Lords Sitting of 19 October 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.

Lord Woolmer of Leeds
Kenneth John Woolmer, Esquire, having been created Baron Woolmer of Leeds, of Leeds in the County of West Yorkshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Gould of Potternewton and the Lord Paul, and made the solemn Affirmation.
Lord Goldsmith
Peter Henry Goldsmith, QC, having been created Baron Goldsmith, of Allerton in the County of Merseyside, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Williams of Mostyn and the Lord Steyn.
The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to visit the Netherlands to make a speech at the University of Leiden on Friday 22nd October when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Civil Servants: Memoirs
2.49 p.m.
Lord Chadlingtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What limitations are placed on public servants in respect of publishing accounts of their time working for Ministers.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, serving civil servants are not permitted to publish personal memoirs reflecting their experience in government. Retired civil servants must seek the permission of the head of their former department and the head of the Home Civil Service before publishing such memoirs, in accordance with their continuing duties of confidentiality owed to the Crown as their former employer.
Lord Chadlington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful response. I am sure he is aware that the total number of special advisers, paid for at the taxpayers' expense, has risen by some 50 per cent compared with the previous administration, to close
930
on 70 people. There are three times the previous number in Downing Street—a total of 22. What constraints are placed on those people regarding the confidential information they receive, whether they are paid for by the Government or the party, in the course of doing their job?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the rules I have described in relation to civil servants also apply to special advisers, who are themselves civil servants. Those rules are incorporated into their contract of employment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, has there not been a great increase in breaches of the Official Secrets Act in recent years? What steps do the Government propose to take, if any, to deal with that problem?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is unlikely that there has been a great increase in breaches of the Official Secrets Act. I do not know what the position was before 1st May 1997, but I am sure there is not a substantial number of breaches at present.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, taking into account the extraordinary increase in the number of special advisers, can the Minister say whether they are subject to the Official Secrets Act, to the sanctions and obligations of that Act, as are public servants?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I can confirm that they are subject not only to the terms of the Official Secrets Act but also to the same terms and conditions of employment as ordinary civil servants. Special advisers are indeed civil servants. In relation to the publishing of memoirs, they would be covered by precisely the same rubric that I set out originally.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, is there a minimum time bar after retirement within which civil servants are not permitted to publish their memoirs?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there is no specific time bar, but every retired civil servant who wishes to publish memoirs must seek the permission of the head of his or her former department and of the head of the Home Civil Service.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, when they cease to be special advisers, what happens to them? Are they put on to some unwilling department?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, they are put in the House of Lords.
Lord McNally: My Lords, can the Minister clarify whether his reply affects the marketability of my memoirs, "McNally and Callaghan, the Glory Years", as I have some distinct memories of the role of Mr Anthony Wedgwood Benn that I should not like lost to history?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, here is living proof of the answer I gave a few moments ago!

931
I believe that the noble Lord predated the present arrangements in relation to special advisers. If and in so far as he was covered by the existing rules, he would have to go through the same process as I have described, through the head of his former department and the head of the Home Civil Service.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, does the Minister agree that as we approach the 21st century, it is just possible that we suffer from not enough special advisers rather than too many?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Government's special advisers perform an extremely important and effective service.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, is it not true that the reason why there has been such an increase in the number of special advisers is that Ministers do not trust the advice they receive from the Civil Service? Furthermore, having reminded us of the increase in the number of special advisers now serving in Whitehall, will the noble and learned Lord tell the House what has been the increase in the total salary package since the period of office of the previous government?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the reply to the first question is a most emphatic "No". The special advisers are in a position to assist Ministers to work in co-operation with the Civil Service. Both the Civil Service and the Government regard the present arrangements as very satisfactory and they work happily together. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord on the second question.
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, may I point out to the noble and learned Lord that his replies on the whole have been, to my surprise, broadly satisfactory?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Earl is surprised.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, will the Minister please place in the Library a copy of the letter that he is to write to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I shall certainly do so.

European Union: Trade and Jurisdiction
2.54 p.m.
Lord Razzallasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will seek amendments to the revised convention on jurisdiction to ensure both that e-commerce in the European Union fully benefits from the single market and that consumers can obtain adequate cross-border redress.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, a draft proposal has been put forward by the European Commission to convert the revised convention to a regulation which says that a consumer who sues a trader can have the case heard in a court of the country where he lives if the trader has used a website to reach consumers. That seems to go further than the revised convention, and my department is consulting industry and consumers on what position we should take on this new development.
We are extremely keen to see e-commerce flourish in the EU, and with that in mind we shall seek in any representations we make to give consumers confidence and to minimise the cost to business.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am gratified that Her Majesty's Government have seized the problem. Will the Minister accept that, unless some change is made to the convention, the requirement to comply with the laws of a large number of European countries will place an unbearable burden in particular on small and medium-sized enterprises?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the issue here is that we have to balance giving confidence to the consumer with not burdening business with costs. Those issues are almost in contradiction, so we must get the balance right.
I should point out that this is a question of jurisdiction and not a question of law. Therefore, the problem of having to deal with a whole series of laws does not arise in this case.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one reason why more goods are not sold on the Web Europe-wide is the restrictive practice of manufacturers of allowing their warranties and guarantees to operate only within the country where the goods are sold? Is that type of big problem being tackled by the European Union?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that is an entirely different question. The issue of where warranties and guarantees apply is presumably related to where the goods are sold.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, since the Question and the Minister's response so far seem to assume that there are indeed benefits to be had from our membership of the single market, will the noble Lord tell the House of any net benefits which we have derived from the single market—e-commerce included—which we could not have derived from within EFTA and the WTO?
Is the Minister aware that the latest government figures show that our trade with the EU is reducing and is in mounting deficit, whereas our trade with the rest of the world is increasing and continues in healthy surplus?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I realise that the noble Lord would like to leave the EU, but perhaps

933
I may assure him that the great mass of businesses are quite clear in this country that our economic prosperity depends on being part of the EU. That is where the great majority of our trade is, and the idea that we can leave and go and join NAFTA or any other body is a complete fairytale to most businesses which trade in the EU.
Lord Levene of Portsoken: My Lords, the City of London is concerned that if every electronic provider in Europe is made accountable to the individual laws of each country, the real benefit of an open and free market in Europe will be lost. Will the Minister therefore assure us that this new, critical and developing industry will not be smothered in that way at birth?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I believe that there are two different issues here. One is the 1968 Brussels convention which deals with the question of jurisdiction. In this case, we are dealing with the question of private law between two people, one of whom is suing the trader for non-fulfilment.
Public regulation of e-commerce is controlled by the country in which the transaction takes place. Therefore, quite rightly, a seller needs to consider only the law of the country in which he operates.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I have two questions for the Minister. First, would those regulations also cover people buying goods advertised on satellite television; for example, on Eurosport—to name a channel I was watching the other day? Secondly, will the Minister assure the House that the Government will not just look narrowly at the European aspect of the matter, because e-commerce will be world-wide and people will be able to buy goods from the United States of America? Will the Minister assure me that the Government will be looking at e-commerce around the world, and not only in terms of Europe?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am afraid that the issue of e-commerce regulations applying to Eurosport and so on is one which needs to be cleared up in the drafting of the regulation. I am sure that a lot of thought will be given to ensuring that our position is absolutely clear, so that there is no doubt about that particular point.
As far as concerns the question of "world-wide", one of the great advantages of the EU is that we have the mechanism to tackle those particular issues, which we do not have on a world-wide basis. That is one of the many benefits of which I am sure your Lordships are aware.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, with particular reference to e-commerce and small and medium-sized enterprises, will the noble Lord assure the House that national standards of one member state are fully recognised in all other member states of the EU?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that is a similar question about where the jurisdiction lies.
934
As I said, as regards e-commerce, the question of the public law aspects—a different consideration—is related to the country in which the seller lives.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister to be so good as to at least make an attempt to answer the question which I put to him. Is he aware that in the reply which he gave to me he made the classical error of saying that the majority of our trade is with the EU, whereas according to answers which I have received recently from his department, only some 45 per cent of our overseas trade is with the EU, and only 14 per cent of our trade in general—that is, our gross domestic product—lies with the EU? Would he care to agree that correction in his remarks?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, with regard to my earlier answer to the noble Lord, as the Leader of the Opposition said, "Make my day". Let us go on talking about the EU because it is extremely important that we continue to understand British industry's concern about this.
I turn now to the noble Lord's question. The answer is: yes, our trade with the EU constitutes slightly less than half our overall trade but, as your Lordships know, it still comprises the great bulk. As far as concerns benefits, I find it extraordinarily difficult to understand that Members on the other side of this House do not realise the benefit of free, open-trade markets. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, has ably demonstrated that point to the Conservative Party in the past.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, the Minister has twice now referred to business being virtually unanimously, or overwhelmingly, in favour of closer trade connections with the EU. Is he not aware that in this country some of the great family companies, including famous food retailers, have whole families divided on this matter?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, food retailers are obviously a very special case in this particular situation. However, I believe it is important to make a distinction between trading companies which trade world-wide and retailers. A retailer's position is very different, as indeed is the position of those such as importers. But I believe that your Lordships will find that the great majority of trading companies, on which our exports depend, are totally convinced of the value of the EU.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, how can the noble Lord talk about free trade when there is a ring fence around Europe?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, quite clearly we live in a world of trading blocs. The great move forward has been to create a free market within Europe. I hope that in due course that will spread further. At least it is a step in the right direction.

Armed Forces: Internal Complaints Procedure
3.3 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisleasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Armed Forces redress of complaint system is currently operating satisfactorily.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, complaints from members of the Armed Forces are treated seriously and are dealt with fairly. Recognising the importance to the Armed Forces of an effective internal procedure for the redress of complaints, we have been reviewing the procedures and have identified some scope for administrative improvements.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that Answer, which is most promising. Recently there have been too many cases where a period lasting as long as two years and over has elapsed between redress and compensation, even when the redress has been upheld. Is that not damaging to the morale of the individual serviceman or woman, his or her family and the unit? Indeed, is it not damaging to the reputation of the Armed Forces as an employer? It also has bad effects on recruitment and retention. In view of the fact that the Government have said that they will not introduce into the Armed Forces rights of association, will they urgently review the redress of complaints system?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his question and for his reference to morale in the Armed Forces. The present system deals with issues and complaints as low down as possible and as quickly as possible. Normally, complaints are settled by the chain of command, right up to the service board when that is necessary. Of course, the noble Earl is aware that the Armed Forces generally are not bound by employment legislation. At present, consideration is being given to the complaints and grievances procedures that exist within the Armed Forces generally. As far as concerns rights of association, it is Ministry of Defence policy not to have a union or a federation of services. My view is that that does not have a demoralising effect on morale of the Armed Forces.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, in how many cases is that procedure invoked annually, and how long does each case take to resolve?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that question. I shall probably not be able to answer it specifically. However, I have looked at the figures concerned and I am, of course, prepared to write to the noble Lord. According to the latest available figures, there were about 180 cases. Of those, 57 were settled after a 12-month period. However, on occasions cases can be quite lengthy. The very fact that the procedures
936
are being looked at indicates that efforts are being made to shorten and, it is hoped, expedite those procedures.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord said that there had already been a review and recommendations for changes. Is the noble Lord able to tell us where we can find a description of that system, of the review and of the proposed changes that are to be made?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I gather that the Army has carried out some of the review. Its findings have not yet been published. The Armed Forces generally will need to study them to see whether they can be adopted on a general basis. The quinquennial review will take place in 2000–2001. That will provide the opportunity to change the law in this respect. Having said that, the changes that are likely to come into being are being considered. It would not be right for me at this time to judge either the extent of those changes or, indeed, assess the likely outcome of the review.

Long-term Carers: Status
3.9 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are proposing to change the self-employed status of individual long-term carers looking after severely disabled people in their homes.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Government are not proposing to change the status of long-term carers. Whether a carer is self-employed for tax or employment law purposes depends on the terms and conditions on which he or she is engaged and works.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. I understand that proposals of this kind are now the subject of consultation with the organisations concerned. In those consultations, will the Government take into account the fact that many carers in these situations have to work irregular hours and will not easily or suitably be converted into employees of care agencies? Do the Government agree that the most important consideration is that disabled people should not find that they are to be charged a great deal more for the help which they now receive in their homes, rather than in institutions?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it may help if I explain what is proposed in the consultation document. The proposal would change the terms of the contractual relationship, whether or not the person in question is self-employed. It would change the party responsible to the worker in relation to entitlements under the minimum wage and the working time directive. It is felt appropriate that that party should be the employment bureau, rather than

937
the individual—the long-term disabled person—so that that person does not have to deal with those issues; they will be dealt with by the employment bureau. That seems to me and, indeed, to Age Concern, to be a step in the right direction.
An issue relating to the payment of VAT arises. By making the employment relationship with the disabled person rather than themselves, a number of employment bureaux have avoided paying VAT. That is an issue of which we are aware, and we are considering it in the consultation process.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some years ago your Lordships' House discussed the idea that disabled people themselves should be able to choose how to spend such money? Tying this contract to a bureau would take that privilege of choice away from disabled people.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not believe that this matter has anything to do with the issue of choice. A person being cared for can choose whether to use an individual, a bureau, or anyone else. We are consulting on the question of whether the employment responsibility in terms of these two specific issues—the minimum wage and the working time directive—rests with the hirer or with the employment bureau; but that does not affect the choice of the long-term disabled.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the terminology causes a problem? The word "carer" has come to be used for the unemployed and unpaid family carer who is the subject of the Government's National Carers' Strategy? Does the Minister also agree that the Government would be well advised to attach the word "paid" or the word "employed" to the word "carer" when noble Lords discuss this subject?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I take that point on board. Clearly, in this situation we are talking of paid carers.

Business
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the Special European Council at Tampere.

Greater London Authority Bill
3.12 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
938
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Whitty.)
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, yesterday, at the commencement of the Report stage on the Immigration and Asylum Bill, my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley, with the assistance of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, raised an issue which is becoming an increasing procedural problem for the House in its scrutiny of legislation. More and more often, at a late stage, we receive a largo volume of long and significant amendments to the Bills under consideration.
As a result of that intervention, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, speaking on behalf of the Government, raised what appeared to me to be a novel suggestion in relation to the procedures of the House. He suggested that any provision that should have gone to the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation should be debated on Report, but that the Government would ensure that such amendments were not put on the face of the Bill at that stage so that the Select Committee would have an opportunity to discuss such amendments before they were put on the face of the Bill at Third Reading.
On the Greater London Authority Bill it is too late for that kind of an intervention to be practical. However, the Minister will be well aware that we have protested at the volume and the complexity of the amendments that we have been obliged to consider at short notice. In considering the Greater London Authority Bill today we shall find ourselves dealing with yet another series of amendments, many of which are extremely complicated.
It occurred to me that the House should seek an assurance from the Minister that none of the amendments already agreed or those that we may agree are such as would normally cause concern to that committee. If we do not proceed in that way we shall be in danger of overloading the relevant Select Committee.
I am prepared to accept that the Minister ill need time to consider his answer to that matter. We have two more days on which we shall deal with this Bill on Report, and I would be happy to receive a proper answer on one of those days, if he chooses to deal with the matter in that way. I believe that this is a proper point to raise at this stage and I hope that the House will accept it.
Lord Renton: My Lords. I rise in support of the important point that my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith has raised. Will the Government consider the procedure that has been followed for years in another place, whereby any new clauses or any far-reaching amendments tabled after the Committee stage of a Bill has been concluded can be re-committed and examined in detail, subject to the Report stage procedure, before the Report stage of the Bill is

939
undertaken? That works exceedingly well in the other place and ensures that the House is able to consider the detail of the new clauses or far-reaching amendments.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, perhaps the Minister could colour his reply with the thought that when noble Lords on this side of the House were in government—as has been the case during the life of the present Government—a convention grew up that governments were bound to take seriously the strictures of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation and that the committee's recommendations should be adopted.
With an enormous number of amendments being tabled, too often as a result of hurried legislation in another place, I believe it would be extremely helpful if the Government were able to respond to the intervention of my noble friend in the constructive way that other members of the present Government have responded—particularly the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—when considering the increasingly important role that that committee will have in the constitution of this House in terms of considering legislation and the way that it is examined.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I accept that, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, says, we have a large number of amendments, some of which are fairly complex. I also accept that this House must give due respect to the views of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation.
However, as far as I can ascertain, the situation with regard to this Bill is different from that of the Immigration and Asylum Bill in that the amendments to that Bill created new regulatory powers which were not included at an earlier stage. We have amended some of those regulatory powers. I shall undertake to look carefully at those that remain to see whether we should take on board the point made by the noble Lord.
However, the vast majority of the amendments that were tabled early in the Report stage were tidying up and technical amendments, as the subsequent ones will be. Therefore, I do not accept that we are in a position where we should consider either recomittal or deferral of consideration of amendments because I do not believe that our amendments raise new issues of principle for the Select Committee.
Should it be drawn to my attention during the course of today or in respect of amendments yet to come, either by the noble Lord or by the authorities of the House, that I am over-generalising, then, before the commencement of the proceedings on Thursday, I undertake to correct that position and to take the necessary steps to ensure that consideration is given before completion of the Report stage.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 105 [Power to redistribute capital receipts of functional bodies]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 318:
Page 59, line 44, at end insert ("provided that no such payment may be directed to be made by a body until that body's debts have been fully repaid").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 318 is grouped together with Amendments Nos. 319 to 326. They are all related to transparency, accuracy and accountability in relation to the capital expenditure programmes of the Greater London Authority.
Amendment No. 318 requires that capital debts of functional bodies should be paid off before capital receipts are transferred away from them. Amendment No. 319 requires that the available capital receipts be published in the Greater London Authority's budget. Amendment No. 320 requires grants between functional bodies to be published in the budget. Amendment No. 321 requires revenue grants to be specified in the component budget. Amendment No. 322 requires any transfers from the functional bodies to be added to and included in the capital spending plans. Amendment No. 323 requires the word "minimum" to be changed to "estimated" so that there is greater precision in the clause to which that relates. Amendment No. 324 is directed to the same purpose. Amendment No. 325 deals with the definition of the capital spending plan.
Amendment No. 326 is important because it deals with the comparison of performance on the capital spending programme year on year and, more importantly, the consequences of variations in capital spending year on year. Anybody who has had the experience of managing the capital programme of a large local authority—the Greater London Authority will certainly be a large local authority—knows that capital expenditure in its intimate detail is almost uncontrollable. There are many good reasons for that.
Capital spending programmes rely on access to sites which have to be purchased. That may be assumed to take only two or three months. It can often take much longer and difficulties then arise. The reverse also happens. One project in a plan is delayed and another project comes forward and is accelerated. The day-to-day management of all that is extremely difficult. Amendment No. 326 says that that should be looked at and recorded and, if there is an overspend in one year, it should be set out so that it is apparent what the consequences of that may be in any subsequent year.
This is an important group of amendments which significantly improve the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, similar amendments were tabled at Committee stage. This group of amendments would mean that a functional body could be required to give up part of its usable assets only if it had become debt-free. They would require the mayor to include in the capital spending plan a wide range of additional information.
Taken together, the amendments would greatly reduce the mayor's discretion in allocating capital resources to functional bodies and restrict the

941
mayor's ability to take decisions on the allocation of resources in the year. They are therefore not acceptable to the Government. We require that flexibility for the mayor. The additional information required in the amendments would require the mayor to include in the plan information which could be given only if, at the time when he came to prepare the capital spend for the forthcoming financial year, he had made and was in a position to make firm decisions about the distribution of such resources.
The amendments would constrain the use of any power conferred on the mayor to redistribute the capital receipts of functional bodies, particularly Amendments Nos. 318 to 326. They would greatly reduce the mayor's discretion to manage the total resources of the authority and its functional bodies in a sensible way. They would disadvantage the functional body because they would remove that flexibility. The mayor needs to be in a position to help to meet the expenditure needs of the functional bodies which can change during the course of a financial year, as the noble Lord will acknowledge, by making grants available and helping with the redistribution of resources. They are not matters to be tied down in a plan before the financial year begins and would unnecessarily constrain the allocation of resources within the new authority. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will not press them.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, it is difficult to say that I am grateful to the Minister for what is a disappointing reply, but I am not surprised by it. I shall study what the Minister said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 319 not moved.]
Clause 106 [Capital grants between Authority and functional bodies]:
[Amendment No. 320 not moved.]
Clause 107 [Revenue grants between Authority and functional bodies]:
[Amendment No. 321 not moved.]
Clause 108 [Form and contents]:
[Amendments Nos. 323 to 326 not moved.]
Clause 109 [Preparation]:
[Amendments Nos. 327 to 329 not moved.]
Clause 113 [Proper financial administration and chief finance officer]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 330:
Page 65, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) No person may be the chief finance officer of two or more relevant authorities at the same time.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this group of amendments clarifies the arrangements for appointing chief finance officers for the GLA and functional bodies. I shall take each amendment in turn.
Amendment No. 330 provides that no one individual simultaneously may be the chief finance officer of the GLA and a functional body or of two or
942
more functional bodies. This is needed to make absolutely certain that the GLA and functional bodies do not share chief finance officers. It is one of the key principles of the GLA finance system that each body is responsible for managing its own financial affairs once the GLA's consolidated budget has been set. Allowing the bodies to share chief finance officers would undermine that principle and could give rise to potential conflicts of interest.
Amendments Nos. 331 and 332 provide that the assembly appoints the GLA's chief finance officer and that the officer is designated from a member of staff appointed by the assembly rather than from staff appointed by the mayor. It has always been the intention that the assembly should appoint all three of the GLA's statutory officers, including its chief' finance officer, after consultation with the mayor. Without the amendment, the function of making the appointment would, by default, have fallen to the mayor.
Amendment No. 333 prohibits the mayor from being designated as the chief finance officer of TfL. though it allows TfL to appoint one of its members as chief finance officer rather than a member of staff. As the mayor may decide to chair TfL, he or she could be appointed as the body's chief finance officer. That would cause an unacceptable conflict of interest, given the mayor's policy responsibilities for transport and powers of direction over TfL and the chief finance officer's duty to ensure proper financial administration. The amendments tidy the provisions to appoint chief finance officers of the GLA and functional bodies to ensure that they give full effect to our intentions. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to ask what is apparent even to me is a silly question. Does it mean that a person could be a chief finance officer of one authority and a deputy chief finance officer of another?
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, perhaps I may add to the list of questions. I would not for a moment argue with the amendments which have been proposed; indeed, I think they are entirely right. It had not occurred to me that they were necessary. However, Amendment No. 333 gave me pause for thought. This is the amendment which provides that the mayor must not be the chief finance officer of TfL. Can the Minister confirm that, when one reads together the various provisions of the Bill, there is no functional body—or the authority itself—of which the mayor may be chief finance officer? In other words, can she confirm that this was a mopping-up provision and is not exceptional?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, in answer to the question from the noble Baroness, I believe I can confirm that the mayor cannot do so. That is my understanding of the situation. In answer to his question, I can tell my noble friend Lord

943
Mishcon that I believe that the answer is no. However, I shall of course confirm that as soon as I am in a position to do so.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 331 to 334:
Page 65, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) The chief finance officer of the Authority must be a member of staff appointed under section 56(2) above.").
Page 65, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) The function of appointing the Authority's chief finance officer under subsection (2)(b) above shall be a function of the Authority which is exercisable on behalf of the Authority by the Assembly after consultation with the Mayor.").
Page 65, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) If the Mayor is a member of Transport for London, he must not be its chief finance officer.").
Page 65, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) In section 2 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (politically restricted posts) in subsection (6)(d) (the effect of which is that the chief finance officer appointed under certain provisions is included among "the chief statutory officers" for the purposes of that section) after "section 112 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988" there shall be inserted ", section 113(2) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 335:
Leave out Clause 113 and insert the following new Clause
PROPER FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION
(" .—(1) The Authority shall—

(a) make arrangements for the proper administration of its financial affairs, and

(b) secure that one of its officers (its "chief finance officer") has responsibility for the administration of those affairs and for the oversight of the financial administration of the functional bodies.

(2) Every functional body shall—

(a) make arrangements for the proper administration of its financial affairs, and

(b) secure that one of its officers (its "chief finance officer") has responsibility for the administration of those affairs.

(3) In subsection (1)(b) and (2)(b) above, the reference to officers includes a reference to employees or members of staff and, in the case of Transport for London and the London Development Agency, includes a reference to members of the relevant Authority.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment suggests the deletion of Clause 113 and the insertion of what, in effect, would become a new Clause 113. Here one is dealing with what I suppose is really a matter of taste in drafting. There is a very significant difference between the two clauses—that is to say, the one which appears on the face of the Bill and the one that we have suggested should be in its place.
Clause 113 provides that there should be a "relevant authority", which means the authority, the GLA, or a functional body. It also provides that every relevant authority,
"shall make arrangements for the proper administration of its financial affairs",
944
and so on. That is all very fine; indeed, it will undoubtedly produce an arrangement which works. However, what it does not do is something which our proposed alternative would do. It does not, in our view, provide for the finance department of the authority to have sufficient oversight as regards the financial affairs of the functional bodies.
The Minister will no doubt say that the functional bodies are free and independent and are perfectly entitled to keep their affairs to themselves and manage themselves, subject to the overall constraints imposed by the mayor's budget. That will work extremely well until something goes wrong. At that point, the lines of accountability, which, under the Bill, are blurred, may present a problem. We like our proposed amendment rather better for that reason. The lines of accountability under our clause mean that, in managing their fiscal affairs, the functional bodies would be subject to the overall supervision of, and ultimately sanctioned by, the authority. We think that that arrangement is preferable. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as he said, the noble Lord's amendment would effectively ensure that the chief finance officers of the functional bodies reported to the chief finance officer of the GLA. We considered the alternative represented in the proposed new clause, but, contrary to the noble Lord's view, we felt that his proposition would be the one to blur the lines of accountability and add to confusion.
The mayor, subject to the assembly, will be responsible for setting the budgets of each of the four functional bodies but will not be accountable for the management of their financial affairs. That responsibility rests with the bodies and with the authorities themselves, as provided elsewhere in the Bill. For that reason, it is essential that the functional bodies—and, of course, the GLA—should each have their own chief finance officer. Each body and each authority will be responsible for ensuring probity, regularity, and so on, in financial management. Indeed, each will be expected to have regard to reports and recommendations made by its chief finance officer. As each functional body is responsible for its own financial affairs, it is not appropriate for the GLA's chief finance officer to have a further role in a functional body's finances. That would blur accountability and deprive each board and authority of a single source of specialist financial advice.
To reflect the mayor's interest, we have provided that where a chief finance officer of a functional body makes a report concerning a functional body he is required to provide a copy for each member of the relevant body, the mayor and the chair of the assembly. However, the responsibility for dealing with the report will rest with the board or the authority concerned, as made clear by the other provisions of the Bill. It cannot transfer this responsibility to the mayor, or indirectly to the mayor via the chief finance officer of the GLA.
We consider that the Bill provides for clearer arrangements for finance administration. Responsibility in that respect lies where it is set out in

945
the rest of the Bill. The amendment could lead to a blurring of the lines of accountability rather than what the noble Lord seeks. I hope, therefore, that he will not press the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I admit to a marginal intellectual weakness in our amendment—I am surprised that the Minister did not mention this—in that it could be argued that it is centralising. However, we are dealing with the way in which the Greater London Authority is to work. Nothing in our amendment would prevent the functional bodies keeping their own accounts; nor would it prevent their dealing with matters properly. It would have provided a proper line of control back to the authority. None the less, I hear what the Minister has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 116 [Functions of chief finance officer as regards reports]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 336:
Page 65, line 38, leave out from first ("the") to end of line 42 and insert ("Chairman of Transport for London or, in his absence, the Deputy Chairman of Transport for London".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment would work in relation to Clause 116, which deals with what is to happen to reports of financial irregularities in one of the functional bodies that might come from the Audit Commission. As drafted, the Bill provides that any member might be appropriate to be the person who receives such reports from the finance officer. Alternatively, I believe it says that an employee of the functional body could be the appropriate person. We do not think that that is a proper way to deal with reports as significant as such reports might be.
One hopes that these reports would be extremely rare and that preferably they never occur. However, if they do occur, it is our view that they should be dealt with at the highest level in the functional body; namely, by its chairman or deputy chairman. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, this requirement on the chief finance officer to consult with other officers of the authority in this clause seeks to ensure that there is agreement among the officers of the authority about the legality of the course of action being taken and all the relevant facts are clear. Where the chief finance officer completes a report about, say, the actions of Transport for London, the body must then consider it at a full meeting of the board. To require—as this amendment does—the chairman, and only the chairman, or his deputy to be consulted before the report is finalised would limit the discretion of Transport for London to appoint whom it sees fit to fulfil the consultation role, and appointments may change from time to time or from case to case.
The arrangements we propose will ensure that matters are considered properly and promptly by those with the necessary responsibility for taking action on them. I do not think that we should seek to
946
limit the discretion of Transport for London to appoint whom it considers most suitable to undertake these consultation roles. The other amendment in this group proposes that, where a chief finance officer completes a report, the mayor should publish it within seven days. I understand the intention behind this amendment. It is important that the GLA and the functional bodies are publicly accountable for their actions and that all relevant reports are publicly available. However, I do not consider this amendment is necessary because, where a chief finance officer completes a report under the provisions of Section 114 of the Local Government Act, the authority or functional body must consider it at a meeting within 21 days. That meeting must be convened in accordance with Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972, which requires that generally details of the agenda and the reports themselves must be made available three days before the meeting. There is therefore already a deadline.
Specific provision has been made for Transport for London to be subject to the provisions of that section of the 1972 Act. It will therefore have to hold a public meeting in those circumstances within 21 days and make the chief finance officer's report available. The responsibility for publication rests—as I think it rightly should—with the authority and with each functional body. I believe therefore that this amendment is not necessary. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw both of the amendments.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I hear what the Minister said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 337 not moved.]

Special European Council, Tampere
3.42 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"Together with my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary, I attended a special meeting of the European Council from 14th to 16th October, in Tampere, Finland. The main purpose of the meeting was to agree the priorities for action by the European Union and member states in the field of justice and home affairs.
"We agreed action in three areas. First, oil asylum and immigration, we agreed a common approach to the way in which member states deal with applications for asylum, to remove the incentive for asylum seekers to shop around, and to ensure that asylum seekers are dealt with in the first EU member state they enter.
"We agreed effective action against illegal immigration, especially against trafficking in people; a commitment by all EU member states, to

947
treat third country nationals who are legally resident in their countries fairly and without discrimination. All EU countries are now committed to providing equal access to education, healthcare and other benefits, as we do already for long-term residents in the UK.
"We agreed action in relation to the six countries of concern studied by the High Level Working Group, set up late last year—Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Somalia, Morocco, Albania and Iraq—using a broad approach involving all available EU policy instruments to tackle poverty and other root causes of migration.
"Secondly, on judicial co-operation, we agreed that there were important areas where court decisions in one jurisdiction should be recognised elsewhere in the EU. This is needed to provide legal redress for individuals and companies when their problems, in business or leisure, originate in another member state; and to co-operate better in bringing criminals to justice.
"The British proposal that the cornerstone of policy in this area should be mutual recognition of court decisions, rather than the harmonisation of laws, was adopted unanimously. The European Council agreed that there must be drastic simplification of the present slow and laborious arrangements for giving effect in one member state to the decisions of a court in another member state.
"The European Council also decided that practical steps should be taken—for example agreeing on common procedures for making small claims across internal EU borders together with better information available to the public—in order to improve the access of all member states' citizens to justice throughout the European Union.
"Thirdly, on combating cross-border crime, the European Council decided on a series of measures. At the United Kingdom's suggestion, there is to be a new Task Force of European Police Chiefs working alongside Europol, to plan and organise joint police operations across Europe. There was also agreement on our proposal to set up a European Police College.
"A new body will be established, consisting of national prosecutors, magistrates and police officers, to assist and support investigation of organised crime and the prosecution of those involved.
"The principle of mutual recognition should apply to judicial decisions in criminal cases, particularly those required to secure evidence and seize assets.
"Action will be taken in due course to replace extradition with a simplified system for convicted criminals. We will also develop a fast track extradition process for those accused of serious crime.
"In addition, we agreed on a new focus among member states on youth crime, crime prevention and the protection of the victims of crime. A
948
comprehensive list of the action agreed by the European Council is to be found in the Council's Conclusions, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.
"In addition to its main business, the Council discussed the situation in Pakistan, following the military takeover there. It also had a preliminary discussion of the prospects for EU enlargement, an issue which will be a major topic for the Helsinki European Council in December. It was unanimously agreed that our commitment to enlargement must proceed.
"In the margins of the European Council I made clear to the Prime Minister of France and the President of the European Commission that France's failure to permit the sale of British beef was unacceptable, and that the French Government had to implement the EU decision.
"The EU Scientific Committee is due to complete its review of the French Advisory Committee's report before the end of this month. If there is no new scientific evidence, the President of the Commission has agreed with me that he will insist that France implements the earlier ruling, and will take legal action if the French Government fail to do so.
"We will pursue every available avenue to ensure that British farmers can exercise their right under European law to sell beef throughout the EU, and of course it is only because of European law that we are able to do this with the backing of the law.
"At the Tampere Council we restated and safeguarded essential British national interests on asylum and immigration. We reached agreements with our European partners on law and order issues, which of their nature do not respect national boundaries and where international co-operation is vital. We restated the overwhelming scientific evidence on the safety of British beef and the fundamental importance of swift observance by the French Government of European Union law. In short it was, I believe, a successful Council in which we engaged constructively with our European partners in support of British national interests".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement today. What can I say other than that we welcome the progress that was apparently made at Tampere on a number of issues, for example, on co-operation against organised crime, on drug trafficking, on money laundering and on fraud? This is valuable and sensible co-operation which the whole House would support.
However, will the noble Baroness clarify the significance of the Prime Minister's agreement to measures to institute some common legal procedures across Europe? As she said, harmonisation of laws would be a bad idea. It is important that each government in Europe retain jurisdiction over their legal system. The noble Baroness will know that Italy,

949
for example, is presently considering major constitutional reform of the system of prosecution in legal cases. That is their business and not ours. Will the noble Baroness assure the House that none of the measures that the Prime Minister has agreed will undermine any part of our own historically distinct legal system or lead to a corpus juris in Europe? That is something that we would firmly oppose.
Perhaps I may turn now to the question of beef. The noble Baroness's right honourable friend did not secure agreement to the early lifting of the ban on British beef. Can she say when she believes the ban will be lifted in every country? Was the Prime Minister's special relationship with Chancellor Schröder, a co-signatory of the declaration on the third way, of value in lifting the ban? If so, how long will the ban remain in force in Germany?
Would it not help if the Government showed some confidence in our own beef by lifting the ludicrous ban on beef on the bone, as this House has consistently demanded since last summer? Perhaps I may formally ask at this stage for an early debate in the House on the problems of the UK livestock industry.
In his Statement, the Prime Minister said that the continuing ban on our beef was unacceptable. Why is it continuing? When he imposed new burdens on British business by importing the working time directive and the social chapter, he told the nation that his positive policy would bring gains for Britain. We already know the cost to British business, but where are the gains from this policy for British farmers?
We welcome the preliminary agreement at Tampere to invite the six second-wave countries to start EU membership negotiations. Enlargement will mean major changes in the way Europe operates; that is inevitable. The issue is what those changes will be. Is it not in the interests of Britain and Europe to argue, as we do, for a flexible Europe of nation states co-operating together? A government committed to that vision would be pressing for treaty amendments at the next IGC which will allow nations greater flexibility. Is that not necessary to protect the great strengths that nation states bring to Europe while at the same time enabling a wider Europe to work?
That is the position of the Opposition, which is very different from the position of the Government. They seem to believe that they can make progress in Europe only by surrendering British self-determination to Europe step by step. Did we not see the real agenda of the Government reflected in the report of the so-called three wise men, who include a much respected member of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Highbury. The noble Lord was appointed a Minister by the Prime Minister; he is now an adviser to the Prime Minister. He became one of the three wise men with the approval of the Prime Minister. Does his report represent government policy, including as it does a recommendation that qualified majority voting should be the rule in Europe, and thus for the abolition of the national veto in key areas of policy? Were the Government aware in advance that these were likely to be the recommendations of the three wise men? Is that
950
why it would have been difficult for the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Highbury, to continue his distinguished ministerial career because his views on Europe are not those of Her Majesty's Government—or because they are one and the same?
I understand that Mr Prodi was the Prime Minister's own candidate for the presidency of the Commission. I hear that they are close friends; indeed, I hear that Mr Prodi was warmly welcomed at the Prime Minister's villa in Tuscany in August. Do all the propositions for European development put forward by Mr Prodi since the summer represent government policy? Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us how many of those matters have been discussed between Mr Prodi and the Prime Minister. If not, can the noble Baroness tell the House of two proposals from Mr Prodi or the wise men with which the Government disagree') If the Leader of the House is not able to answer today, I would be grateful if she would write to me on these points.
Would it not be in the interests of this country and of Europe as a whole for the Prime Minister to put forward the alternatives to these ideas rather than welcoming them and persisting with the fraudulent insistence that the advancement of any alternative proposals means withdrawal from the European Union? After all, if that had been the case, he would have told anyone arguing for the British rebate that they wanted to withdraw; he would have told anyone arguing for opt-outs from a single currency and a social charter that they wanted to withdraw. Is the noble Baroness aware that the only senior politicians to have stood for election on a platform of withdrawal from Europe are her very own right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary?
As my right honourable friend Mr Hague has rightly summarised, the people of this country want to be in Europe but not run by Europe. That is why they and we will support positive measures for further cooperation within Europe—as at Tampere on crime—but, on the other hand, both they and we will be vigilant against the stealth tactics of giving away British self-determination on the sidelines.
I am sure that the Leader of the House will accept that these are great matters and that no public relations campaign—however glossy and whoever may be involved—will obscure the key issues which have to be determined in Europe on which there is no third way, only ultimately yes or no in a referendum. Does the noble Baroness accept that it is not harming Europe or being non-European to state what is right for Britain in Europe? Does she further accept that the most minor criticisms of the European Union are not a fundamental attack on our membership? I look forward to the noble Baroness's reply.
3.55 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I also thank the Leader of the House for her Statement, which was based upon what is unquestionably a summit of great importance and one in which large

