to afford a car".
That is on page 1 of the White Paper.
Therefore, this amendment seeks to protect the low paid. We suggest that road pricing should be capped to the value of the car. For the most part, cars are a notoriously bad investment and lose value the moment they are driven out of the showroom. Therefore, that cap should be linked to the second-hand value. We suggest that a 1 per cent limit would ensure that road pricing does not put car ownership out of the reach of the low paid. I am sure that the Government would approve of that. Certainly, from their statement in the White Paper, that would appear to be the case. Therefore, we bring forward that suggestion.
The last amendment in the group again refers to the Secretary of State's claim to want an integrated transport policy. The amendment fulfils that purpose by ensuring that road pricing cannot be introduced in an ad hoc manner without proper research into the knock-on effects on other roads. There is that question of other roads in nearby areas. Again, research is required to be published widely as a means of democratic accountability. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: Taken together, these amendments seriously undermine the approach to road-user charging in the capital which we have proposed. Although some of them have a superficial attraction, they do not add up to anything which we could accept.
The first two amendments would allow charging schemes to be brought forward only if they encourage the use of public transport in preference to all other

693
modes of transport. I am sure that the mayor's strategy will encourage the use of public transport. The noble Lord is saying that it would not be possible to use those revenues to encourage cycling or walking in preference to public transport or it would not be possible ever, in any circumstances, to use the revenue for road improvements or for improvements which benefited a number of users wider than those who use public transport. That would not be sensible. As I said earlier to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, it is clear that the Government's intention is that the money will be used to promote the mayor's transport strategy in all its aspects. Although a big aspect of that will be the improvement of public transport, other aspects will need to be addressed.
Amendment No. 299 would also require revenues from road user charging to be paid to London residents and businesses. Exactly how much would be paid is not clear from the amendment, but the Government have made it clear that all that money will be ring-fenced for transport for at least the first 10 years. That will ensure that transport services and facilities can be substantially enhanced for the benefit of all Londoners. Paying the money back to Londoners is not appropriate and sits rather uncomfortably with the proposition of the noble Lord that the revenue from any charging scheme should be used to encourage the use of public transport.
The amendments would also require extensive research to be undertaken into the effects of road user charges. Before any road user scheme were to come into effect, the results of that research would be required to be made available electronically. Extensive research has been undertaken by the Government, the previous government and by other bodies such as London First into the impacts of road user charging. The findings indicate that charges can reduce traffic levels in the areas where they are applied, leading to less congestion and less pollution. They can also generate a revenue stream to fund improvements to transport services and facilities.
In addition, the Government are currently undertaking an extensive study to provide information for mayoral candidates on the use of road user and workplace parking charging powers in London. The Review of Charging Options for London study is looking at how charging schemes may work in practice, what impact they can have on congestion and pollution in the capital, and how they would be received.
Representatives of the study's steering group include London Transport, the London boroughs, the transport departments of three universities in London, the AA, the RAC and Transport 2000. The final report is expected in October and will be available to mayoral candidates. Ultimately, it will, of course, be open to the mayor and boroughs to undertake further research. However, the power to decide to undertake that research should not be on the face of the Bill but should be for the mayor and the boroughs.
Amendment No. 300 is extraordinary, unless it is intended to undermine any credibility in the scheme. The amendment would cap the road user charges so that they are levied on motor vehicles at 1 per cent of the value of a vehicle. I am not clear why the value of the
694
vehicle should be relevant. The mayor should decide whether or not to place such a cap. Normally the payments would relate to an access charge or a mileage related charge. The idea that it would relate to the value of a vehicle is slightly odd. It must be for the mayor to decide how the scheme would work, but a cap on this basis would be totally impractical. Every vehicle of a different age, type and state of repair would face a different maximum charge. The mind boggles as to how such a scheme could operate.
I do not think much of this group of amendments. I hope that the noble Lord, who no doubt will wish to return to these issues later tonight and at later stages of the Bill, will reconsider his proposal.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The amendments were probing amendments. I understand the Government's objection to some parts of them. They have enabled me to have a reply from the Minister on some of the issues involved. I was interested to hear the reply regarding the research and information which will be available to mayoral candidates in October. I wonder whether the noble Lord could make that information available in September so that we may be able to look at it when we return in the overspill period for the next stage of the Bill. Perhaps that is asking too much.
The amendment concerning the value of the car was a little tongue in cheek. I was trying to assist the Government to fulfil their White Paper commitment that they do not want to restrict car ownership. I hope that their vision for a prosperous Britain and the ability to afford a car will be shared by all. I have been interested to hear the reply of the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 228, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 300 and 301 not moved.]
Schedule 18 [Road user charging]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 302:
Page 250, line 5, leave out paragraph 3 and insert—
("3.—(1) A charging scheme may be made by the appropriate charging authority only if it appears necessary for the purposes of—

(a) relieving or preventing congestion of traffic on such roads or in the surrounding area, or

(b) securing the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians and cyclists) on such roads or in the surrounding area.

