Greater London Authority Bill

HL Deb 05 July 1999 vol 603 cc674-714

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 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) if it is a local authority, must prepare and carry out a programme of measures designed to promote road safety, or
2. (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)—

1. (a) after "use of vehicles" there shall be inserted— "(i) if it is a local authority,";
2. (b) after "other than" there shall be inserted "GLA roads or"; and
3. (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—

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

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

1. (a) shall comply with any directions given under subsection (6A), and
2. (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 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 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—

1. (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;
2. (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
3. (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 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 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)—

1. (a) at the beginning there shall be inserted "Transport for London,"; and
2. (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—

1. "(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—
1. (i) which facilitates the implementation of the London transport strategy, and
2. (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;
2. (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—
1. (i) to apply any surplus on the account required to be kept under subsection (1) above; or
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) Transport for London,
2. (b) the London local authorities, and
3. (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—

1. (a) on a submission under subsection (3) of section 74 above, approves any levels of additional parking charges, or
2. (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—

1. (a) the period of one month beginning with the day on which the notification is given, or
2. (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—

1. (a) by Transport for London, so far as relating to GLA roads or trunk roads, or
2. (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—

1. (a) Transport for London, if the regulations relate to GLA roads or trunk roads, or
2. (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 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—

1. (a) any area specified in an order under this paragraph made by the Secretary of State; or
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) relieving or preventing congestion of traffic on such roads or in the surrounding area, or
2. (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—

1. (a) because the objectives of the transport strategy cannot otherwise be achieved within the periods specified therein,
2. (b) to achieve the objectives of any charging scheme introduced by the Authority, or
3. (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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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, 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) in the course of his employment, or
2. (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 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 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 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 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.