951
steps forward were taken in co-operation within Europe, not least against organised crime, trafficking in people and the drugs trade.
As a member of another opposition party I suspect I will not find a great deal of harmony with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, but, as he did, I start with the subject of beef. Can the Leader of the House say whether we are correct in believing that unless there was the machinery in the European Union, and if Britain was outside that machinery, there would be no way whatever in which we could directly challenge the French ban? The machinery is available to have the ban lifted. I congratulate the Prime Minister on the successful efforts he made at the summit to raise the matter.
Secondly, can the noble Baroness confirm that if this House is—as members of all parties claim it is—committed to the historic concept of enlargement, then institutional change cannot be avoided? Institutional change is an essential part of making an enlarged European Union work. I believe the wise men are to be congratulated on having grappled with some of the most difficult issues: the size of the Commission, the nature of voting and the strength or power of the European Parliament. Perhaps the noble Baroness will confirm that enlargement inevitably means substantial institutional changes if we maintain our commitment to the former Communist states of eastern and central Europe that they will soon become members of the European Union.
Thirdly, does the Leader of the House agree that the steps taken in Tampere—to establish a task force of European police chiefs; to strengthen the work of Europol; to agree to mutual recognition of the work of the courts of Europe; and for different courts to accept the admissibility of evidence which might be gathered by different police forces within Europe—are a central part of the battle against organised crime and money laundering, which is rapidly getting out of control? Does she further agree that the very pragmatic, sensible and practical British public are right to decide that they will have nothing to do with those policies which suggest that no such response is needed? In short, does she agree that the public are living in the same age as the Government? I fear that there are some who live in a different age. In that context it is not surprising that some 56 per cent of the British public regard the stand on Europe of the Leader of the Opposition as a reason for not voting for him, rather than a reason for voting for him. It simply departs from reality—and reality is harsh and choices have to be made.
Finally, I turn to the major part of the Tampere Summit's conclusions and ask the Leader of the House three questions. First, can she say something about the strengthening of civil liberties and the extension of the European charter of rights to balance, as must properly be done, the greater powers given to European police forces and courts, with which we strongly agree?
952
Secondly, does the Leader of the House accept that mutual recognition in the courts would be of great benefit to consumers in this country, especially those who wish to pursue small claims, or to pursue their rights under the procedures of consumer action, and to those seeking maintenance or pursuing divorce proceedings against someone resident in another European country? The legal process should be speeded up and made less expensive.
Thirdly, does the Leader of the House agree with indications made at the Tampere Summit that it is absolutely vital that steps should be taken to establish common minimum standards for dealing with refugees and asylum seekers, and that measures should be put in place to stop the traffic in human beings? Does she further accept that a resolution must be reached over the differences between British and European courts on the issue of non-state acts of persecution, which has been discussed extensively during consideration of the Immigration and Asylum Bill?
Finally, does the Leader of the House agree that the Tampere declaration marks a major step forward in dealing with some of those diseases that afflict the whole of Europe? In that context, may I congratulate the noble Baroness and Her Majesty's Government on their position taken in Tampere on the issues of racism and xenophobia, and on their determination that minorities and third country nationals shall be treated with fairness and justice? That is very much what we on these Benches believe to be one of the great objectives of Europe: securing the rights of all people resident in the Continent.
4.1 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, for their responses to the Statement and for their general recognition of the important steps forward that have been taken. I certainly endorse the final point made by the noble Baroness concerning the objectives of the summit; namely, protection of the rights of every citizen in Europe; the provision of greater safeguards for those rights; and wider opportunities for people in difficulties because their lives have been affected by different upheavals. Immigrants and asylum seekers need help to overcome their problems concerning issues of immigration and jurisdiction.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for emphasising their support for some of the points made at Tampere on questions of combating organised crime, particularly on issues of international crime such as money laundering, the drugs trade, trafficking in individuals and so forth. Those issues were very much part of the discussions and, indeed, of the presidency's conclusions. As the noble Baroness recognised in her final remarks, it is important that these matters are addressed on a pragmatic and practical basis by the members of the Union in terms of an exchange of good practice and a full understanding of the ways in which different systems work. We welcome and applaud the need for collaboration on the more effective introduction of

953
practical proposals for dealing with international crime. That was sensibly recognised by all Ministers at the summit, and was reflected in the conclusions.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, rightly recognised that this is a different procedure from that of moving towards the harmonisation of legal systems, or indeed the organisation of a joint European corpus juris, as he mentioned in his closing remarks. The adoption of the UK language on mutual recognition is important, because that will mean more acceptance and understanding of the different standards and methods used in each other's legal systems. However, we recognise too that it is important to accept that the processes of a court in one country should be recognised and understood in another. It is well understood, for example, that within the British Isles we have two—indeed, three—systems of justice and differing legal arrangements. Between England and Scotland there is perfectly clear recognition of the significance and importance of each country's judicial systems and legal processes, without there being a common corpus juris, or indeed anything which could be described as the harmonisation of our laws.
The noble Baroness asked about the charter of rights. The point of the conclusion of the presidency and the Tampere declaration was to endorse the practical arrangements for the body established at the Cologne European Council and that fundamental rights applicable at Union level should be consolidated in a charter. As the noble Baroness may be aware, a group of some 60 people has been charged with preparing that draft before the Nice European Council in December 2000. The Tampere Council endorsed that proposal and agreed that the work should be taken forward with that end date in mind.
The noble Baroness also raised the matter of minor civil cases. I agree with her that mutual recognition of legal systems would, indeed, assist in the areas of consumer rights and small claims, as they are called in this country. They could be dealt with more effectively across the European Union. I agree that that is a way in which citizens of this country should feel a practical effect from the outcome of the Tampere Council.
I shall turn now from those practical and pragmatic conclusions, which I am sure the House will endorse for their useful contribution to Facilitating the organisation of individual citizens' lives within the European Union, to a more problematic area immediately identified by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde; namely, British beef. Of course, as the noble Lord will be aware, we shall now wait until the EU scientific experts' meeting reaches its conclusions on 28th October. We are confident that the outcome of that meeting will be to endorse the position taken by the UK in assuring the European Union of the safety of British beef. We do, of course, need a swift settlement to this dispute so that British fanning and the beef industry can get on with the business of building our markets abroad. As the Prime Minister said in his Statement which I have repeated, and as has been declared in all of the informal statements made after the Tampere meeting, there appears to be no new evidence for the French to present to the EU scientific
954
experts' committee. Further, the Commission has given an undertaking that if new evidence is not produced to affect the outcome of the Eli scientific committee's conclusions, the Commission will take legal action against the French. We are convinced that that will be unnecessary, because we expect the scientific conclusions to endorse our legal position.
Of course it is right to say, as did the noble Baroness, that if we did not have the framework of European law, there would be no legal method of seeking redress. We would have to rely only on influence rather than on the structure of the law, which it is hoped will support what the scientific committee says and, if necessary, will be taken forward by the Commission. However, as I have said, we very much hope that it will not come to that.
On the question of enlargement, both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will be aware t hat there is a common understanding between our partners that the April IGC meeting is intended to be a rather limited and pragmatic approach to the practical arrangements for enlargement rather than a form of "back to first principles" pulling up of the roots such as that which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, suggested may be appropriate. I am sure that he will forgive me if I do not follow him down the road of a widespread and historical revision of European positions, on which I think he was attempting to draw me. As he said, there may be an opportunity for further discussion. There is always room for debate on such issues in your Lordships' House. However, I would be in very deep trouble with my noble friend the Chief Whip if I were to commit anyone to a dale or the possibility of an immediate debate of that kind. Nevertheless, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will be well aware, that is the kind of matter which needs to be decided through the usual channels.
The noble Lord raised a question which has been much referred to in press comments; namely, the report of the so-called "wise men". It is only fair to my noble friend Lord Simon to make it clear to the House that my noble friend was acting entirely in a private capacity in his membership of that committee. Indeed, as I understand it, the report was produced only for Senor Prodi, and not for the Council of Ministers. It is not even clear that Senor Prodi himself will accept all of its findings. Of course, any discussion on its implications would have to be taken forward by the Council of Ministers. The noble Lord will be only too aware that discussions on extending the remit of the Union, enlargement and its constitutional arrangements are not the business of the Commission but rather of the Council of Ministers.
The noble Lord asked me to identify matters which were not in agreement with government policy. I ask the noble Lord to look at the issue the other way round. The report which he mentioned is absolutely not the blueprint for a federal superstate. Let us identify, for example, the points that it does not mention. It does not mention European taxes; it does not mention a European army; and it does not ask for

955
an elected European government. It seems to me that, by omission, one could identify those things that one need not fear.
In his opening remarks the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, described those parts of the Tampere Statement which were important and influential in affecting the lives of the citizens of the European Union. I agree with him entirely that they indicated valuable and sensible co-operation. That was the Government's aim at Tampere and that is what has been achieved.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I have noted the remarks made by my noble friend and I have also read, perhaps unwisely, the presidency conclusions which were available in all 20 pages of their text. Frankly, it is difficult to reconcile the tone and content of the one statement compared with the tone and content of the other. What we have before us and what was being discussed at Tampere is a major step towards "freedom, security and justice" throughout the whole of the European Union area. "Freedom, security and justice"—I thought that I had been living all my life in an area of freedom, security and justice. Therefore, I have a somewhat lukewarm approach to that claim.
But that was not the only claim. The member states also made great steps towards a common policy on asylum and immigration and, further, they set up a new body to study a charter of rights, which will be a kind of written constitution for the whole of Europe, if and when it is completed. Now there is a great difference here, is there not? I should like my noble friend to assure me and to confirm that the provisions of the protocol to the Amsterdam Treaty that was made in the names of Britain and Ireland still stand. Perhaps I may quote the terms of it. On Title III(a) of the treaty, dealing with asylum and immigration, the protocol states:
"None of the provisions shall be binding upon, or applicable in, the United Kingdom".
No common immigration and asylum policy for us! Does that still stand or has it been abandoned?
Secondly, can my noble friend confirm that the new proposals which she listed affecting Europol, the Eurojust unit and the European Police College are not just jumping off points for a European version of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the case of Europol and for the establishment of a European public prosecutor as part of the corpus juris plan, of which we have heard before? Finally, will my noble friend take on board the fact that from long experience what we have with our European friends is, first, the landing of a bridgehead in a new area of what were previously our
956
own national concerns, followed by a further attack as they march out of the bridgehead to take over a still larger area of our affairs?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my noble friend has trespassed on the time that other noble Lords may wish to use for brief comments and questions.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am tempted to say to my noble friend that, if he feels that he has been living under a system of European security and justice, he has not perhaps suffered from some of the problems of being an immigrant or an asylum seeker in some of those jurisdictions. In order to be brief, I can say in answer to all of his questions, no, there is no agreement under Tampere for there to be a common European asylum and immigration policy. There are pragmatic attempts, as was mentioned in the Statement, to try to make it possible for people seeking asylum to be treated equally in all of the different countries. No, there is no recommendation under Europol and Eurojust procedures for there to be a European public prosecutor. And, no—as I indicated in my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about the misreading of the understandings which were put forward in the brief summary document by the so-called "three wise men" and which has no executive influence over the IGC or anything else—there is no move towards a federal system of justice.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness to get a little nearer the kernel of the matter. Signor Prodi and numerous European statesmen have said that their goal is a single European state and at every conference we see movement, little by little, closer to that goal. Now it is clear that the train is travelling faster in the direction of a single European state. If the Government really do not want to be on the train when it reaches its destination, at what stage do they plan to get off? That is the real question. Surely we are entitled to know the Government's sticking point.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I realise that it is possible for noble Lords to read into the most practical and pragmatic suggestions for basic arrangements, which I should have thought most noble Lords would support, some conspiracy towards federalism. However, as I tried to indicate in my earlier replies to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, there is little in the presidency's conclusions for Tampere that even the most conspiratorial eye could fall on and say that it fell into that category. As I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, there is even in this document, which is causing such excitement, the informal recommendations of the "three wise men". There is absolutely no indication, for example, of the three matters which I should have thought would have been central to the establishment of some kind of federal arrangement which would equate to a state. There is no suggestion of any harmonisation of taxes;

957
there is no call for a European army— and there is no suggestion that there should be an elected European government. In my, perhaps the noble Lord would say naive, view, any suggestion that we were moving towards a federal state would at least encompass some of those.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire, as chairman of Sub-Committee F of the European Communities Committee, has asked me to apologise for the fact that he cannot be here. He has asked me to Indicate that the Select Committee, on which I too serve, will be looking at these proposals as part of its continuing work. Perhaps I may speak on behalf of the committee as a whole, whose membership included noble Lords of all political parties and of none. If noble Lords read our report which was debated last week they will see that we would strongly support the conclusions that were reached at Tampere on a practical and pragmatic basis and not on ideology or anything of that kind.
As a practising lawyer, one has to make a great reservation about the need for effective safeguards against the misuse of power, whether in this country or elsewhere in Europe. I should be grateful if the Leader of the House could indicate, without pinning down herself or her colleagues, whether that central weakness—the lack of effective safeguards—will be addressed. Can she give an assurance that political offences will not, for obvious reasons, be part of fast track and that, as far as concerns other matters, national courts will still be able to ensure the safeguard of a fair trial in other jurisdictions? Will the Government support some pan-European safeguards, whether in the charter of rights or in one of the two European courts, where national courts fail to provide those safeguards? Something of that kind would reassure concerned public opinion that one is not granting further powers without adequate checks and balances.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his welcome for the proposals and his remarks on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. The broad answer to his question is: yes indeed, the question of safeguards must always be developed alongside that of additional arrangements which may extend rights That is fairly clear in matters of jurisprudence as well as in every other legal and political sense.
On the question of the fast track towards extradition, the noble Lord will understand that an agreement was reached in principle. The details of any arrangements for such a procedure need to be taken forward slowly and practically, and with a firm undertaking to explore safeguards and mutual recognition of those safeguards. That has been the linchpin of the UK's proposals.
It should be recognised that when the House of Lords held an inquiry into the corpus juris proposals on combating EU fraud, the House welcomed the
958
mutual recognition proposals as, in its words, a more realistic way forward than corpus juris for building a European judicial system.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, it is not possible from the brief Statement made by the Prime Minister to have more than a general idea of what occurred at Tampere. Indeed, he himself says:
"A comprehensive list of the action agreed by the European Council is to be found in the Council's conclusions, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House".
I have already examined that document, and I have a query in regard to its authenticity. The document referring to the Tampere European Council is entitled, Presidency Conclusions. We have met this kind of statement before. Presidency conclusions have subsequently proved, in many vital respects, not to correspond exactly with what has occurred. At the conclusion of the debate in this House last week on Tampere, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, whether he could arrange to have the document authenticated as the true conclusions of the European Council. Can we be sure that the English text referred to is the official version of what will undoubtedly be quoted by the Commission in any proposals that it places before us?
As for the institutional implications of enlargement to which my noble friend refers, is she aware that such a lengthy document needs careful examination? The Presidency Conclusions occupy 19 pages. The institutional implications of enlargement set out by this rather queerly appointed triumvirate occupy a further 15. I submit to the Government and to the House that, before Parliament as a whole can form any conclusions as to what occurred, and as to the merits of the arguments put forward on our behalf, it will be necessary to debate the matter fully with all the documents in front of us.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I am afraid that I am unable to help him as to the exact formal status of the document and the accuracy of its translation, largely because it would be difficult for me to be absolutely honest in committing myself in saying that I know this to be an exact representation in English of the Finnish original. If a further matter arises which I need to pursue with him, I shall write to my noble friend.
I was slightly concerned, my noble friend already having read the document, that his practical point about its accuracy and status related to some conclusion which, with his usual assiduousness, he had found in one version but not another. Regarding the status of the document and its translation, I can only help my noble friend in the way that I have. If there is anything further that I need to say to him, I shall of course do so.
I recognise my noble friend's wish to debate these issues at greater length and in a wider context. As I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the House is always interested to debate these matters and I am sure the usual channels will discuss that in the context of the general arrangement of the programme.

959
On the question of the report which my noble friend accords equal status with the conclusions of the ministerial council, I re-emphasise what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. It is a useful and informal report, but it is a report by independent individuals to the Commission. We do not yet know the Commission's response. In the context of the IGC, it will be the governments of the European Union who will decide the outcome, not the Commission. They have already agreed, at the Cologne Summit, that the IGC will be short and that it will be focused on the practical arrangements for enlargement.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell the House how it is expected to give practical effect to the conclusions reached in Finland? Will they be embodied in new legislation? If so, am I right in assuming that the detail of that legislation will tell us whether the suspicions entertained by a number of noble Lords regarding the Government's intentions are right? If they are to be embodied in legislation, when will that legislation be brought forward? If they are not, to what extent, and by what authority, will those conclusions be brought into effect?
Perhaps I may briefly ask about Pakistan. In view of the nature and failings of the Nawaz Sharif regime, would it not have been wiser to attempt to engage constructively with the new military regime in Pakistan to see whether it might be possible to agree internationally with that regime a timetable for a return to parliamentary government rather than to assume the worst at once—particularly in view, at the very least, of the muted response of the Pakistani people to the events of last week?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, in response to the noble Viscount's first point, I suspect that the Tampere proposals will be taken forward in a variety of ways. If we look, for example, at some of the detail of the proposals on the organisation of asylum and immigration, some are already envisaged in the Bill that is before the House. So in that instance, in a sense, we have acted and the European position is coming on line with some of our proposals in this area.
Some of the other matters mentioned in the Statement are matters of good practice. They are about the exchange of good practice and the understanding of practical institutional collaboration and co-operation, for example, on the question of exchange of information through the Europol system, which may lead to the more effective prosecution and resolution of civil cases, and on the question of small claims in the consumer field. As I understand it, that would simply be a matter of making the organisational machinery of exchange of information and understanding of each other's practice more effective. That could be achieved, for example, by utilising some of the new IT arrangements which enable Internet information to be exchanged and given good credence. There will be a variety of methods.
960
The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, mentioned extradition. That would be a matter for legal change. As I said in my response to the noble Lord, that is in its early days of practical detailed planning. When it comes to the point of being put into practice, there would be need for a change in the law in that respect. My general reaction is that there would be a variety of ways of implementing these points. They are mostly about practical arrangements and the organisation of institutions.
On the question of Pakistan, the noble Viscount will be aware that we are reviewing aspects of our relationship with that country. There has been great concern about the military take-over. We can understand that there was an important need in the beginning to recognise that the military action taken was counter to all the democratic understandings of the basis on which, for example, the Commonwealth is founded. I am sure that the position of the Commonwealth will have been noted by your Lordships' House. The position taken by the Government in condemning the military take-over and urging an immediate return to democracy is supported by the Commonwealth. That is the forum in which we expect to take future relationships forward and the future development of our relationships with Pakistan.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a specific question arising out of the Statement. It relates to the charter of human rights for the European Union. Is the noble Baroness aware that it was briefly touched on at the COSAC meeting in Helsinki last week? There was little support from parliamentarians at that meeting for the concept of a new charter of human rights within the Union. People believed that the European charter of human rights, ranging over many more countries, was sufficient in itself or could possibly be amended to include other items, if necessary, rather than having a separate and parallel charter of human rights for the Union alone.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Yes, my Lords, I am aware that there have been such concerns and that there is anxiety that there could be an overlap, for example, between the rights listed in the charter and the ECHR. However, as I said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, the working party of about 60 people, to which this Parliament will nominate two representatives, will examine the issue in detail.
However, it was felt at Tampere that there was scope for an additional charter of rights and that the working party for it should take it forward in the timeframe of looking to the European Council in December 2000. The fact that there could be perceived to be an overlap with the ECHR has already been recognised and will be taken into account if that practical work goes forward.

Greater London Authority Bill
4.32 p.m.
Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 117 [Duties of Authority or functional body as regards reports]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 338:
Page 67, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) Where the Assembly makes a recommendation at a meeting under subsection (3) above, the Mayor shall comply with that recommendation when making any decision under subsection (6) above.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 117 deals with the duties of the mayor of London and the assembly in relation to reports from the Audit Commission. Amendment No. 338 is directed to what happens when the assembly makes a recommendation about what the mayor should do.
Clause 117(9), new Section 115A(3) states:
"The Assembly shall consider the report at a meeting where it shall decide—

(a) whether it agrees or disagrees with the views contained in the report; and

(b) what action … it recommends that the Mayor should take in consequence of it".

Paragraph (7) states:
"In making any decision under subsection (6) above, the Mayor shall take account of any views or recommendations of the Assembly at the meeting".
We do not believe that that is strong enough. If the assembly feels sufficiently strongly about an issue to make a recommendation, we should bear in mind that this is a report from the Audit Commission dealing with a matter which might be of considerable significance because it will be as a result of some irregularity. We believe that the mayor should be obliged to comply with the recommendation where it is required.
We have argued with the Minister on many occasions. He feels that the mayor should be free of any power of the assembly to shackle him in any way whatever. We have never accepted that principle. Noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches have never accepted that principle. We believe that the issue is worth raising in this context. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the noble Lord indicated, the amendment would give the role of deciding what action which followed the report by the GLA's chief finance officer to the assembly would fall to the assembly. As we indicated, it would directly undermine the separation in the balance of powers between the mayor and assembly. I can go over the whole argument again, but as noble Lords opposite have taken a different view on balance and different views between themselves, I would not wish to go over it in detail.
The mayor is responsible for the strategic direction of the GLA and of the functional bodies. It is he or she who must decide what action, if any, to take in respect
962
of a report completed by the chief finance officer. Under our proposals, provision has already been made specifically to require the mayor to attend the meeting at which the assembly considers the report. Furthermore, the mayor must have regard to views and recommendations of the assembly at that meeting.
We have therefore already provided that the assembly shall have some influence on the matter, but in our structure for the authority the may or must retain the final responsibility for deciding how to respond to the report. I therefore ask I he noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, once again I batter my head against this wall. The only pleasant thing about battering one's head against a wall is that it is even more pleasant when one stops doing it. Nevertheless, we shall have, between us, to continue to reiterate the principle until we have finally done with the Bill. That time will arise, but we are not there yet. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 7 [Amendments of the Audit Commission Act 1998]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 339:
Page 230, line 14, at end insert—
("Studies of Authority by Commission at request of, Mayor
. In section 35 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 (studies at request of bodies subject to audit) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
"(2A) Before exercising the power of the Greater London Authority to make a request under subsection (1) above, the Mayor of London shall consult the London Assembly.".").
The noble Lord said: M y Lords, this amendment would require the mayor to consult the assembly before asking the Audit Commission to promote or undertake studies to promote economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the management or operation of the GLA. Noble Lords opposite may therefore be gratified that we are writing in at least some influence over the proceedings for the assembly which we had previously failed to put into the Bill.
Amendment No. 340 is in the group and it places the same requirement on the mayor in respect of studies of a functional body. The Government believe that it would be sensible for the mayor to consult the assembly before requesting a study. The amendments fulfil the commitments which we gave during the Committee stage to consider the need to amend Schedule 7 in order to require the mayor to consult the assembly before requesting the Audit Commission to carry out value for money studies of the GLA or the functional bodies. I hope this is acceptable. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his gesture. It is a creep in the right direction rather than a bold step where man has feared to go before. Nevertheless, anything is welcome and to that extent, the amendments are welcome.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 340:
Page 230, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) the London Assembly; and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 120 [Summary statement of accounts of Authority and functional bodies]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 341:
Page 68, line 18, at end insert ("except to the extent that the Authority would be required to prepare a statement of accounts under any other enactment or under regulations made under any other enactment").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 341 is on the Marshalled List because we do not believe it is necessary to say in the Bill that for each financial year the authority shall prepare a summary statement of accounts. The authority is required to keep its accounts under so many Bills that if I were to list them we might be here for a long time. I do not believe that that would be helpful.
I do not suppose the Minister will accept the proposal but, as I have said elsewhere, we have a tendency in the Bill to duplicate work done only recently in this House. There are endless local government finance Bills which cover the point. I agree that the Bill seems to be a "catch-everything" Bill and probably other parts of it duplicate the requirements elsewhere. I had thought that the requirement to keep proper accounts—even a summary statement of accounts—was covered perfectly adequately under all forms of existing legislation dealing with local government finance. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, this Bill has to do with the unique situation of the authority. The summary statement provided for in this clause will not duplicate any arrangements in the Bill or elsewhere under which the authority and functional authorities must prepare their accounts. Our intention is that the summary referred to in the clause should provide a short, readyto-read statement of the overall financial position of the authority and the functional bodies, thereby improving accountability. Therefore, I believe that the amendment is unnecessary and I hope that it will not be pursued.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am quite sure that the amendment is unnecessary. Equally, I am unsure whether the clause is necessary. However, that is merely a difference of degree between the Minister and myself. It is a common form of disagreement between the two sides of this House in considering the Bill. None the less, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 342:
Before Clause 122, insert the following new clause—
AMENDMENT OF CROSS-REFERENCES TO PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER I OF THIS PART
(" .—(1) In section 31(10)(a) of the Local Government Act 1999 (which refers to a provision of this Act which has since been renumbered) for "70(8)" there shall be substituted " 71(8)".
(2) Schedule (Amendments to Local Government Finance Act 1992) to this Act (which contains amendments to the Local Government Finance Act 1992 correcting references to provisions of this Act which have since been renumbered) shall have effect.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 342 I shall speak to Amendment No. 360 which is grouped with it. Earlier this year the Local Government Act 1999 received Royal Assent. Part II of that Act refers to the budget requirement and tax-setting provisions of the GLA Bill: first, in Section 31 and, secondly, at several points in Schedule 1. Due to the insertion of a new clause in this Bill during Committee the numbers of the GLA budget requirement and tax-setting clauses have changed. These changes need to be reflected in the Local Government Act 1999, which is the purpose of these amendments. I beg to move Amendment No. 342.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, Amendment No. 360 deals with all the amendments to the Local Government Finance Act 1992. It is almost impossible to check them in intimate detail. I confess to the House that I have been unable to do that—I reiterate a point that has been made so often—because of the detail and complexity of the Bill and the limited time available. I do not apologise for reiterating that point. It would have been nice to have had these amendments much sooner than we did, a fact of which we are all aware. I hope that I do not repeat that point, and I shall try to avoid doing so.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Clause 126 [General transport duty]:
Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester moved Amendment No. 342A:
Page 70, line 6, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsections 254(4) and 255(3),").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment and in doing so will speak also to my Amendments Nos. 496 and 511. Yesterday, The Times carried a letter from my good friend Nick Raynsford, MP, in which, listing what he sees as the "big three issues London faces" in electing a mayor, he puts transport first, the priority, as it were, of priorities. Nowhere is that judgment more strongly endorsed than among disabled and older people in London.
My noble friend Lord Whitty is aware of my interest in this Bill, as a patron for many years of Greater London Action on Disability (GLAD) and as the author of the Orange Badge Scheme for parking concessions for disabled people, which I legislated for in my Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. My noble friend knows, too, from my comments in Committee that it was the nightmare for disabled people of the exclusion of four inner London boroughs from that scheme which prompted my Amendments Nos. 496 and 511, exempting as they do both from road user charging and workplace parking levies disabled people who rely crucially on cars for their independence.
In addition to the support of disability organisations and Age Concern, my amendments have the hacking of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The amendments recognise, in the words of the Joint Committee on Mobility for Disabled People (JCMD), over which Sir Peter Large has long presided with such distinction, that to impose charges and levies on disabled motorists with severe walking difficulties, for whom the private car is the only viable way of getting around, would be a cruel and unavoidable tax on disability.
The JCMD believes, as I do, that all such people should be exempted from road user charging and workplace parking levies throughout London. In a letter to me before the Bill's Committee stage, it applauded the Government for consulting on how this might be arranged, but added:
"If disabled people are to avoid being penalised in one area and not another, or penalised to a different extent in one area compared with another, it will be essential to agree a single national exemption scheme which must apply in and throughout London".
Happily, in my noble friend Lord Whitty we have a transport Minister who is at one with the organisations for disabled and older people in recognising that exemption from charges and levies for people who rely on cars for their independence ought to be decided, not by personal whim, but by the political will of Parliament. This is basically what my amendments are about.
Since my amendments were first debated in Committee, when my noble friend promised carefully to consider the case that I had argued for them, he has been as good as his word in writing to inform me that,
"The Government will endeavour to agree the structure of concessionary arrangements for disabled persons in local authority schemes in time for them to be included in the GLA Bill at Lords Report".
That was a most welcome reassurance in relation to these amendments, and I am sure that noble Lords in all parts of the House who have taken part in our debates on the problems and needs of London's disabled and older people will honour him for it. More especially, I know that my noble friend Lady Darcy de Knayth will be as appreciative as I am of his warmth and helpfulness at the meeting we had with him last week at the DETR, at which we were accompanied by leading representatives of GLAD, the JCMD, Dial-a-Ride, Taxi-Card Users and Age Concern. I look forward very much to my noble friend's further response to the amendments this afternoon. Meanwhile I understand that a helpful further letter from my noble friend about them is on its way to me even as I speak. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am quite sure that the House already knows that the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, are shared by those on this side of the House. I do not intend to
966
spend a lot of time on the matter. The Minister is aware of my views on the amendment, which I strongly support.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I also support the amendment. It is right to disclose that, like the noble Lord Morris of Manchester, I am a patron of Greater London Action on Disability, formerly the Greater London Association for the Disabled. That body is concerned that in our largest city there are several hundred thousand people who suffer from disabilities of one kind or another. It must be the responsibility of the new Greater London Authority to do what it can to help them. We are aware that under the general law of the country there are various provisions and administrative efforts made in order to provide disabled people with transport. I am so old that I remember that it was almost impossible for a person with disabled legs to get in and out of an ordinary railway carriage. Matters have improved somewhat since then. But a great deal of vigilance is needed and much more needs to be done. In considering this part of the Bill dealing with transport, I hope that the Government will bear in mind that perhaps the greatest current problem they have to deal with is the provision of transport for disabled people. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, has said.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I too support these amendments. There are more and more disabled people because we are becoming an elderly population. Disability comes with old age as well as to young people. There is great concern about parts of the City of London and London being closed to traffic. People cannot drive up to various theatres in London now which is causing considerable concern to disabled people, to those who help them and to taxi drivers. I hope that these amendments will be accepted.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. I also hope that these amendments will be accepted. Like the noble Baroness, I shall not take up your Lordships' time by reiterating the reasons for supporting them. If the Minister is minded not to accept them, can he tell me whether the term "efficient" in Clause 126(1) requires the kind of consideration to which the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, referred to be taken into account by the mayor? It may be that my question would be better directed during the debate on a later group of amendments which includes the Minister's own amendment. It would be helpful to know how the Government interpret the term "efficient" in the context of the issues to which noble Lords have referred.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I support this group of amendments. As I understand it, it is government policy to encourage the disabled to work and not rely solely on benefit. It would be a great disincentive to work if those who require their own private transport because of their disabilities have to pay additionally for the use of the roads and a parking place at their

967
place of work. If the Government do not accept these amendments it will be a considerable discouragement to the disabled who wish to work. It should be borne in mind that once they are working they will no longer be such a burden on the state but in fact will be supporting it in the taxes that they pay on their earnings.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, as usual, the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, and other noble Lords have made a powerful case. It is clear that some disabled people will have no alternative but to use specialised vehicles. They will not be deterred from using their cars because of the charges. Therefore, there is little point in raising them against such people. However, if this amendment is agreed to, the Secretary of State will have to be careful concerning those whom he exempts from charges. We do not want a free-for-all.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester for raising these issues and for referring in a positive way to the discussions that we have had. Many noble Lords will recognise that the Government accept almost everything that has been said in the debate so far. We wish to provide an accessible form of transport for the disabled and the elderly.
Following the meeting to which my noble friend referred, we undertook to table amendments relating to a number of matters. We shall come to some of them later. They deal with the requirement on the mayor for consultation with disabled groups and on the timetable for providing such accessible transport.
As regards the specific issue of exemption from road user charging, substantive parts of my noble friend's amendments come later on in the chapter dealing with road user charging. I gave an undertaking during Committee stage and subsequently to endeavour to agree the structure of any national exemptions to road user charging for local authorities in time for them to be included in this Bill. However, that has not been possible because of the need to give wider consideration to the national picture. I am sure that noble Lords will agree with me that it is essential that any exemptions are clearly defined, equitable, practical to implement and not open to abuse, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said.
However, given that we do not as yet have a national structure, I am pleased to be able to inform the House today that the Government have tabled amendments which I believe will be taken on Thursday as regards the road user and congestion charging section of the Bill. They deal specifically with the points that my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, raised. The amendments will make it clear that the Secretary of State can specify an exemption from charges for disabled persons. They will ensure that a national exemption will be the same in and outside London, which I believe was the main point that my noble friend and others were concerned about. Therefore, regulations will be made under that provision which
968
arises from our new amendments. We shall prepare them once the structure for the national concessionary arrangements has been finalised. That will be before any charging scheme is introduced in London. It is still possible for the mayor to grant exemptions in London that do not apply nationally, but the national exemptions will provide the minimum, which I am sure will meet most of the requirements raised during this debate.
Debating the amendments at the start of Part IV of the Bill has enabled me to outline the changes which the Government propose later on in the Bill. However, that has slightly pre-empted the other amendments tabled for today and probably Thursday, depending on the progress of the Bill. In substantive terms, it is better to bring in those amendments at that point rather than now. I believe that my noble friend viewed this amendment as a paving amendment and for raising these matters at the beginning of the transport section of the Bill. We have had the opportunity to deal with that. However, I suggest that we deal with the substantive points either in terms of my noble friend's other amendments or, preferably from my point of view, in the terms that the Government have now tabled which noble Lords will not yet have had time to consider.
I reply briefly to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The word "efficient" in Clause 126(1) is a wide term which encompasses efficient and effective policies in all areas. In Clause 127 the mayor is specifically required to pay particular attention to the concerns of those with mobility problems. Taken together they meet the requirements that she was seeking. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will recognise that the more logical way to proceed is to look at the new amendments and deal with them when we reach the road user charging part of the Bill. I hope my noble friend will accept that. I thank him very much.
I also wish to put on record my thanks to those who came to see me two or three weeks ago concerning this issue. I believe that we have made progress. I hope that noble Lords agree that the Bill is better for that. There is now a clear duty on the mayor and TfL to provide accessible transport for the disabled citizens of our capital.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, at our meeting last week at the DETR my noble friend explained why timing makes it impossible to legislate now for national exemptions. We fully understood his difficulty in that regard. Moreover, I know that he will move as quickly as he can. I am most grateful to him for his response to the amendments and agree entirely with him that it will be best for definitive decisions to be taken later on the government amendments that he has now announced that he will be tabling.
I shall not be pressing Amendments Nos. 342A, 496 or 511 because we have received a far better response to the amendments than most people ever expected. Clearly their purpose is endorsed by the Minister and I believe that what we sought to achieve by the

969
amendments will be met. Again, I thank my noble friend very much for all his help and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 342B:
Page 70, line 7, after ("safe,") insert ("accessible,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Minister has referred to the slight discomfort we feel because of the way the amendments follow each other; they have not all been taken in one group.
Perhaps I may explain the purpose of the two small amendments to Clause 126. Amendment No. 342B inserts the words "accessible" into the existing list of required criteria for the services and facilities which they mayor's transport strategy will be expected to provide under subsection (1) of the clause. The services and facilities would need to be safe, accessible, integrated, efficient and economic. Amendment No. 343A would amend subsection (3)(a) so that the services and facilities would need to include those required to meet the needs of all persons living or working in, or visiting, Greater London.
The amendments are an attempt to respond to the concerns expressed on all sides of the House that the transport strategy should make proper provisions for the needs of people with disabilities. In Committee a number of amendments were tabled to cover various aspects concerning people with mobility problems. The Government expressed sympathy and reassurance that those needs were not likely to be ignored. But Ministers resisted an approach which would result in numerous references throughout the Bill to the needs of people with mobility problems.
The amendments attempt to place on the face of the Bill a requirement to consider the needs of people with mobility needs. I hope for a positive response from the Minister if not to the wording of these modest amendments at least to the idea underlying them. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ikon: My Lords, I support the amendment. It is important to have the provision written on the face of the Bill. Planners and all kinds of people forget. They do not mean to do so, but they forget. Therefore, having the provision written in the Bill would be helpful.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, noble Lords listening to earlier debates will accept that in the drafting of the Bill we are giving a clear priority to accessibility. In Clauses 126 and 127, the mayor's transport duties are designed to be inclusive and pick up neither mode of transport nor specific groups of users. However, while safety and integration are key issues, they also have to be accompanied by accessibility. In Clause 127 we have drawn attention to accessibility as one of the key aspects of the mayor's duty. Government amendments to that clause—I shall address them shortly in another
970
group—will strengthen further the involvement of the disabled and the need to commit a timetable to make transport more accessible to disabled groups and those with other access problems.
We have also made clear that door-to-door transport is a vital part of the picture. Again, I shall return to that issue in subsequent groups. I think, therefore, that the amendment is unnecessary. Accessibility is already reflected in these clauses. With the agreement of the House, we hope to tighten that up shortly. The other provisions will be dealt with later. The provision is already in the Bill. It Will be re-emphasised when we reach the government amendments. I hope that the noble Baroness accepts that that is a better way to proceed.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I am not sure that I accept that it is a better way to proceed. I do not think that "safe" means the same as "accessible". They are two quite different parts of a programme for transport. I am sorry that we are unable to put the word "accessible" in this part of the Bill. It would make a bold statement on the broad aims of the transport strategy. However, I am aware that the Minister has another amendment. We look forward to hearing what he says in proposing it. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 343:
Page 70, line 8, at end insert—