(2) If the Authority reasonably considers that a charging scheme needs to be introduced by a London borough or boroughs—

(a) because the objectives of the transport strategy cannot otherwise be achieved within the periods specified therein,

(b) to achieve the objectives of any charging scheme introduced by the Authority, or

(c) to achieve the objectives of any other London borough in introducing or proposing to introduce a charging scheme,

the Authority may invite such London borough or boroughs to introduce a charging scheme for that purpose.
(3) If any London borough in question shall fail to introduce a suitable charging scheme within a reasonable period the Authority may, following a resolution of the Assembly to that effect, impose such a charging scheme provided that it shall have no power to do so if such charging scheme would conflict with the local

695
implementation plan of that London borough or otherwise have an adverse effect on the provision of public transport or management of traffic or movement of pedestrians and cyclists within Greater London.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 302 and in order to save the Committee's time, I shall speak also to a large group of amendments. Most are in my name but one or two are in the names of my noble friends and no doubt we will deal with those as well. I do not intend to deal with all these issues in detail. I believe there is a play in London at the moment called "All Shakespeare in one-and-a-half hours"; these are all my objections to road user charging and work-place parking levy in a nutshell. Again, as on the last amendment, I shall listen carefully to what the Minister says in reply. I will no doubt wish to distil the issue before the next stage and come back with a real blockbuster at that point.
The Bill at present gives the Greater London Authority the power to ride roughshod over the boroughs in imposing road pricing schemes at will. That is undemocratic. The GLA should have the power to impose schemes only in respect of GLA roads or trunk roads and have a reserve power, if necessary, to achieve the objectives of the transport strategy so long as that does not conflict with the implementation plan or the borough's aims strategy.
It is of key importance for democratic accountability that the boroughs should be given a chance to produce their own schemes First. Paragraph 3 of the amendment enshrines that objective, and assembly consent is included for that reason.
Other amendments cover the need to receive and publish a report from an independent economist on the effect of business activity in the area. As I said earlier on the previous amendment, the White Paper clearly states that the purpose of this charging scheme is to reduce congestion and encourage people to use public transport. If we are talking about business activity in an area, we are talking about deliveries by commercial vehicles to businesses in the area. They do not have the alternative of public transport to turn to and should not be penalised by a congestion charge. Any congestion charge levied on commercial vehicles delivering to an area is nothing more than a tax on the business in that area. I know that the associations involved in this activity are concerned about that.
We believe also that as a consequence of that there is an insufficient requirement for consultation on the introduction of road user charging. Amendment No. 304 requires consultation with, among others, organisations and representatives of potential users—motorists, pedestrians, cyclists and disabled persons; I add to that business users in the area—before a charging scheme is introduced.
We believe also that the objectives meant to be achieved should be stated so that everybody knows what the purpose of introducing the congestion tax is. Those objectives should be published and voters can then hold the relevant politician to account if the objectives either are or are not achieved.
I am trying to deal with the amendments as briefly as I can. Amendment No. 306 has the object that only the minimum charge should be made which is necessary to secure the specified objectives. The fear of many Londoners—it is certainly mine—is that this will become a new back-door tax which can be used for other things and that it will not necessarily be used for that which we would like to see it used. Therefore, we propose that the road pricing charges should be set only at the minimum level necessary to achieve the limited objective of reducing traffic congestion and that it should not be set any higher.
Amendment No. 307 brings us back to the issue of those who should be exempted from road user charges. Here we are suggesting the inclusion of the disabled, schoolchildren under secondary-school age who cannot really be expected to use public transport on their own (nor can their busy parents be expected necessarily to take them to and from school), school buses, doctors and nurses, hospital and emergency vehicles and motorbikes. Of course, there could be other categories and I am sure that the issue of exemptions will arise again.
I should like particularly to mention motorbikes in this connection. As I said earlier, if the purpose of the provision is to reduce congestion—and that is what it is supposed to do—it cannot be argued that motorbikes cause congestion; indeed, although they cause a good deal of other inconvenience, that is the one thing that they do not do.
Amendment No. 309 provides that "penalty charges"—the fines—for not obeying this congestion charge should be no more than is reasonably necessary to secure the specified objectives of the scheme. Again, people are worried that this will prove to be yet another way of raising taxes. Of course, we do not know whether the penalty charges will actually be spent on improvements to public transport, cycling, walking, and so on.
I believe that what I have said sums up the majority of the amendments in the group. I should stress again that one of them refers to the capacity of the public transport system. As I said on the last occasion, the Underground is operating almost at capacity; indeed, many lines are certainly running at capacity in many central areas at peak times and running very nearly at capacity at non-peak times. So where will this extra traffic go when it is turned off the roads?
As I see it, the whole problem with this congestion charging and non-residential parking is that at present it is all stick and no carrot. If we must have this, we would like to see a situation where at least some improvement is made to public transport, preferably before the introduction of congestion charging; but, if not before, then certainly at the same time as such charging is introduced. This takes us back to the arguments about borrowing, and so on, to which we shall no doubt return. I repeat: as set out in the Bill, it seems to be all stick and no carrot. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley: I have two amendments in this group; namely, Amendments Nos. 310A and 324A. I do