("( ) In developing and implementing policies in accordance with subsection (1) above the Mayor shall consult Transport for London as to its proposals to exercise borrowing powers pursuant to section 139(3A).").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 359. The amendment relates to financing investment in London's transport. The amendment provides that the mayor will consult Transport for London on proposals to exercise borrowing powers. The second of my amendments sets out that in addition to its powers as a local authority, and subject to the approval of the mayor of the assembly, Transport for London may borrow money in the market for investing in improved transport in Greater London.
The importance of improving transport in our capital city can hardly be understated. Without improvement we are all aware, I believe, that there will be little incentive for travellers to leave the car at home and to choose another mode of transport. We are aware of the effects on air quality, and so on, of congestion on our streets. We are aware of the effects on social development. The ability to participate in activities may be affected by difficulties in travelling and being able to afford to travel; and we are aware of the need for improvement in transport as part of a programme of regeneration. If there is poor transport, a lack of variety of modes or inadequate connections, it must affect the regeneration of an area. In other

971
words, environmental, social and economic considerations are at the heart of the new authority's principal purposes.
Sadly, in addition, in the past two weeks there has been much increased public focus on the need for investment because of concern that lack of investment may mean a failure in safety standards. The priority must of course be safety. I believe that we would all agree on that. Doubts about safety impact on road congestion. If prospective rail and Tube travellers are concerned about the safety of the mode of transport, they may choose—possibly wrongly, given the statistics—to stay in their cars.
The GLA and its constituent parts are subject to the local authority finance regime. That should include credit approvals—in other words, approvals by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has control over the various categories of approval that can be given.
During the previous stage of the Bill, the Government made a point of not treating the GLA differently from other local authorities. I believe that it is different, in particular with regard to transport in London. None of our other cities has a transport system on the same scale or with the same scale of need for investment. That is not to say that other cities do not have problems, but let us get London right.
The unreliability and sheer discomfort of travelling in London are great. I know of people who, having moved job to work in London, are staggered by the difficulties involved in getting there. A great deal of discomfort was suffered this summer by the lack of air conditioning in the Underground.
I accept that investment is not the only approach to improving transport. Integrating land use and transport, changes in working practices and so forth are all important, but they are relatively small beer. We need investment not just to increase comfort but capacity; to improve signalling and rolling stock; to improve throughput; and to improve travelling conditions.
I accept that good work is being undertaken in the bus system in London. But there, too, a great deal is needed to improve the services and, I suggest, to assist in a cultural shift. One of the problems with buses is that so many of us view them as a poor relation and not the mode of first or obvious choice.
The amendments propose new borrowing powers which are limited to Transport for London; in other words, limited to the objective of improving our transport. It is true that one can go to the Secretary of State for permission to borrow; true that one can go to the Public Works Loan Board; and true that one can work with the private sector and use PFI initiatives. However, we know that those are not entirely straightforward.
In recent correspondence from the Minister, the description of the finance regime suggests that the Bill provides a robust system for controlling the use of credit by the GLA and functional bodies but one
972
which at the same time provides flexibility in deciding how to finance capital spending based on the well established local authority model.
Last week, in responding to the limited amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, relating to borrowing against a future income stream, the Minister said:
"I believe that the noble Lord can rest assured that the Government recognise both the economic and political imperatives".—[Official Report, 14/10/99; col. 654.]
I am aware of plans to publish a consultation paper on local government finance next year, but I do not believe that assurances that the Government understand the imperatives are sufficient unless Transport for London is in a position to use the widest possible range of sources of finance.
The Government are designing a new sector of government for our capital city. I applaud them for that, even though I do not agree with the structure. However, their continuing hold on the purse strings, and on the pen which signs on borrowing, lies ill with the claim that London is being allowed to run itself. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, we are to some extent revisiting the territory dealt with a few days ago in the early hours of the morning. It was the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere. Admittedly, his amendment was slightly narrower and proposed borrowing against the revenue from road-user charging and workplace levies. On the other hand, the noble Baroness's amendment is wide ranging in its ability to borrow, well outside the normal requirements of local authority finance. Nevertheless, their objectives are the same and, as I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, we accept the basic argument that upfront expenditure on public transport and other infrastructure is absolutely necessary not only in order for the road-user charging system to work, but also for it to be politically acceptable. It was in that sense that I used the words "political and economic imperatives" the other night.
We accept that new charging schemes must be associated with improved public transport, which means investment. Of course, £5 billion-worth of investment is in the pipeline for London's public transport. In addition—and the noble Baroness slightly dismisses them—there is a range of possibilities within the Bill and the local authority finance structure for the GLA and the mayor to acquire additional moneys for spending on upfront investment. There are the credit approvals, which can be allocated by the Secretary of State for the purposes of TfL; there is additional funding through the GLA transport grant; and there are many forms of PFI which, provided they meet the criteria, TfL would be able to extend and mobilise as new forms of capital in order to engage in public transport infrastructure investment.

973
There is a bit of a presumption lying behind some of the criticism and perhaps behind the amendment. There is a misapprehension that no funding will be available for TfL to carry out these early improvements and that we must wait until revenue streams come in before we can spend the money. It is true that we anticipate that once the road-user charging systems are up and running, there will be a recycling, and hypothecation will lead to a self-sustaining system. Nevertheless, we accept the case that there should be upfront expenditure.
We disagree with the noble Baroness—and I disagreed with the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, the other night—that we need additional powers to mobilise the capital for that purpose. We believe that without breaching normal local government rules, without providing anything that is not already provided within the Bill, substantial resources will be available to TfL to provide for that infrastructure when added to the allocations which my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister has already made to improve the private and public transport sectors within London. Therefore, I do not believe that it is necessary to give the widesweeping borrowing powers, which the noble Baroness's amendment would allow and which would place the GLA in a category so substantially different from the rest of local government as to prove a problem. I therefore hope that she will not pursue the amendment but accept our intention that the pattern of expenditure will be the same as hers. Furthermore, our understanding of the acceptability of road-user charging in particular is the same as hers. I hope that she will not pursue the amendment today.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I should not wish to suggest that the Minister does not believe wholeheartedly in what he is saying. I accept his assurances that the Government believe they have all that is necessary to enable the GLA and in particular TfL to invest. He talks about a range of possibilities. Apart from the public finance initiatives, those are all subject to the Secretary of State, which is our main objection and underlies the amendment.
I do not make the presumption that no funding will be available, but my amendment stems from the sheer scale of the programme. I accept that it may be possible to borrow against an income stream from road-user charging, but there are many unknowns about that. I accept that the Secretary of State may decide that plenty of funding will flow. What I do not see in the Bill is the opportunity for Transport for London to get to grips with the job and do it without having to go cap in hand to central Government. The Minister says that we need to understand that the amendment would put the GLA into a category substantially different from local government. I suggest that Transport for London, in particular, is in a category substantially different from local government.
We on these Benches feel strongly about this issue and, for that reason, given the stage vie have reached in the Bill, we wish to test the opinion of the House.
5.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 343) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 134.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

McNair, L.

Alderdice, L.

McNally, L.

Avebury, L.

Maddock, B.

Barker, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

Bradshaw, L.

[Teller]

Calverley, L.

Morris, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Newby, L.

Carlisle, E.

Nunburnholme, L.

Clancarty, E.

Ogmore, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Coleridge, L.

Porter of Luddenham, L.

Dholakia, L.

Razzall, L.

Ezra, L.

Redesdale, L.

Falkland, V.

Rennard, L.

Geraint, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Russell, E.

Goodhart, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Grey, E.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hampton, L.

Swansea, L.

Hamwee, B.

Taverne, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hooson, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

[Teller]

Jacobs, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Thurso, V.

Leigh, L.

Tordoff.L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Eatwell, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Elder, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Alli, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Amos, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ampthill, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Archer of Sand well, L.

Filkin, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Gale, B.

Bach, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Barnett, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Goudie, B.

Berkeley, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Blackstone, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Borrie, L.

Grantchester, L.

Brett, L.

Gregson, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Grenfell, L.

Brookman, L.

Hacking, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hardy of Wath.L.

Burlison, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Hayman, B.

Christopher, L.

Healey, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L

Crawley, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

David, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Davies of Coity.L.

Hoyle, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L

Desai, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L

Dixon, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lora

Donoughue, L.

Chancellor)

Dormand of Easington, L.

Islwyn, L.

Dubs, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

975

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Privy Seal)

Prys-Davies, L.

Jeger, B.

Puttnam, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Judd, L.

Rea, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Richard, L.

Kintore, E.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Laming, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Serota, B.

Lipsey, L.

Shannon, E.

Lockwood, B.

Shepherd, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Longford, E.

Simon, V.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stair, E.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

[Teller]

Strabolgi, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Marsh, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Thornton, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Uddin B

Milner of Leeds, L.

Varley, L.

Molloy, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Monkswell, L.

Walpole, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Warner, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Whitty, L.

Nicol, B.

Wilkins, B.

Parry, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Peston, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

5.30 p.m.
[Amendment No. 343A not moved.]
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 344:
Page 70, line 15, after ("London") insert (", including—

(i) those required for the protection of vulnerable road users, and

(ii) those required to promote interchange between different modes of transport").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment involves further changes to Clause 126(3). It ensures that the services and facilities which the transport strategy should provide will include, as well as those already on the face of the Bill,
"those required for the protection of vulnerable road users, and … those required to promote interchange between different modes of transport".
Again, those two subjects—vulnerable road users and/or cyclists; not cycling but cyclists—were mentioned on a number of occasions, as was the question of interchange facilities, during the course of our debates in Committee.
I believe we all know what "vulnerable road users" are. Broadly speaking, they are those people who always come off worst in a collision; those who, in other words, are not protected by the carapace of a car, bus, lorry or other such vehicle.
My argument in wishing to amend the Bill in this way is parallel to the argument which I used when proposing Amendments Nos. 242B and 243A. Once again, it is an attempt to have an important concern expressed by Members during the Committee stage placed in an economical and brief way on the face of the Bill at an early stage in the Bill. I believe that noble Lords understand those arguments. I have used them already in connection with the other amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness for not having been here at the very beginning of her introduction of this amendment. However, I had studied it before she moved it. I well understand the good intention behind it but, if I may say so, from the drafting point of view, it produces a slight difficulty. It refers to,
"the protection of vulnerable road users".
In the experience of all of us, all road users are vulnerable in one way or another. One cannot get away from that. I say with deep respect that I believe that the amendment would make more sense if it referred just to "the protection of road users".
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. At the previous stage of the Bill she and I tabled a number of amendments. I believe this is a very constructive compromise of all those amendments which were produced at an earlier stage. Given the importance of cycling in the context of London and the mayor's duties, I shall take some time—not too much, I hope—to flesh out what the noble Baroness has said. I have, therefore, put my name to this amendment.
At previous stages of the Bill, I have been able to speak with the support of the cycling fraternity—in particular the LCC, which, as all noble Lords probably know, stands for the London Cycling Campaign. That body takes the matter seriously and hopes to use this Bill and the mayor's duties in order to complete the London cycling network and also to engage in constructive collaboration with the mayor.
I turn to the word "vulnerable" used by the noble Baroness. Thanks to the LCC, I have the benefit of having up-to-date figures for Greater London of the number of casualties who were travelling by pedal cycle and by other modes of transport. I believe that I have the official figures; they are taken from the London Research Centre report, which includes figures up to 1998. We have the official figures for all the London boroughs.
The number of casualties involving pedal cyclists up to the age of 24 has recently reduced and is continuing to reduce. However, to quote from the report:
"Adult pedal cyclist casualties are still over 50 per cent above the baseline".
I believe that that baseline is the one used in the White Paper in which the Government stated that they would reduce cyclist casualties by one-third. That is very laudable and commendable. But when we saw those figures, we wondered how big the reduction would be.

977
By drawing attention in the Bill to the word "vulnerable" I believe that the Government may be able to take the opportunity to encourage the trends to go in the right direction.
The same section of the report from which I have just quoted refers to the fact that the level of casualties for those above the age of 25,
"gives particular cause for concern, especially taking into account the national initiatives currently being taken to promote greater use of bicycles as a sustainable and healthy mode of transport".
As the Minister may point out, I realise that the word "safe" is included in the second line of this clause. Therefore, some consideration has been given to safety in the Bill. However, if the Government are trying to achieve those very commendable reductions in the level of cycle casualties, I do not believe that it does any harm to reinforce that by referring to "vulnerable road users".
Sometimes, when one produces a helpful amendment, as this is meant to be, other people then climb on the bandwagon and one feels that one's amendment is counter-productive. However, I must mention in the context of this report, which I happen to have, that there is also a reference to motor cycles. In the conclusion to the report on page 12, it is stated:
"In addition, it was found that for the third year in succession powered two-wheeler casualties increased, although they had previously shown a generally downward trend since 1989".
I realise that motor cyclists are vulnerable in a different way from cyclists. However, I believe that motor cyclists, in their own way, should be given the same consideration, using the rather interesting definition of "vulnerable" given by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, when she referred to "those who come off worst in a collision".
Paragraph (ii) of this amendment refers to "interchange between different modes". At the previous stage of the Bill, we produced amendments which might have been regarded as too detailed and too specific; for example, encouraging rail franchises to be renegotiated in dealing with bicycles. That may have been too ambitious. However, in my opinion this part of the amendment, as does the one I have just discussed, provides a very workable compromise. It provides a general exhortation and a general reminder to the mayor that the problems of interchanges, which are liable to be forgotten, should be remembered when the mayor tries to bring forward schemes.
By putting such a provision on the face of the Bill we give the mayor a weapon—perhaps that is not a friendly word to use—or a device which enables him to remind people who come forward with projects that he is under a duty to bear in mind the problems of interchanges of one type of travel with another. So I hope that the Minister will accept this compromise.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I rise to support the intention behind the amendment. The real benefit of an idea such as this is how it will be perceived and the emphasis it will give to the subject. I hope that elected members and officials of the Greater London Authority and the local boroughs, as well as those in
978
the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, will take this matter a little more seriously.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, mentioned the word "vulnerable". Some road users are a great deal more vulnerable than others. There is also the question of education. The consultation document on safety, published this summer by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, mentioned the number of fatalities suffered by pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and so on. Of course, the highest fatalities are among cyclists and pedestrians. However, he failed to mention that cyclists and pedestrians are nearly all killed by motor vehicles. There is a difficulty of perception. I hope that the amendment will go some way to flagging up the fact that people need to take the needs of the vulnerable road users more seriously.
Recently there has been talk about what needs to be done to encourage interchange between modes of transport. I have heard that some rail franchise companies believe that they have achieved the objective of modal shift by putting up a bus timetable on the station door. That is not good enough. If this amendment shows that they must do something more proactive, as was said in Committee by a number of noble Lords, it will have achieved its objective.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I strongly support the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, but I believe that the Bill already adequately covers her concerns.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I commend the succinct intervention by the noble Earl. Broadly speaking, he has covered the point I was to make at rather greater length.
In response to the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, on the issue of cycling, the Government have made a clear commitment to cycling and the London cycling network. The Bill will end the fragmentation of responsibility within London for cycling. Clearly, that covers the issue of safe cycling as well as the provision of cycle networks. The integrated transport strategy within London must provide for the safety of road users such as cyclists, pedestrians and motorcyclists.
The present wording refers to the,
"encouragement of safe, integrated … transport facilities and services to, from and within Greater London".
Clearly, "safe" means safe for all road users including vulnerable groups.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, pointed out the slight difficulty of how one defines vulnerable groups because at various times all road users consider themselves vulnerable and indeed are vulnerable. I hope that this amendment will not be pressed because the intention of the provision in the Bill is clear from the reference to the word "safe". To include these words could lead to problems of definition.
On the second amendment in the group, the reference to integrated transport subsumes the commitment to interchanges of various sorts, including interchanges with public transport for

979
cyclists and pedestrians. I would assume that a major part of the mayor's commitment to an integrated transport policy, and to public transport that is more attractive to the citizens of London, would definitely include a commitment to provide such interchanges. Although these amendments point in the right direction, I believe that they are unnecessary having regard to what is already on the face of the Bill. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for their support. I refer particularly to the observation made by the noble Viscount, that the words on interchanges and vulnerable road users are a useful device which would give the mayor additional clout when he wants to promote such a matter. I shall return to that in a moment.
The phrase "vulnerable road users" is in constant use among transport planners. It means precisely those people who are the most vulnerable. Of course, everyone is vulnerable. One can be vulnerable in a car, but one is a great deal more vulnerable when not in a car and when one's body is not protected by a steel surround. Broadly speaking, people who fall into that category—children, pedestrians and so on—are often referred to as vulnerable road users.
Having come from local government, I am always conscious of the way in which such provisions are read and interpreted. It seems to me that an Act, a planning direction, a PPT or whatever, should indicate clearly the direction in which the Government want to go, otherwise there will always be those, in any local authority, who will not agree with the policy.
I am sure that there will be those involved in authorities who will say, "Bicycling is not important", "Cyclists are not important", or "We pay enough attention to pedestrians, look how wide our pavements are". Hence, it is useful for an officer, who is recommending a course of action to a council, to be able to say, "I am sorry, but that attitude is not in accordance with the legislation". This provision tells people about that. For that reason I have been a little pernickety in putting forward this amendment.
However, I can see that I shall not get my way, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 127 [The Mayor's transport strategy]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 345:
Page 70, line 25, after ("problems,") insert—

("(aa) shall specify a timetable for the implementation of the proposals contained in the transport strategy by virtue of paragraph (a) above,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall take some time to deal with this group of amendments. I want to put on record the commitment that I mentioned earlier in relation to meeting the concerns of the disabled within London and within this House.
In Committee we debated a number of amendments on this subject, and I want to pull them all together.
I beg to move formally Amendment No. 345 and speak to Amendment No. 346.
During the passage of this Bill a number of individuals have expressed their concern that the Bill is not sufficiently inclusive of the needs of people who need more accessible transport services. I have discussed those with some noble Lords present and with others. We have considered all those arguments carefully and, while we believe that the existing Bill largely meets the concerns over consultation with organisations representing disabled and elderly people, I recognise that there is still some considerable concern on the issue. I accept that there are distinct advantages in giving a clear signal about the importance that we attach to such issues. For that reason we have tabled Amendments Nos. 345 and 346.
Amendment No. 346 clearly requires the mayor to consult groups representing persons with mobility problems when preparing the transport strategy.
Amendment No. 345 explicitly requires that the mayor sets out in the transport strategy a timetable for the implementation of his or her proposals for the provision of transport which is accessible to persons with mobility problems.
I stress that these amendments are targeted specifically at the transport strategy, in recognition of the particular impact the strategy will have on those with mobility problems. The amendments, taken together, will ensure that transport for those with mobility problems will be key to the mayor's development of a transport strategy.
As it was raised, I should like to take a few moments to restate our position on transport services specifically for disabled people. In addition to the amendments, I hope that my remarks will give further reassurance to noble Lords.
We are committed to comprehensive, enforceable civil rights for disabled people. Accessible public transport within the framework of an integrated transport policy must be fundamental in delivering that commitment. The long-term goal must be to ensure that accessible transport is seen as part of the mainstream transport infrastructure and not as an "add-on". That means the design of transport strategies, the design of the physical nature of transport and the access and information relating to public transport; the needs of the disabled and others with mobility and access problems need to be built in. We must not forget the reality that many Londoners with mobility problems rely not on mainstream public transport, but on dedicated door-to-door transport services. The London White Paper set out our commitments in that area. Responsibility for the dedicated door-to-door services currently provided by the Dial-a-Ride and Taxicard schemes will transfer to the new authority. The mayor's duty to include in the transport strategy proposals for accessible transport encompasses proposals for door-to-door services as well as public transport.
During our debates in Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, raised the issue of funding for the Taxicarcl scheme in the interim period before the mayor assumes responsibility for the scheme. I subsequently wrote to the noble Baroness on the subject, and I hope it will be helpful if I reiterate the gist of my letter here.
Taxicard is currently a voluntary scheme. Those boroughs which participate in it are under no statutory obligation to do so and funding levels are a matter for the boroughs. That has naturally led to differences of approach from borough to borough, with eligible residents in some areas receiving different levels of service from those in others. Our proposals in the GLA Bill will give the mayor the ability to take a more cohesive approach—through his or her transport strategy and the boroughs' local implementation plans which will help to deliver the strategy. Each borough will be required to submit those plans to the mayor for his or her approval.
Users of the Taxicard scheme—and others like it—will benefit from the more co-ordinated approach in contrast to the present situation where decisions are left to individual boroughs. Given the reliance of many disabled Londoners on door-to-door transport, we have been concerned to hear reports that some boroughs have reduced funding or service levels in the pre-GLA period. Boroughs (including those which do not currently offer such a service) will need to bear in mind that they may have to revise any decisions they take now about funding or service levels once the mayor is on the scene. Even before the mayor is elected, boroughs will no doubt be watching carefully what mayoral candidates have to say on this issue. I therefore urge those boroughs which have reduced service levels for Taxicard to consider carefully how their decisions will impact on disabled Londoners, and what steps can be taken to mitigate any adverse effects.
I felt it was useful to cover that aspect of these provisions, otherwise the amendments may be taken to apply solely to public transport in its narrower sense. They do not; they cover also the issue of door-to-door services. Our amendments place the mayor under a duty in respect of mobility. They will send a clear message to the mayor as to what experience and expertise should be required in developing the strategy and ensure that the interests of those with mobility problems are fully represented.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, grouped with Amendment No. 345 are my Amendments Nos. 358 and 363. I say at the outset that I welcome Amendments Nos. 345 and 346. They go a long way to satisfying those disabled people who are interested in Transport for London.
I am delighted to hear that there is to be a clear timetable and proper consultation with organisations for and of people with disabilities. I am also delighted that the Government are committed to fully accessible transport. I know that that will take a few years to come through, for obvious financial and practical reasons. I am also delighted to learn that the new authority will be responsible for producing a scheme
982
for door-to-door transport. However, I hope that the Government will ensure that a proper Taxicard scheme is running and is maintained between now and the time that Transport for London is up and running or the new situation is in place. The so-called "millennium borough" of Greenwich has, I understand, no Taxicard scheme at all. It is not a policy for the third millennium. If we were starting the second millennium, it probably would not allow chariots on its streets!
Perhaps when he replies the Minister can respond to one further point, which will avoid my having to move Amendment No. 469 later on; that is, what will the position be on public transport with regard to the freedom pass for elderly people and those with severe disabilities? Will there be a comprehensive criterion for the pass throughout the whole of London, or will it still be the responsibility of individual boroughs with a disparity of treatment throughout the metropolis and consequent unfairness on different people, often with the same degree of mobility disability?
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, as my name is also attached to Amendments Nos. 358, 363 and 469 (the freedom pass, which comes a little later), I warmly welcome Amendments Nos. 345 and 346 and t hank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for the way in which he introduced them. I thank the Minister also for being so willing to listen and for the helpful meeting we had with the department the week before last. He came up with sensible and practical solutions. He said that it was right to give a clear signal. He has indeed given a clear signal. The Bill presents us with a great opportunity for improving public and door-to-door transport for people with disabilities. The Minister seized that opportunity most appropriately.
I welcome what the Minister said in relation to Taxicard. It is important to ensure that it continues. I am not a Taxicard user because I am not a resident of London, but I use accessible taxis and it changed my life enormously. I welcome the amendments.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I was grateful for the letter sent to me by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and am glad that he read the contents out to the House. I was not able to attend the last meeting, but the previous one was of great help in discussing this issue. We have had considerable co-operation from his department which we all appreciated.
I particularly like Amendment No. 346. If we have consultation, then the genuine problems will be aired and people will be made aware of whether or not things are working. The timetable in Amendment No. 345 is a practical matter. We all hope and expect to see equal access, on which my noble friend Lord Swinfen commented—Amendment No. 358—but difficulties will arise. For instance, it may not always be possible to install a lift at an underground station.
I draw the Minister's attention to the speech made earlier today by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, when she went into the question of how disability can occur at any age, but is very often linked with old age.

983
The basic freedom passes for everyone are one of the real essentials. They have saved the boroughs an enormous amount of money in terms of social services because they have kept people mobile and enabled them to get around on their own. They are therefore very worthwhile. I believe my noble friend Lord Swinfen, when he referred to freedom passes a moment ago, was speaking of freedom passes for younger people with disabilities or who were disadvantaged rather than those of retiring age.
I have one question for the Minister about freedom passes for people of ordinary retiring age. Some of the boroughs that I have come across are definitely not issuing these passes to men at the same age as applies to women. I know that the European Court took a decision in this respect as regards swimming pools, and so on, and said that equal benefits should be available to men and women at the same age. However, certain boroughs have been a little reluctant to implement the policy. I hope that the GLA will change that and make the age of eligibility for these passes the same for men and women.
I know that there is talk about the retirement age for women being extended to 65, so it is possible that the age of eligibility will go up rather than come down; but it is really an issue of equality. Nevertheless, I support the amendments and thank the Minister again for what he has done on this issue.
6 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Darcy de Knayth and Lady Gardner, are really the experts in this matter. Those of us who have tried to help them in their efforts have never ceased to be astounded by their persistence and endurance in putting forward such matters. I believe that they and those whom they represent have now, to some extent, got their reward for the long hours of hard work. I join with other speakers in thanking the Minister for having listened to these concerns and for having reflected them in these amendments.
I very much welcome the timetable for the implementation of the proposals contained in the transport strategy. That is a small but important addition to the duties of the mayor when proposing and carrying out his strategy. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, mentioned the fact that men and women should be able to obtain a bus pass at the same age. I should point out that this question will be raised later when we reach Amendment No. 468A.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, we on these Benches also believe in comprehensive, enforceable civil rights for all disabled people. The challenge is to ensure that proper provision is made. Therefore, we welcome the Government's amendment, which was moved by the Minister, and the way in which the noble Lord has paid
984
attention to the concerns expressed by my noble friends Lord Swinfen and Lady Gardner of Parkes and by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I appreciate the comments from noble Lords about these two amendments, which are widely acceptable and which will, undoubtedly, send a clear signal to the mayor about the priority that he needs to give to those with mobility and accessibility problems of all sorts, especially the disabled. I believe that both amendments were generally supported, although the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, drew us into an area which will actually be addressed later in our proceedings with his own amendment and, indeed, with others from the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas.
Perhaps I may say a few words here in that respect because, clearly, there is an overlap. There is indeed concern about the future of concessionary travel arrangements and the freedom pass. The Bill provides for the existing scheme to continue. Decisions on eligibility are currently with the boroughs. I understand that GLAD has undertaken research on this to ascertain where there are differential areas, and it will be necessary for us to consider the outcome.
However, the Bill also provides for the boroughs to set up a joint committee on the future of the scheme which will, of itself, lead to a more comprehensive and integrated approach. Such a committee will take votes by way of qualified majority voting, but I shall explain that in more detail when we reach that part of the Bill. Although we are not directly imposing a single scheme through the authority, the boroughs will still have the prime responsibility. I believe that that mechanism may well prove to deliver many of the objectives sought by the noble Lord and by other speakers who have taken part in this debate.
I turn now to the question of the retirement age. This is a somewhat wider question and one to which we shall return. In this particular scheme—probably in all schemes—it is the case that eligibility is linked to retirement age. That is probably a wider problem, which can be resolved either now or when we come to deal with the appropriate amendment.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 346:
Page 70, line 28, at end insert—
("(3A) In preparing or revising the transport strategy the Mayor shall consult'—

(a) the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, and

(b) such other persons or bodies which represent the interests of persons with mobility problems as he considers it appropriate to consult;

and this subsection is without prejudice to section 34 above.").
Clause 128 [Directions by the Secretary of State]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 347::
Page 70, line 36, leave out ("direct") and insert ("request").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 348 and 349, all of which relate to making the

985
Secretary of State's powers a matter of "request" rather than of direction. Amendments Nos. 350 and 351 tabled by the Conservative Front Bench are included in this grouping, the first of which proposes to make a direction by the Secretary of State subject to a veto by the assembly. The second amendment, Amendment No. 351, proposes to delete Clause 128 entirely. I should say that I fully support their approach to the clause.
We moved a similar amendment in Committee. At that stage, I asked why it was necessary to have such a provision in the Bill given the fact that the provisions of Clause 33(5) require the mayor to bring national policies into his strategy. Clause 128 deals with the situation where the transport strategy is inconsistent with national policies relating to transport and that inconsistency is detrimental to an area outside London.
I also pointed out in Committee that, if areas outside London were affected by the mayor's strategy, it seemed to me that he should be negotiating directly with those concerned. We would expect adjoining local authorities to undertake neighbourly discussions—I do not believe that other local authorities are subject to specific direction in quite this way—if one starts on a course which might affect its neighbour. I make this point quite seriously. It seems to me that the very process of negotiation is part of policy development. I do not believe that it is healthy for a local authority to be subject to direction by some other body or person who says, "You shall not do that". It would be much better if authorities which have to live together, or live next to one another, were to work out a way of doing so. That view may be regarded by your Lordships as naïve, but I prefer to think of it as optimistic.
The Minister responded in Committee by saying that there is a responsibility on central government to act on behalf of the nation as a whole. He also said—and no doubt will say again—that these are reserve powers. Throughout the course of our proceedings on the Bill we have often heard that it is "inconceivable" that the mayor could do a certain thing, or fail to do so. However, I think it is only inconceivable when we on these Benches, or other opposition Benches, conceive of it. If the mayor and the assembly are so little to be trusted, are the Government really wise to be creating them? I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for explaining my amendments a little, but I should like to expand upon what she said. Clause 128 allows the Secretary of State to direct the mayor to revise the transport strategy if it is inconsistent with national transport policy and detrimental to any area outside Greater London.
Amendment No. 350 provides that no such direction shall take effect if,
"rejected by a resolution of the Assembly".
986
As an alternative—and to tempt the Minister —I have also tabled Amendment No. 351, which proposes to delete this clause. I accept that this might be a little bit of a blunt instrument, but the Secretary of State should not be able to dictate the contents of the transport strategy to the mayor against the wishes of the assembly. For him to be able to do so would undermine the integrity of the authority's strategy for transport in London.
This matter returns to one of our central objections to the overall philosophy of this Bill. If there is to be a London authority it should be a genuine one treated as being composed of responsible adults and not tied to the apron strings of the Secretary of State. I follow absolutely what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has just said about that. The Minister now has a choice of amendments to accept; the only question is which one he will select. He could choose the amendment from the Liberal Democrat. Benches or he could accept one of ours.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, will the Minister explain to your Lordships why he considers it necessary to have this draconian power in relation to transport when Clause 33—which the House has already dealt with which concerns the mayor's strategies—already contains an obligation to ensure that the strategies, including the transport strategy, are consistent with national policies and international obligations? It seems to me that the Government must have in mind something very particular with regard to transport and that if they wish this specific power to be included in relation to transport they seek in effect to be the transport authority for London, and the mayor and the assembly will be a sham.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful to the Opposition for giving me a whole range of possibilities in terms of meeting their objective. I am sure it will disappoint them greatly when I say that I shall not accept any of them.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, that, as I understand the position, the powers in Clause 33 require the mayor to have regard to the need to achieve consistency with national policies. There are no additional powers for the Secretary of State in that clause. The powers with regard to transport are much greater than for any other local authority. Therefore we consider that we need at least reserve powers in t his area. We considered carefully what the balance of power should be between the mayor and the Secretary of State. Let me make it quite clear—as noble Lords' speeches may have elided this—that these powers could not be triggered simply because the Secretary of State thinks the strategy is out of step with national policies. It must be out of step with national policies and be detrimental to areas outside Greater London. Therefore there is a double hurdle to clear before the Secretary of State could use these powers.
One can envisage a situation in which the mayor might pursue an extreme anti-car policy, or indeed an extreme pro-car policy, for the GLA. area, which

987
would undoubtedly have serious effects on neighbouring areas. Essex, for example, might object seriously to such a policy. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that ideally such situations would be sorted out between the Greater London Authority and neighbouring authorities, but where that did not occur and where a neighbouring authority could clearly demonstrate that its interests were being harmed the Secretary of State must have a reserve power to intervene in such extreme circumstances.
I regret that these amendments would remove that ultimate power. I therefore hope that noble Lords will not pursue them. Indeed it would be to the detriment of those areas which immediately surround London—and, potentially, other areas of the country too—if we removed these powers from the Bill, or left the position subject to voluntary action. As I say, I hope that these amendments will not be pursued.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am disappointed but not surprised. I knew that reserve powers for extreme cases would be mentioned. The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, made precisely—but much more carefully—the point that I made about Clause 33. There is no sanction if the mayor breaches Clause 33. That makes one wonder about an awful lot of the Bill. However, I shall not spend time wondering about that as I shall probably tempt the Government to make practically the whole of the Bill subject to directions by the Secretary of State, clause by clause, and we have enough of that as it is. We profoundly disagree with the Government's approach to this matter. Having made that point entirely clear, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 348 to 351 not moved.]
Clause 129 [Duties of London borough councils etc.]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 351A:
Page 71. line 12, at end insert—
("(4) In exercising any functions in relation to the management of roads or traffic in a Royal Park in Greater London the Secretary of State shall have regard to the transport strategy.
(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: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 351A I wish to speak also to the amendments that are grouped with it. This takes us to a new area. However, at two points during the Committee stage we touched on how the Royal Parks relate to the mayor's transport strategy, particularly in relation to highways. We undertook to return to that matter. The government Amendments Nos. 351A, 484ZA and 493D seek to fulfil that undertaking by requiring the Royal Parks Agency to have regard to the mayor's transport strategy and to introduce for the first time a statutory consultation arrangement between the Royal Parks and the local highways authorities. The details are spelt out in the amendments. I hope, therefore, that as noble Lords expressed concerns earlier they will accept that these
988
amendments meet the situation where decisions relating to Royal Parks could undermine borough or GLA strategies in regard to highway transport in particular. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I hope that the Minister can explain this matter further. I have always been concerned about Hyde Park in particular, which is an important traffic artery from the north to the south. Apart from that route there is only Kensington Church Street, where traffic flows in the one direction, and perhaps Park Lane where it flows in both directions. All kinds of steps have been taken in the park to reduce the traffic flow. Consequently the same volume of traffic no longer passes through, but there is now quite a lot of stationary traffic emitting fumes. I know that an underpass has been proposed to solve the problem of the fumes, as people like to walk in the park without breathing in fumes. But who would make a decision on that? I believe that in time there will be demands for traffic relief measures in Hyde Park.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on a most excellent series of amendments. I expressed concern about the omission of such measures previously. I assume that they will mean that those who run the Royal Parks will not be able to close the Mall to traffic for three weeks for resurfacing without consulting someone. The person they may consult may have some professional knowledge as to how that may be done without closing the Mall to traffic for three weeks. As I say, this is an excellent series of amendments.
I have two further comments which I think are relevant. The Royal Parks Agency might appreciate that it would be nice to see speed limits enforced in the parks occasionally. We have a cycling strategy for London. There are a few white lines and a few paths in Hyde Park. However, you get to Hyde Park Corner—thank goodness something is being done about that—and then you try to get through the Mall and down Constitution Hill. Those are wide roads but they have no facilities for cyclists whatsoever. Cars travel extremely fast on those roads. I hope that this measure will provide an opportunity for the best professionals in the GLA to impart some of their knowledge and introduce some modern thinking to the parks agency. I support what has been done in Hyde Park to reduce the speed of traffic. I do not agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, said; I think it is important to reduce traffic speed in a place where there are many pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders. It may be a through route but it behoves car drivers to go at a reasonable speed. I congratulate my noble friend and support the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to correct him.

989
I was not complaining about the speed; I was complaining about the fumes from stationary traffic. That is a rather different matter.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the amendment covers the points raised both in relation to speed and congestion. Although I am taking the amendments together, Amendment No. 493D covers the point raised by my noble friend Lord Berkeley. Where the Royal Parks Agency proposes to carry out anything which is likely to affect a road for which a different authority is the traffic authority—in this case mainly the boroughs of Kensington and Westminster—it must consult with that authority. Similarly the traffic authority must consult the Royal Parks under parallel arrangements. There is no provision in statute or in the regulations covering the Royal Parks which requires that consultation.
We saw a little problem in the Mall a short while ago and, as the noble Baroness said, there are continuing problems in Hyde Park. The amendments are not designed to allow the GLA to somehow override everything the Royal Parks wish to do—they are in a special category—but they should have a duty to consult the local traffic authority and Transport for London.
Clause 137 [Implementation by the Mayor]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 351B:
Page 75, line 36, at end insert—
("( ) Where the Mayor issues a direction 10 a London borough council under subsection (5) above, the council shall comply with the direction.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment which requires a London borough to comply with a direction given by the mayor under Clause 137(5).
The amendment must be right. It would not make sense were we to be in a position where a borough could totally ignore a direction from the mayor in implementing his plans.
Clause 138 [Directions by the Mayor]:
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 352:
Page 75, leave out lines 43 and 44.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 352 I shall speak also to Amendment Nos. 353 to 357 which stand in the names of my noble friends.
The first four amendments seek to delete the power of the mayor to give directions to boroughs in respect of certain functions which we believe should be dealt with by the boroughs. This makes clear who is elected to do what and the public would continue to see who is responsible for the different areas within the different tiers of government.
We believe that the kind of detail that is proposed will cloud the issue. The mayor's role should be visionary, enabling and strategic. As drafted, the Bill enables the mayor to direct borough councils in great detail. Without our amendments that power will remain in the Bill. It will simply encourage the mayor to become involved in the kind of functions that rightly belong to the borough.
Under Clause 138(1)(a) the mayor has the power to give general directions—that is fine—but Clause 138(1)(b) enables him to give specific directions of the way in which a borough is to exercise those functions. We believe that the way in which a borough implements a strategy should be a matter for the borough.
It gets worse. Under Clause 138(2)(b) the mayor has the power to dictate to a borough which bodies or persons must be consulted about a local implementation plan. He is not suggesting to boroughs who might be consulted; he is telling boroughs who must be consulted. Similar considerations apply in Clause 138(2)(e) where the mayor may direct the borough to implement proposals within a certain time. This kind of detail is a disincentive for the public to regard London boroughs as being accountable. It will encourage the mayor to fiddle in detail.
The issue was discussed in Committee on 28th June. The Minister said that the local implementation plans would be the key to successful implementation. Clause 130 defines in broad terms who the boroughs should work with and who to consult. Clause 131 clearly indicates to the boroughs that the mayor will not approve their implementation plans unless a number of criteria are fulfilled. There follow five pages in the Bill which deal with what will happen if the boroughs fail to comply. The Government added to this in Committee by the addition of Clause 132. We tried to be more positive at that point by moving Amendment No. 247A, which stated that the mayor shall approve a local implementation plan if he considers that it meets the criteria set out in subsection (3). The spirit of that amendment in Committee was correct but the Government were not able to accept it.
We believe that if the Government wish to stick by their guns and require the mayor to issue all these directions to the borough councils, at least he should consult the assembly before so doing. Amendment No. 356 seeks to achieve this. Perhaps more importantly, the mayor should consult the borough councils. Even if it is an informal consultation, it should be on the face of Bill that he consults borough councils before he issues directions, which are inflexible and detailed to the point of telling the boroughs which people they should consult.
At a time when the Government are pinning so much on best value, consultation, public opinion panels and encouraging borough councils to go down this road, it will undermine the spirit of that approach if the mayor directs exactly who should be consulted by the boroughs. One hopes that by the time the mayor issues his implementation plan to the boroughs they

991
will have carried out a lot of work on public consultation, perhaps far more than they have to date. We feel the amendments are important. I beg to move.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. No doubt we will be told by the Minister that these provisions are here for extreme cases where borough councils do not do their job properly. However, that ignores the temptation that these powers will be to the mayor, perhaps to members of the assembly, and, more importantly, to their officials. The temptation to meddle will be enormous.
If the Greater London Authority is to be properly strategic, as the noble Baroness said, it has to stay out of details such as this. When it is given specific power to get down to this kind of detailed level, inevitably it will. We shall see a return to some of the worst features of previous structures of local government in London.
Without doubt, there was a patronising attitude in County Hall among members of all parties, and officers in particular: the belief that London borough councils were good for dealing with allotments; they might possibly be capable of dealing with pedestrian crossings provided no traffic flowed over them; but, apart from that, all matters should be dealt with by the real experts—both members and officers—at County Hall. I suspect that enshrining in this legislation the ability of the mayor—who no doubt will be pressured by his officers and the assembly members—to deal in this way with local implementation plans will prove to be an unmitigated disaster. It should be resisted and I urge noble Lords to support the amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, this group of amendments seeks to change the reserve powers which we consider would, in extreme circumstances, be needed in order to deliver the transport strategy. We envisage, as noble Lords have said, that the mayor will work closely with boroughs in order to deliver the strategy. But we believe that the mayor should have effective powers. These amendments would have the effect of frustrating the ability of the mayor to require boroughs to produce local implementation plans to carry forward the strategic transport strategy.
We believe that anything that undermines the system of local implementation plans strikes at the heart of the mayor's transport powers. I hope that we have made clear in everything we have said to date about the relationship between the mayor and the boroughs that we see it as absolutely vital that the two parties work together closely, co-operating, consulting and improving London's transport. We have made it clear that the spirit and principle of subsidiarity applies and that matters that can be done should be done at the appropriate level. That is why, for example, it is only right that the boroughs will have 95 per cent of London's roads because they are best placed to deal with local matters that arise in respect of such roads. We listened extremely carefully to the
992
representations of the boroughs and the Association of London Government and we are now amending the Bill on Report to provide for the concept of GLA side roads.
One theme which has been made clear through all our policies right back to the Green Paper and the White Paper is that if the GLA is to be a successful strategic authority for London, and to tackle transport issues at a pan—London level, it must have adequate powers to deal with wider initiatives. For example, matters which straddle more than one borough. I know that all sides of your Lordships' House would not want to see bus routes which cannot be implemented because they straddle more than one borough.
As we have said before, the mayor's strategy will set out a framework within which boroughs, the Mayor and TfL can work together. However, I have to say that in the event of problems or delays in one particular area, Londoners cannot afford to have important transport issues potentially bogged down in long-drawn-out wrangling because there is no mechanism for resolution. The powers of the mayor in the clauses on local implementation plans are carefully designed to deal with that eventuality. The powers are set within a broad framework that anticipates co-operation, mutual consultation and a spirit of joint working between mayor and boroughs. However, at the end of the day there must be powers in the plans for the mayor to settle things in the interests of Londoners.
I hope that, in the light of my reply, noble Lords will feel that the amendments should not be pursued.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. I thank also the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, for his support and for reminding us of some of the important lessons of history. The Minister said that these powers were likely to be called upon only in extreme circumstances, but I do not feel that what we are seeking to delete from the Bill would be likely, in extremis, to help solve anything if things should come to such a pass.
The spirit of including such detail in the Bill cuts across what the Minister has said on the principle of subsidiarity, with which I heartily agree—it is a good principle to hold. I am sad therefore that the provisions are to be left on the face of the Bill. The Government have put in place sufficient powers to address failing boroughs by many other means, not least in the recent local government Bill.
However, I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said and I shall read her comments again. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 353 to 359 not moved.]
Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 360:
Before Schedule 8, insert the following new schedule—
("AMENDMENTS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE ACT 1992
Introduction
1. Chapter IVA of Part I of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (which relates to limitation of council tax and precepts and which was inserted by Schedule 1 to the Local Government Act 1999) shall be amended as follows.
Challenge of maximum amount after designation for year under consideration
2.—(1) Section 52F shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (6)(a) for "70 and 71" there shall be substituted " 71 and 72".
(3) In subsection (6)(b) for "80" there shall be substituted " 81".
Duty of designated precepting authority
3.—(1) Section 52J shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(a) for "70, 71 and 73 to 75 of and Schedule 6" there shall be substituted " 71, 72 and 74 to 76 of and Schedule 6".
(3) In subsection (3)—

(a) in paragraph (a) for "73(2)" there shall be substituted " 74(2)", and

(b) in paragraph (h) for "74(3)" there shall be substituted " 75(3)".

(4) In subsection (6)—

(a) for "73(2)" (in both places where it occurs) there shall be substituted " 74(2)",

(b) for "74(3)" there shall be substituted " 75(3)", and

(c) for "74(4)" there shall be substituted " 75(4)".

(5) In subsection (8)—

(a) in paragraph (a) for "73(2)" there shall be substituted " 74(2)", and

(b) in paragraph (b) for "74(4)" there shall be substituted " 75(4)".

(6) In subsection (9)—

(a) for "73 and 74" there shall be substituted " 74 and 75", and

(b) for "74(2)" there shall be substituted " 75(2)".

(7) In subsection (10)(b)—

(a) for "73(3)(b)" there shall be substituted " 74(3)(b)" and

(b) for "74(5)(b)" there shall be substituted " 75(5)(b)".

Challenge of maximum amount after designation under section 52M or 52P
4.—(1) Section 52Q shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (5)(a) for "70 and 71" there shall be substituted " 71 and 72".
(3) in subsection (5)(b) for "80" there shall be substituted " 81".
Duty of designated precepting authority
5.—(1) Section 52U shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsections (2)(a) and (3)(a) for "70 to 75" there shall be substituted " 71 to 76".
(3) In subsection (3)(b) for "70, 71 and 73 to 75 of and Schedule 6" there shall be substituted " 71, 72 and 74 to 76 of and Schedule 6".
(4) In subsection (6)—

(a) in paragraph (a) for "73(2)" there shall be substituted " 74(2)", and

(b) in paragraph (b) for "74(3)" there shall be substituted " 75(3)".

(5) In subsection (9)—

(a) for"73(2)"(in both places where it occurs) there shall be substituted " 74(2)",

(b) for "74(3)" there shall be substituted " 75(3)", and

(c) for "74(4)" there shall be substituted 75(4)".

(6) In subsection (11)—

(a) for "73(2)" there shall be substituted "74(2)", and

(b) for "74(4)" there shall be substituted " 75(4)".

(7) In subsection (12)—

(a) for "73 and 74" there shall be substituted " 74 and 75", and

(b) for "74(2)" there shall be substituted " 75(2)".

(8) In subsection (13)(b)—

(a) for "73(3)(b)" there shall be substituted " 74(3)(b)", and

(b) for "74(5)(b)" there shall be substituted " 75(5)(b)".

Meaning of budget requirement
6. In section 52W(2) for "70(8)" there shall be substituted " 71(8)".").
Schedule 8 [Transport for London]:
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 361:
Page 231, line 21, at end insert—
("( ) The Mayor shall not be a member of Transport for London.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 362 and 366. The amendments seek to remove the possibility that the mayor could be a member of Transport for London. Amendment No. 366 completes that process by removing the requirement that the mayor, if he is a member of Transport for London, is to be its chairman. Obviously those two points would —not be consistent.
On the fifth day in Committee I moved amendments to bring together the assembly and the mayor in order to appoint the members of TfL, as reported at col. 470 of Hansard. Subsequently I tabled another amendment to remove the requirement that the mayor should be the chair of TfL. Later the Committee discussed the problems which could arise if the appeals system in respect of granting bus contracts involved an appeal to the mayor from the decision of TfL. I acknowledge that this concern at least has attracted a response from the Government, as reflected in their Amendment 410, but I am not sure that it addresses the full measure of our concern. That concern principally relates to the provisions of the Bill which the amendments before the House seek to remove.
On reflection, we concluded that the clarity of the different roles of the mayor and Transport for London would be enhanced if the mayor were not a member of Transport for London at all; hence the amendments. However, we have not again attempted to prevent the mayor from appointing the members of Transport for London, having seen the force of the noble Baroness's argument on the matter. However, in an arrangement where the mayor will take the strategic lead on a range of different issues, and an extremely detailed system of delegation is written into the Bill, it seems undesirable for the mayor to be personally in charge of the

995
implementation of one of his strategies. It would tend to blur the role of the mayor; it may potentially involve her or him in undesirable personal conflict with the boroughs on matters of detail; and it may make it more difficult for the mayor to maintain a public stance as a strategic leader of a great city. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, has raised an interesting point, but I am not sure what is the best answer. There are advantages, but there are also disadvantages. It should be noted that if the mayor is a member of TfL, by virtue of Schedule 8 on page 232 of the Bill, he must be its chairman. Interestingly, the schedule refers to "chairman" and "deputy chairman".
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl will not be reopening that argument. I regret that we disagree with the noble Baroness on this point. Transport is such a significant issue in London that we believe that the mayor should have the option of deciding whether to engage directly in TfL himself, and if he does so, then it would be appropriate that he or she should be the chair.
Whichever of the amendments of the noble Baroness one considers, that option would be removed. That would place too great a political constraint on the mayor's decision—making and priorities. For that reason, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendments.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I have to say that we are in dispute with the Government on a matter of principle. The position of the mayor will be weakened if he or she is overly involved in day—to—day implementation of the strategy. However, I do not think that I will get anywhere with this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 362 and 363 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 364:
Page 232, line 2, after ("London") insert ("(including conditions as to remuneration)").
[Amendment No. 365 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 366 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 366A:
Page 232, line 40, at end insert—
("(ba) any wholly owned subsidiary (within the meaning of section 736(2) of the Companies Act 1985) of Transport for London,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 366B, 372 to 375, 375D, 376 to 380, 383, 384, 386, 392 to 394, 396A to 396E, 434 to 439, 447, 463, 466, 470, 528, 571, 578 and 576. This is a fairly large group
996
of amendments. They are largely technical in nature and make adjustments and additions to the powers of TfL to fit in with other parts of the Bill.
Amendment No. 366A enables TfL to delegate its functions to sub-committees and other bodies. Amendment No. 366B deals with the ability of TfL to engage in joint committees. Amendments Nos. 376 to 378 and 386 place a duty on TfL to provide information to the public about London public transport services. That issue was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, in Committee. The amendments also give TfL a number of additional powers, including, in Amendment No. 380, the ability to provide intermodal freight facilities, a point raised by my noble friend Lord Berkeley in Committee. Other powers conferred by the amendments give the mayor the power to distribute property rights and liabilities among TfL, its subsidiaries and PPP companies; to provide for the tax status quo to continue; to enable TfL to join with boroughs to discharge functions through joint committees; to give TfL power to make by-laws for its railways and piers; and to give TfL the power to run the London Transport Museum.
The group also contains a number of minor technical and typographical amendments further clarifying TfL's functions and London Transport's existing powers on disposals and transfer schemes. I regret to say that it is possible that we may need to make some further minor changes in that light at Third Reading but I hope that we can keep those to an absolute minimum. I trust that the House will accept these amendments. But should noble Lords have any queries on any of the amendments, I shall endeavour to elucidate. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, this is an enormous and largely unrelated group of amendments. My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith will speak after me on this point. We shall have to see how the Bill looks after the Report stage. We reserve the right to return to these matters at a later stage.
The Minister mentioned Amendment No. 439, which allows the mayor to approve schemes for the transfer of key system assets between TfL, subsidiaries of TfL, PPP companies or PPP third parties. The power in relation to the PPP company or third party is subject to the provisions of the relevant PPP agreement. However, it is not immediately clear whether the assets involved have to be key systems assets under that agreement or whether they can be taken out of one PPP agreement with X limited and put into a second agreement with Y limited. I am not sure whether the noble Lord has the answer at his fingertips. Perhaps he will write to me on that point.
Amendment No. 447 introduces a new schedule. Paragraph 11 of that schedule introduces a bizarrely draconian power for TfL to demand information it requires from anyone. Why? If the property being transferred is from TfL to someone else, presumably TfL will already have that information. If it is in relation to a PPP company, the governing PPP agreement should already have dealt with that point.

997
Will Paragraph 11 not enable TfL to go on fishing expeditions for information? Irrespective of the underlying purpose of Paragraph 11, we will be tabling amendments at a later stage to insert a confidentiality provision. I look forward to the Minister's explanation of Paragraph 11.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, such a large grouping is a temptation. I regret to inform the House that I have fallen into temptation. I have one or two questions for the Minister.
Amendment No. 375 inserts a new clause. It states:
"The Secretary of State may by order made with the consent of the Treasury provide that Transport for London",
and so on. I presume that the consent of Parliament will also be required for the order. It would be interesting to know whether that is to be by affirmative or negative procedure. I regret that I have not had the time adequately to research which way round the procedure will be. I am taking the liberty of asking the Minister for that information.
I find Amendment No. 386 very curious indeed. It states:
"Transport for London shall make available such information as it thinks fit which … relates to public passenger transport services".
It continues:
"The information shall be made available, in such manner as Transport for London thinks fit, to … the general public".
It then goes on to refer to,
"such other persons as Transport for London thinks fit".
I am curious to know from the Minister who these "other persons" are who are not the general public. I can think of one person, but only one. I think that the drafting is a little curious on that point.
Amendment No. 447 introduces yet another schedule to the Bill. The Bill really is growing like Topsy. Having read the schedule, I found myself trying to understand it. The second part of the schedule is headed Contents of transfer schemes. Is states:
"The property, rights and liabilities which may be transferred by a transfer scheme include property, rights and liabilities which would not otherwise be capable of being transferred or assigned".
I should be grateful for an explanation of precisely what that means.
Sub-paragraph (2) states:
"No right of reverter, right of pre-emption, right of forfeiture, right of re-entry … shall operate or become exercisable as a result of any transfer of land or other property by virtue of a transfer scheme, or any instrument or agreement made in connection with a transfer scheme".
I should like an explanation of exactly what that convoluted phraseology might mean. I think I know what it means, but my thoughts are very hesitant indeed.
If I detected a common theme throughout this rather diverse grouping, it was finally destroyed—dare I say? —by Amendment No. 528, dealing with the transfer and disposal of historical records and relics. Although I accept that historical records and relics are
998
in a sense property, I could not see what that had to do with this grouping. My thought was: what have I missed, and what are the Government trying to hide? I am sure that the Minister and the Government are not trying to hide anything from us. I trust that the noble Lord will forgive my suspicious nature. However, I should be grateful for answers to the questions that I have posed.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I welcome the amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, drew attention. It enables TfL to provide interchange facilities for freight transport. It is a most useful addition to the Bill.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I was able to follow some of the issues raised; on others, I fear that I shall have to write to noble Lords. Perhaps I may deal with them in the sequence in which the matters arise in the Bill.
In regard to Amendment 386 and the question of who are the "general public", the term "persons" refers to organisations; "general public" tends to imply individuals. Such organisations may include departments or other institutions with which TfL needs to maintain information flows.
A question arises as to which assets are referred to in Amendment No. 439 and what can be done with those assets. First, perhaps I may explain that the provisions in these amendments protect the assets of TfL. We are talking about key system assets. The amendments are necessary to ensure that designated assets can he returned to the public sector at the end of PPP contracts. They provide TfL with the flexibility to manage structural organisation of the PPP contracts. By and large, those contracts will be in the region of 30 years' duration. Transfer from one PPP to another is unlikely, but it is not entirely impossible. The amendments require the return of those designated assets to TfL at the end of that period.
Paragraph 11 of Amendment No. 447 is necessary to ensure that up-to-date information about the assets is available to TfL. Any information will be included in the original PPP agreements, as the noble Lord suggested. But that information may change over time. A PPP agreement lasting 30 years may require the PPP company to provide different information from that required at the beginning of the contract.
The last amendment referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, related to the London Transport museum and other historical areas. We regard it as part of the function of TfL to provide background on the development of transport within London and more broadly. We have therefore included that provision to give it the authority to do so. Both in relation to the museum and in relation to archival material on transport in general, that needs to be explicit in statute. There have been examples in the past where it has not been explicit and such material has been lost to posterity.

999
I shall have to write to the noble Lord in regard to his reference to an order with the authority of the Treasury. There was one other point where, I regret to say, I completely lost the noble Lord. I shall therefore need to reply in writing.
As to the coherence of this group of amendments—which may not be apparent at a casual glance, or even on detailed perusal—they clarify the overall powers for Tfl, in this and related clauses of the Bill. We need to pin it down in a number of respects. Some powers are relatively minor. Some, like that referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, which was also raised at an earlier stage by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, are important powers. Some are tidying up provisions. Nevertheless, we are attempting to put in place a coherent, final picture of TfL's responsibilities. I believe that the amendments achieve that. I shall write to noble Lords on outstanding issues. I commend the amendments to the House.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 366B:
Page 233, line 29, at end insert
("Joint committees with local authorities
8A. —(1) Transport for London shall be treated as a local authority for the purposes of the following provisions of the Local Government Act 1972 (arrangements for discharge of functions of a local authority by joint committees with other local authorities)—

(a) section 101(5),

(b) section 102 apart from subsection (1)(a) and subsection (4) to the extent that it would permit Transport for London to appoint a committee which is not a joint committee, and

(c) section 103.

(2) Nothing in section 13 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 shall require a person to be treated as a nonvoting member of a committee appointed by Transport for London and one or more other local authorities by virtue of section 101(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 if that person is—

(a) appointed to the committee by Transport for London, and

(b) is not a member of Transport for London.").

The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 367, I should inform the House that, if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 368 to 370A.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 367:
Page 234, line 17, leave out from ("any") to end of line 26 and insert ("matter that is brought up for consideration at a meeting of Transport for London he shall disclose the nature of the interest to the meeting; and, where such a disclosure is made —

(a) the disclosure shall be recorded in the minutes of the meeting; and

(b) the member shall not take any part in any deliberation or decision of Transport for London, or any of its committees or sub—committees, with respect to that matter.

1000
(2) A member need not attend in person at a meeting of Transport for London in order to make a disclosure which he is required to make under this paragraph if he takes reasonable steps to secure that the disclosure is made by a notice which is read and considered at the meeting.
(2A) The Mayor may, subject to such conditions as he considers appropriate, remove any disability imposed by virtue of this paragraph in any case where the number of members of Transport for London disabled by virtue of this paragraph at any one time would be so great a proportion of the whole as to impede the transaction of business.
(2B) The power of the Mayor under sub—paragraph (2A) above includes power to remove, either indefinitely or for any period, a disability which would otherwise attach to any member, or members of any description, by reason of such interests, and in respect of such matters, as may be specified or described by the Mayor.
(2C) Where the Mayor exercises the power under subparagraph (2A) above to remove a disability—

(a) he shall notify Transport for London that he has done so, and of his reasons for doing so, and

(b) the removal of the disability and the Mayor's reasons shall be recorded in the minutes of Transport for London.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak to the remaining amendments in this group. Amendments Nos. 367A to 367E stand in my name.
When we discussed the question of members' interests in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, expressed concerns about the scope for members of TfL to take part in discussions on matters in which they had a direct interest. The noble Baronesses, Lady Thomas and Lady Carnegy of Lour, also expressed concerns in the light of that debate. We explained that the Government agreed that the current provisions were probably too widely drawn and that we should be considering our own amendments.
Amendment No. 367 fulfils that undertaking by altering the requirements for TfL members to disclose interests and take part in discussions of such interests. The new arrangements are basely largely on those that already prevail in the Environment Agency.
Amendment No. 371 is a technical amendment to remove an unnecessary reference to allowances—members of TfL will in fact be paid rather than receive allowances.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, has tabled some amendments to which I shall reply in the course of this debate. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 367, Amendment No. 367A:
Line 14, leave out ("Mayor") and insert ("Chair").
The noble Baroness said: I gave the Minister notice of these amendments. One can get into rather a muddle explaining these kinds of proposals, and I thought it would be useful for the Minister to know in advance the points that I was trying to make. First, I should reassure the House that the amendments do not reopen the role of the mayor vis-à-vis Transport for London, which I dealt with in a previous group of amendments.
My concern is with the wording of the amendment moved by the Minister. It could be deceptive. I assume that the amendment is designed to allow the chair of TfL, whoever that may be, to remove the inability of a member of TfL to take part in discussions or decisions because of a declared interest. That is a power that very often resides in the hands of the chair of a committee, usually with the advice of a legal officer. In my view, it is important to attach that power to the office of chair of TfL, rather than to the office of mayor. The current wording suggests that the mayor will waive the limitation placed on the member of TfL, whether or not the mayor is chair of Transport for London. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's helpful amendment, which is similar in content to what the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, suggested at Committee stage. The new sub—paragraph (2B) appears to allow the mayor to remove the disability for an individual member. I assume I am correct on that point. That is an improvement on the original subparagraph (2) because the mayor now has to remove the disability rather than apply it, if he sees the need. Our amendments are a little tougher than the Minister's amendment, but I shall not move them. I am grateful to the Minister for going a long way to meet our concerns.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful for that support and can confirm that the noble Earl's interpretation of sub—paragraph (2B) is correct.
When the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, first raised the issue with me, I thought that that was what I intended. I am now informed that that was not my intention at all. The intention behind the clause and putting the power in the hands of the mayor is to put the mayor in the same situation as the Secretary of State, as to whether or not he or she exercises the option of being chair of TfL. It is the same position as with the Secretary of State in relation to the Environment Agency. In other words, we are dealing with a priori disqualifications or otherwise, not problems which arise in the course of a meeting. Those would have to be dealt with by the chair on an ad hoc basis, whoever the chair may be.
It is the mayor's statutory right, as it is the right of the Secretary of State in the case of the Environment Agency, to decide on the issue of disclosure of interest. That was what was intended in the clause. Therefore, the arrangement does not mean that the person who can lift the disablement—that is, the mayor—can be present at the meeting. As with the Environment Agency, the Secretary of State is not normally present at such a meeting. The intention behind the clause is slightly different from what I previously assumed it to be, as did the noble Baroness. However, I hope that in the light of that she can withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, that was an interesting and straightforward explanation of what the clause means. However, it raises the question why one would appoint anyone to be a member of TfL
1002
whose conflicting interests are so great that they require the mayor, acting as the Secretary of State might do in other circumstances with other bodies, to give that person some permanent exemption from the disadvantage or limitations on his activities as a member which would otherwise arise from his interests.
It would be better to take the noble Lord's new amendment away and examine it in the light of what he said and return, either informally with the Minister or more formally at Third Reading. We shall then have thoroughly taken on board exactly what the new clause means. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw our amendment to the noble Lord's amendment.
Amendment No. 367A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 367, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 367B to 367E, as amendments to Amendment No. 367, not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, by virtue of that agreement. Amendments Nos. 368 to 370A fall.
7 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 371:
Page 234, line 38. leave out sub-paragraph (6).
Clause 141 [General powers]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 372 and 373:
Page 78, line 2, leave out ("(3)(a)") and insert ("(3)"
Page 78, line 22, leave out ("(3)(a)") and insert ("(3)").
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 374:
Page 78, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, Transport for London may not acquire any interest in a company whose shares are quoted on a recognised stock exchange (within the meaning of section 841 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988) or traded on any public market (any such company being in this subsection a "quoted company").
( ) Where Transport for London acquires an interest in a company which subsequently becomes a quoted company then it shall be permitted such period of time as is reasonable: in all the circumstances (being a period not exceeding 2 years beginning on the day when such company first becomes a quoted company) to dispose of such holding for the best price as may be obtainable. and during such period such company shall not be regarded for the purposes of this Part as a company in which Transport for London holds an interest.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 374, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 382. In Committee, the Government dropped an original provision requiring the consent of the Secretary of State to any acquisitions. We welcome that sensible approach. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, indicated in Committee that there was no intention of allowing re-nationalisation or nationalisation of any company by the back door or otherwise. The amendments seek to help the Government by putting the issue beyond doubt.
The prohibition on holding listed shares will avoid the risk of TfL being tempted to speculate on the stock market. However, it is reasonable as it allows TfL to sell assets for shares. That could possibly occur under a PPP arrangement. TfL may also hold shares in subsidiaries that are privatised.
The reason for the two-year period of grace is that AIM flotations, whatever they are, typically have a two-year lock-in period for significant shareholders. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as they stand, the amendments would curtail the commercial and operational flexibility of TfL. As the noble Earl hinted, the Bill is not designed to facilitate the taking back into public ownership of, for example, privately operated bus companies. My noble friend made that clear in Committee. The transport powers we are giving the mayor are targeted at delivering better transport facilities and services. TfL's power may only be exercisable in this context for the purpose of discharging its functions. That means that TfL, may need to acquire certain services. The powers are not designed to enable the mayor to embark on speculative ventures. It means that TfL cannot play the stock market willy-nilly nor can it significantly extend the means of production, distribution or exchange.
I say that because the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, indicated at an earlier stage that he feared that this would be the means whereby TfL would be able to re-nationalise Railtrack. That is a little far-fetched, given the amount of money that would be required. On the other hand, it is possible that TfL and the mayor might want to acquire an interest in a smaller transport undertaking or in the circumstances where he or she felt that it would be helpful in providing better facilities and services to London. We see no reason why the mayor and TfL should not have the ability to do that. They could only do so in the context of discharging the functions set out in the Bill and in no wider context. I hope that the noble Earl will not pursue the matter because it would restrict the flexibility of TfL.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's response and will read carefully what he said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 375:
After Clause 141, insert the following new clause—
RESTRICTION ON EXERCISE OF CERTAIN POWERS EXCEPT THROUGH A LIMITED COMPANY
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State may by order made with the consent of the Treasury provide that Transport for London shall not carry on such activities as are specified in the order except through a company which is limited by shares and registered under the Companies Act 1985 and which is—

(a) a subsidiary of Transport for London; or

(b) a company which Transport for London formed, or joined with others in forming. by virtue of section 141(1) above and which does not fall within paragraph (a) above.

(2) The specification of an activity in an order under subsection (1) above shall not—

(a) prevent Transport for London from entering into or carrying out under section 141(2) or (3) above an agreement with a person for the carrying on of that activity by that person; or

(b) affect the validity of such an agreement.

(3) If it appears to the Secretary of State that Transport for London is carrying out, or proposes to carry out, otherwise than in compliance with an order under subsection (I) above any activities specified in such an order—

(a) the Secretary of State may give a direction to Transport for London requiring it to comply with the order within such period as may be specified for the purpose in the order; and

(b) Transport for London shall be under a duty to comply with such a direction.

(4) If Transport for London does not comply with a direction under subsection (3) above in the case of an activity to which the direction relates, Transport for London shall be treated in respect of the carrying out of that activity as not being a local authority for the purposes of—

(a) section 519 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (exemption of local authorities from income tax and corporation tax); and

(b) section 271 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (exemption of local authorities from capital gains tax).").

Schedule 9 [Miscellaneous powers of Transport for London]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 375A:
Page 235, line 28, leave out from first ("London") to end of line 29.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest. The anxiety that this series of amendments represents is from those who, like the noble Lord, Lord Murray, and myself, live outside the area of Greater London government. We are therefore deprived of a vote in the election of the mayor. Nevertheless, for some time we hope to continue to enjoy (if that is the right word) the services of the Underground. We live in Loughton which is the site of the first station on the Central line that is outside the GLA area. The people of Loughton enjoy the benefits of the service but are not actively involved in the election of the mayor. Although I have lived in Loughton for less than 10 years, there is always a feeling that that which we pay for may be affected by decisions taken on a metropolitan basis.
The purpose of these amendments is not to seek a reassurance but to put down a marker. I know that the Minister cannot speak for the future mayor of London—perhaps even a Labour mayor. He may tell me that the face of the Bill is not the proper place for this amendment. However, what the Minister says on the record in open debate in this House will go a long way. The important words of Amendment No. 375C are:
"shall operate services provided under sub-paragraphs (2)(a) and (b) at the general level, frequency, and cost to the user as did London Regional Transport during 1998, or at improved levels and frequency".
We do not ask for an advantage; we want to guard against being either accidentally or deliberately disadvantaged by the transport policy that is in the gift of the mayor. The Minister will tell us that the face of the Bill is not the place in which to go into nitty-gritty of that kind, and my noble friend and I accept that. However, there have been some bad experiences in the past where those outside this particular remit, but nevertheless affected by it, find themselves at a disadvantage. We are anxious to secure protection from either ignorance or punitive action in the field of transport on the part of anyone with power to do that.
The Minister was kind enough to write to my noble friend Lord Murray of Epping Forest on 27th July. He said that the flexibility of the mayor of London should not be inhibited in these matters. I have no "quabble" with that. "Quibble" is better than "quabble"; a "quabble" is a bit more than a quarrel but not quite as effective as a quibble. I have no quarrel with the general philosophy and division of powers.
We are also heartened by what was written into the Bill by way of amendment in July. Therefore, some of the protections that we seek are already there. As to one of the amendments. which was quite helpful, the Minister writes:
"The significant change is that it will be the mayor who takes the decisions, rather than the Secretary of State. However, in recognition of the position of those outside London, the amendment provides that persons aggrieved by a mayoral decision about discontinuance of services wholly or partly outside London will have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State".
I say to the Minister and the House—because the House approved it—that that is a good safeguard. I do not envisage for a moment that we shall reach that stage, but it is heartening to the people of Loughton, Theydon Bois, Debden and Epping—the stations affected—that if they were aggrieved by the decision of the mayor they would have a fall back. I also welcome the amendment whereby plans for fares and services should be the subject of consultation. One cannot go wrong by seeking advice and guidance from those who are affected in that way.
My noble friend Lord Murray of Epping Forest and I are well satisfied both with the amendments and the Minister's understanding and interpretation of them, but we take this opportunity to ask the Minister to reinforce our understanding that the people whom we seek to represent in this instance will be no worse off. While they do not seek an advantage, they do not want to be disadvantaged in future. I believe that Barnet is also included in those areas that may be affected. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend has done a real service by highlighting an important issue which he anticipates the Minister will be able to deal with satisfactorily. However, there was some doubt which led to my noble friend tabling this amendment. Whether it is a "quabble", quibble or whatever, I believe that my noble friend wants to find
1006
his place in the history books of London. Perhaps he will do so as a result of this. He should not try too hard because he is already there.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I fully accept the noble Lord's point that it is desirable to maintain, or even improve, the current level of services. But suppose that a major employer closes down in an outlying town. Demand for transport services will be reduced, and therefore frequencies may have to be adjusted. I believe that the noble Lord's amendment precludes that. On a more general note, I beheve that it is important to avoid cuts in service that chase falls in demand caused by cuts in service.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, despite the brief absence of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I can assure my noble friend that throughout the passage of this Bill I have always been concerned to protect the interests of the inhabitants of Essex, in particular those who rely on London Transport, and especially my noble friends Lord Graham of Edmonton and Lord Murray of Epping Forest. We have addressed those concerns in the Bill in two ways. First, the mayor's general transport duty will shape the overall approach that he or she takes on transport, including areas beyond London. Secondly, there are detailed provisions in Part IV which safeguard the interests of travellers who live outside the London boundary. I shall deal with those two aspects in turn.
In drawing up the strategy the mayor will have to take account of national policy, including the Government's integrated transport policy. By virtue of Clause 126 the mayor will be under a statutory duty to develop and implement policies for the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport services to, from and within Greater London. That encompasses passengers and customers outside the London boundary.
To deal with the more detailed provisions of Part IV, the powers in Schedule 9, which Transport for London will use to provide public passenger transport services between places outside the Greater London boundary, are very similar to those which London Transport currently has under the London Regional Transport Act 1984. We do not envisage that that situation will change significantly. However, in recognition of the position of those who live outside London, Clause 181 provides that persons aggrieved by a mayoral decision about discontinuance of services wholly or partly outside London will have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. We believe that that approach strikes the right balance between giving the mayor operational control over TfL services and protecting the interests of those who live outside London.
I cannot accept my noble friend's amendments as they stand because, as he indicated, I have already informed him that the mayor will need flexibility to make sensible decisions on the level and provision of transport services. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said that one could not set these things in concrete. Flexibility is required. To specify fare and service levels

1007
on the face of the Bill would deny that flexibility. Incidentally, it will also give the Secretary of State greater powers than the Bill envisages. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will note in that context my resistance to going down that road.
Services beyond the London boundary cannot be seen in isolation from the totality of the operation of the Underground network. Setting service standards in one area will undoubtedly have an effect on the rest of the system. That again will reduce the mayor's ability to cater for changes in travel requirements throughout the system, both in and outside London.
I hope that these reassurances and the others that I gave to my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton and to the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, in writing will reassure them that the interests of those who use the London transport network outside London will be looked after under the new setup. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I certainly intend to withdraw my amendment. I express to the Minister my satisfaction and that of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, who is sitting in his place, that the Minister has gone as far as he can. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, raised the interesting point that there may be normal commercial assessments resulting in a service being reduced because the number of users had declined.
Our amendment refers to the general level, frequency and cost of services. That implies some flexibility. A decline in the number of users means that any community will expect some adjustment.
That leads me to the point made by the Minister that the Bill could not be expected to create exceptional circumstances for the outer London areas. We shall be satisfied provided we receive the same treatment as those within the London boundary. From past experience, we are concerned that opportunities have been taken to treat those living outside the circle in less favourable ways than those inside the boundaries. I can assure the Minister that I am deeply grateful for the care he has taken tonight and previously in correspondence. He has gone a very long way to satisfy our concerns and, I am sure, those of the people we represent. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 375B and 375C not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 375D to 380:
Page 236, line 33. leave out ("(3)(a)") and insert ("(1)(a)").
Page 237, line 41. leave out sub-paragraph (2).
Page 238, line 1, leave out ("means") and insert ("includes").
Page 238, line 3, leave out from ("services") to end of line 4 and insert (", the reservation of seats in vehicles used in the provision of those services and the provision of information about those services to members of the general public").
Page 238, line 23, at end insert ("arising from the activities it carries on in the discharge of its functions.").
1008
Page 238, line 23, at end insert—
("Intermodal freight facilities
13A. Transport for London may provide and maintain facilities for the transfer of freight—

(a) from a railway to any other mode of transport,

(b) to a railway from any other mode of transport,

(c) from a waterway to any other mode of transport,

(d) to a waterway from any other mode of transport.").