697
not intend to speak to them for very long, but they are designed to ensure that TfL and the mayor should be able to keep the Revenue from these various parking charges—
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I should point out to the noble Lord that those amendments are not included in this group; indeed, they are self-standing.
Lord Berkeley: I am sorry. I thought that they were in this group.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I shall step in while the noble Lord re-groups himself. We have been dealing with a complicated series of amendments which were obviously very difficult to group. Efforts were made to re-group them with the assistance of the various teams involved, but, even so, I am not entirely sure that an absolutely satisfactory arrangement has been found for this large group of amendments. Nevertheless, we are all doing our best to cope with what we have. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, may wish to know that Amendment No. 321A, which is tabled in his name, is in this group.
We have tabled a number of amendments in this group. I refer in particular to Amendments Nos. 302B and 317A which pick up one of the themes mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, in that they suggest that a road user charging scheme or a workplace parking levy scheme should be levied only if it has regard to the capacity of the public transport system to accommodate such increase in use as may result from the scheme. I believe that that ties in with some of the fears that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, understandably mentioned.
In the dear, dead days of Fares Fair, it was relatively easy to lower fares and thus encourage increased use of the Underground system because it did not carry the number of passengers that it does today. Today it is always full, although it has always been full at the rush hour. I remember when I first worked in London a large number of years ago. I did not get onto the Northern Line going north until at least half-an-hour after the main rush hour had passed because I could not bear being crammed into it. Some famous lines have been "black holes" as far as capacity is concerned for a long time. But now all the lines seem to be in that position and it seems to be the case more or less all day long. It is not just a matter of the trains being full; the stations are also extremely full now at any time of the day. The capacity of the Underground is a serious matter and must be addressed.
Buses are the other main form of public transport. Here I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, because one cannot improve the capacity of the bus system until one has taken some of the cars off the road. That is the balance that this Bill seeks to achieve in the series of clauses which concern charges and their use. Quite apart from the issue of borrowing against revenue streams which we dealt with earlier, we need to be certain that revenues from charging schemes will be spent on public transport and that those two issues will
698
gradually move together. One cannot significantly improve road public transport until one reduces the number of cars on the roads.
I may address the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, when I am certain that it means what I think it means. For the moment I shall leave that amendment to him.
Lord Berkeley: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, for giving me the opportunity to confirm that I have three amendments in the group we are discussing; namely, Amendments Nos. 310A, 321A and 324A. I refer to deleting the requirement that after 10 years the revenue from parking charges or congestion charges returns to the Treasury. I believe that we have discussed this matter before. It also fits nicely with the statement made by my noble friend the Minister earlier; namely, that the mayor will have the sole right to set the charges. It is a pity that he will not be able to keep the revenue. As I say, he can set the charges but he cannot keep the revenue. It would be nice if he could keep that revenue for ever.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, talked about the civil rights of motorists. I believe that bus passengers, cyclists and pedestrians have equal civil rights. The Government have never said that they are against people owning cars; they are encouraging it. However, they have said that in certain circumstances car usage must be restricted when there is a capacity constraint, for example—as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said—in order to leave space for buses. I believe that there could be an enormous growth in bus passengers if there were continuous bus lanes and therefore little delay. I shall certainly oppose the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon.
10 p.m.
Lord Whitty: I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, on at least bringing some coherence to this block of amendments. I have similar difficulties with groups of government amendments and he has made a better job of it than I would. Nevertheless, there is a range of issues involved, many of which cannot be properly addressed. Noble Lords will have to decide which ones have priority for bringing back at a later stage. Certainly some of the points made by the noble Lord are fundamental to the totality of the approach.
Equally, many of the amendments seek to be deeply prescriptive. We are leaving to the mayor's discretion how and at what level he or she draws up the precise schemes. The issue of hypothecation, if I can put it that way—we have discussed it before—is quite clear. I should say to my noble friend Lord Berkeley and to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, that the hypothecation is for 10 years. For any scheme that starts within the first 10 years, the revenues remain within that ring-fenced area for 10 years thereafter—forever is a long time—which is a fairly substantial commitment. It is a reasonable period of time into the future in which to tackle many of London's infrastructure problems.
I have no doubt that London's responsible, democratically elected mayor will wish to consider many of the issues raised by the noble Lord in terms of