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 381:
Page 238. line 25, after ("land") insert ("except operational land").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 388 to 390 and Amendment No. 524. This is a difficult series of amendments. They deal with the sale of operational land by Transport for London and with an issue that we raised at an earlier stage; namely, the need for people to know how much land, major interests and buildings will be left in the hands of TfL after the transitional period.
Amendment No. 381 would limit the ability of Transport for London to develop its land as it thinks fit. That is a very broadly based power. The amendment excludes from the power operational land. Amendments Nos. 388 to 390 all amend Clause 146 which deals with restrictions on the ability of Transport for London and the authority to dispose of land. In particular, neither organisation can dispose of operational land without the consent of the Secretary of State.
Amendment No. 388 provides that land must have ceased to be operational for 10 rather than five years before the Secretary of State's consent is no longer required for a sale. Amendment No. 389 limits the power of the Secretary of State to vary that length of time, but not to increase it. In other words, the Secretary of State cannot permit the sale of land which has been out of operation for less than 10 years. Amendment No. 524 allows that after the transitional period during which Transport for London is established, a list of the interests in land and buildings owned by Transport for London shall be available for inspection at its office. That is quite a severe modification of the amendment which we put forward at Committee stage when in effect we said that everything that Tf1_, owned should be listed. Now we only require interests in land and buildings to be so listed.
Arguably the most important amendment is Amendment No. 390 which amends Clause 146. It sets out a series of conditions which Transport for London and the authority have to meet before they can dispose of operational land under the Secretary of State's dispensation. Neither organisation can dispose of its interests unless it has been given not less than four months' notice of its intention to make such a disposal. In addition, that information should be made available to the London borough councils, the Common Council and bodies providing public passenger transport services. Whoever disposes of

1009
such land should have full regard to all the responses made by any of these bodies, including any proposal for acquired land. Finally, Transport. for London shall prepare, and keep available for inspection, a list of its freehold and other interests in operational and nonoperational land and buildings.
We put forward similar amendments at the previous stage of the Bill. We were correctly reprimanded by the Minister, who pointed out that the amendments had been put into the wrong series of c].auses. I believe I have corrected that mistake.
Perhaps I may explain how the conditions in Amendment No. 390 have been selected. They reflect the conditions which the Secretary of State has now put on British Rail Holdings and Railtrack in the disposal of their land. We know that the disposal of former railway land has been a matter of great contention since privatisation. The reason is very obvious; namely, that there is not very much land available on which, without any real difficulty, the track and other requirements for increasing the infrastructure of the rail system can be developed.
Our contention is that the same worries will accumulate around the relatively small parcels of land which are currently in the ownership of London Transport and which will be conveyed to Transport for London. The purpose of these amendments is to make sure that Transport for London will be unable to emulate BRB by selling land without anyone knowing how much had been sold and what the pieces of land were. In this amendment we are applying the same conditions to Transport for London at the outset as the Secretary of State has now applied to BRB and Railtrack. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the issues raised by the noble Baroness are complex. I cannot accept Amendment No. 381. We certainly want TfL to maximise the transport use of its operational land but we do not want unnecessarily to restrict the way it does that. The amendment would prevent TfL from developing operational land for any purpose, including transport. TfL should be free to develop its land as it thinks fit, in the same way as London Regional Transport does now so that the revenue from development can be reinvested in transport. We have included in the Bill measures to protect operational land.
On Amendments Nos. 388 and 389, Clause 146 also provides that the Secretary of State's consent is not required if the land in question has stopped being operational land for at least five years. The Secretary of State can, by order, vary the five-year period up or down. Amendments Nos. 388 and 389 would lengthen the period from five years to 10 and restrict the Secretary of State's power to vary the period so that it could only be lengthened, not shortened.
As noble Lords will recall, the provisions which are the subject of the noble Baroness's amendments were inserted by the Government in Committee so that the Bill now provides that former operational land can be
1010
disposed of without the Secretary of State's consent after a period of five years. That five-year period can be varied up or down.
We think that five years is a reasonable period. It strikes the right balance between safeguarding transport assets and giving TfL a degree of flexibility. However, the noble Baroness may have a point with Amendment No. 389 which provides that the Secretary of State can only lengthen the five-year period. I am therefore prepared to consider this point and, it is to be hoped, return to it at Third Reading.
Amendment No. 390 would require TfL to give at least two months' notice of any proposal to sell operational land. The noble Baroness has drawn a parallel here with last month's announcement by my noble friend Lord Macdonald about British Rail property sales. But the situation with BR is different from TfL. BR is no longer directly involved in railway operations and its residual property holdings and is not constrained in its property dealings in the same way as TfL will by other provisions in the Bill. TfL, on the other hand, will operate a live railway. Under Clause 146, it will be restricted from offering operational land for permanent disposal. The situations are different.
Amendment No. 390 would require TfL to prepare and keep available for inspection a list of its interests in operational and non-operational land. Amendment No. 524 would require TfL to provide a list of property interests.
During our debates in Committee, the noble Baroness tabled an amendment which would have required the Secretary of State, prior to the establishment of TfL, to publish a list of all property. In the debate it became clear that the noble Baroness's interests were more narrowly focused. I indicated at the time that it might still be a substantial and complex task to identify all major sites but undertook to consider the point further. Although I cannot accept these two amendments as they stand, I hope that I can now respond to those issues.
We have carefully studied the arguments made in earlier debates. We agree on the importance of clarity on the land that will transfer at that point to TfL. I can therefore agree in principle that we shall arrange for the publication of such details at the point prior to land transferring to TfL.
But as I mentioned previously, it would be impractical and probably disproportionate to compile a list of all assets, including the most minor. We propose, therefore, to concentrate on major land assets. That will require definition, but that is the intention. I shall keep the House informed of our proposals.
However, we do not think it is necessary 1 o require TfL to maintain a list of property for public inspection, as envisaged in subsection (4D) of Amendment No. 390. To do so would place a more onerous requirement on TfL than on local authorities elsewhere. In any event, if TfL were to want to dispose of any land asset it would be in TfL's interests to circulate details widely so as to obtain the

1011
best price. And, as I mentioned earlier in this debate, any proposals to dispose of operational land will be made public by means of Parliament's consideration of any consent which the Secretary of State intends to give. Moreover, the assembly will be able to require TfL to provide details of TfL property holdings, if it so chooses. Such information would have to be made public unless it was commercially sensitive.
Similarly, we see no need for Amendment No. 524, but I hope that the noble Baroness will be reassured by our commitment that, in addition to the publication of details of major land assets which TfL will have on its establishment, we shall arrange for the publication of details of major land assets which will be transferred to TfL when control of the Underground passes to the mayor.
In that context, London Transport will remain in existence for that interim period and run the Underground prior to the delivery of a PPP. It will have to retain the necessary property for its remaining functions. We will therefore arrange for publication of two sets of details. The first will include the London Transport property which will transfer to TfL on TfL's establishment. The second will include details of London Transport property which will transfer to TfL upon delivery of the PPP.
This approach also takes account of the fact that London Transport is currently considering with its advisers the best arrangements for the future of its non-operational property. We want London Transport to continue to raise money from its nonoperational property as a contribution to the increased investment in the Tube which my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced last July. We have not taken any final decisions on precisely how that contribution should be made and we are still considering advice from professional advisers. But we certainly want to see all property managed in a way that will provide value for money and allow TfL to concentrate on its key task of providing a quality transport service for London. Proceeds from sales of non-operational property will of course be used to fund investment in the Underground.
I am sorry that I have had to relate that at some length. The noble Baroness raises important issues. It is important that we know what property assets we shall list, and at what point, in accordance with her wishes. In the light of the commitments I have given, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, the Minister has given a most generous reply. I am grateful to him for that.
Perhaps I may get a niggle out of the way. I refer to the rather casual attitude to land which was once operational but is now no longer operational in the sense that nothing is going on on that land. It is precisely on such land that, if one is lucky and the land
1012
is in the right place, one can build, for example, modal exchanges for freight which is part of the currently modified powers of Transport for London.
However, I shall not pursue that quibble. I shall read the remarks of the Minister with great care. I welcome his willingness to accept the drift of my argument in Amendment No. 389 so that the Secretary of State can vary the time for which land is considered to be operational only upwards rather than downwards. That is a useful concession. I hope that the Minister will table an amendment at Third Reading to provide that.
I am also grateful for the noble Lord's response to the question of major land holdings and perhaps buildings. For the purpose of openness, apart from anything else, it is necessary so that potential purchasers who have an interest in transport—there are a number under the current regulations—can see what is available. I look forward to being kept in touch by the Minister with the progress of the proposal. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 382 not moved.]
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that Report stage begin again not before 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Young Homeless People
7.40 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel The Earl of Listowel rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they have taken to increase the availability of counselling for young homeless people.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am pleased that we have three maiden speakers tonight and I look forward to hearing their contributions. Earlier this year, I was a volunteer in a winter hostel for young rough sleepers. Since then, I have volunteered at a hostel for newly homeless young people in Soho. Previously, I have worked on several London housing estates, again with young people.
The timing of the debate could not be better. Louise Casey, responsible for achieving the Government's target of reducing to one-third the number of rough sleepers by 2002, will publish her strategy for the next three years in November or December. Louise Casey is determined that the most vulnerable are helped off the streets and do not return to them.
Counselling can help to achieve that. Indeed, without the insights that counselling provides into the emotional world of the hard-core of young homeless people, no appropriate, realistic programme can be undertaken. Young people who have never been made to believe that their parents care for them feel empty within. They feel responsible for their parents' negligence. They believe that they are guilty of driving

1013
their parents from them. So they believe that they deserve poor treatment. Why should we care for rubbish?—which is what they feel they are.
They forget their emptiness with the aid of drugs and alcohol, in frenetic activity or by eternally moving on. Those who offer kindness, they reject, attack and disappoint, just as their parents once did them. So often a relationship that might have saved them is thrown away—witness the number of good foster parents some have run through.
Evidence that many young homeless people have had the experience of inadequate parenting is abundant. Among the present intake of one hostel is a young woman whose parents had pinned her down while her hair was cut. They did not approve of her lover and wished to make her unattractive to him. Another resident in the same hostel was recently intentionally scalded by her mother.
Centrepoint's research paper, Safe in the City, reveals that in the poorest wards of 14 London boroughs, young people were four times as likely to become homeless if they reported being hit frequently; six times more likely to become so if their mother was aged under 25 at the birth of her first child; and 13 times more likely to become homeless if they reported not getting on with their mother. Nearly one-quarter of homeless people have spent time in care.
So. to capture the hard-core of damaged young rough sleepers and keep them from the streets is as much about equipping the people who deal with them with the means to cope with challenging, distressing behaviour as about providing suitable accommodation, clean clothes, food, education, training and employment.
There are heroic people working in this field: for instance, the woman with a legal training who forgoes a lucrative career in order to create a superb training and employment centre for young homeless people; and the woman who once slept rough herself and now works with a passion in a shelter. There are too many more to acknowledge here.
However, commitment alone cannot ensure that the most damaged young people do not fall through the cracks. There is no recognised national preparatory training for those who staff hostels. No educational qualifications are required. We must support hostel staff if they are to hold on to the most vulnerable young people. They must be properly prepared; they must have frequent supervision from a more experienced colleague; and at least one member of staff should be able to ask to see a counsellor from outside the hostel organisation on a weekly basis. In this way, more staff will be strong enough to be efficient gatekeepers to prevent young people who do not need help from exploiting the system. More staff would be able to enjoy and learn from their work, rather than feeling exhausted by it and eventually burning out. More emotionally literate staff would be able to avoid being placed in situations where they have to evict those who most need help.
Supervision is already widespread. There is at least one good example of hostel staff making use of a counsellor and benefiting immensely and passing that benefit on to their residents. Training, too, is available piecemeal and examples of best practice need to be applied generally. Is the Minister satisfied that the need for increased supervision, preparatory training and, if wanted, counselling for hostel staff will be addressed in Louise Casey's policy document.' Have he and Louise Casey met the foremost child psychotherapists—for instance, Peter Wilson, the director of Young Minds—in order to consult about the implication of parental neglect on policy towards young rough sleepers?
I have strayed from the ambit of the debate; I have talked of counselling for those who work with young homeless people rather than for the young people themselves. But if these young people are not to be disappointed again, if they are not to have their distrust of others reinforced, we must better support the staff who work with them.
7.46 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for promoting the debate and for the profound insights he has offered us tonight. Before contributing to the debate, I want to place on record my thanks to many Members of this House who have already offered me support and friendship as a new person coming to it. That has been greatly appreciated. My thanks extend also to Black Rod, to those who work here and, lest one forgets him, to Garter himself. Who could ever forget Garter?
The debate gives me an opportunity to revisit early experiences in my career in housing aid. It is salutary and sobering to sense how 25 years on, with a society that is 50 per cent more wealthy, many of the problems still exist and are in some cases compounded. The noble Earl clearly set out some of' those problems. Fundamentally, for many young homeless people it is more than just lack of accommodation.
When we began work 25 or 30 years ago, one tended to believe that by providing housing all would be well. Perhaps that was a counter-reaction to social workers at the time. The noble Earl made clear that many, if not all, young homeless people suffer a compound of problems: for instance, no educational attainment; low incomes; low life skills; and, in some cases, emotional damage to themselves caused by bad early rearing experiences. I endorse what he said in that respect.
That places a major problem on how government bodies engage in solutions to address the situation. It is not simply a technical problem of providing more housing. I do not want to speak about national strategies because I am sure that others will do so more thoughtfully. Perhaps I may reflect on how we can promote effective local strategies. The lead role outside government and outside London will fall on local authorities. The Government, through the youth homeless action partnership, is seeking with voluntary

1015
organisations and local authorities to explore how local authorities can be stimulated to develop effective strategies.
Therefore, there is a consensus that the development of effective local strategies is central to how this matter is approached. By that is meant housing authorities, social services, the youth service, the education service and the voluntary sector developing collectively their plans for what needs to be done and putting in place action to implement them. Time is too short to illustrate what that means, but it would effectively address three elements: prevention strategies, more sophisticated assessment processes, and action to address the problems identified.
Local authorities will require support at national level and locally to implement that change. They are being offered a significant challenge to demonstrate that they can address deep-seated intractable problems in society by adopting a much more participative style. It is of course fundamental that they do so, otherwise the lives of many of our young people will be potentially blighted.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, it is my privilege to congratulate on behalf of the whole House the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, on an extremely skilful maiden speech. It is relatively easy to give a 10-minute maiden speech; to say so many important things in three minutes requires consummate skill.
The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, comes to this House with a distinguished career in housing in local government. What he has said shows me that he knows and understands deeply the problems that damage young people and how they relate to housing. It is good news for us to welcome new Members to this House who have expertise in child and family related problems. I hope that the noble Lord will work proactively in those areas, not only to support the Government in the many excellent things they are doing but also to prompt them to do more.
I have only a short time, but I should like to make the following points. Like old age, homelessness does not come alone. I was going to quote to your Lordships one or two facts, but possibly I shall leave them out. Many of the young people of whom we are talking have been deeply damaged by their early experiences—a point made by my noble friend Lord Listowel. Abuse of children in all its forms can cause deep wounds which affect the child's ability to cope normally as he grows up with the problems of life.
The Government have identified the problem of excluded young people who are not participating in education and training. They have written an interesting and important Green Paper on the subject. However, they have not so far linked that problem with the problem of housing. That remains to be done. There is an old saying, "No job; no home; no hope", and indeed many young people identified as not being involved in education, training or work are the same young people who are either permanently or periodically involved in homelessness.
1016
In the time left to me I should like to make one point: such young people can be very difficult to contact. They have moved out into the world, they have left school; indeed they hate the schools because the schools forced them to go over hurdles which they could not take. How do we contact them? I urge upon the Government that the voluntary sector has an enormously important part to play in that context. In many cases the voluntary sector has, or can acquire, the confidence of those young people. It can make contact and build that confidence to give continuity. Young people appreciate that voluntary service is being given voluntarily, which makes it easier for them to relate to the people involved.
Finally, I agree enormously with the noble Lord that training people to operate in that sphere is of absolutely primary importance. No project will succeed unless enough money and effort are put into proper training of workers and volunteers to work in that area.
7.53 p.m.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I am a very recent addition to your Lordships' House. I was gazetted on the last day before the Recess and introduced on the first day back. I therefore spent the summer in a strange limbo, with mixed emotions of anticipation and apprehension, rather like a character from "Black Adder" awaiting my big scene.
During that time, I received many warm messages of congratulations and support, not only from the Benches on which I now sit, and I appreciate those greatly. In addition, the kindness and efficiency with which officers and staff of the House assisted my family and me through my introduction were exemplary. It was a marvellous day for all of us, and there is now a school in Lancashire where small children are being regaled with tales of Black Rod, Garter King at Arms and a wonderful palace in London which has an endless supply of little cheese biscuits.
I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, whose detailed knowledge and active concern about the problems of homeless people is well known in this House and has enabled us to discuss this important matter this evening. All my working life has been spent within the voluntary sector, and whenever I have spoken to colleagues working in that field two issues emerge time and again. The first is the many different reasons why young people become homeless: poverty, violence, physical and sexual abuse. Each one is in itself traumatic. The effect of two or more of those factors is for most of us, thankfully, unimaginable.
Perhaps the most difficult problem is that of emotional neglect. Young people who have never been properly cared for and have no concept of what a safe home is do not know what a safe home would look like and have no idea how to go about creating one. The second issue is the amount of time needed by young people leaving care or trying to get off the streets to get to grips with the demands of daily living. At a comparatively early age, and without the basic

1017
stability and social skills which most of us enjoy, the task of establishing a secure home becomes inordinately difficult.
Many young people in such a position have access to professional help from a plethora of sources, but few have an advocate or simply one sympathetic person with whom they have had time to build a relationship of trust. The problems of housing benefit and jobseeker's allowance in those circumstances tend to exacerbate those problems.
To provide young people leaving care or leaving the streets with accommodation and no support is rather like presenting a 17 year-old with the keys to a vehicle but no driving lessons, and wishing them many happy years of accident-free motoring. Such a strategy is highly unlikely to work and is best not pursued. I support the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in his efforts to achieve what I believe is a socially and fiscally prudent policy of ensuring that young homeless people have adequate access to an appropriate counsellor.
Given time and understanding, young people can create safe and secure homes. They deserve the opportunity to do so and they deserve our active support.
7.57 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House it is my great pleasure to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, on her excellent and very interesting maiden speech. She has had a most distinguished career as a member of the Liberal Party, holding various important appointments, and in her work for Age Concern since 1983. We wish her well and look forward to her future contributions in your Lordships' House.
My noble friend Lord Listowel is to be congratulated on introducing a debate on such an important subject. Many young people arrive in London today and have no idea what to do or where to go. Some manage to find out by word of mouth from other young people, others through organisations which have outreach workers. Those outreach workers work in central London at night, meet homeless young people and direct them where to go, often to direct access hostels. There are other ways of finding out about hostels. Some young people spot others who are homeless and tell them what to do and where to go. So they often help each other.
Berwick Street is a direct access hostel for newly homeless. Once they are there, usually for a short time, they are helped to find a hostel where they can receive support, especially emotional support. Various methods of counselling are used by different charities. In some cases, counselling takes several years before a young person can look forward to a future with hope.
Homeless young people are counselled in various ways once it has been discovered why they left home in the first place. There are various causes, such as sexual, physical, verbal and mental abuse. In some cases there is abject neglect, such as being left alone in an empty house for hours at a time. That is obviously frightening for a very young child. They are usually in need of
1018
emotional support so that they can focus on the future. It is found that unless they can put the past behind them, focus on the future, have an idea of what a safe home is like and live an independent life, they will become homeless once again.
Local government supports crisis counselling provided by the Alone in London Service through the London Borough Grants Unit. Will the Minister say whether central government support counselling financially or in any other way and whether they recognise it as an important part of helping homeless young people?
There is a need for more workers in this area. There are already volunteers working with many charities. Some counselling can take a long time. It is necessary to gain the confidence of a young person. Once a young person trusts a counsellor, he will often tell of his harrowing experiences, very often from a very young age. Those working with these, young people often feel traumatised themselves and may need advice on how to manage.
In many cases there is need to discover the reason for the misuse of drugs and alcohol. It would appear that the treatment for misuse addresses only the addiction and rarely the reasons for how it arose. This needs to be examined.
Alone in London, based at King's Cross and Lewisham, focuses on solving the immediate problems of young homeless people, such as finding a place to sleep at night. It then recommends the most appropriate services to help to discover the underlying causes of the young person's homelessness. Many people are needed to help with those services and volunteers provide valuable experience and knowledge.
Are the Government considering by what means the number of counsellors can be increased? A year or two ago I went to Berwick Street where I had coffee with some of the young. It was very interesting. I spoke in the debate on charities and described the problems of one young person without giving the name. The person recognised herself when she saw Hansard. She was thrilled and said, "Oh! They really do think of us."
8.2 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, it is a great honour to be a Member of this House and, indeed, to be addressing it for the first time. I too have had a summer in limbo and can say quite confidently that I have had nothing but kindness from the Members of this House and from everybody associated with my peerage from the moment it was announced to me up till now. Long may it last!
As leader of Kensington and Chelsea Council and a former chairman of the social services committee, I am conscious of the problems of the young homeless. Kensington and Chelsea has been one of the boroughs most affected by the arrival of unaccompanied refugee children over the years from most parts of the world but recently from Kosovo. Currently we are caring for 139 young people under the age of 18 who are either in council accommodation or being looked after by

1019
foster parents. Homeless on arrival, they will receive support until the age of 18 if they need it. As the council has an excellent care leavers' scheme, those young people will continue to receive support after that age, being provided also with housing and practical guidance if they require it.
Whatever their misfortunes when they arrive, those young people will be kept warm, fed and educated by the council and will not, by and large, suffer the depredations of so many other young people under the age of 25, who, for whatever reason, find themselves homeless and on the streets.
London has too many such people. While only 5 per cent of those sleeping rough in Kensington and Chelsea are under 25, in Hammersmith and Fulham the figure is 46 per cent, and that will be reflected across London. That is an horrific waste of young lives. They are vulnerable and alone at a time when they should be cared for and welcomed in a loving home. Those on the streets need help if they are to be saved from a life of permanent degradation. They need practical help to find housing, which has been mentioned by other noble Lords, access to education and entry to jobs, for without that they are not eligible for benefit and have no money. Kensington and Chelsea, with the City of Westminster and the Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster Health Authority, has a joint homeless outreach team to do just that.
I am certain that the Minister will wish to encourage that and other initiatives, such as Centrepoint and the foyer schemes. Local authorities are well placed to support and provide those and other initiatives, and can provide the basis for those and any other proposals which the Government may have if they are funded and if they are encouraged to do so.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House I congratulate the noble Baroness. I was presented with a copy of her CD—CV, rather! That is the sort of faux pas which should not be made at this point in a speech. The only thing I can say about such a distinguished leader who is active in local politics is that I wish she was joining our Benches because that depth of knowledge would certainly be of benefit to our side. I hope that the whole House will benefit from it for however long this transitional House lasts.
At present, the word "counselling" tends to be misused. It seems to be said that there is counselling for everything. When it comes to the young homeless, we talk about counselling to accept help. Every single speaker so far has mentioned the problems that lead to people being homeless. Those problems tend to be abuse, breakdown and mistrust. The idea of never being at school—the initial form of authority—is one that many people come across. There is also the idea that anyone who tries to give instructions from a desk immediately becomes the enemy. That is a discovery made by anybody who has been involved with the young homeless or those people who are at risk of
1020
becoming young homeless. The idea that parents are things to be avoided, fought against and hidden from is something which leaves one with a major problem.
For a few years I have had contact with the young homeless through working with the Apex Trust. We have tried to get young offenders into jobs. If one made contact with the very young people, it was an incredibly difficult situation. There was a core of resentment and fear, wrapped around with machismo, and then one had acne draped across the top of it. Those were probably the most unattractive facets of people one could deal with. But those young people had real problems. As has already been mentioned, if those problems are not addressed, then you are storing up trouble for the future because these people may become long-term offenders.
If you are on the streets, you do not have access to housing, to support and thus to a way of earning a living. You cannot be offered a job if the prospective employer does not know where to send the application form. You have to try to drag those young people in. The only way in which that can be done is by starting to build up some communication. That communication will not be established unless counselling and training in their true sense are taken forward here, both for those people who are homeless and, probably more importantly, for those who have to deal with those very vulnerable groups of people. It does not matter what else is done because it will not be possible to access the help that is needed. Counselling and communication are vital. I believe the noble Earl has pointed out a very grave problem.
8.8 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I join in congratulating my noble friend Lord Listowel on his sterling works since taking his seat in this House last year and on his enduring work in raising the awareness of your Lordships to the plight of young homeless people.
Many noble Lords, including myself, spoke in the debate introduced by my noble friend about the causes of homelessness and the threats of increased drug misuse and alcohol consumption, in many cases causing young people to have a major physical, but also mental, decline in their general state of health.
However, today's debate focuses more on the need for innovative solutions, more particularly counselling, for these young people. It is a well-known fact that most of the young homeless are aged between 18 and 25. Working next to Centrepoint in the West End, I have had regular contact with many young homeless people who cluster behind our building. Many are hardened drug addicts. It has become clear to me that escaping homelessness is not straightforward.
Time restricts me from giving individual case studies. Few of those to whom I regularly speak are aware of the availability of counselling. Several complain that they have difficulties in finding a general practitioner who will take them on and, in the case of drug addicts, prescribe methadone for them.

1021
Several of them feel that the police could be more constructive. They feel that often their problems are worsened by being prosecuted for possession of drugs and in many cases being sentenced to terms of imprisonment.
I have received the clear message that most young homeless people want help and ideally want to lead normal lives, away from the streets, with more opportunities to find gainful employment. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that young homeless people need emotional help and emotional support.
One of the most resourceful research reports that I have read on new approaches to meeting the long-term needs of single homeless people is the recent publication by CRISIS, headed A Future Foretold. Among its many findings, it highlights the fact that homelessness is a people problem and not just a housing problem.
One of its many recommendations was that all local authorities should undertake an annual survey of the needs of single homeless people in their area so as to attempt to deliver solutions for the homeless. It also recommended that a national network of family mediation services be established for single homeless people run by the voluntary sector.
In conclusion, even though the Government have shown their commitment to trying to reduce the numbers of homeless people through their Social Exclusion report on rough sleeping, as well as in the consultation report published last year, Supporting People, which addressed professional support for vulnerable people, there does not appear to be sufficient counselling facilities for young homeless people.
In winding up the debate I hope that the Minister can enlighten us on what plans the Government have to address and promote this need.
8.12 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving us an opportunity to debate this important subject. I am sorry that he decided to build the debate around the subject of counselling, which for most of his speech he wisely avoided.
My concern is that counselling can be very dangerous unless it is, as my noble friend Lord Addington said, a direct communication which validates the person being counselled so that they feel that they are a person.
Turning to the speech that I had prepared, the Medical Journal of Australia dated 24 March 1979 contained a report of a study entitled Hazards of Therapy. Although the subjects of the study were adults and we are talking about children, the clear connection between a therapy session which created a state of emotional arousal and inappropriate expression of the emotions so generated suggests that psychological counselling which attempts to do more than address the real needs of the people concerned could do more harm than good.
1022
As we have heard and as we know, many of the problems of the young homeless are exacerbated by addiction to alcohol or various kinds of drugs. In society we are doing things that make that kind of problem more likely and worse. I want the relevant departments to look very carefully at the prescribing policy and the way that children in school are labelled with things like attention deficit disorder and then prescribed drugs that are addictive and drugs that cause terrible problems when the children try to withdraw from them. As one noble Lord has said, I am sure that we are storing up more problems for ourselves which will make the situation more difficult to solve.
8.14 p.m.
The Earl of Iveagh: My Lords, I want to thank and congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, on an excellent topic for debate tonight. It is also an important debate. I want to congratulate the three maiden speakers who have so ably contributed to tonight's proceedings.
Youth homelessness is an enormous problem. CRISIS estimates that in Britain 32,000 16 to 21 year-olds do not have a home. I shall bring to your Lordships' attention some concerns expressed to me by those working in this area.
The short-term nature of funding for organisations dealing with youth homelessness is one such concern. Of course, many such organisations have uncertain funding in that they have a one-year budget and they badly need to give those without homes a consistency of service. It is important that the homeless get the support that they so badly need.
I draw your Lordships' attention to one or two matters of particular merit. Increasingly, youth homelessness is considered to be worthy of formalised training. Indeed, the University of East Anglia has created the first postgraduate accredited course on youth counselling.
I also draw attention to the position of Youth Awareness, the national body supporting and promoting information, advice, counselling and support for young people. The Government have increased the funding of the organisation to £80,000 per year. I fully support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in his view that the voluntary sector needs to play a full part in helping with the problem.
However, we should contrast that small contribution with the £13 million support that is given to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. I do not deny the extremely important and good work done by CABs up and down the country, but I believe that there has been some oversight as to the importance of specialist provision for the young.
8.18 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, we have had an excellent debate. I join others in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for initiating this relevant issue today.

1023
I also want to compliment the three new Members of this House who have made their maiden speeches this evening. Each has been distinctive, each has shown a wealth of expertise, and we welcome them and their expertise to the House.
Six months ago, on one of the chilliest spring nights this year, a young woman, alone, hungry and ill because of repeated use of drugs, lay down and died beside the telephone exchange in my home town of Guildford. Many people passed by the bundle of blankets, rags and plastic bags. Eventually, the police, in trying to move her on, discovered that she was dead. British Telecom have now blocked off the warm air ducts around their building with wire grilles to stop a similar occurrence.
The young woman in question was in her early 20s. She had had a good education, but she had failed to get a job, had become depressed, taken drugs and slipped into the "revolving door" cycle of homelessness. Life on the streets was punctuated by periods in a hostel when things seemed to be getting better, and then failing again and in one way or another falling back and sleeping rough again.
As anyone who walks down any London street knows—and as this debate made very clear—that young woman was no exception. Sadly, all too many young people are homeless—32,000 according to the briefing we received from Shelter. One in two of the homeless aged 16 and 17 come from an institution of some kind; they have lived in care. Two out of five of 24 year-olds come from an institutional background. It is a scandal that as a society we know how vulnerable young people are and yet again and again we fail to do anything about it. Not only have we done nothing about it, but we have passed legislation which has made the situation much worse.
We have removed their right to social security benefit. We have restricted housing benefit. We then imposed the final ignominy of the single room rent restriction. What have the new Labour Government done, dedicated as they are to helping the chances of young people? They have been in power for over two years. They established a homelessness Czar—actually it is a Czarina—Louise Casey, and others made mention of her. She is about to publish a report which we hope will stir the matter up. They also put a duty on local authorities to help vulnerable young people. But they have done nothing to make sure that those fine words are translated into practical help. Too much is in terms of strategies—"Let us do this; let us do that"—and not enough practical help. My noble friend Lady Hanham gave us an example of some of the good things coming out of Kensington.
The reason is that we are constantly looking at multi-agency care. Like the problem with old people of bed blocking, it is a question of pulling together the social services, the youth services, the National Health Service and the voluntary sectors. Many agencies are not only strapped for cash, but are also strapped for people. It is time to give consideration to this. It is too easy to pass the buck on to somebody else because we
1024
feel they are dealing with it. I hope that we shall hear from the Minister that there is more joined-up thinking on this issue and the resources to back it up. It is the lack of resources as much as anything else that creates the problem. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I add my welcome to the noble Baronesses, Lady Hanham and Lady Barker, and to an old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin. He was secretary of the Association of District Councils when I was chairman of the Association of County Councils. I enjoyed our acquaintance and look forward to it continuing.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, as he always does on this subject, introduced an interesting debate for which the House is extremely grateful. Among so many people who have direct experience in this field—I freely admit I have none—it would be superfluous and invidious of me to try and make too much of the detail of the debate. But in my reading prior to the debate I came across the paper mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso—A Future Foretold, by CRISIS—which had a slightly provocative thought at the end and it is worth touching on. It said that if the opposite of hopeless is hopeful, surely the opposite of homeless is more than a roof over the head. But absolutely certain and true though that statement is, the opposite of homeless can still only be homeless if there is no roof to put over someone's head.
The problem of availability of suitable and affordable housing is, and has been, with us for a long time. I suspect that it will be with us for a long time to come. It is not just a question of the physical supply of houses, although it is noticeable that in the allocation of government moneys to help in this field, the vast bulk of the money has to be allocated (rightly) in the southern rather than in the northern part of the country, where there is a physical surplus of housing, much of it cheap and easily available. That is a harsh reality and one that cannot be overcome.
The other point that is perhaps worth making in my last 60 seconds is that the tragedy of so many young in a homeless situation arises either from a breakdown of the family in some shape or form or, worse still, in those cases where we have some opportunity to help, from a breakdown in the wonderful multi-agency assistance that we provide through the local authorities. In both situations we need people who understand and who can project that understanding sufficiently so that the homeless do not leave to go into these situations. Without that we have no hope of curing the problem; it will remain with us. If we can do more in the field of prevention, we may need to do less by way of cure.
8.26 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, first, I express the thanks of all noble Lords to the noble Earl for instigating further debate on the

1025
issue of young homelessness. It is a matter of tremendous importance which the Government are wholeheartedly committed to tackling.
The number of speakers in this short debate perhaps leaves us a little short of time and I apologise if I do not cover every point raised. I begin by paying tribute to our three maiden speakers. I suspect that not every noble Lord is able to congratulate a Conner landlord on making his maiden speech. But my noble friend Lord Filkin was director of the Association of District Councils when I was director of the National Association of Health Authorities. We rented accommodation from him. I like to think that that was a symbol of co-operation and partnership between the NHS and local government, which is but one essential strand in ensuring that we get practical services in the right places to help homeless people.
I was struck also by the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and particularly her point in relation to the role of the voluntary sector. Equally, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, with her vast local government experience, showed how much local government has to offer in this area and how much responsibility we place on them to lead the strategy at local level.
All noble Lords made the same point; that is, that this is a matter which needs co-ordinated action across different government departments, in partnership with non-government agencies. There is no doubt that within government the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has a leading role to play. However, it is not just a question of homelessness on its own, as so many speakers said. Young homeless people are vulnerable to many other problems relating to mental and physical health, drug and alcohol misuse. The Department of Health clearly has major responsibilities in those areas. I hope to come back to a number of points raised in relation to the support that the National Health Service needs to give in this area.
I want to say, first, that I agree that homelessness is so often a symptom of wider social exclusion; the unacceptable effects of a whole complex web of causes. My noble friend Lord Filkin said it is not just a housing problem. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, described it as a "cycle of homelessness". That is the reason the Government's Social Exclusion Unit is looking at a range of issues dealing with excluded young people. Noble Lords have already mentioned its report on Rough Sleeping and its Bridging the Gap report on 16 to 18 year-olds who are not in education, employment or training. Both of these, together with the unit's work on the exclusion of young people in deprived neighbourhoods, are, if I may say so to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, an indication of the priority that we are giving to tackling the social exclusion of young people. Within this agenda, youth homelessness must receive close attention.
Noble Lords have also pointed out that there are many reasons why young people end up homeless. Those reasons can include relationship breakdown, or having a very structured background which, perhaps,
1026
makes it hard for them to cope on their own—for example, having been in local authority care as a child or a teenager or having been in a young offenders' institution, having poor mental or physical health, suffering from drug and alcohol abuse and perhaps persistent truanting or exclusion from school. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, had some very important points to make in this area.
Of course, the problems experienced by young homeless people vary and, consequently, their needs also vary. But the one thing which all young homeless people need in one degree or another is support, as the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, so eloquently pointed out to us. Indeed, in many ways becoming homeless is a symptom of a breakdown in the support mechanisms that would normally be available to young people from their parents, extended family, friends, and other normal contacts such as educational professionals and advisors. That a young person has reached the point of homelessness is symptomatic of the fact that he or she often feels that there is nowhere to go and no one to listen. This is precisely why it is so important that support services, including counselling opportunities, are available to young people.
I very much agreed with what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said about the core of resentment among so many of the young people about whom we are talking. We need to build communication and ensure that that becomes a key part of what we are trying to do within the counselling arrangements. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNair, that counselling comes in many shapes and forms. At the end of the day, it has to be effective and must be what is suited to the young people concerned.
Much work has been done by different government departments to make existing local authority support mechanisms more effective. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, pointed out, some of those most dependent on local authority support—those in care—are at their most vulnerable and at risk of homelessness when leaving care. This highlights the importance of the Government's Quality Protect programme for the reform of children's services, which has made care leavers a priority group—£19 million has been allocated this first year for leaving care services.
However, there is no doubt that there remain barriers which prevent existing services from working most effectively. In the Bridging the Gap report, the Social Exclusion Unit identified three main barriers. The first—and I return to this point—is that departments often work in a fragmented, non coordinated way. Secondly, insufficient preparation is taking place in schools for choices available to young people after the compulsory school leaving age of 16. The third barrier is the lack of comprehensive support services for 16 to 18 year-olds who are not in school.
The report demanded a new approach to the way in which government, and their partners in the voluntary sector, in business, and in the community, deliver services to vulnerable young people. It recommended that more needs to be done to ensure that support is

1027
both accessible and co-ordinated. This included building on good practice where it exists, particularly across current service boundaries, and, more fundamentally, to implement the proposal of the Department for Education and Employment to create a new support service for young people, announced in its White Paper in June and entitled, Learning to Succeed.
The new service is to build and ensure coherence in the support to be given to young people aged 13 to 19 in aiming to ensure that no young person should get "lost in the system". Often, falling out from education is the first step to becoming excluded from society, and sometimes a significant step on the road to homelessness; the proposed treatment schemes, with those who are hard to reach and most vulnerable, being a priority.
As far as concerns alcohol misuse, we are currently developing a new strategy to tackle this in England. One of the aims of the strategy is likely to be improving the quality, accessibility and effectiveness of alcohol advice and treatment services for alcohol misusers, potential misusers and their carers or families and to ensure equitable access to the full spectrum of required services for all. Of course, this will include how service provision can best be extended locally better to serve young homeless people.
The mention of drug and alcohol services, brings me to issues in relation to the National Health Service. The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, raised the issue of access to primary care services, and especially to general practitioners. I know that this is a matter which often causes concern. I want to make it clear that all persons are entitled to register with a GP. Of course, this can sometimes be difficult, but it is the responsibility of the local health authority to assist young people where this is proving to be difficult.
I should also like to say a little more about some of the developments that we intend to take forward to ensure that there is more access to primary care services. By April next year there will be 300 pilot schemes across the country which will provide GPs with a flexible alternative to the current national contract. We see this as an opportunity to concentrate on traditionally disadvantaged groups in their area. For example, there is a salaried option, which means that GPs can now be employed by other doctors or trusts in areas where recruitment has been difficult in the past, like inner-cities or sparsely populated countryside. We believe that this has enormous potential.
If one looks at the current pilots, up to 87 of them have actually involved working with young people as one of their key priorities. Of these, 48 specified teenagers and 39 specified children. Moreover, 29 pilots have indicated that working with homeless people is a key area of their work. To take up the point on refugees, I should tell noble Lords that 29 of these schemes are focusing on refugees. Clearly the importance of pilot schemes is to enable the whole of the health service to learn from that experience. We
1028
will be very interested to ensure that the points which are learnt along the way will be spread more generally among the National Health Service.
Many noble Lords talked about prevention. We all recognise that, as well as ensuring that advice and support is available when young people are on the verge of homelessness or already homeless, more needs to be done to prevent homelessness arising in the first place. We must find ways appropriately to balance crisis intervention and advice with appropriate support and help, together with preventive approaches. Mediation services can often help in looking at difficult family dynamics and towards understanding and resolving family tensions before a young person decides to leave home. Many young homeless people are still in touch with someone in their families and it is in everyone's interests to strengthen those bonds where possible.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and many other speakers referred to the role of the voluntary sector. Clearly, it has a very key role to play in providing support to vulnerable young people. We can see the extraordinarily varied and innovative projects around the country which testify to the value of the voluntary sector and the lifeline for young people it can provide by offering advice, support, counselling and direct practical support.
I have been asked about funding. Many of these projects do of course receive support from government funds but I have noted the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, on the importance of secure funding. It is something that both national and local government must take to heart.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred specifically to the role of local authorities, which is an important one. They already have a statutory duty to ensure that comprehensive advice and information about homelessness and the prevention of homelessness is provided free of charge to any person in their district. Again I noted the comments and helpful remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, on that matter. We are currently revising the statutory guidance we issue to local authorities to impress upon them the need to take a more strategic approach to discharging this duty. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that of course taking a strategic approach means nothing if it does not then lead to practical action. I am sure that there is little point in our pressing the point to local authorities on strategy unless positive, practical action results from that.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred to the London Rough Sleepers Unit headed by Louise Casey, former deputy director of Shelter. This has an integrated budget over the next three years of £145 million to combat the complex and concentrated problems of rough sleeping in London. Both the noble Earl and the noble Lord in referring to that then referred to the important issues in relation to training, support and supervision. I could not agree more with those comments. It is a matter that I shall certainly want to take from this debate in terms of ensuring that it is part

1029
of the various programmes that we shall fund in the future. That is absolutely crucial and goes back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about the quality of counselling in terms of being able to communicate with young people who often find it hard to relate to current statutory services.
As regards financial support outside London, I refer to the Homeless Action Programme launched by the DETR which will provide £34 million over the next three years to help voluntary organisations outside London tackle and prevent single homelessness and rough sleeping. Inevitably within that programme support for counselling will be available.
Time moves on and I have exceeded my speaking time by a few minutes. I do not apologise for that. This has been an extremely important debate where I think we have all shared a common concern. We can see our way through to the practical solutions that are undoubtedly necessary.
There is no doubt that at the end of the day a partnership approach both at national and local level is the key to success. I hope that your Lordships will recognise that this is a priority for the Government. There is no place in Britain at the dawn of the 21st century for social exclusion and homelessness. We shall continue to work hard towards the eradication of both.
I conclude by thanking again the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for his initiative in securing this debate. I end as he did in paying tribute to the heroic people who counsel, support and help homeless people.

Greater London Authority Bill
8.43 p.m.
Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Schedule 9.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 383:
Page 240, line 27, at end insert—
("Byelaws for railways
24A.—(1) Transport for London may make byelaws regulating—

(a) the use and working of its railways;

(b) travel on its railways;

(c) the maintenance of order on its railways and railway premises, including stations and the approaches to stations;

(d) the conduct of all persons while on those premises, including officers and employees of Transport for London.

(2) Byelaws made by Transport for London by virtue of subparagraph (1) above may include in particular byelaws—

(a) with respect to tickets issued for entry on its railway premises or travel on its railways and the evasion of payment of fares and other charges;

(b) with respect to interference with or obstruction of the working of the railways;

(C) with respect to the smoking of tobacco in railway carriages and elsewhere;

(d) with respect to the prevention of nuisances;

1030

(e) with respect to the receipt and delivery of goods;

(f) for regulating the passage of bicycles and other vehicles on footways and other premises controlled by Transport for London and intended for the use of pedestrians.

(3) Any byelaws made by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above may provide that any person contravening them shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine for each offence not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or not exceeding a lesser amount.
(4) Where the contravention of a byelaw made by virtue of subparagraph (1) above causes—

(a) danger or annoyance to the public, or

(b) hindrance to Transport for London in the lawful use of its railway,

Transport for London may summarily interfere to obviate or remove the danger, annoyance or hindrance.
(5) Anything done by Transport for London under subparagraph (4) above is without prejudice to the taking of summary proceedings under sub-paragraph (3) above.
(6) Subsections (5) to (12) of section 67 of the Transport Act 1962 (byelaws for railways etc.) shall apply in relation to byelaws made by Transport for London by virtue of sub-pan graph (1) above as they apply to byelaws made under that section hut taking references in those subsections to the Board as references to Transport for London.
(7) For the purposes of this paragraph—

(a) railways, railway premises, officers or employees of a subsidiary of Transport for London shall be deemed to be railways, railway premises, officers or employees of Transport for London, and

(b) footways and other premises controlled by a subsidiary of Transport for London shall be deemed to be footways and other premises controlled by Transport for London.").

Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 383A:
Page 240, line 27, at end insert—
("Byelaws: landing places
24B.—(1) Transport for London may make and enforce byelaws for regulating or controlling the use of any landing place which is vested in or operated by it or any of its subsidiaries.
(2) The power conferred by sub-paragraph (1) above includes the power to make and enforce byelaws specifying—

(a) persons or descriptions of persons who" or

(b) vessels or descriptions of vessels which,

may or may not use a landing place.
(3) A person who contravenes a byelaw made under this paragraph shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.
(4) For the purposes of this paragraph, "landing place- means any waterside landing place, wharf, pier, jetty, pontoon, causeway, hard, footway or other installation, and includes any associated buildings and approaches to it over and from land.
(5) This paragraph is without prejudice to the provisions of any other enactment.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 383A I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 475A and 475B which stand in my name. These government amendments relate to the river and waterways. I recall that before I had responsibility for these areas my noble friend Lady Hayman used to get a little laugh in the House of Lords when she talked about powers to create piers, which in this case relates to river piers which TfL has the power to own and operate. Amendment No. 383A provides that power. Previously most of the piers had been

1031
owned by the Port of London Authority which had its own powers. This amendment provides a freestanding power for Transport for London to have its own pier bylaws to regulate its activities on those piers.
Amendment No. 475A seeks to put beyond doubt that TfL can provide or secure the provision of amenities and facilities which might benefit people using London's waterways. Amendment No. 475B clarifies the position of property, rights and liabilities associated with river piers transferred to London Regional Transport on or after 31st March 1999 but before this clause comes into effect. This provision applies both where the pier is transferred during this period and to transfers made subsequently under an agreement which may have been made during this period. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 383A, Amendment No. 383B:
Line 19, at the end of paragraph 24B(5), insert (", and, in particular, byelaws made under this paragraph shall be subject to any byelaws or directions made from time to time by any navigation authority which has jurisdiction within the area of the landing place in question").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendments to the government amendments reflect concerns which have been brought to our attention on behalf of British Waterways with regard to the established rights of the waterways. I understand that the Port of London Authority supports these amendments to the government amendments.
Amendment No. 475AA states,
"this section shall not authorise Transport for London to construct any works or do anything in, under, over or on the waterway without the consent of any navigation authority which has jurisdiction over the waterway".
That measure sums up the thrust of these amendments. I believe that these two authorities seek reassurance from the Minister that the traditional powers that they have to be consulted when bodies wish to build near or on, or use the waterway, have not been eradicated by the government amendments.
Amendment No. 383B states that:
"byelaws made under this paragraph shall be subject to any byelaws or directions made from time to time by any navigation authority which has jurisdiction within the area of the landing place in question".
I believe that these concerns are clear. I suspect that the noble Lord may even have received the same briefing material as we have received. I hope that he will be able to reassure the House that the traditional powers of the navigation authorities have not been reduced or limited by his amendment. I beg to move.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I wish to add my support to these amendments. I was approached as the vice-chair of the parliamentary waterways group and I drew these measures to the attention of my noble friends. This clearly seems to be a kind of tidying up exercise. You cannot have two bodies making bylaws about the same thing as that will lead to a clash. Each
1032
needs to know what the other is doing. I hope that the Minister will feel kindly disposed towards the amendments.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness is correct. When I was in Birmingham this morning I thought I had got well away from the Greater London Authority Bill, but it was represented to me that this will cause some difficulties for the Port of London Authority. I appreciate that there may be potential conflict between the TfL by-laws and those of the navigation authority. I would hope that in most instances these will be resolved at the time of leading up to the confirmation of the by-laws although, hypothetically, that may not be possible in all instances. I am prepared to consider whether we can clarify the position with regard to by-laws.
However, I have some difficulties with the implications of the noble Baroness's amendment. It could imply that a direction could take precedence over a by-law. It is a difficult concept that an administrative direction could take precedence over a by-law. With that caveat, I am prepared to look at the matter again, to discuss it with the authorities concerned and the noble Baroness, and, if necessary, come back to it at Third Reading.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. It was as gracious as most of his replies have been during the debate. I look forward to seeing his new amendments. I will be very happy to discuss the matter with him, if necessary. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 383B, as an amendment to Amendment No. 383A, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 384:
Page 240, line 27, at end insert—
("Museums
.—(1) Transport for London may provide and maintain a museum of transport artefacts, records and other exhibits and may do anything necessary or expedient for or in connection with the provision or maintenance of the museum.
(2) Transport for London may make a charge for admission to a museum maintained by it.").
Clause 145 [Annual report]:
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 385:
Page 80, line 34, leave out subsections (3) to (6) and insert—
("(2A) The report made under this section in respect of any financial year shall include the following information—

(a) financial statements prepared on the basis of generally accepted principles of accounting;

(b) the report of external auditors on those financial statements;

(c) detailed statistics relating to the efficiency and reliability of the discharge of its functions by Transport for London including (but not limited to)—

(i) the number of days during the financial year in which any public passenger transport service was disrupted by any industrial dispute (whether official or otherwise);

1033

(ii) the number of cancellations of proposed journeys during the financial year by any public passenger transport service;

(iii) the number of routes formerly operated by public passenger transport services closed during the financial year; and

(iv) a table disclosing the remuneration of all senior staff employed by or officers of Transport for London compiled to the same standards as would apply to a company whose shares were listed on the London Stock Exchange.

(2B) The report required by this section shall be available to the public at no charge and also published electronically in a form capable of access by members of the general public.
(2C) A summary of the matters referred to in subsection (2A) above shall also be published in at least two newspapers circulating in the entire area of Greater London.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I wish to move Amendment No. 385 which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara. In speaking to the amendment it may be convenient if I speak also to Amendment No. 387.
Amendment No. 385 is a key amendment to protect Londoners' financial stake in TfL. It will also improve transport standards and efficiency by forcing an outside audit of TfL's competence. The current provisions in Clause 145 relating to the reporting of the performance of TfL are weak. The requirement to pay a fee to obtain a copy of the report contrasts unfavourably with the practice of most modern listed companies.
As the clause is drafted, TfL could produce a super but very expensive glossy report; the fee for the report then might be reasonable bearing in mind the cost of producing the report, but not affordable by most people. This amendment will deter that possibility.
Finally, the amendment provides that the report should be published on the Internet. I am sure that TfL will do that anyway but it should be obliged to do so under Clause 145. The use of the Internet will dramatically reduce the cost of promulgating the report and increase its availability.
Amendment No. 387 is good for democracy because it ensures that the auditors are accountable to someone other than those they are auditing. After all, company shareholders—not the directors—approve auditors, although on the recommendation of the board of directors. Can the Minister say why this should not apply to TfL? I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Audit Commission Act 1998 and the 1996 accounts and audit regulations lay down requirements as to what TfL must include in its published accounts. There is a provision laying down the rights of local government electors in the area of the body subject to audit to inspect its accounts and supporting documents. Like the GLA and other functional bodies, TfL will be covered by the same audit system as applies to other organisations within the local government finance system.
In. Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked whether TfL would be obliged to publish its accounts on the Internet. I indicated that my
1034
understanding was that that would be a matter for TfL. I wish to take this opportunity to confirm that my reply was correct.
As long as TfL meets the statutory requirements to make its accounts available for inspection to the public, it can decide what further measures t o take to publicise the report and accounts. It would be overly prescriptive to require TfL to make its accounts available electronically. To do so would be to place TfL on a different footing from local authorities elsewhere.
The noble Earl returns to the issue of giving the assembly the duty of appointing and fixing the fee of TfL's external auditors. This matter was raised in Committee. Clause 118 of the Bill adds the functional bodies, including TfL, to the list of public bodies which under the Audit Commission Act 1998 are required to make up accounts annually. It also adds TfL to the list of bodies which must be audited by an auditor or auditors appointed by the Audit Commission. This means that TfL, like the GLA and other functional bodies, will be covered by the same audit system as applies to other organisations within the local government finance system. Not only is this tried and tested but it would also avoid the danger of the assembly getting bogged down in routine appointment procedures. The assembly's role, should it so choose, is to scrutinise and challenge the contents of the audit.
With these assurances, I hope that 'the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's response to the amendments. I am concerned by her lack of interest in the Internet amendment. In two years' time anyone who is not using the Internet will be, relatively speaking, in the age of the quill pen. The Minister seems to be allowing for the possibility that TfL will not publish its accounts on the Internet. That would be most unfortunate. I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 386:
After Clause 145, insert the following new clause—
PROVISION OF INFORMATION
(" .—(1) Transport for London shall make available such information as it thinks fit which

(a) relates to public passenger transport services provided to, from and within Greater London, and

(b) is required by members of the general public to assist, in deciding what use to make of such services.

(2) The information shall be made available, in such manner as Transport for London thinks fit, to—

(a) the general public, and

(b) such other persons as Transport for London thinks fit.

(3) Transport for London may make such charges as it thinks fit for information which it makes available; but no such charge may be made if the information relates to public passenger transport services provided exclusively—

(a) by Transport for London or any of its subsidiaries, or

(b) by other persons under agreements entered into under section 141(2) or (3) above.").

[Amendment No. 387 not moved.]
Clause 146 [Restrictions on disposal of land]:
[Amendments Nos. 388 to 390 not moved.]
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 391:
Leave out Clause 146.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 391 which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara.
We return momentarily to the disposal of operational land, but from a slightly different viewpoint. Clause 146 represents an illogical shackling of TfL's ability to generate funds through the disposal of surplus land. The clause is likely to lead to Londoners paying higher local taxes to fund TfL.
On the grounds of subsidiarity, the requirement for the Secretary of State's consent should be deleted. I accept that there may be a need to consult with other interested parties; we discussed that. The need to avoid prejudicing future railway developments is well recognised and very important. However, this clause as drafted would catch the disposal of a redundant electrical substation, for example, even though it was not adjacent to what we would understand to be railway lands.
I do not intend to test the opinion of the House on this amendment. I suggest that the Minister has another look at subsection (8) of the clause, which defines operational land. The clause will catch land it does not need to catch. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, Clause 146 places restrictions on TfL's ability to dispose of operational railway and tramway land. The clause is designed, as the noble Earl indicated, to prevent the permanent sale of key operational assets, primarily the Underground and Docklands Light Railway lines and stations. TfL is required to obtain the Secretary of State's consent to such disposals.
We made clear in our manifesto that privatisation of the Underground was not the answer to the problems faced by the Tube. We must ensure that the network is run first and foremost as a public transport asset. Therefore we must not allow ourselves to get into a situation where the land or other assets can be disposed of without an assessment of the public interest. Clause 146 provides the necessary safeguards. Were it to be deleted, those safeguards would be removed.
1036
We have taken a pragmatic approach in that we recognise that TfL needs flexibility over its property portfolio. That is why in Committee we tabled amendments to the clause to give TfL the ability to manage its property holdings sensibly. However, we do need these safeguards and we believe that the arrangements we have put in place strike the right balance, on the one hand in protecting public assets, and on the other in allowing TfL to manage those assets effectively to the benefit of their overall operations.
The deletion of the clause would remove many safeguards. I am happy to look at the particular point raised by the noble Earl, but it is clear that the amendment as a whole is not acceptable and I hope that he will feel able to withdraw it.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he answer one question for me? Is TfL able to sell any land without permission from the Secretary of State?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is clear from subsection (1) of Clause 146 that the land we are referring to here is land which is or has been operational land. For that reason, in most cases non-operational land—so long as it does not fall into one of the other categories—could be disposed of as a management matter. If the noble Earl requires further clarification, I shall write to him.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's response. I did not phrase my question as well as I should have done. Can TfL sell any operational land without the consent of the Secretary of State?
However, I hope that the Minister will look again at the definition of operational land for the reasons I have outlined. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 148 [Distribution of property]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 392 to 394:
Leave out Clause 148.
After Clause 148, insert the following new clause—
DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY, RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES
(" .—(1) Transport for London may make schemes for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities—

(a) between Transport for London and any subsidiary of Transport for London; or

(b) between any subsidiary of Transport for London and any other such subsidiary.

(2) A scheme under this section shall not take effect unless and until it has been approved by the Mayor.
(3) Where a scheme under this section is submitted to the Mayor for his approval, he may, after consultation with Transport for London, modify the scheme before approving it.
(4) Schedule (Transport for London transfer schemes) to this Act (which makes further provision in relation to schemes under this section) shall have effect.").

1037
After Clause 148, insert the following new clause—
PROCEDURE FOR MAKING BYELAWS
(".—(1) Section 236 of the Local Government Act 1972 (procedure for byelaws) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) after the words "the Greater London Authority" (which are inserted by section 65(2) above) there shall be inserted ", Transport for London".
(3) After subsection (10B) (which is inserted by section 65(3) above) there shall be inserted—
"(10C) Transport for London shall send a copy of every byelaw made by it, and confirmed, to—

(a) the Mayor of London;

(b) each London Borough Council; and

(c) the Common Council."").

Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 395:
After Clause 148, insert the following new clause—
POWER OF TRANSPORT FOR LONDON TO PROMOTE OR OPPOSE BILLS IN PARLIAMENT
(" .—(1) Transport for London —

(a) may promote a local Bill in Parliament; and

(b) may oppose any local Bill in Parliament.

(2) Subsection (1)(a) above applies only if the Authority—

(a) gives its written consent to the Bill; and

(b) confirms that consent in writing as soon as practicable after the expiration of 14 days after the Bill has been deposited in Parliament.

(3) If the Authority does not confirm the consent as required by subsection (2)(b) above, the Authority shall give notice of that fact to Transport for London, which shall take all necessary steps for the withdrawal of the Bill.
(4) If the Authority, in giving notice under subsection (3) above, states that it confirms its consent to the Bill if provisions specified in the notice are omitted or are amended as so specified, Transport for London may, instead of withdrawing the Bill pursuant to subsection (3) above, take all necessary steps for the omission or, as the case may be, the amendment of the provisions in question in accordance with the notice.
(5) Without prejudice to subsections (2) to (4) above, the functions conferred on Transport for London by subsection (1)(a) above are exercisable subject to, and in accordance with, the provisions of Schedule (Promotion of Bits in Parliament by Transport for London) to this Act.
(6) Subsection (1)(b) above applies only if the Authority gives its written consent to Transport for London to oppose the Bill.
(7) If—

(a) Transport for London deposits a petition against a Bill in Parliament, but

(b) the consent required by subsection (6) above has not been given before the end of the period of 30 days following the day on which the petition is deposited,

Transport for London shall take all necessary steps for the withdrawal of the petition.
(8) The functions conferred or imposed on the Authority by this section shall be functions of the Authority which are exercisable by the Mayor acting on behalf of the Authority.
(9) Before exercising the functions conferred on the Authority by subsection (2)(a) or (b). (4) or (6) above, the Mayor shall consult the Assembly.").
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 396:
After Clause 148, insert the following new clause—
ORDERS UNDER THE TRANSPORT AND WORKS ACT 1992
(" .—(1) Section 20 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 (power to apply for, or object to, orders) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2) (powers to be subject to the like conditions as powers to promote or oppose Bills) after "except as provided by subsection (3)" there shall be inserted "or (4)".
(3) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(4) In the case of Transport for London—

(a) the powers conferred by subsection (1) above shall be exercisable with the written consent of the Mayor of London; and

(b) subsection (2) above shall not have effect."").

Clause 149 [Powers of disposal]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 396A:
Page 83, line 3, leave out ("In").
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 396B and 396C:
Page 83, line 4, after ("disposal)") insert ("shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(a) (power to dispose of securities of one of their subsidiaries) for "one of their subsidiaries" there shall be substituted "any subsidiary of theirs".
(3) ").
Page 83, line 4, after ("end") insert ("of the section").
Clause 150 [Power to give guarantees]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment. No. 396D:
Page 83, line 18, at end insert—
("(A) In subsection (2) after "section 3(2)" there shall be inserted "or (2A)".").
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 396E:
After Clause 150, insert the following new clause—
SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO TRANSFER SCHEMES
(" .—(1) Section 27 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 (supplementary provisions with respect to transfer schemes) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (9) (modifications of Schedule 4 to the Transport Act 1968 in its application by subsection (8)) the word "and" at the end of paragraph (a) shall be omitted and after that paragraph there shall be inserted—

"(aa) the reference in paragraph 1(1) to all property, rights and liabilities comprised in a specified part of the transferor's undertaking shall be read as including a reference to all such property, rights and liabilities subject to such exceptions as ma) be specified or described, or otherwise provided for, by the transfer scheme in question;

1039

(ab) the reference in paragraph 13(1) to requiring the consent or concurrence of any person shall be read as including—

(i) a reference to being (and, where applicable, continuing after the transaction) in breach of any condition, requirement or restriction, and

(ii) a reference to any relevant right or option operating or becoming exercisable,

(and any such relevant right or option shall accordingly have effect as if the transferee were the same person in law as the transferor and no transaction had taken place); and".

(3) After subsection (9) there shall be inserted—
"(10) In subsection (9)(ab) above "relevant right or option" means any right of reverter, right of pre-emption, right of forfeiture, right of re-entry, right to compensation, option or similar right affecting any land or other property, or any right to terminate or vary a contract.".").
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 397:
After Clause 151, insert the following new clause—
ONE TICKET SYSTEM FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT
(" .—(1) With effect from the appointed day, Transport for London shall introduce, or procure or facilitate the introduction of, a means by which passengers shall be able to make journeys in Greater London using more than one public passenger transport service having purchased only a single ticket, such ticket be a voucher or an electronic card or such other system as appears to Transport for London to be the most reliable, economic and efficient means to effect such journeys.
(2) The Mayor may issue regulations under this subsection as to the day on which subsection (1) above shall come into effect, provided that the appointed day within that subsection shall be no later than the fifth anniversary of this Act coming into force.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 397 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara. In doing so it may be convenient if I speak also to Amendment No. 398.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, conceded that if TfL were to scrap the Travelcard it would probably break the mayor's general duty under Clause 126. The amendment before us is a major boost to the interests of the travelling public. It will compel TfL to maintain some form of universal through ticketing. Subsection (1) sets out the requirement: a single cross-London ticket or other facilities to achieve that. Subsection (2) sets a deadline for implementation of five years.
I accept that in practice this adds nothing to the existing non-statutory travel scheme arrangements, and the comments of the Minister in Committee were encouraging. Let us therefore entrench the principle on the face of the Bill as a non-contentious amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, Amendment No. 397 would require the mayor to introduce, within five years of the GLA Act coming into force, ticketing arrangements allowing passengers to travel on more than one mode of public transport on the purchase of a single ticket.
1040
We believe the amendment is unnecessary because such ticketing arrangements already exist, most prominently in the form of the Travelcard. Noble Lords opposite and their colleagues in another place have suggested that we should somehow legislate to preserve the Travelcard. But that ignores the fact that the Travelcard scheme is not a statutory scheme. It is underpinned by a voluntary agreement between London Regional Transport and the train operating companies. TfL will take on London Transport's obligations under that agreement and will thus continue to offer the benefits of Travelcard.
It is highly improbable that any mayor would want to risk losing the benefits of Travelcard. Travelcard and products like it will be a vital component in helping the mayor to discharge his or her general transport duty in Clause 127. Indeed, it is hard to see how reducing the benefits Travelcard offers could be consistent with that duty.
However, there might actually be risks in attempting to legislate for Travelcard. If we were to do so, as noble Lords opposite suggest, there is a danger that the current Travelcard arrangements would be preserved in aspic. The mayor's scope to build on Travelcard and introduce innovative and new multi-modal tickets might be inadvertently restricted if she or he were compelled to stick too rigidly to a particular format. I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. I found it very interesting. I accept her argument and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 152 [Structure of fares and services]:
[Amendment No. 398 not moved.]
Clause 161 [Addition or variation of a network service]:
[Amendment No. 399 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 162 [Discontinuance of a network service]:
[Amendment No. 400 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 163 [London service permits]:
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 401:
Page 89, line 3, at end insert—
("(2A) When preparing the guidance document, the Mayor shall include consideration of matters affecting—

(a) routes,

(b) terminal points,

(c) places at which passengers may or may not be taken up and set down,

(d) traffic flow, safety and congestion,

(e) environmental amenity,

(f) the safety and convenience of the public, including persons who have mobility problems, and

(g) any other matters which appear to the mayor to be relevant.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 163 covers London service permits for buses that are not part of the London bus network. Those of us who have seen total deregulation of buses both in London and other parts of the country are aware of how important it is to have some degree of control. The amendment sets out possible items for the mayor to incorporate in guidance. I am slightly opposed to the shopping lists which we see so often with regard to the National Health Service because whatever shopping list you have you leave something out of it. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me that the guidance document referred to in subsection (2) of the clause will automatically take this type of item into consideration. If she is not able to give me such an assurance, I believe that the amendment would cover the point. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Baroness is to be congratulated on giving thought to what the mayor's guidance document should contain or encompass. I suspect that much of what she proposes may ultimately be included in the document in one form or another. Indeed, when we consulted on our proposals for this part of the Bill late last year we received other suggestions about the content of the guidance document, each reflecting the different interests of the group, organisation or individual who proposed them.
We do not see it as our policy to second guess what the mayor should include in his guidance document any more than we would wish the Bill to dictate to the mayor what should be included in other strategies the mayor will be required to produce. Our intention is that the mayor should start with a clean sheet of paper in deciding what the policy should be in respect of London service permit services. The mayor will be required to produce the document in draft and publish it for public consultation. The Bill contains extensive public consultation provisions for the guidance document. We believe that these provisions will make it possible for everyone with an interest in such services to make their views known. In particular, we have made specific provision for information about the document to be published in a newspaper circulating throughout greater London.
In practice, we believe that the production of the guidance will be a partnership between the mayor initially setting out the policies that the mayor believes would be beneficial, and the many interested parties such as local authorities, bus companies, residents' groups, the police and disabled groups responding to the draft and making their input through the consultation process. We believe—I think that the noble Baroness would agree with me—that such a consultation should spark some quite lively debate. That will be good. We believe that that is a better approach. But we are grateful to the noble Baroness for giving such thought to this important subject. We do riot want to see the document set in stone, and the Bill provides for revisions to be produced to which all the consultation provisions will apply again. That will allow experience of operating the new permit system.
1042
The document must evolve and that is why we do not believe that it would be wise to constrain the development of the mayor's policies. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her interest. I hope that she now feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that detailed reply. I am quite reassured by the process of consultation, which think will be productive. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 164 [Grant of London service permit]:
[Amendment No. 402 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 403:
Page 89, line 27, at end insert—
("(4A) If—

(a) any of the persons and bodies specified in subsection (4) above ("the consultee") objects to the grant of a London service permit or considers that a permit should only be issued subject to conditions, and

(b) Transport for London is minded to grant a London service permit despite such objection without any or all of the conditions referred to at subsection 4A (a) above,

Transport for London shall refer the matter to he determined by an appeal panel as provided for under section 167 below.
(4B) Any appeal considered under the provisions of subsection 4A above shall be by way of a hearing unless the applicant and the consultee concerned decide not to appear.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is slightly different amendment. The Bill gives the mayor control over the regulation of commercial bus services. Amendment No. 403 would provide for an automatic referral to the appeal process, which comes under Clause 167. Noble Lords will note that subsection (4A)(a) of my amendment is linked to paragraph (b) with the word "and". The two conditions in the amendment would have to be met.
Perhaps I may save the House time by also speaking briefly to Amendments Nos. 406 and 407 which are grouped with this one. Amendment No. 407 requires consultation with local authorities and others. Again, if the Minister is able to assure me that the consultation process will be thorough, I think I shall be satisfied on that point. However, I should be grateful for a reply regarding Amendment No. 403 and the automatic provision for appeal. I beg to move.
9.15p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, on the face of it, the noble Baroness's amendment sounds reasonable. However, I am concerned that it could generate a large number of appeals. At the beginning, TfL will consult widely. There will therefore be a wide number of consultees, some of whom would be able to exercise their right of appeal. That could present a substantial workload. A permit system could become clogged with appeals and each application could be held up for some time. That would not be in anyone's interest. Bus companies that wished to apply for a permit might well lose confidence

1043
in such a system. I am sure that they would expect their applications to be dealt with efficiently and with reasonable speed.
We have covered the matter in a different way. We intend the appeal panel to provide an appropriate safeguard for the interests of bus companies against decisions taken by TfL. It was never our intention that they should act at the request of consultees.
I believe that we have ensured that consultees will be able to play their part at a much earlier stage and make their views known to TfL on permit applications. I am firmly convinced that TfL should take the final decisions regarding applications, subject to the applicant's right of appeal. But the views of other consultees will have been taken into account by the time the decision has been reached.
Turning to the other two amendments, a requirement for TfL to consult local authorities before making any variation, however small, could be time consuming. There is a better way of going about this. It would be preferable for the issues of variations to be addressed in the mayor's guidance document. We shall expect the mayor to set out his policy in respect of the circumstances under which conditions may be attached to a permit, after having taken account of the views of all the interested parties, including local authorities and the operators. It is in those conditions that TfL has the power to vary under the provisions of Clause 165. Any variations made would have to be consistent with what is stated in the guidance document.
The other advantage of dealing with the matter through a guidance document rather than on the face of the Bill is that it would not be set in stone. As experience grew, revisions could be considered at the request of the operators, the local authorities or other interested parties. Such revisions would be subject to wide consultation.
I believe that I heard the noble Baroness aright: she said that if she could receive reassurances in relation to the consultation process, the appeals process might not be the appropriate way of dealing with the matter. I hope that she accepts that that is the way in which we are dealing with it, subject to a guidance document being drawn up which makes that clear to all parties concerned.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that detailed reply. I should like to consider it carefully. I have personal experience of conflicts that arose between the local authority that I represented, Enfield Borough Council, and the GLC, when, as often happened, the GLC made a decision contrary to what my area wanted. It often seemed to me that those viewing matters from the centre did not know how difficult they were. That was not in the field of transport, it was in licensing, but the same argument applies. That is why consultation, particularly with a local authority, is so important.
I shall read the Minister's reply carefully, and perhaps we can discuss the matter. I may not have understood the exact significance of the proposed
1044
consultation process and how it will work—whether, for example, there will be any kind of permanent or semi-permanent liaison between local authorities and the centre. That might be another way of dealing with the issue. I have explained the reason for my personal concern in regard to this matter. I believe it to be relevant. In the meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 404:
Page 89, line 30, after second ("to") insert ("the London Transport Users' Committee,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment will add the London Transport Users Committee to the list of organisations that will be notified by TfL when an application for a London service permit is granted.
The Bill currently requires the local authorities affected, the police and the London Transport Users Committee to be consulted on an application for a London service permit. It also requires TfL to notify the local authorities affected and the police, but not the London Transport Users Committee if an application is granted. Our view was that TfL would notify the LTUC as a matter of course and so an explicit requirement to do so was not necessary.
However, we listened carefully as noble Lords argued that for the sake of completeness we should make provision for TfL to notify the LTUC on the grant of permit. I am grateful to noble Lords for their consideration of this matter and am happy to bring forward this amendment which accedes to their wishes. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the amendment. It responds to concerns which were expressed by myself and others at Committee stage.
Clause 165 [Conditions]:
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 405:
Page 89, line 44, at end insert ("provided that no condition shall be operated if it contains or requires features which are neither essential nor reasonably incidental to the purpose of providing a safe, economic and efficient bus service for passengers").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 405 it may be convenient for me to speak to Amendments Nos. 408 and 409 at the same time. These are important safeguards against political correctness being imposed on bus operators or TfL deliberately or even perhaps inadvertently imposing terrible conditions on a private operator. For example, TfL could insist that all buses on a certain route have mobile payphones installed. That is plainly ridiculous. However, without the amendment there is no need to apply any test of the appropriateness of conditions. Furthermore, contravention of a condition attracts a fine at level three on the standard scale. Bearing in

1045
mind those legal sanctions, it is doubly important that the scope of the conditions is suitably limited. The amendment does that by restricting them.
Can the Minister say what conditions could possibly and reasonably be required that would be caught by the amendment? Has the Minister any illustrative examples? What are the conditions meant to cover and/or are they limited to subsection (2) of the clause? I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, politically correct or not, 1 have to say that I think payphones on buses would be an extremely good idea. I hope we hear from the Minister that the use of developing technology could be something which service providers were asked to consider seriously in the development of their services.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, when the Minister replies, perhaps she can answer the point raised by my noble friend Lord Attlee and confirm that any conditions imposed outside the scope of Clause 165(2) would be ultra vires. If we can have that assurance, no doubt we shall be more content.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we cannot accept the amendments. Clause 165 carries forward into current legislation certain provisions which are made for attaching conditions for London local service licences. It applies equivalent conditions to London service permits. TfL will only be able to attach such conditions for reasonable purposes. The normal duty to act reasonably applies.
Amendment No. 405, in conjunction with Amendments Nos. 408 and 409, seeks to limit the imposition of such conditions with the effect that Tfl, would no longer be able to take account of matters such as traffic and parking conditions or environmental or accessibility issues in determining whether to grant a permit. That answers the question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. It could seriously undermine the mayor's transport strategy. It could, for example, potentially conflict with his responsibilities to take account of the needs of people with mobility problems. I am sure that that is not what the noble Earl intended in bringing forward the amendments.
However, the Government have accepted that, in bringing forward these amendments, first at Committee stage and again on Report, noble Lords are motivated by a legitimate concern to safeguard the interests of permit holders. That is why we brought forward amendments to Clause 165 in this House. They give permit holders a right of appeal against the imposition of conditions by TfL and a right of appeal against the revocation or suspension of their permit for contravention of those conditions. I hope that noble Lords will welcome the further amendment to Clause 167 that we have tabled (Amendment No. 410) which will remove the mayor's discretion to determine such appeals without reference to the appeals panel. Our amendment will make it obligatory for the mayor to refer all appeals made under Clause 165 to the appeals panel.
1046
I believe that the amendments which are now part of the Bill to expand the circumstances in which appeals can be made, together with the new amendment that we have tabled, will provide appropriate safeguards against the imposition of unreasonable conditions. We should not limit TfL's discretion, taking account of those safeguards, to attach conditions that could bring wider benefits.
In answer to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, perhaps I may relate my experience of travelling on the West Coast main line. I am sure that those who provide card phones will be only too happy to do so free. Often the units on the card disappear at an alarming rate and no conversation is possible in either direction. I am sure that the mayor will be capable of conducting a deal. I hope noble Lords are satisfied that we have listened carefully to their concerns and acted upon them. In those circumstances, I invite the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, pay phones would be ridiculous on a bus because, as far as I can see, nearly everyone has a private mobile telephone. I cannot afford one. I do not agree with some of the arguments of the Minister. We may return to this matter, but we must look carefully at the amendments to which the Minister referred. Perhaps those amendments meet our concerns. In the meantime, with that proviso, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 406 to 408 not moved.]
Clause 166 [Revocation]:
[Amendment No. 409 not moved.]
Clause 167 [Appeals]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 410:
Page 91, line 21, leave out from ("he") to ("refer") in line 25 and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 410, which will require the mayor to refer all appeals made to him under Clause 167 to the bus appeal panel. The current draft of the Bill gives the mayor the option of either referring an appeal to the appeal panel or determining it himself by means of directions to TfL. At earlier stages in the Bill a number of noble Lords were concerned that to give the mayor the option to determine an appeal without reference to the panel could result in the mayor acting as judge and jury in such cases. I am grateful to your Lordships for raising these concerns, which I accept are valid.
Noble Lords will recall that at Committee stage we introduced amendments to widen the circumstances in which appeals could be made. This amendment goes further and provides a safeguard for the legitimate interests of all applicants for a London service permit