699
where, at what level and in what sequence the charging schemes will be introduced and pay for transport infrastructure projects. The responsibility for working out those matters must rest with the mayor, rather than be prescribed on the face of the Bill.
The noble Lord expressed a particular concern about the interests of business in London. Clearly that must be central to our considerations. I understand that London's business community is only too well aware of the enormous costs currently imposed on the capital and its economic activity by congestion. Both London First and the Chamber of Commerce have found that business is quite prepared to support road user charging provided that the revenues are ring fenced and spent only on improving transport in London.
A number of other issues were raised in this context during the course of the debate. I agree with my noble friend Lord Berkeley and with the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, in relation to the improvement of bus travel. The capacity of buses within London depends on some reduction in road traffic; the two go hand in hand. That must be clear.
As to two of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord—he did not make much of these points in his address—there is an issue that I need to consider in the area of consultation. Amendments Nos. 304 and 319 seek to place a duty on charging and licensing authorities to consult on the detail of any charging scheme or any substantial variation to any scheme. While the amendments, as drafted, are unduly prescriptive, I recognise that there is merit in requiring at least a minimum amount of consultation on the detail of any such charging or licensing scheme. That would allow Londoners, organisations and businesses in London the opportunity to have their say. On that basis, I would like to take away and consider the two amendments with a view to bringing forward Government amendments on Report.
We envisage that such amendments would require a charging or licensing authority to advertise its proposals and to invite representations. As I said during earlier stages of the Bill, prescribing precisely who should be consulted will lead to a potentially endless sequence of demands that additional names should be added to the list. In any case, that is rightly left to the mayor to specify. Any minimum requirement in the Bill introduced after consultation could be improved upon by the mayor. Nevertheless, I accept part of the noble Lord's comments about consultation.
As to the rest, he is either raising again fundamental issues or attempting to be prescriptive, so I hope that he will not pursue the clauses. I trust that he will withdraw his large and wide-ranging group of amendments and will focus down at any subsequent stage.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to the Minister for his response and that I have at least achieved agreement on one small part of the amendments, regarding consultation. I was going to say that half a loaf is better than none but that is just a tiny slice. Nevertheless, it is better than nothing.
700
The Minister referred to my enormous group of amendments, but it was the noble Lord's grouping, not mine. In the interests of time, I reluctantly agreed to accept it, feeling that we could at least have a short debate at this stage, returning to the more significant items at the next stage.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, rightly pointed out that the Underground has been at capacity during the rush hour for many years. I remember that that was so when I started working in London in the late 1960s. We must hope that the new PPP, if it happens, and revenue stream will do something to improve that capacity, if we are to see more cars off the road and additional passengers using the Underground.
It is right to say that bus services cannot improve until the cars have gone. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred to bus lanes. They have been introduced on many routes in central London but there are many others where there is no room. On the No. 14 route from where I live to Piccadilly there are many places where there is no room for a bus lane.
One reason that buses travel so slowly in central London is that they stop every 400 yards for people to get on and off—not necessarily because of congestion. At the moment, buses are not a serious means of transport for people who are in a hurry to get from one place to another.
Lord Berkeley: Route 14 is a particularly bad example but there are many other roads in London where there are two lanes in each direction and one could perfectly well be used for buses. Buses stop to pick up passengers, which is their objective. If bus lanes were continuous across traffic lights and so on, buses could travel even faster.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am glad that the noble Lord agrees that buses stop frequently to pick up passengers. Unfortunately, the corollary is that they do not make their journeys particularly quickly. I dare say that the noble Lord is right and that there are roads other than those used on the No. 14, 22 or 74 routes—to cite three examples that I know—where bus lanes could be introduced, and no doubt they will be.
Returning to the carrot-and-stick point, congestion charging has been introduced with some success in other cities of the world because improvements to public transport were made before or at the same time. The trouble with the Government's proposals is that congestion charging will be introduced but then a long time will elapse before there are improvements in public transport.
Apart from his concession to me on consultation—we shall wait to see what comes of that—the Minister quoted London First as being in favour of congestion charging. My point was not about business as such, but related to the retail trade and delivery to shops and also to the messenger trade and offices in the area. They do not have the alternative of public transport. Therefore, any congestion charge on them is nothing more than a tax on business in the area. It cannot be said to encourage public transport because they do not have that

701
choice. However, I shall read what has been said in the debate. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 302A to 305A not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 305B:
Page 251, line 41, at end insert—
("() different distances travelled;").
The noble Lord said: This small amendment makes it clear that charging authorities can levy road user charges on the basis of distance travelled.
I recognise that this is unlikely to be an immediate option; and it will not be an option unless a charging authority brings forward a rather complex electronic road user charging scheme. Any such scheme is unlikely to be brought forward by the mayor in the short term. However, the primary legislation that we are putting in place should allow for a future road user charging scheme to be brought forward that levies charges on the basis of distance travelled. That is in line with our proposals to allow the mayor to design and implement the road user charging scheme which can best help deliver the policies and proposals contained within the mayor's transport strategy. The amendment allows for that. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: The amendment has interesting implications. For some people who need to travel rather long distances to work—it might include work for the authority or the mayor—charging more the greater the distance travelled would seem to be rather a handicap. On the other hand, there could be an advantage in charging people more for short distances in order to discourage them from using private transport. Shorter distances might well be more suited to the use of public transport. I wonder whether the Minister has in mind the possible effects of the reference to "different distances travelled".
Lord Whitty: The point of road user charging is to discourage, constrain or redistribute the amount of road traffic. In the immediate circumstance is it unlikely that that is achievable, except by what is effectively an access charge: more or less a flat rate would be charged for access to parts of London.
It is now not beyond the wit of technology to charge electronically on the basis of distance travelled. Such systems now exist in some parts of the world. That would reduce the temptation to use the car, for example, for long or medium distance commuting. It would also discourage the use of the car when public transport arrangements for cross-city journeys were available.
I take the noble Lord's point that some of the journeys that he would particularly wish to divert onto public transport are relatively short. It may well be that the mayor will decide that a combination of an access charge and a road user charge—a road mileage related charge—is the most sensible way of discouraging short
702
use by fixing a higher threshold and combining that with a discouragement from driving into central London every day from, for example, Croydon.
However, those are all matters for the mayor. The only point of the clause is to recognise that at some point, when the legislation is likely still to be in place, it will be technically possible for the mayor to devise schemes which are based on mileage as well as those based on access. In the long term, that may well be the way in which the mayor would wish to go. I hope that clarifies the matter for the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
Lord Renton: I thank the noble Lord for his explanation. It looks as though the amendment will give a wide discretion to the mayor because it will be he who decides the policy.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 306 and 307 not moved.]
Baroness Darcy de Knayth Baroness Darcy de Knayth moved Amendment No. 308:
Page 252, line 6, at end insert—
("() A charging scheme shall include an exemption scheme for disabled people and transport services for disabled people drawn up in consultation with organisations of disabled people.").
The noble Baroness said: I wish to move Amendment No. 308 and speak to Amendment No. 323 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and myself. It is grouped with Amendments Nos. 308A and 323A in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Thomas and Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope. They all seek to achieve the same objective by various means. They all aim to create a scheme for exempting certain classes of disabled people from road user charging and workplace parking licensing schemes.
Amendments Nos. 308A and 323A mention consultation with groups representing disabled people. It is important that the consultation should be with organisations of disabled people where over 50 per cent of the members have direct experience of disability.
I shall not rehearse the arguments about disabled people not being able to exercise choice over using public transport or the need for an overall scheme. We have been through it all before. The amendments are similar to Amendments Nos. 298 and 314 which were spoken to earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester. They called for an overall national scheme, one that is the same throughout the country, I hope including Scotland and Wales. Amendments Nos. 308 and 323 and the one by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, relate only to London. The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, are therefore definitely better. He regrets that he cannot be here, but the Committee will acknowledge that he has done sterling work already on the amendments.
I look forward to the Minister's reply, perhaps even more optimistically than usual in view of the early arrival of his letter to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, which was flagged earlier. I shall move Amendment No 308, although I prefer Amendment No. 298,

703
because I wish to give the opportunity to the Minister to tell us a little more about the amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I support the amendments. I accept the gentle reproof administered by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, on the advantage of the phrase "groups of" disabled people rather than "groups representing" disabled people. However, we have the same aim and, like the noble Baroness. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
Lord Renton: I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy. The alternative put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and others has roughly the same effect. As for the alternatives, one must bear in mind that, disabled people have a wide range of disabilities. Some disabled people might be able to use public transport but others are so severely disabled that they could not even drive a specially adapted vehicle. Special arrangements have to be made for them.
When we come to consider Amendment No. 323, it is important to beat in mind that transport services may need to be arranged for groups of very severely disabled people, not necessarily individuals, because they cannot propel themselves. We must generalise on this matter. I am sure that the Government will be sufficiently broad-minded and imaginative to realise that it is important to give adequate power to the mayor and authority to provide, exemptions under the first group of amendments and a special licensing scheme under Schedule 19. I hope that the Government will give a helpful, favourable and sympathetic reply to this amendment.
Lord Whitty: I hope that I can be at least slightly sympathetic. This matter relates to the exchange of correspondence between me and my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester, who is no longer in his place, about the timing of the Government's proposals on the application of any national exemptions to the GLA. The Government's view is that in general terms it should be the responsibility of the mayor to decide what exemptions from road user and workplace parking charges should apply across London, but that if there are any national exemptions they should apply also to London.
Currently, we are analysing a very large number of responses to the paper, Breaking the Logjam. A good number of those bring forward the likelihood of national exemptions. Without pre-empting full consideration of that area of consultation, it is clear that a strong case is made for national exemptions for disabled persons. Exactly how that operates, in what context and in respect of whom will be a matter for national exemptions. It is not our intention to rush the process of specifying those exemptions because a further period of discussion will be required, but I am sure the Committee will agree that it is essential to ensure that any exemption from charges for disabled persons is clearly defined, practical to implement, equitable and not open to abuse. All of those angles must be covered.
704
Nevertheless, the undertaking that I have given to my noble friend Lord Morris, which I give again formally to the Committee, is that we shall endeavour to agree the structure of any national exemptions from local authority road user and workplace charges in time for it to be included in the latter stages of the Bill in this House. In any case, even if we missed that timetable the national exemptions would be clear by the time the mayor came to propose any scheme within London. I hope that we can put it into the Bill. I hope the noble Baroness agrees that I should take away these amendments and feed them into that consideration. As to the substance of the case she makes, the Government are strongly sympathetic and believe that the results of their consideration will be positive.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he can amplify his observation about national exemptions being considered at a later stage of the Bill. As I understand it, all that we shall know about the national exemptions is what the Government intend to propose to Parliament. However, they will not be part of the law, whereas in this Bill we shall be making the law. It is very important to ensure that the exemptions are available within the Greater London Authority. It would be terrible if in the long run it turned out that the national exemptions did not sufficiently help disabled people in London.
Lord Whitty: I think that the noble Lord is seeking an understanding that we might legislate in this Bill first. It is the case that if we are clear about what we want to do with the national exemptions in time for the latter stages of this Bill, we would wish to incorporate them. It is possible that subsequently, during the passage of the Bill, Parliament will be persuaded to alter those national exemptions and we would therefore need to provide that they would be altered in London as well. All those contingencies must be covered in the way in which we deal with the issue.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, wishes to say anything. I thank her for her support, especially after her gracious concession about consultation. I also wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for his warm and strong support.
I thank the Minister particularly for his response, because it would be good news if we could learn more about the national exemptions before Report. I think that he agrees that the important point is that the London scheme should be the same as the national scheme and that we avoid the orange badge mess that we have had to date. I thank the Minister very much for the content and the manner of his response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 308A to 310A not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 311:
Page 253, line 17, leave out from beginning to ("be") in line 19 and insert ("The net proceeds of any charging scheme shall").
The noble Lord said: With respect, I do not believe that we have covered this issue properly and I wish also speak to Amendment No. 325. The amendments deal with the 10-year period of hypothecation which we have not dealt with so far.
As presently drafted, as your Lordships will be only too well aware, the Bill allows hypothecation of the net proceeds of parking charges and, in Schedule 19, of non-residential parking charges to be applied to relevant transport purposes, but for only 10 years. The amendments would remove the 10-year period and would allow the hypothecation—a dreadful word, but one that seems to have entered into popular use—to continue longer.
The Government were able, after much discussion, to get the principle of hypothecation agreed for 10 years. It is almost the first time that that has happened. I gather that it is not the first time that the Treasury has agreed to hypothecation, but it is certainly the most significant. The issue is major flows of money into major improvements in the London transport system. Earlier, we discussed the PPP for the London Underground. It appears that such schemes may last for upwards of 30 years. If the revenue from parking and congestion charges is to be of maximum use to Londoners, one of the principal purposes will be to make improvements to the London Underground by assisting with the PPP process.
I put it simply. If this can be assumed only for 10 years, whereas the period for the PPP is up to 30 years, that is not good enough. There may be other schemes which would take longer than 10 years to introduce. For example, the building of the Cross-Rail line or the Chelsea-Hackney line would take a great deal longer than 10 years to finance. Therefore it is essential that we have this revenue stream available to the promoters of such a scheme for longer than 10 years.
A number of amendments have been tabled. The noble Baroness has tabled an amendment providing for 35 years. I prefer my amendment for its simplicity. It merely states that it should last forever. I may receive criticism for the "forever" but it is open to anyone to come to this House and another place to change it back again. In the meantime, I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I hope that I am right in thinking that we have now moved to the group of amendments beginning with Amendment No. 310A. I endorse what the noble Lord said. Even a double decker bus has a longer lifespan than 10 years. Some have been on the roads for heaven knows how long. No doubt they have long outlived their being financed. They have simply pottered gently around the roads of London free of such finance. Nevertheless, 10 years is absurd if we speak of the financing of major projects.
The noble Lord mentioned a number of them. Amendment No. 311XA and the others grouped with it aim to increase the ring-fencing period from 10 to 35 years. We think that that is a more reasonable period. Within that 35 year limit, the authority might choose to
706
adapt the financing scheme to suit the expenditure of capital. That would be sensible. However, I do not believe that a 10-year maximum limit makes sense when we are talking about major investment of moneys in capital schemes.
Lord Whitty: Like the noble Baroness, I am confused by this somewhat cavalier approach to the groupings. However, we have a coherent debate led by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, so let us be thankful for that.
How long one hypothecates is an important issue. To establish this degree of hypothecation was a ground-breaking step. Although the noble Lord said in a slightly exaggerated way that hypothecation was a popular term, I am not sure that it is spoken of in clubs and pubs around London. Nevertheless, it is not that popular among those who control public finances. To establish this breakthrough is an important step, and an indication of the commitment of the Government to exactly the intentions that the noble Lord purports to support. If we are introducing these schemes—he is against them—he wants us to spend all the finance on transport. So do we. To say that it is a maximum 10-year period, as the noble Baroness said, is not precisely the truth. It does not reflect accurately where we are.
The clauses provide for any scheme for road user charging, addressed by the first of the noble Lord's amendments, or for workplace parking charges, addressed by his second amendment, to be established any time within the next 10 years. Any scheme that is established in the next 10 years will last for 10 years. So a scheme established after nine years would be still running after 19 years. Furthermore, that would not necessarily be the end of the process, because we are saying simply that there will be a review after 10 years. One could be deeply pessimistic about how that review will be conducted, but I shall be optimistic. If the schemes have worked and we are beginning to generate a substantial new resource with transport infrastructure, I have no doubt that there will be popular and political pressure to extend the schemes further.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I must reassure the noble Lord that I am perfectly well aware of the details in the Bill in respect of the length of time that is—I think, correctly—allocated to a scheme and not the length of time that all schemes might be supported.
Lord Whitty: I am sorry, but I was picking the noble Baroness up on the reference to a 10-year maximum. That is not the period for which all schemes would run and it does not mean that schemes would be necessarily cut off after 10 years because there is a review period.
However, I recognise that the noble Baroness has proposed a limit of 35 years whereas the noble Lord wants the schemes to run for ever. There must come a point—somewhere between 10 years and for ever—when it is not value for money to plough all the resources back into transport. If that money were available, it should be used on other aspects to improve the quality of life in London or the scheme should be dropped or the charges reduced. There must logically be