1047
and permit holders by ensuring that the mayor refers all appeals to the panel. I commend the amendment to the House.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, once again the House should thank the Minister for listening to the concerns voiced in Committee and responding to them.
Clause 169 [Consultation]:
[Amendment No. 411 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 170 [Publication]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 412 to 420:
Page 93, line 26, leave out ("guidance document as revised") and insert ("current version of the guidance document").
Page 93, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) The Mayor shall send to the Common Council and to each London borough council a copy of the current version of the guidance document.").
Page 93, line 31, after ("of") insert ("the current version of").
Page 93, line 31, leave out ("for the appropriate period").
Page 93, line 33, after ("Authority") insert (", and
(b) at such other places as the Mayor considers appropriate,").
Page 93, line 34, after first ("of") insert ("the current version or).
Page 93, line 35, leave out ("during the appropriate period"). Page 93, line 37, leave out subsection (7).
Page 93, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) Any reference in this section to "the current version" of the guidance document is a reference to the guidance document as last published, whether originally or as revised.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 412 to 420 en bloc.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 420A:
After Clause 172, insert the following new clause—
POWERS OF LONDON BOROUGH COUNCILS AND COMMON COUNCIL IN RESPECT OF BUS SHELTERS, ETC
(" .—(1) Subject to the following provisions, each of the London borough councils and the Common Council may provide and maintain in any highway within their district which is comprised in the route of London local bus services, or on any land abutting on such a highway, shelters or other accommodation at stopping places on the route for the use of persons intending to travel on such a service.
(2) Each of the London borough councils and the Common Council may enter into and carry out an agreement with any person for the carrying on by that person ("the contractor") of any activities associated with subsection (1) above.
(3) In exercising their powers under subsection (1) above, each of the London borough councils and the Common Council is to have regard to the Mayor's transport strategy.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 420A I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 420B. Amendment No. 420A proposes a new clause that enables the London borough councils and the Common Council to provide bus shelters and similar accommodation. We have
1048
tabled these two amendments in order to seek clarification from the Government as to how they anticipate resolving a rather complex situation. In London at present the boroughs or London Transport can contract for the supply of bus shelters. I suppose by definition London Transport would not do so outside London. The situation is different inside London.
On the one hand boroughs may prefer to control their own contracts for a number of reasons ranging from income from advertising to contracting for particular shelters. On the other hand, London Transport—soon it will be TfL—has a duty to promote public transport and to see that the supply of bus shelters suits customer needs and is one of their objectives. The revenue from the bus shelters that it provides will be returned for transport uses. There are also issues about the specification of the shelters such as uniformity, design and maintenance.
The situation is complex. As I understand it, a recent Court of Appeal decision, London Transport v. The London Borough of Hillingdon, has confirmed that the situation is complex. There are financial, commercial and passenger interests involved.
We appreciate that we have tabled these amendments at a relatively late stage. They ask the Government whether they accept that something should be on the face of the Bill either in the manner in which we are approaching the matter or by some other method. We ask how they see the current situation being resolved. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have substantial sympathy for the motivation behind this amendment. I and my noble friend Lord Harris saw the Minister to express anxieties about the potential arising from a lack of competition in this field which could eventually cause great disservice to the London travelling public.
As the noble Baroness said, the issue is very complicated. I wish to recapitulate briefly some of the history behind it. No doubt some noble Lords will have received representations from Adshel, which is special pleading, to say the least. I do not blame the company for engaging in that because that is what corporate interests do. But we have to take it, not as a dispassionate view of the situation but one designed to serve the interests of that particular company.
The noble Baroness is also right in saying that the case affecting Hillingdon was also complicated. I do not believe that it provides a very clear-cut answer to the problems that arise. In 1990, which was 10 years after London Transport formed its partnership for the provision of bus shelters, it has to be said that, from a dispassionate view of the situation at that time, the bus shelters provided on the streets of London were in very poor condition. That is why many London boroughs, if not all, welcomed the competition introduced by J.C. Decaux, a well known company with a French background which has been very successful in providing bus shelters in France. When the competition arose, bus shelter design began to

1049
improve. That situation often emerges as a corollary of competition. In Kingston-on-Thames, Lewisham, Croydon, Merton, Camden, Hounslow, Hillingdon, Barnet, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest, that measure of competition was introduced to the general benefit of a substantial proportion of London's travelling public.
The situation in Waltham Forest is a little more difficult. It now feels obliged to deal with Adshel which had lost the tender. It had to go to tender with J C Decaux; and it had lost. But last March, I think it was, it was given the contract. Decaux had found itself in difficulty because it was said some time ago, when it sought to buy Adshel, that a strong, compelling reason prevented it from doing so. It would lead to one company emerging in this field and competition would be denied. Now there is a real risk, in particular because of recent events, that the situation is being reversed in favour of Adshel.
For reasons adduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—it is a highly complicated matter—I do not say that we should decide definitively one way or the other. My noble friend was present at the meeting. He heard the representations made. I should like the Government preferably to keep an open mind and to ensure that the principles of competition are preserved. I withdraw in no way from the situation I adopted in relation to the meeting and for some time previously.
However, if my noble friend is not disposed to act, I ask him at least to ensure that careful consideration is maintained by government pressure on those providing contracts in the future to see how the situation is working out. The main criterion is the provision for the benefit of Londoners. It is not an ideological but a practical issue. If the best provision that can be made is through competition—it undoubtedly had a marked success in this case—it would be better to ensure that that opportunity remains open in the future.
I know that the Government have gone some way down their planning route. However, I urge my noble friend at the very least to give the assurance I seek so that the situation remains under careful review and Adshel is kept up to the mark. If it knows that competition is falling by the wayside, it has nothing to fear subject to maintaining the terms of its contract with London Transport and I believe that standards will drop to the disadvantage of many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people in London.
I know that the point does not go to the heart of the Bill, but it is an important issue of principle. I urge my noble friend to respond to the suggestion I have made in a positive way.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I support the amendment. On previous occasions, I have asked the Minister whether this is a local government Bill or whether we were dealing with something unique. Now we are discussing bus shelters, I know that it is a local government Bill!
1050
I, too, have received representations from different interests and local authorities which are concerned about the issue. I support the amendment because I believe that it is in the interests of the travelling public and the London boroughs and that it makes sense within the context of the Bill. I submit that the provision of bus shelters is a London-wide matter only in so far as bus shelters are wanted in all parts of London.
Putting up bus shelters is not a truly strategic matter. Indeed, I recollect that in the shire counties it is a specific provision for parish councils. I have no doubt that putative officer moguls of the Greater London Authority will think it a matter eminently suitable for London boroughs. I suggest that the continuation of dual powers, in this as in anything else, is a great mistake. It may not be as fundamental as dual highway and planning powers, but it is an example of dual powers, which we need to avoid.
I submit that it is for the boroughs to decide what the provisions should be and, after competitive tender, to have the ability to make a borough-wide provision to decide what publicity should be permitted and what to do with the revenue that flows from it.
I draw on my experience as a former Leader of Croydon Borough Council when we decided that we wanted to undertake a comprehensive re-signing scheme over the whole of the borough and to provide bus shelters to a standard and quality which is common-place in many municipalities in continental Europe, but remarkably and sadly unusual within the United Kingdom. Certainly that which had been provided previously in no way reached the standard we sought.
I have to tell your Lordships that the viability of the contract we were able to offer was significantly challenged because we were unable to include the whole of the borough and because of the ability of London Transport and its partners to deal with particular instances within the borough. We were seeking a design to a high standard which could be carried out throughout the area. It is difficult.
Therefore, I ask the Minister to accept that there is an important strategy here in terms of whether the Greater London Authority and the mayor should be dealing with things which are not strategic. There is an issue about the ability of the boroughs to go out to competitive tender to achieve what they want. I hope that in replying to the debate the Minister will be able to give us some assurance that the matter can be looked at seriously.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I admit that when I first looked at the amendment it appeared to be quite interesting. However, further investigation revealed that the matter has been the subject of various legal challenges, as mentioned by the noble Baroness. This is largely a commercial dispute and we do not believe that we should become involved. On the other hand, I should be interested to hear the Minister's response to this important and complicated matter.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis have said, this seemingly innocent area is extremely complicated. As the noble Earl has just indicated, it has already been the subject of serious legal disputes.
All that we were actually trying to do here was to preserve the status quo and to ensure that TfL took over the responsibilities which currently lie with London transport, but it has raised a hornet's nest of borough and commercial activity and lobbying, probably as much as any other part of the Bill. That extraordinary state of affairs needs to be addressed, but I do not believe that it can be addressed in the terms of the noble Baroness's amendments.
London Transport, and indeed every other local authority up and down the land, has the ability to raise bus shelters. In London, 93 per cent of the bus shelters are London Transport bus shelters. The second of these amendments would remove all the existing powers under the 1934 Act which London has to erect and maintain shelters. TfL would no longer have powers to build shelters and would also have to stop maintaining all London Transport's existing ones.
That is not what the Government envisage as a sensible arrangement. Clearly, like the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, the Government want to see adequate provision of shelters and improvement in the quality of shelters. The current arrangements have actually resulted in a fairly substantial provision of bus shelters in London. There are over 10,000 bus stops in London with shelters, which is 62 per cent of bus stops. That is a dramatically higher figure than applies for example, to Greater Manchester, where only about 29 per cent of bus stops have shelters—I am not saying that that is necessarily an example to us all. It rains more in Manchester, so I would have thought that there would be more in Manchester.
As I have said, over 90 per cent of London bus shelters are owned by London Transport. Of those, about 90 per cent are relatively new; less than 10 years old. I do not disagree with the noble Lord that there has been an element of improvement over recent months—my noble friend has just passed me a note saying, "Don't be southist"! I intend no disparagement to Manchester, apart from its relative meteorological position.
I do not believe that the boroughs will necessarily be in a better position than TfL to make a decision on the nature of bus shelters and on the requirements throughout the bus route, which, after all, will cross several boroughs and take little account of borough boundaries. It is somewhat bizarre to say to the people of London that their new transport authority can do almost anything in London except provide and maintain bus shelters for the most popular form of transport within London and one which we wish to improve and encourage people to use.
Therefore I believe that it is not a reasonable way out of what would appear to be something of a dilemma and conflict to delete all powers for London Transport in that area. Furthermore, through its
1052
arrangement with Adshel, London Transport receives £5 million per year in advertising revenue from those shelters. It may be that, rather than being any great ideological issue, this is a matter in which the boroughs are undoubtedly interested. I understand that. Nevertheless, that agreement with Adshel has brought benefit to London Transport which has been completely reinvested in the transport system.
It is also the case, if we are getting into legal difficulties, that the Adshel/London Transport agreement is contractually binding and if we were effectively to end that agreement through legislation we should be in even more legal difficulties.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to my noble friend for allowing my interruption. I do not wish to prolong the argument unduly, but is it not a little bizarre that when J. C. Decaux wanted to purchase Adshel, the application was denied on competition grounds because there would be only one company involved with LT? Is it not now bizarre that that might in fact be the logic of the situation being driven by the Government at the moment?
Lord Whitty: No, my Lords. I was just about to come to the issue of competition. Clearly, when the contracts—both London borough contracts and LT contracts—come up for renegotiation, there will be an issue of competition. The Adshel agreement comes to an end in 2005. TfL will have a best value duty, as will other local authorities, and at that point it is the Government's duty to ensure that competition operates. The issue is not one of competition; it is one of powers.
I am sure that competition law, and probably European procurement rules, would require both the boroughs and London Transport to engage in effective competition at the point at which the contract is awarded. In the case of London Transport, that will be in 2005. Clearly, we are all in favour of competition operating at that point. However, we are not in favour of changing the situation whereby London Transport, after 70 years, is wiped out of the picture and everything is left to the London boroughs. I do not honestly believe that that would be understood by the electorate of London. London boroughs will have some powers in this area, as they do now, and they will contract their work to whomever is the best provider, of which there are two that we have named. Both are active lobbyists and, apparently, active litigants as well.
We have a difficult situation here. Broadly speaking, we have stayed with the status quo, transferring from London Transport to TfL its current powers. I believe that that is the most sensible way forward. Certainly, we do not wish to imply that there is an anticompetitive motive in so doing. Competition will prevail when those contracts come up. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, first, I wish to make a very serious point. I hope that the Minister will

1053
understand that Manchester's rainfall is precisely the national average. That is something that as a Mancunian I learned very early at school. The towns around it, such as Oldham, have a higher rainfall, but not Manchester—
Lord Whitty: My Lords, for the record, I apologise to Manchester.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I was going to add: despite the fact that it always rains when there is a test match at Old Trafford.
I was careful not to mention the names of the two suppliers. Inevitably those names emerged. I had not wanted to be thought to be taking either side. I believe that some very important issues arise from this. As the Minister says, they are both energetic companies. When I was still a local councillor and had some responsibility in the area, one of the companies was very keen to take me on a tour of its public "loos" in central London. I was told that the one in Russell Square was a particularly fine example. But it was a visit that I resisted.
There are serious points arising from this. I shall read carefully what the Minister has said. However, to pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, I believe that the major issue in all this is what is in the interests of the travelling public. If one can find that through the morass of complexity then that would be helpful. I am still a little unsure of quite what is in the interests of members of the travelling public among these issues.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 420B not moved.]
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston)The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston) moved Amendment No. 421:
After Clause 176, insert the following new clause—
LICENCE EXEMPTIONS AND FACILITY EXEMPTIONS IN AND AROUND GREATER LONDON
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Rail Regulator and the Franchising Director, by order grant at any time—

(a) a licence exemption under subsection (1) of section 7 of the Railways Act 1993, notwithstanding anything in subsection (10) of that section, or

(b) a facility exemption under section 20 of that Act, notwithstanding anything in subsection (9) of that section,

subject to and in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
(2) An exemption by virtue of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) above may only be granted in respect of railway assets or railway facilities comprised in, or used on or in connection with. a network on which some or all of the regular scheduled passenger services are operated by London Regional Transport or Transport for London or a subsidiary of London Regional Transport or Transport for London.
(3) The power conferred by subsection (1) above is exercisable only if the Secretary of State has received an application for the grant of the exemption from the appropriate London transport authority.
(4) In this section—
"the appropriate London transport authority" means—

(a) as respects any time before the transfer date, London Regional Transport; and

(b) as respects any time on or after that date, Transport for London;

"the transfer date" means the date on which London Underground Limited becomes a subsidiary of Transport for London;
and, subject to that, expressions used in this section and in Part I of the Railways Act 1993 have the same meaning in this section as in that Part.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 421, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 422 to 424. This group of amendments consists of technical measures which provide that LT and TfL will not be constrained from entering into an agreement to integrate the Tube and national rail networks.
The group also includes a small technical amendment which will add TfL to the list of local authorities and rail franchise agreements. I should mention here that, while we do not foresee a need to make any more significant amendments in respect of the national rail network, we shall need to bring forward a few amendments at Third Reading in respect of the Docklands Light Railway and the Croydon Tramlink. I beg to move.
Clause 178 [Transport for London: contracts requiring passenger licences]:
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendments Nos. 422 and 423:
Page 98, line 2, at end insert—

("( ) an agreement with respect to the provision or retention, or financing, of regular scheduled railway passenger services operated by a London transport body;

( ) an agreement with respect to the provision or retention, or financing, of regular scheduled railway passenger services operated by a person other than a London transport body on track used for the provision of regular scheduled railway passenger services operated by a London transport body (whether or not the track is also used for other purposes);").

Page 98, line 10, at beginning insert—
("In this section "London transport body" means—

(a) London Regional Transport;

(b) Transport for London; or

(c) a subsidiary of London Regional Transport or Transport for London;

and, subject to that,").
Clause 182 [Amendment of franchise agreements to take account of the Authority]:
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 424:
Page 99, line 43, at end insert ("Transport for London,".").
Clause 185 [PPP agreements]
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 425:
Page 102, line 9, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) At least one of the parties to the contract must be a relevant body for the purposes of this Chapter, that is to say—

(a) London Regional Transport;

(b) Transport for London; or

(c) a subsidiary of London Regional Transport or Transport for London.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 425 and I shall also speak to Amendments No. 425B in substitution for Amendment No. 425A, and to Amendments Nos. 428 to 433, 440 to 446, 449 to 451 and 467. This group of amendments is largely technical in nature and relates to the PPP agreements, key system assets and leases.
The first section of this group of amendments—Amendments Nos. 425, 428, 429 and 467—extends LRT and TfL's powers under Clauses 185 and 189 to enter into PPP agreements and designate key system assets to London Transport and TfL subsidiaries.
Amendment No. 425B, on public sector operators, replaces Amendment No. 425A which was put down on Wednesday last week and unfortunately omitted the key words "a PPP company". I apologise for having to make this correction at this late stage, but those words are essential in order that other sections of the Bill which refer to subsection (5) of Clause 185 are correct.
Amendment No. 425B is necessary to allow the PPP agreements to be entered into while infrastructure companies are still subsidiaries of LUL and, as such, are classed as public sector operators. As currently drafted, Clause 185(5) excludes public sector operators from entering into PPP agreements.
In regard to Amendments Nos. 430 to 433 on key system assets, we have been considering the burdens which Clause 189 of the Bill places on Transport for London and consider that the proposed arrangement may be unnecessarily bureaucratic. These amendments give TfL the choice of providing a register of assets or copies of the designation documents.
Amendments Nos. 440 to 446 are mainly technical amendments, designed to avoid uncertainty in the treatment of PPP leases.
Finally, Amendments Nos. 449 to 451 are technical amendments deleting provisions which were included in the Railways Act provisions on which Schedule 11 is based, but are not necessary for the PPP administration orders.
I commend these amendments to the House. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, the Minister has described this group of amendments as technical and, by implication, innocuous. Does he realise that if the House agrees Amendment No. 425, my Amendment No. 426 would be rendered defective? That annoys me
1056
a little, but there we are. However, we shall look at these amendments very carefully to make sure that they are indeed technical.
[Amendment No. 425A not moved.]
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 425B:
Page 102, line 24, leave out subsections (5) and (6) and insert—
("(5) If a party who undertakes to carry out or secure the carrying out of any or all of the work mentioned in subsection (3) above (a "PPP company") is a public sector operator at the time when the contract is made, that party must no longer be a public sector operator on the day following the expiration of the period of six weeks beginning with the day on which the condition in subsection (7) below is satisfied.").
10 p.m.
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 426:
Page 102, line 32, at end insert
("(8) Transport for London may only enter into a PPP agreement with any party after a process of competitive tendering has taken place, such tenders in an abbreviated form to be available for inspection by members of the public following the conclusion of the tendering process.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 426 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara. The amendment is designed to ensure transparency and prevent a cosy deal being struck on a politically-influenced basis by forcing the tendering system into the open but with proper safeguards to protect commercial confidentiality. It will ensure transparency and the best value for money for the public.
As I intimated earlier, the last group of government amendments indicate that agreements may be signed by subsidiaries and not just TfL only. In view of that, I shall accept the Minister's criticism that my amendment may now be defective. I beg to move.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, this amendment has two separate strands. The first part relates to competitive processes and would not allow TfL to enter into a PPP agreement with a company unless it had run a tender competition.
As a general point the Government agree that best value is normally achieved through having a competitive process. However, there are certain circumstances where there is particular merit in pursuing negotiations bilaterally. The discussions that London Underground is having with Railtrack, where the aim is to explore the scope for integration of the Underground's sub-surface lines with the national railway network, is such a case. We feel therefore that it would not be in the best interest of Londoners to impose an obligation of the type suggested.
The second element of the amendment requires TfL to publish summaries of the tenders once the competition has been completed. It is not normal practice to publish details of tenders as much of the information they contain is commercially sensitive. We understand the desire for the award of contracts to

1057
be undertaken in a way that demonstrably delivers best value to the public purse. But an obligation to publish a summary of tenders is not desirable. Rather, I can offer the reassurance that the competitive process will be subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office in the normal way. I therefore ask the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, is he able to tell the House whether other public bodies which have to deal with tendering publish the tenders? I am thinking particularly of local authorities which do not in fact publish summaries of tenders because, although the commercial aspects will not be discussed publicly, other aspects may be discussed in committee and therefore in public.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I shall read carefully what he said. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 427:
After Clause 185, insert the following new clause—
CONDITIONS FOR ENTRY INTO PPP AGREEMENT
(" —(1) Before any PPP agreement is entered into the Secretary of State shall have carried out an economic assessment in respect of the life of the agreement which demonstrates that such PPP agreement represents value for money at least comparable to that which would have been available through a publicly financed arrangement."
(2) Such assessment shall be published by the Secretary of State immediately after the relevant PPP agreement has been entered into.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 427 is a refinement of an amendment put forward from these Benches at Committee stage in July. It is designed to ensure that a public sector comparator is carried out for a PPP agreement before it is actually entered into, and then as soon as it has been entered into, it is published. An understanding of the risk being transferred by a PPP agreement is clearly crucial to an assessment of the benefits of PPP or PFI agreements. Many of the doubts about PFI agreements concern the question of whether the risk transferred to the private sector is adequate to justify the additional costs to the public purse of the PFI or PPP agreements. It is that which makes having a comparator compulsory in these circumstances of such crucial importance.
At Committee stage the Minister said that there was no difference between us in principle as regards the carrying out of a comparator. He said:
"We have no intention of proceeding with any aspect of the PPP unless we are convinced that the contracts offer best value for passengers and taxpayers".
He went on to say,
"We are committed to conducting a public sector comparator exercise".—[Official Report, 1/7/99; col. 561.]
On that score there can clearly be no doubt. However, he took exception to the timing. He did not believe that there should be publication before the PPP agreement was entered into, and he objected to the exercise being carried out by the GLA. Hence the amendment allows
1058
the Secretary of State to carry out the comparator and for that comparator to be published not before the agreement is entered into—there seemed to be a view that it was commercially sensitive to do it at that time—but afterwards.
Therefore, having amended the amendment, so to speak, to ensure that it complies exactly with his requirements, I ask the Minister what objection there can be in principle to this being included on the face of the Bill? It is clearly of great importance that we have this clarity and transparency about any PPP agreement which is entered into. Equally, it is of vital importance that it should be established to be of at least as good value as any public financing. I look forward to hearing the Minister's acceptance that this is a sensible amendment and one which should be included on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, moving his amendment. For myself, I would certainly not like to see a PPP offering poor value. However, I suspect that the Minister will offer the noble Lord a similar response to the one that I received on my previous amendment.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, this amendment requires the Secretary of State to carry out a public sector comparator exercise before any PPP contracts are signed to show that the contracts are at least comparable on value for money grounds with the Underground remaining within the public sector.
As my noble friend Lord Whitty explained in Committee, the Government are already committed to testing the PPP for value for money against a public sector comparator. We have made it clear time and again that we have no intention of proceeding with any aspect of the PPP unless we are convinced that the contracts offer best value for passengers and taxpayers.
I turn now to the question of publishing the findings. Although some factors may need to remain commercially confidential between the parties, it is our intention to put as much information as practical into the public domain, including the construction of the public sector comparator. The details will be subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office, which will be looking for reassurance that the competition has been handled properly and that best value was obtained for the taxpayer.
However, we do not think that an obligation to carry out and then publish the details of the public sector comparator is necessary. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I must admit that I was somewhat baffled by the logic of his final paragraph. The noble Lord made the very welcome commitment to carry out the public sector comparator; indeed, he said that the Government had no intention of proceeding with a PPP agreement unless that was carried out. He also added that as much information

1059
as possible would be put into the public domain. However, he then said that it was not appropriate to put that on the face of the Bill. It seems to us that that would be a very important reassurance to the public that these PPP agreements, which are normal but about which many people have misgivings, should clearly be seen to be as good value as public financing.
Nevertheless, I shall carefully consider the Minister's reply in Hansard, but we may well wish to return to this matter at a future stage. Having accepted the obligation so clearly and also the obligation to publish, I, for one, do not really understand why this provision should not appear on the face of the Bill. But, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 188 [Key system assets]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 428 and 429:
Page 103, line 37, leave out ("the relevant authority") and insert ("a relevant body").
Page 103, line 40, leave out ("the relevant authority") and insert ("a relevant body").
Clause 189 [Register of key system assets]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 430 to 433:
Page 104, line 4, at end insert (", except as provided by subsection (2A) below").
Page 104, line 10, at end insert—
("(2A) The register need not contain an entry in respect of any particular key system asset or description of key system assets if the relevant authority, with the consent of the PPP company concerned, keeps the requisite copy documents available for inspection by the public at all reasonable hours free of charge.
(2B) For the purposes of this section the "requisite copy documents", in the case of any particular key system asset or description of key system assets, are copies of—

(a) the document which contains the designation under paragraph (a) or (b) of section 188(1) above, and

(b) such other documents (if any) as may be necessary to disclose the information which would (apart from subsection (2A) above) be required to be stated in the register,

or of such extracts from those documents as disclose the designation or, as the case may be, the information concerned.").
Page 104, line 13, after ("register") insert (", or any requisite copy documents available for inspection under subsection (2A) above,").
Page 104, line 14, at end insert ("or requisite copy documents").
Clause 190 [Related third party agreements]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 434 to 437:
Page 104, line 23, leave out ("a third party") and insert ("another person (a "PPP related third party")").
Page 104, line 31, after second ("the") insert ("PPP related").
Page 104, line 34, at end insert ("PPP related").
Page 104, line 36, after first ("the") insert ("PPP related").
Clause 191 [Protection of key system assets]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 438 and 439:
Page 105, line 10, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("(5) Where a PPP agreement makes provision for or in connection with the transfer to a successor body at any time—

(a) of any shares in a PPP company, or

(b) of any key system assets,

the relevant authority shall ensure that the PPP agreement includes provision specifying, or providing for the determination of, the amounts which are to be paid in respect of those shares or key system assets.
(5A) In subsection (5) above, "successor body" means—

(a) a relevant body;

(b) a PPP company; or

(c) a PPP related third party.

(5B) Any reference in this section to a PPP company or PPP related third party includes a reference to a body or person which has been or is to be such a company or party.").
After Clause 191, insert the following new clause—
SCHEMES FOR THE TRANSFER OF KEY SYSTEM ASSETS
(" .—(1) Transport for London may make schemes for the transfer of key system assets from any body falling within subsection (2) below to any other such body.
(2) Those bodies are—

(a) Transport for London;

(b) any subsidiary of Transport for London;

(c) any PPP company;

(d) any PPP related third party.

(3) A scheme under this section shall not take effect unless and until it has been approved by the Mayor.
(4) The transfers which may be made by virtue of a scheme under this section include transfers taking effect before, on or after the expiration of the term of the PPP agreement or PPP related third party agreement by reference to which the transferor or transferee under the scheme falls within subsection (2) above.
(5) No scheme under this section for the transfer of key system assets from or to—

(a) a PPP company, or

(b) a PPP related third party,

may be made otherwise than in accordance with the terms of the PPP agreement or PPP related third party agreement by reference to which the PPP company or PPP related third party falls within subsection (2) above.
(6) In this section—

(a) any reference to key system assets includes a reference to property, rights or liabilities which have been or are to be such assets; and

(b) any reference to a PPP company or PPP related third party includes a reference to a body or person which has been or is to be such a company or party.

(7) Schedule (Transport for London transfer schemes) to this Act (which makes further provision in relation to schemes under this section) shall have effect.").
Clause 192 [PPP leases]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 440 to 446:
Page 105, line 29, leave out from ("lease") to end of line 31.
Page 105, line 38, leave out ("for the PPP company's use").
Page 105, line 42, after second ("the") insert ("PPP").
Page 106, line 1, after second ("the") insert ("PPP").

1061
Page 106, line 2, after second ("the") insert ("PPP").
Page 106, line 4, after ("the") insert ("PPP").
Page 106, line 5, after ("the") insert ("PPP").
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 447 and 448:
Before Schedule 10, insert the following new schedule—
("SCHEDULE TRANSPORT FOR LONDON TRANSFER SCHEMES
Interpretation
1. In this Schedule—
"transfer scheme" means—

(a) a scheme under section (Distribution of property, rights or liabilities) of this Act; or

(b) a scheme under section (Schemes for the transfer of key system assets) of this Act;

"transferor" means the person from whom property, rights or liabilities are transferred by a transfer scheme;
"transferee" means a person to whom any such property, rights or liabilities are so transferred.
Contents of transfer schemes
2.—(1) The property, rights and liabilities which may be transferred by a transfer scheme include property, rights and liabilities which would not otherwise be capable of being transferred or assigned.
(2) No right of reverter, right of pre-emption, right of forfeiture, right of re-entry, right to compensation, option or similar right affecting any land or other property, and no right to terminate or vary a contract, shall operate or become exercisable as a result of any transfer of land or other property by virtue of a transfer scheme, or any instrument or agreement made in connection with a transfer scheme, whether or not any consent required to the transfer has been obtained.
(3) Any such right or option shall accordingly have effect in the case of any such transfer as if—

(a) the transferee in relation to that transfer were the same person in law as the transferor; and

(b) no transfer of the land or other property had taken place.

(4) Sub-paragraph (3) above is without prejudice to section 356 of this Act or any other provision made by or under this Act which makes transitional provision in relation to a transfer.
(5) Sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) above shall have effect in relation to—

(a) the grant or creation of an estate or interest in, or right over, any land or other property, or

(b) the doing of any other thing in relation to land or other property,

as they have effect in relation to a transfer of land or other property.
(6) No right to terminate or vary a contract, and no other rights under a contract, shall operate or become exercisable by reason of any transfer of shares by virtue of a transfer scheme.
Apportionment and division
3.—( ) A transfer scheme may make provision for the apportionment or division of any property, rights or liabilities.
(2) Where a transfer scheme makes provision for the apportionment or division between two or more persons of any rights or liabilities under a contract, the contract shall have effect, as from the coming into force of the provision, as if it constituted two or more separate contracts separately enforceable by and against each of those persons respectively as respects the part of the rights or liabilities which falls to him as a result of the apportionment or division.
Definition of the property, rights and liabilities transferred
4. A transfer scheme may define the property, rights and liabilities to be transferred—

(a) by specifying or describing them;

(b) by referring to all (or all except anything specified or described) of the property, rights and liabilities comprised in a specified part of the undertaking of the transferor; or

(c) partly in the one way and partly in the other

Other provision that may be made by a transfer scheme
5. The provision that may be made by a transfer scheme includes provision—

(a) for the creation, in relation to any land or other property which the scheme transfers, of an estate or interest in or right over the property in favour of the transferor;

(b) for the creation, in favour of a transferee, of an estate or interest in or right over any land or other property retained by the transferor or transferred by the scheme to another transferee;

(c) for the creation of rights or liabilities as between two or more transferees or as between one or more transferees and the transferor;

(d) for any rights or liabilities specified or described in the scheme to be, or to be to any extent, enforceable by or against two or more transferees, or by or against one or more transferees and the transferor;

(e) for imposing on the transferor or a transferee an obligation to enter into written agreements with, or execute other instruments in favour of, the transferor, or that or any other transferee, or such other person as may be specified in the scheme.

Power to make supplementary etc provision
6. A transfer scheme may make such supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provision, or savings, a; Transport for London considers appropriate.
Functions under local Acts or Transport and Works Act orders
7.—(1) A transfer scheme may provide that any functions of the transferor under a relevant statutory provision—

(a) shall be transferred to the transferee;

(b) shall be concurrently exercisable by two or more transferees; or

(c) shall be concurrently exercisable by the transferor and one or more transferees.

(2) Sub-paragraph (1) above applies in relation to any function under a relevant statutory provision if and to the extent that the relevant statutory provision—

(a) relates to any property which is to be transferred by the scheme; or

(b) authorises the carrying out of works designed to be used in connection with any such property or the acquisition of land for the purpose of carrying out any such works.

(3) A transfer scheme which makes provision by virtue of this paragraph shall not have effect unless and until it is confirmed by an order made by the Secretary of State.
(4) In this paragraph "relevant statutory provision" means any provision, whether of a general or of a special nature, contained in, or in any document made or issued under—

(a) any local Act; or

(b) any order under the Transport and Works Act 1992.

Effect of transfer scheme
8. On the date appointed by a transfer scheme, the property, rights and liabilities which are the subject of the scheme shall, by virtue of this paragraph, be transferred in accordance with the provisions of the scheme.
Continuity
9.—(1) Nothing in this Act affects the validity of anything done by or in relation to the transferor in connection with anything transferred by a transfer scheme.
(2) There may be continued by or in relation to the transferee anything (including legal proceedings) which—

(a) relates to anything transferred by a transfer scheme, and

(b) is in the process of being done by or in relation to the transferor immediately before the transfer takes effect.

(3) Anything which—

(a) was done by the transferor for the purposes of or otherwise in connection with anything transferred by a transfer scheme, and

(b) is in effect immediately before the transfer takes effect, shall have effect as if done by the transferee.

(4) The transferee shall be substituted for the transferor in any instruments, contracts or legal proceedings which—

(a) relate to anything transferred by a transfer scheme, and

(b) are made or commenced before the transfer takes effect.

(5) Any reference in this paragraph to anything done by or in relation to the transferor includes a reference to anything which by virtue of any enactment is treated as having been done by or in relation to the transferor.
Transfer of employees
10.—(1) This paragraph applies where a person employed by the transferor becomes an employee of the transferee by virtue of a transfer scheme.
(2) Anything done by or in relation to the transferor in respect of the employee before the day on which the transfer takes effect shall be treated on and after that day as done by or in relation to the transferee.
(3) For the purposes of Part XI of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (redundancy payments etc) the employee shall not be regarded as having been dismissed by virtue of the transfer.
(4) For the purposes of that Act—

(a) the employee's period of employment with the transferor shall count as a period of employment with the transferee; and

(b) the change of employment shall not break the continuity of the period of employment.

Provision of information to Transport for London
11.—(1) Where Transport for London proposes to make a transfer scheme under section (Schemes for the transfer of key system assets) of this Act, it may direct any person to whom, or from whom, property is to be transferred under the scheme—

(a) to provide the Transport for London with such information as Transport for London considers necessary to enable it to make the scheme; and

(b) to do so within such time (being not less than 28 days from the giving of the direction) as may be specified in the direction.

(2) If a person fails to comply with a direction under subparagraph (1) above, Transport for London may serve a notice on him requiring him—

(a) to produce to Transport for London, at a time and place specified in the notice, any documents which are specified or described in the notice and are in his custody or under his control; or

(b) to provide to Transport for London, at a time and place and in the form and manner specified in the notice, such information as may be specified or described in the notice.

(3) No person shall be required under this paragraph—

(a) to produce any documents which he could not be compelled to produce in civil proceedings in the court; or

1064

(b) in complying with any requirement for the provision of information, to provide any information which he could not be compelled to give in evidence in any such proceedings.

(4) A person who without reasonable excuse fails to do anything required of him by a notice under sub-paragraph (2) above is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
(5) A person who intentionally alters, suppresses or destroys any document which he has been required to produce by a notice under sub-paragraph (2) above is guilty of an offence and liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; or

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.

(6) If a person makes default in complying with a notice under sub-paragraph (2) above, the court may, on the application of Transport for London, make such order as the court thinks fit for requiring the default to be made good.
(7) Any such order may provide that all the costs or expenses of and incidental to the application shall be borne by the person in default or by any officers of a company or other association who are responsible for its default.
(8) In this paragraph—

(a) any reference to the production of a document includes a reference to the production of a legible and intelligible copy of information recorded otherwise than in legible form; and

(b) the reference to suppressing a document includes a reference to destroying the means of reproducing information recorded otherwise than in legible form.

(9) In this paragraph "the court" means the High Court.
Modification of transfer scheme
12. —(1) If at any time after a transfer scheme has come into force—

(a) the transferor,

(b) any transferee affected, and

(c) Transport for London, if not falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above,

so agree in writing, the scheme shall for all purposes be deemed to have come into force with such modifications as may be specified in the agreement.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) above does not apply in relation to modifications relating to the transfer of rights and liabilities under a contract of employment, unless the employee concerned is a party to the agreement.
(3) An agreement under sub-paragraph (1) above—

(a) may make, with effect from the coming into force of the scheme, such provision as could have been made by the scheme: and

(b) in connection with giving effect to that provision from that time, may contain incidental, supplemental, consequential or transitional provision.