707
a point at which the beneficial and good-rate-of-return investments in transport end. That is the point of having continual reviews. In the event, we may run the schemes for 35 years, but we will have made an assessment after 10 years about how much further we will go. That is the proposition before us.
There are other ways of generating revenue that runs beyond the 10-year period. For example, it would be particularly valuable if the mayor wished to undertake a private finance initiative deal and the private sector required a guarantee that revenue schemes would be available for more than 10 years. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to guarantee the hypothecation for more than 10 years in those circumstances. So there is a greater flexibility than is immediately apparent from our current position. I hope that a closer understanding of what is provided in Schedules 18 and 19 will reveal that we recognise that some of the expenditure of money—whether it is on vehicles or infrastructure—may take longer than 10 years to achieve. The question is how the process will be monitored and controlled, not that it will need to go beyond 10 years in some circumstances.
With that slightly lengthy explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment at this stage.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Before the noble Lord tells us what he is going to do with his amendment, I must say that I found the Minister's reply very interesting—especially in its latter stages. I will give it very close attention because I think that some of his comments put a slightly different gloss on what I had understood from reading the Bill. If we return—I might be bold and say when we return—to the matter at a later stage, it will be with the benefit of having studied the Minister's reply with great care.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I agree with the noble Baroness, and I certainly do not intend to press the amendment this evening. However, I shall almost certainly want to return to it.
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. He is correct to say that the hypothecation is ground-breaking stuff. I do not like hypothecation—the word, not the meaning—any more than anyone else, but that is what we must use. Let us not argue about that. There are two points that arise immediately out of this discussion. If we are to impose a 10-year limit and if the Government wish the mayor—whoever he or she may be—to introduce these two charges, the mayor will think twice about doing so if he or she does not know for certain that Londoners will get the benefit of the levies for more than 10 years. If I were in that position, I would do so. On the other hand, if he had a guarantee that the money would last much longer, he would be able to introduce it to the public with a good deal more confidence than he could under the provisions as they now stand.
The Minister said that it would be and probably will be for longer than 10 years. If something begins in nine years' time, it will be 10 years after that, so it is 19 years. That is all very well, but if one goes to the bank in order to borrow £1 billion for, say, 20 years against
708
building CrossRail and says to the bank, "We are fairly certain we have a revenue stream for the first 10 years but after that it is up to the Secretary of State whether we have the money any longer", I am afraid that the bank will give a depressing reply.
If all this is so successful that people stop using their cars, convert to public transport in a major way, congestion is ended in London and everything is wonderful, presumably the mayor can decide not to operate congestion charging and there will be no more revenue to be hypothecated. Therefore, the situation the Minister described does not arise. There is no question of the charging going on for ever and ever and the money being wasted on other things or not being immediately spent on public transport. It will always be up to the mayor to remove the congestion or workplace parking charge.
This is a serious issue. It is important for the mayor and for Londoners and we shall almost certainly want to return to it at the next stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 311XA to 311ZAE not moved.]
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 311 ZAF:
Page 254, line 8, leave out ("Authority") and insert ("Mayor and Assembly").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment would substitute for the word "authority", as a consultee of the Secretary of State in setting up licensing arrangements, the words "Mayor and Assembly". Once more, I have used the period of leisure that has occasionally been afforded to study the Bill in greater detail. I suspect that I shall be told by the Minister that when the word "authority" is used it means the mayor and the assembly acting together. It that is right, I shall unreservedly and immediately withdraw the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I cannot say that I noticed the noble Baroness having hours of leisure during the progress of this Bill. She has assiduously concentrated on the business in hand.
As I said previously, the mayor will have the executive role to provide London with strong leadership and the assembly the scrutiny role. Consequently, Schedules 18 and 19 make it clear that the road user and workplace charging power and functions conferred on the authority are exercisable by the mayor acting on behalf of the authority. That is the appropriate way to express it. It is therefore right that the Secretary of State should consult the mayor before regulations are tabled. The mayor will be subject to the general scrutiny of the authority and may well need to seek the views of the assembly. That will be a decision for the mayor or for the assembly to assert its powers of scrutiny. However, for the purposes of legislation, the Secretary of State's

709
consultation should be with the mayor acting on behalf of the authority. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I am extremely disappointed with the Minister's answer, as I am sure he understands. However, at this hour I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 311ZAG:
Page 254, line 24, at end insert—
("(7) In determining the amount payable by the Secretary of State pursuant to section 86 of this Act, no account shall be taken of any sums which are attributable to the net proceeds of any charging scheme.").
The noble Baroness said: These are two amendments which seek to put the principle of additionality more clearly on the face of the Bill. We have spoken about this before and I cannot say that we are entirely reassured by the response the Minister has given to our concerns. We think it is very important that revenues which come from the charge and levy programme are in addition to revenues granted to the authority from the Secretary of State. It is very difficult to see how this principle is actually incorporated into the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: These amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, seek to ensure that all the proceeds from road user and workplace parking charging schemes will be in addition to the mayor's transport grant. The Government are committed to ensuring that the proceeds from charging schemes will be additional moneys for improving transport in London. That is why Schedules 18 and 19 already contain provisions for the establishment and publication of ring-fenced accounts for these charges. This will make it absolutely clear to Londoners how much money is being raised and how this money is being spent. However, there may come a time in the future when having a world class transport system for London could mean that further spending on transport, whether financed through the authority's transport grant or through charging revenues, might not be the best value-for-money improvements that Londoners will want. Londoners will want to be confident that the charging revenues are being spent wisely on value-for-money measures.
This legislation needs to look beyond the next 10 years and to provide for the medium to longer term when substantial improvements to transport in London will have been implemented. In any event, the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness are virtually unworkable. A number of factors will influence the level of the transport grant and it would be difficult in practice, in legal terms, to separate out and prove exactly what weight was given to those decisive factors. Unfortunately, the amendment of the noble Baroness
710
could make the determination of the transport grant open to judicial challenge, which would not be in the interest of Londoners.
We are committed to the additionality of charging revenues but are unable to accept these amendments and therefore hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw them.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I welcome the very clear statement from the Minister as to the Government's commitment to the principle of additionality. For the time being, that will clearly have to do and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 311ZAH:
Page 254, line 33, at end insert ("or provision for pedestrians or cyclists").
The noble Baroness said: This is another effort to bring the spending of money on public transport, including cycling and pedestrians, into the uses of the hypothecated moneys. I think the two amendments—they apply to both schemes; that is why there are two of them in each of these pairs—are quite clear. Earlier on in today's Committee, we spoke at some length about the necessity of ensuring that the moneys spent by the authority or by Transport for London of these hypothecated sums covered the important areas of cycling and pedestrian travel. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I contend that the amendments are unnecessary. The Government have ensured that the revenue from those charges can be spent on any measure which directly or indirectly supports the policies and proposals contained in the mayor's transport strategy, which undoubtedly would include measures to encourage walking and cycling.
Therefore, the inclusion of the amendment would cast doubt on whether support of the strategy included those measures. It clearly does and it is clear that it is our intention so to do. Therefore, the power to spend the money on cycling and walking exists already in the Bill. Therefore, it is not necessary to pursue the amendments.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I thank the Minister for that satisfactory response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 311ZAJ to 312 not moved.]
Schedule 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 229 [Workplace parking levy]:
[Amendments Nos. 312YA and 312ZA not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 312A:
Page 126, line 17, leave out ("the Authority,") and insert ("Transport for London,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 313:
Page 126, line 21, at end insert—
("()The purpose of any licensing scheme established pursuant to this section shall be to encourage the use by individuals of public passenger transport services in preference to other forms of transport.
() Regulations issued to give effect to any such licensing scheme shall be drafted, applied and interpreted in the light of this purpose, and any feature of or provision within any purported regulations which is neither essential nor reasonably incidental to such purpose shall be void and of no effect.").
The noble Lord said: These amendments could have been grouped with the large group of amendments which related to congestion charging. They are similar amendments but relate to workplace charging. Therefore, I shall not move them.
[Amendment No. 313 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 314 not moved.]
Clause 229, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 315 and 316 not moved.]
Schedule 19 [Workplace parking levy]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 316A:
Page 262, line 25, leave out ("or business customer") and insert (", business customer or business visitor").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 316B and 316C. This group of amendments improves the drafting of paragraph 3 of Schedule 19. It makes clear the difference between business customers and business visitors.
I should explain for the record that business customers are those who are visiting premises in the course of their work as clients or customers of the building's owner whereas business visitors are those who are visiting the premises in the course of their work but are not clients or customers of the building owner; for example, those who are visiting the building for a seminar or conference, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 316B and 316C:
Page 263, line 5, leave out (", or an employee of a client or customer,").
Page 263, line 7, at end insert—
(""business visitor", in relation to a relevant person, means an individual who—

(a) in the course of his employment, or

(b) in the course of carrying on a business or for the purposes of a business carried on by him,

is visiting the relevant person or any premises whose occupier is the relevant person;").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos 317 to 325 not moved.]
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 325XA:
Page 266, line 43, leave out from ("scheme") to third ("the") in line 44.
The noble Baroness said: This is another set of amendments concerned with the length of time for which the financing of the scheme can be allowed. As we have already discussed these matters at some length, I shall not move any of the amendments that deal with that matter.
[Amendment No. 325XA not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 325YA to 326 not moved.]
Schedule 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 230 and 231 agreed to.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 326A:
After Clause 231, insert the following new clause—
FUNDING DURING THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD
(" . The Secretary of State shall ensure that London Regional Transport remains adequately funded during the transitional period.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 326A formally.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It may be helpful if I give a little background here. Chapter XIV of Part IV of the Bill deals with the arrangements for the transition from London Regional Transport to Transport for London.
During Second Reading in another place, my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced that if, as seemed likely, the bidding process for the London Underground PPP ran beyond the GLA elections, the Government would see that process through.
Chapter XIV therefore allows a slimmed down London Transport to be kept in existence as long as is necessary to see through the PPP process. For a limited transitional period, therefore, Transport for London and London Transport will exist in parallel. As subsection (9) of Clause 231 makes clear, that transitional period will end once LRT ceases to provide or secure the provision of public passenger transport services.
In practical terms, that means that LT will remain in existence under ministerial sponsorship until the PPP contracts are let. During that period London Transport will retain responsibility for operating the Underground. Once the PPP contracts are let, management of the PPP and LT's Underground functions will pass to the mayor and Transport for London under the transfer provisions in Part XII of this Bill.
We feel that the Bill is not the appropriate place to resolve matters of funding. We have a public expenditure system with a budget process and Members of both Houses are able to express their opinion on levels of funding in that context. I hope therefore that the Committee will accept that the amendments will provide no guarantees for LRT. I am prepared to write to the noble Baroness if she would like further information in this area, and hope that she feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I make one brief observation on the two amendments. It is a mistake that

713
they should state that London Regional Transport should "remain" adequately funded. The point about PPP and everything else is that at present it is not adequately funded. We want it to be adequately funded; it cannot remain funded in the way that it is.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: The anxiety behind these amendments was that there would be a hiatus in funding while the process of completing the PPP agreements was finalised. I shall read with care what the noble Baroness said. I shall be grateful if she will write, but I would appreciate it if her letters could be directed to my noble friend Lord Ezra. This matter is
714
his great interest, though we all support him in it. He will no doubt keep me fully informed of the information the noble Baroness sends to him. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 232 to 235 agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at two minutes past eleven o'clock.