(4) Transport for London may only enter into an agreement under sub-paragraph (1) above with the consent of the Mayor.
(5) The Mayor, in giving his consent under sub-paragraph (4) above to an agreement in respect of a scheme under section (Distribution of property, rights and liabilities) of this Act, may make it a condition of the consent that such further modifications to the scheme as he may specify in giving the consent are to be included in the agreement.
(6) No modification may be specified by the Mayor under subparagraph (5) above which could not have been included in the agreement apart from that sub-paragraph.").
Before Schedule 10, insert the following new schedule—
("SCHEDULE PROMOTION OF BILLS IN PARLIAMENT BY TRANSPORT FOR LONDON
Preliminary requirements
1. No Bill may be deposited in Parliament by virtue of section (Power of Transport for London to promote or oppose Bills in Parliament)(1)(a) of this Act until the requirements of paragraph 2 below have been complied with.
Consultation on draft Bill
2.—(1) Transport for London shall—

(a) prepare a draft of the proposed Bill ("the draft Bill");

(b) send copies of the draft Bill to the bodies and persons specified in sub-paragraph (2) below; and

(c) consult those bodies and persons about the draft Bill.

(2) Those bodies and persons are—

(a) the Mayor;

(b) the Assembly;

(c) every London borough council; and

(d) the Common Council.

(3) Where Transport for London sends copies of the draft Bill to those bodies and persons pursuant to sub-paragraph (1)(6) above. it shall also give those bodies and persons notice of the time within which, and the place at which, they may make representations about the draft Bill.
Publicity for, and exposure of, the draft Bill
3.—(1) Throughout the consultation period, Transport for London shall take such steps as in its opinion will give adequate publicity to the draft Bill.
(2) A copy of the draft Bill shall be kept available by Transport for London for inspection by any person on request free of charge—

(a) at the principal offices of Transport for London, and

(b) at such other places as Transport for London considers appropriate,

at reasonable hours throughout the consultation period.
(3) A copy of the draft Bill, or of any part of the draft Bill, shall be supplied to any person on request during the consultation period for such reasonable fee as Transport for London may determine.
(4) In this paragraph "the consultation period" means the period which—

(a) begins with the first day after the requirements of paragraph 2(1)(b) above have been complied with; and

(b) ends with the time notified pursuant to paragraph 2(3) above.

Deposition of the Bill in Parliament
4.—(1) If, after the requirements of paragraph 2 above have been complied with, a Bill is deposited in Parliament by virtue of section (Power of Transport for London to promote or oppose Bills in Parliament)(1)(a) of this Act, that Bill must be in the form of the draft Bill, either as originally prepared or as modified to take account of—

(a) representations made pursuant to paragraph 2 above;

(b) other representations made within the consultation period; or

(c) other material considerations.

(2) In this paragraph "the consultation period" has the same meaning as in paragraph 3 above.
Bills affecting powers of London local authorities
5. If a Bill proposed to be deposited in Parliament by virtue of section (Power of Transport for London to promote or oppose Bills in Parliament)(1)(a) of this Act contains provisions affecting the exercise of statutory functions by a London local authority, the Bill shall not be deposited in Parliament unless—

(a) in a case where the statutory functions of one London local authority are affected, that authority has given its written consent to the Bill in the form in which it is to be so deposited; or

(b) in a case where the statutory functions of two or more London local authorities are affected, at least 90 per cent. of all London local authorities have given their written consent to the Bill in that form.

(2) In this paragraph "London local authority" means—

(a) a London borough council; or

(b) the Common Council.

Publicity for the deposited Bill
6.—(1) This paragraph applies where a Bill ("the deposited Bill") is deposited in Parliament by virtue of section (Power of Transport for London to promote or oppose Bills in Parliament)(1)(a) of this Act.
(2) During the period of 14 days following the day on which the deposited Bill is deposited in Parliament, Transport for London shall take such steps as in its opinion will give adequate publicity to the Bill.
(3) A copy of the deposited Bill shall be kept available by Transport for London for inspection by any person on request free of charge—

(a) at the principal offices of Transport for London, and

(b) at such other places as Transport for London considers appropriate,

at reasonable hours throughout the period while the Bill is in Parliament.
(4) A copy of the deposited Bill, or of any part of the deposited Bill, shall be supplied to any person on request during that period for such reasonable fee as Transport for London may determine.").
Schedule 11 [Transfer of relevant activities in connection with PPP administration orders]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 449 to 451:
Page 249, line 24, leave out ("his duties under Part I of this Act") and insert ("the duties imposed upon him by or under this Act or any other enactment (whenever passed or made)").
Page 252, line 27, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
Page 252, line 38, leave out from ("provisions") to ("which") in line 39.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux): My Lords, Amendments Nos. 449 to 460 have all been spoken to. Amendment No. 452. Unless any noble Lord objects, I shall move all these amendments en bloc: as many of that opinion say "Content'', to the contrary "Not-Content"; the "Contents" have it.
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 461
Page 114, line 2, after ("to") insert ("give priority to the objective in subsection (3) above (efficiency and economy) and in making his decision the PPP arbiter shall").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am a little concerned that the Minister does not appear to have moved his Amendments Nos. 452 to 460, 462,464 and 465. However, I now move Amendment No. 461.
It is quite correct that the Bill as drafted requires a PPP arbiter to act as a third party referee in any disputes. Most significant construction contracts in the commercial world would have some form of expert umpire to resolve disputes. It is furthermore extremely helpful that the Bill sets out the principles on which the PPP arbiter is to act so that everyone has some idea of where they stand.
However, as drafted, the Bill is unclear as to what should happen in the event that these principles clash. This places the PPP arbiter in an invidious position. This amendment cures a defect in the Bill by stating which principle takes priority. The Minister may feel that something else should take priority. Perhaps planning the future performance of the agreement may be the Minister's priority for the arbiter. I look forward to hearing the Minister's views. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it is my understanding—I think that it is important that we clarify this for the record—that Amendments Nos. 452 to 460 and 462, 464 and 465 were moved together. I think it would be helpful to clarify the position particularly with regard to Amendments Nos. 452 and 460.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460 were all spoken to with Amendment No. 452.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I shall not lose any sleep over this.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, for the assistance of the House I suggest that it is recorded that these amendments were moved en bloc.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, is Amendment No. 461 not moved or withdrawn?
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I have spoken to Amendment No. 461.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, this amendment seeks to require the arbiter to make efficiency and economy his key priority when making a direction or issuing guidance. I understand that the same amendment was brought forward at the Committee stage of the Bill.
As my noble friend Lady Farrington of Ribbleton made clear on that occasion, we are firmly of the view that there are no substantial benefits to be had from the objectives being ranked in a pre-defined order of importance. Subsections (2) to (5) of this clause clearly define the objectives set for the arbiter, of which subsection (3) deals specifically with efficiency and economy. We agree that efficiency and economy are
1068
important, but we do not wish to make these considerations pre-eminent. I therefore ask the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I shall read carefully what the Minister says in Hansard tomorrow. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 462:
Page 114, line 11, leave out from ("the") to ("and") in line 13 and insert ("PPP agreement—

(a) contains provision specifying, or for determining, the rate of return which the PPP company in question might reasonably expect to earn;").

Clause 206 [Provision of information to the PPP arbiter]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 463 to 465:
Page 115, line 1, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—

("(c) any PPP related third party.").

After Clause 206, insert the following new clause—
FAILURE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO PPP ARBITER
(" . —(1) If a person fails to comply with a request under section 206(1) above, the PPP arbiter may serve a notice on that person requiring him—

(a) to produce to the PPP arbiter, at a time and place specified in the notice, any documents which are specified or described in the notice and are in his custody or under his control; or

(b) to provide to the PPP arbiter, at a time and place and in the form and manner specified in the notice, such information as may be specified or described in the notice.

(2) No person shall be required under this section—

(a) to produce any documents which he could not be compelled to produce in civil proceedings in the court; or

(b) in complying with any requirement for the provision of information, to provide any information which he could not be compelled to give in evidence in any such proceedings.

(3) A person who intentionally alters, suppresses or destroys any document which he has been required to produce by a notice under subsection (1) above is guilty of an offence and liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; or

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.

(4) If a person makes default in complying with a notice under subsection (1) above, the court may, on the application of the PPP arbiter, make such order as the court thinks fit for requiring the default to be made good.
(5) Any such order may provide that all the costs or expenses of and incidental to the application shall be borne by the person in default or by any officers of a company or other association who are responsible for its default.
(6) In this section—

(a) any reference to the production of a document includes a reference to the production of a legible and intelligible copy of information recorded otherwise than in legible form; and

(b) the reference to suppressing a document includes a reference to destroying the means of reproducing information recorded otherwise than in legible form.

(7) In this section "the court" means the High Court.").
After Clause 206, insert the following new clause—
RESTRICTIONS ON DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION
(" . —(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, no information with respect to any particular business which—

(a) has been obtained by the PPP arbiter under or by virtue of any of the provisions of this Chapter, and

(b) relates to the affairs of any individual or to any particular business,

shall, during the lifetime of that individual or so long as that business continues to be carried on, be disclosed without the consent of that individual or the person for the time being carrying on that business.
(2) Subsection (1) above does not apply to any disclosure of information which is made—

(a) for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out by the Secretary of State, the Mayor of London, Transport for London or the PPP arbiter of any of his or, as the case may be, its functions under this Act;

(b) for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out by the Secretary of State, the Rail Regulator, the Franchising Director, the Competition Commission or the Mayor of any of his or, as the case may be, its functions under the Railways Act 1993;

(c) for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out by —

(i) any Minister of the Crown,

(ii) the Director General of Fair Trading,

(iii) the Competition Commission,

(iv) the Director General of Telecommunications,

(v) the Director General of Gas Supply,

(vi) the Director General of Water Supply,

(vii) the Director General of Electricity Supply,

(viii) the Civil Aviation Authority,

(ix) the Insolvency Practitioners Tribunal, or

(x) a local weights and measures authority in Great Britain,

of any of his or, as the case may be, its functions under any of the enactments or instruments specified in subsection (3) below;

(d) for the purpose of enabling or assisting the Secretary of State or the Treasury to exercise any powers conferred by the Financial Services Act 1986 or by the enactments relating to companies, insurance companies or insolvency or for the purpose of enabling or assisting any inspector appointed under the enactments relating to companies to carry out his functions;

(e) for the purpose of enabling or assisting an official receiver to carry out his functions under the enactments relating to insolvency or for the purpose of enabling or assisting a recognised professional body for the purposes of section 391 of the Insolvency Act 1986 to carry out its functions as such;

(f) for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out by the Health and Safety Commission or the Health and Safety Executive of any of its functions under any enactment or of facilitating the carrying out by any enforcing authority, within the meaning of Part I of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, of any functions under a relevant statutory provision, within the meaning of that Act;

(g) for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out by the Comptroller and Auditor General of any of his functions under any enactment;

1070

(h) for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out by the International Rail Regulator of any of his functions under any subordinate legislation made for the purpose of implementing—

(i) the Directive of the Council of the European Communities dated 29th July 1991 on the development of the Community's railways; or

(ii) Council Directive 95/19/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the charging of infrastructure fees;

(j) in connection with the investigation of any criminal offence or for the purposes of any criminal proceedings;

(k) for the purposes of any civil proceedings brought under or by virtue of this Act or any of the enactments or instruments specified in subsection (3) below: or

(l) in pursuance of a Community obligation.

(3) The enactments and instruments referred to in subsection (2) above are—

(a) the Trade Descriptions Act 1968;

(b) the Fair Trading Act 1973;

(c) the Consumer Credit Act 1974;

(d) the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976;

(e) the Resale Prices Act 1976;

(f) the Estate Agents Act 1979;

(g) the Competition Act 1980;

(h) the Telecommunications Act 1984;

(j) the Airports Act 1986;

(k) the Gas Act 1986;

(l) the Insolvency Act 1986;

(m) the Consumer Protection Act 1987;

(n) the Electricity Act 1989;

(o) the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991;

(p) the Water Industry Act 1991;

(q) the Water Resources Act 1991;

(r) the Railways Act 1993;

(s) any subordinate legislation made for the purpose of securing compliance with the Directive of the Council of the European Communities dated 10th September 1984 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member States concerning misleading advertising.

(4) The Secretary of State may by order provide that subsections (2) and (3) above shall have effect subject to such modifications as are specified in the order.
(5) The prohibition imposed by subsection (1) above shall be enforceable by civil proceedings—

(a) by the individual mentioned in that subsection, or

(b) by the person for the time being carrying on the business there mentioned,

for an injunction or for any other appropriate relief or remedy.
(6) In this section "the Franchising Director" means the Director General of Passenger Rail Franchising.").
Clause 210 [Interpretation of this Chapter]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 466 and 467:
Page 116, line 21, at end insert—

(""PPP related third party" shall be construed in accordance with section 190(2)(b) above;

"PPP related third party agreement" means any arrangements falling within section 190(2)(b) above;").

Page 116, line 34, leave out ("means") and insert ("has the meaning given by section 185(2) above (that is to say,").
10.15 p.m.
Clause 211 [Travel concessions on journeys in and around Greater London]:
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 468:
Page 117, line 6, leave out ("any local authority, or any two or more local authorities acting jointly, may") and insert ("each London authority (other than the Common Council) shall, either on its own account or jointly with any other local authority, and any local authority may, within six months of the establishment of Transport for London").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, travel concessions for the less fortunate members of society are essential for living in London, not a luxury. The protections for such individuals—the old, the blind, the disabled—as presently set out in the Bill are inadequate. The amendment makes it obligatory for London authorities to make arrangements for travel concessions and creates a deadline for their enforcement in order to reassure the disadvantaged. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, before the Minister replies, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak now to Amendment No. 468A, which stands in my name and the name of my noble friend.
It is an amendment to Clause 211 which seeks to end the discrimination in eligibility ages for older people's local travel concessions. The rights of men and women to receive equal treatment from their governments was declared in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Now the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 regulates these matters in this country. There is a lack of certainty among lawyers as to whether the local travel concession is subject to Section 29 because local authorities are permitted, not required, only to grant these concessions from ages not below the prescribed qualifying age.
The concession has been linked to the ages at which the two sexes receive their pensions, and an argument has been put forward on behalf of the Government that, since everyone will retire at the age of 65 by the year 2020, the differential in the concession will gradually be eliminated. However, for older men who are not yet able to claim the concession although their slightly younger wives are, 2020 may be rather late for them to arrive at equal status with their wives.
It has occurred to us and to many other people that the Bill offers an interesting opportunity to put right the matter of equality between the sexes, at least as far as concerns London. The Government have said not once but many times that they are creating with the Bill a unique and modern authority. It should suit such an authority to take on this more modern approach to concessionary passes.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, some aspects of this matter were discussed earlier. I have some sympathy with the points made by the noble Earl and the noble Baroness. Although it is important to take their points into account, I think they are unnecessary and difficult in the context of the Bill.
1072
Our intention has been to carry forward as far as possible the existing arrangements for concessionary fares—partly because they have been largely successful and partly because the benefits need to be carried forward in as seamless a transition as possible. They are much valued by the people who receive them.
In response to concerns raised at an earlier stage both inside and outside the House, we amended the Bill in Committee and improved the arrangements for the benefit of users. I recall that there was a welcome for that, both in the House and beyond. These amendments would go further than the Government have gone and would significantly alter the present arrangements.
The first amendment would set a time frame to agree concessions. This is already provided for in the Bill. The local authorities will therefore need to agree arrangements with London Transport by 31st December this year to come into effect on 1st April 2000. Next year, the local authorities will need to agree a scheme with TfL by 31st December 2000 to come into effect on 1st April 2001. As TfL will come into being in July 2000, there is already a timetable and arrangements for concessionary fares in place within six months of the establishment of Tfl.
In addition, Amendment No. 468 would add an element of compulsion on the boroughs to agree a scheme which would be extremely difficult to enforce. The existence of a statutory reserve scheme would render the obligation redundant because it will already provide the necessary assurance to pass holders that concessions would continue to be provided. I referred earlier also to the various provisions on joint arrangements between the boroughs and TfL which I believe will ensure the adequate carrying forward of this scheme.
Amendment No. 468A, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, relates to the link between the pensioner's pass and the retirement age. I accept that this is a difficult issue, but the link between eligibility and travel concessions and the state pension age is long-standing and clearly understood. As the noble Baroness said, the 1995 Pensions Act indicates that changes will take place in the retirement age. However, it is our intention that any changes implied in the concessionary fare scheme would follow the rest of that Act. There are of course serious financial considerations to take into account if any boroughs were to move ahead of, or in the opposite direction to, that Act. We estimate that it would cost around £20 million to extend the rights to men of 60 to 64 years of age. Further, it would put the scheme out of kilter with future retirement ages. For that reason, I believe that on balance it would be better to keep the present linkage.
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, is not present to move Amendment No. 469. We touched on some aspects of that amendment earlier. I hope that

1073
the noble Earl will be able to withdraw that amendment, and similarly that the noble Baroness will not pursue her amendment at the appropriate point.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, the Minister has made a very interesting speech. It is an important issue. I shall study Hansard carefully tomorrow to see whether we can produce another amendment to deal with the issues. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it appears that in error Amendment No. 452 and the amendments with it in the grouping were not moved by the Minister. With the leave of the House, I feel it would be helpful to deal with those now.
Clause 199 [The PPP arbiter]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 452:
Page 111, line 41, at end insert—

("( ) a member of staff of Transport for London or of a subsidiary of Transport for London; or

( ) a director or employee of a PPP company or of a subsidiary of a PPP company or of a company of which a PPP company is a subsidiary").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the group of amendments to which I am speaking has been taken slightly out of order. Amendments Nos. 452 to 460, and Amendments Nos. 462, 464 and 465 make a number of minor and mostly technical changes to the provisions relating to the PPP arbiter. They allow the same person to hold the offices of rail regulator and of arbiter. They clarify the circumstances in which the arbiter can issue directions and guidance, refine the drafting of some of his statutory duties and provide legal protections and sanctions relating to his information gathering powers. The amendments are straightforward, but if there are any queries, I shall be happy to respond to noble Lords either now or in writing. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, should make it quite plain from the Chair that the Chair accepts full responsibility for trying to move things on a little too quickly.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I wish to make only one comment on this matter. I appreciate that a mistake was made. However, I noticed immediately, as did other Lords on these Benches, that somehow or other we moved to a group of amendments that had not even been spoken to. There are three amendments in the group—Amendments Nos. 455, 464 and 465—which by no stretch of the imagination could be called technical amendments. Those are new clauses which were somehow moved en masse. That is totally improper.
I am sorry that the noble Lord who moved the amendments is not now in his place. I understand the difficulty because he thought that they had gone
1074
through. But the fact is that they are new clauses. Parliament must have an opportunity to discuss them and to have them explained to us.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I have a sense of déjé vu. I well recall that during the proceedings on the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill the party opposite organised an ambush. However, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, wanted to move an amendment to insist on seatbelts for minibuses. He overshot the groupings and found it extremely difficult to move his amendment. Fortunately, the House found a mechanism for considering that amendment later on.
My main concern relates to the new clause introduced by Amendment No. 465. It starts off quite well in the manner which the Minister described. However, it is spoilt by the two pages of exceptions. It also allows the Secretary of State to extend the list of exceptions. A parallel can be drawn with the freedom of information Bill which appears to be designed to prevent freedom of information. A case can be made for each of the exceptions. In outline, the person giving the information has been up to no good. But why should the PPP arbiter be used as an enforcement device for the Estate Agents Act 1979 or European directives on advertising? The list of exceptions leaves the suggestion that the PPP arbiter is meant to be checking up on the enactments. Will he not have enough to do anyway?
The exceptions should be confined to areas relating to transport. We will be tabling an amendment at a later stage to meet our concerns after we have examined the whole of the Bill and read the Minister's comments.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the main concern as expressed by the noble Earl is m relation to Amendment No. 465. The terms of the amendment are relatively clear. It provides statutory protection for third parties against disclosure of information collected by the arbiter except where it is necessary to carry out the specific statutory functions referred to in the clause. The intention of the new clause is to protect the interests of third parties, who may be, for example, sub-contractors or other suppliers in contractual relationships with the authority, without hampering the statutory duties of the arbiter and the other bodies set out in the clause. It is necessary to provide that protection and it is therefore necessary also to provide the exceptions in order that the arbiter can effectively carry out his duties.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said that the amendments are not technical amendments because they are new clauses. One needs to look at the nature of the new clauses. The clause to which I have just referred is indeed a new clause but it follows through the logic of what the arbiter needs to provide and the protection for third parties. If we look at the new clause in Amendment No. 455, we likewise see that, although it is indeed a new clause—and I regret that we failed to move these amendments in the proper way at the proper time—it can reasonably be said to be an

1075
elaboration of what is required for the arbiter to carry out his or her functions and therefore appropriate to this group of amendments. I commend the amendments to the House.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am slightly confused. I confess that I rise somewhat late in the debate. My understanding is that we are now debating an earlier amendment that we had not previously discussed and that we are including the three large new clauses in government Amendments Nos. 455, 464 and 465.
As I understand it, the amendment was not moved earlier—
Lord Whitty: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify my understanding of what happened. There were a number of amendments relating to the previous clause which were being formally moved and agreed. We moved on to these clauses, which again were formally moved but as if they were part of the previous group, whereas we had intended to move them at the Dispatch Box. In fact, we moved too rapidly to take them through. So, although there was a formal movement, that was not what was expected either by ourselves or by the noble Earl. We therefore agreed to return to those clauses and deal with them properly, which is what we are now doing.
Lord Henley: But, my Lords, again with the leave of the House, they are government amendments containing new clauses. There may be some confusion if the Government attempt to press them now, without our knowing exactly what they are about. Might it not be better if the Government were to withdraw them at this stage and promise to return with them after further discussions with my noble friends at Third Reading?
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, with the leave of the House, we on these Benches are not confused. As interested, but slightly detached observers of this process, we see that there is clearly some difficulty. I believe that the Minister has given the House the explanation that he would have given had the clauses been spoken to at the point at which they were moved.
We feel—and I hope that it does not sound too selfish—that, since we have another opportunity to return to the Bill at a later stage, and we are making quite fast progress, we should like to continue with that rate of progress.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, one of my main concerns related to Amendment No. 465. But that was only after cursory examination of the Minister's amendments. There may be difficulties with other amendments and we may detect those when we examine the whole Bill. As my noble friend Lord Henley pointed out, the Minister has not fully explained each individual amendment, even though they contain large new clauses.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not understand this. This group of amendments was tabled a week ago.
1076
There are some amendments which we and others have tabled late, and we have been rightly criticised for doing so, but we tabled these at least a week ago. Had we proceeded with them in the normal way, and had there not been a hiccup in the procedure, I am sure that noble Lords would have dealt with them in the same way as we have dealt with similar groups. Indeed, the noble Earl was anxious to make his points on Amendment No. 465 very clear.
I hope that we can deal with these amendments now. I am in the hands of the House. Should the noble Lord wish to press this matter to a Division, I have no doubt that we could consider withdrawing them. However, it seems to me that, in the circumstances, we should proceed with the amendments and clear the business relating to this section of the Bill. I appeal to noble Lords to do the sensible thing and what we all intended to do in the first place.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, the Minister claimed that he had left the amendments with us for a week. I point out that it is two months since the end of the Committee stage. However, I can assure him that we will not press the amendments to a Division.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, will the Minister move Amendments Nos. 453 to 460? The Chair apologises profusely for the disorder.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 453:
Page 111, line 42, leave out subsection (8).
Clause 201 [Staff]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 454:
Page 112, line 26, leave out ("relevant authority") and insert ("Secretary of State").
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 455:
After Clause 201, insert the following new clause—
SAME PERSON AS PPP ARBITER AND RAIL REGULATOR: DUTIES OF STAFF
(" . —(1) If at any time the offices of Rail Regulator and PPP arbiter are held by the same person, subsections (2) and (3) below shall apply until such time as those offices are next held by different persons.
(2) Where this subsection applies, any member of the Rail Regulator's staff may (in addition to discharging duties of that employment) be required also to discharge duties as if he were a member of the PPP arbiter's staff of similar status.
(3) Where this subsection applies, any member of the PPP arbiter's staff may (in addition to discharging duties of that employment) be required also to discharge duties as if he were a member of the Rail Regulator's staff of similar status.
(4) Subsections (2) and (3) above apply notwithstanding anything in the terms or conditions of employment of the member of staff concerned.").
Clause 202 [Directions of the PPP arbiter]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 456:
Page 112, line 36, leave out ("he considers relevant") and insert ("is ancillary or incidental").
Clause 203 [Guidance by the PPP arbiter]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 457 and 458:
Page 113, line 7, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) Any matter relating to a PPP agreement may be referred to the PPP arbiter for consideration by him—

(a) by all the parties to the PPP agreement acting jointly, if they so agree; or

(b) by any party to the PPP agreement.").

Page 113, line 10, leave out from ("and") to end of line 11 and insert—

("(a) if the matter was referred under paragraph (a) of that subsection, shall give to the parties who referred the matter such guidance as he considers appropriate; or

(b) if the matter was referred under paragraph (b) of that subsection, may give to the parties to the PPP agreement such guidance as he considers appropriate.").

Clause 204 [Duty of the PPP arbiter]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 459 and 460:
Page 113, line 24, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) The objective specified in this subsection is to ensure that an opportunity to review and amend the requirements imposed, or proposed to be imposed, on a PPP company by or under the PPP agreement in question is afforded to the appropriate relevant body if, in the opinion of the PPP arbiter, the proper price for the performance of those requirements exceeds the resources which that relevant body has notified to the PPP arbiter that it has, or expects to have, available for the purpose.
In this subsection "appropriate relevant body" means a relevant body which is a party to the PPP agreement and is to pay the price under the agreement.").
Page 113, line 38, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) The objective specified in this subsection is to ensure that any rate of return incorporated in the PPP agreement in question would, in the opinion of the PPP arbiter,—

(a) taking into account such matters as may be specified in the PPP agreement, and

(b) leaving out of account such other matters as may be so specified,

be earned by a company which is efficient and economic in its performance of the requirements imposed on the PPP company by or under the PPP agreement.").
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, we have dealt with Amendments Nos. 461 to 468.
Clause 211 [Travel concessions on journeys in and around Greater London]:
[Amendments Nos.468A and 469 not moved.]
Schedule 13 [Penalty fares]:
The Earl of Clancarty The Earl of Clancarty moved Amendment No. 469A:
Page 258, line 18, after ("ticket") insert ("for all or part of the journey undertaken").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I wish to speak to the group of amendments, Amendments Nos. 469A to 469E. The
1078
intention is to reinstate the possibility for a passenger to pay an excess fare in circumstances when he or she started their journey with a valid ticket.
Amendment No. 469F deals with the particular issue of setting up the penalty fares tribunal. I am glad that the Minister has come part way to meeting us on the matter. On the basis that it would be better to amend the Government's amendment, I shall comment on this in more detail when we discuss Amendment No. 470A and my amendments to it.
In terms of the criteria by which penalty fares are issued in the first place, I believe that the great majority, probably more than 90 per cent, of the current problems on both the Underground and buses with respect to penalty fares could be solved if the ability to pay an excess fare were reinstated.
I have introduced the amendments to raise the matter. Excess fares are a key to the whole issue of penalty fares. I have already given what I believe are good reasons at an earlier stage why they should be reinstated. It also has to be said that if excess fares still existed, we would not have had some of the higher profile incidents which occurred during the summer and sparked off the considerable media coverage, including leaders in both the Daily Telegraph and the Evening Standard. For example, Kenneth Clarke would not have been given the penalty fare and Sister Virtus Okwaraoha—London buses never doubted that she was a bona fide passenger—would not have been prosecuted as she was. Nor, importantly, would she have been given a penalty fare, but allowed simply to pay the excess.
The Daily Telegraph put it very well in its editorial on 27th July this year:
"Unable to sort out hardened bilkers from [the] rest, the Underground finds it simplest to punish everyone found with a ticket that does not match the journey, irrespective of intent".
It is clear that a significant number of those passengers given over 300,000 penalty fares on the Underground in the last year alone are bona fide travellers who are paying a tax for more flexible travel. They do so in circumstances where they are made to feel like criminals. It is a dangerous road that we take when we effectively start to criminalise bona fide passengers.
In more general terms, we should be encouraging public transport as a friendly, pleasant experience, not a hostile environment where every traveller is potentially under suspicion. As I said at an earlier stage, I understand the desire to catch the real fare dodgers, but I think things have swung too far in one direction. There now needs to be a more moderate and sophisticated approach. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, the amendment in the name of my noble friend, Amendment No. 471, is grouped with those brought forward by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. Amendment No. 471 responded to what we perceived to be a government reluctance to see the matter of penalty fares appeals services put on the face of the Bill. Therefore, the amendment suggests that the

1079
Secretary of State should, by order, be able to bring such an appeals service into effect. However, in the next group of amendments the Government make possible the creation of such a penalty appeals service. In those circumstances, our amendment is probably de trop.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, the noble Earl raises an extremely important issue. Clearly, it is necessary to have some form of appeal system. I have come unstuck with a penalty fare through no fault of my own. I look forward to Amendments Nos. 470A and 570A tabled by the Minister.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the noble Earl said, we had discussions with several Members of the House to discuss their concerns about the existing penalty fares legislation. I have tabled the amendments in the next group to meet some of the concerns relating to the appeals procedure. I accept that there are problems about the operation of the appeals procedure and that there is a grievance among some of the travelling public that must be accepted and dealt with. But I do not accept that we should change the system of excess fares. The proposals contained in Amendments Nos. 469A to 469E would undermine the cornerstone of the existing legislation; namely, the requirement that to travel one must have a valid ticket for the whole of the journey that is undertaken. We should not forget that that principle is designed to ensure that the revenue, which will be ploughed back into public transport, is not lost to the transport operator.
The penalty fares system is intended to protect the revenue and ensure that there is a deterrent to people who travel with no or inadequate tickets but without the consequences of criminality and the long administrative and legal proceedings which predated the penalty fares system in London Transport and elsewhere on the public transport network. London Transport has acknowledged that the operation of the penalty fares system can be improved. Noble Lords may well be aware of the review of tube penalty fares conducted by LT and the LRPC, during which London Transport took very seriously the need to ensure that the scheme was operated with a better customer focus. London Transport has already started to implement some of the review's main findings.
It will be open to the mayor, once in place, to issue guidance to TfL on how the scheme should be operated. It will also be open to the mayor to reintroduce excess fares facilities, as would be required by one of the amendments tabled by the noble Earl, should he or she so wish. However, I believe that we have taken steps to improve the situation in relation to appeals, to which we shall turn in a moment, but the operation of the system itself should be left to the mayor and the mayor's dealing with TfL rather than
1080
prescribed on the face of the Bill in a way that severely undermines the existing system. I hope that the noble Earl does not press his amendments.
The Earl of Clancarty: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his remarks. Excess fares were abolished when penalty fares were introduced, yet this interpretation of the law was never considered in debate in either the Commons or Lords when the London legislation was originally introduced. Excess fares were never mentioned, let alone their abolition discussed. It is also clear from both debates that there was no intention in the legislation to penalise bona fide travellers. If the problem started with this legislation, it should be solved by amending it in some way, or London Transport's interpretation of the legislation is seriously wrong and perhaps should even be challenged. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 469B to 469F not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 470:
Page 261, line 2, after ("1962") insert ("or paragraph 24A of Schedule 9 to this Act").
10.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 470A:
Page 261, line 11, at end insert—
("Appeals
8A. —(1) If requested to do so by the Mayor, the Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision enabling a person required to pay a penalty fare to appeal against that requirement.
(2) Regulations under this paragraph may include provision—

(a) for appeals to be heard and determined by independent adjudicators,

(b) for the appointment of such adjudicators,

(c) for requiring Transport for London to reconsider, before an appeal is determined, whether the appellant should be required to pay the penalty fare. And

(d) for the adjudicator's directions in relation to an appeal to be binding upon Transport for London and the appellant.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to the appeals system. The Government have listened very carefully to the concerns of noble Lords in that regard. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish an independent penalty fares appeals body if so requested by the mayor. We are aware of considerable public interest in this area. We believe it is very likely, without pre-judging the outcome of the election, that any mayor would also recognise the considerable public concern over this matter and would make such a request once he or she has taken stock of the penalty fares procedures.
However, I do not believe it appropriate for us to pre-judge the mayor's consideration of this issue. Therefore, I put the amendment in its present form so that the mayor can make the request. The Secretary of State then has to enact that request. It is better to leave

1081
it for the mayor in that sense rather than move in the way the noble Earl prefers, in moving an amendment to this amendment, requiring the Secretary of State to lay down the procedure immediately The mayor will proceed in the context of having made an assessment of the penalty fares system in total. That is where the matter should be left. This amendment makes it absolutely clear that should the mayor wish to go down that road, the Secretary of State is then obliged to enact proceedings which will meet the noble Earl's point. I beg to move.
The Earl of Clancarty The Earl of Clancarty moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 470A, Amendment No. 470AA:
Line 3, leave out ("if requested to do so by the Mayor,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak to Amendment No. 470B. I am glad that the Minister has moved part of the way towards us in having accepted the principle of an independent penalty fares appeals body. But his amendment is still deficient in two respects. First, and most fundamentally, as covered by Amendment No. 470AA, the Government's amendment does not as it stands guarantee that an appeals body will be set up. It may be something that happens at some point in the future, or at worst it is forgotten about entirely. The considerable amount of press coverage which has been devoted to penalty fares in recent months and the large number of complaints which LRPC is still receiving reflect growing public concern about this matter and confirm that an independent body ought to be set up right away. London Transport should not be allowed to continue to act any longer than necessary as both judge and jury.
Secondly, as covered by my Amendment No. 470B, it is important that there should be proper consultation with other bodies, including LTUC, the Rail Regulator and other operators. As I said earlier, the Rail Regulator is keen to encourage best practice sharing of penalty fares schemes. At present London Transport is far too stubbornly isolationist in its approach, with the current disastrous results.
Perhaps the Minister can give an explicit assurance in this debate that there will be such consultation on an independent tribunal if one were set up—better still that he can accept my amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for his amendment and his explanation. But what happens if the mayor does not request the Secretary of State to make the regulations? The Minister recognised that as a possibility. It may not be in the mayor's interest to do so, especially if he is closely involved in TfL, which possibly will still have a similar ethos to that of the old London Transport. The noble Earl has just called London Transport stubborn and isolationist. I am not sure whether that will amuse it. Some members of the public would accept that view. There is a case for more encouragement of the mayor and TfL to request the Secretary of State to make these regulations.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I resist these amendments, mainly for the reasons that I have set out. In the
1082
interim position it is already the case that London Transport has accepted that there is serious public concern about this matter and is taking steps for its internal appeals procedure to operate with greater customer focus. But it is important that we leave to the mayor the overall assessment of how the penalty fares system operates so that the precise form of the independent appeals system can fit in with the way in which he sees the process operating.
I believe that it is important that we leave some of the decisions to the mayor to take in the context of his wider decisions. I am sure that the objectives of the noble Earl's second amendment will be carried out by the mayor. He has a general consultation requirement. Any change in the excess fares regime would fall under that consultation without having to be separately prescribed.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, does he recognise that our concern s not so much how the mayor sets up the penalty scheme but if he sets it up?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we are talking legislation when we should be talking politics. The political reality is that any mayor will promise at some point during his mayoral campaign that he will set up an independent appeals panel. How that fits in with his other proposals on excess fares may differ between different candidates. However, there is no doubt in my mind that any mayor will do it, but it must he his choice; and the context in which it is proposed should be down to the mayor and not the Secretary of State—an argument which has been put forward by the Benches opposite in other contexts quite frequently during the course of the Bill.
The Earl of Clancarty: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his remarks. I shall read Hansard closely tomorrow. I can see no real reason why the Government should drag their feet on this issue and not set up a tribunal immediately. I ask the Minister to consider the issue again and take that extra critical step forward to make the appeals body mandatory. However, for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 470B, as an amendment to Amendment No. 470A, not moved.]
[Amendment No. 471 not moved.]
Clause 218 [The London Transport Users' Committee]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 471A:
Page 121, line 36, after ("body") insert ("corporate").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords., in moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 472A to 472D, 473A, 474A to 474G, 475WA to 475ZA and 576YA. We believe that with its wider remit the London Transport Users' Committee will successfully

1083
build on the best traditions of the London Regional Passengers Committee. As part of the new democratic structures for London, it will ensure that the user's voice is clearly heard when the mayor and assembly consider transport provision in the capital.
These amendments fill out the LTUC remit, and more clearly define its relationship with the assembly. We have also given careful consideration to some of the points raised by noble Lords at Committee. For example, the noble Baronesses, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, and Lady Hamwee, will note that Amendment No. 472A addresses their concern about ensuring the committee is properly representative of the wider community of rail users in the area for which the LTUC is a rail users' consultative committee. Similarly, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, will see that we have provided for LTUC's accounting and audit procedures.
As I indicated to the House during our debates in Committee we have brought forward our proposals for the assembly to issue guidance and directions to the LTUC, to establish firmly the new relationship between the assembly and committee.
Amendment No. 475ZA relates to directions by the assembly. It concerns itself with the relationship between the assembly and the Transport Users' Consultative Committee.
Amendment No. 472C deals with accounts and audits. As I said, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, tabled an amendment in Committee to establish requirements for audit. The Government have reflected further on the matter, and this amendment ensures that the committee has a requirement placed upon it to produce proper accounts for audit, and to ensure that the assembly appoints an auditor who is fit for the purpose. Amendment No. 471A establishes LTUC as a body corporate, thus giving it formal legal status.
Amendment No. 472A deals with representation of passengers from the RUCC area. Concern was expressed in Committee that the assembly might not appoint committee members who would be representative of the area covered. We considered this matter carefully and sought to clarify it.
Amendment No. 474B deals with the exclusion of freight. Amendments Nos. 474A, C, D, E, F and G, 475WA and 475XA deal with the inclusion of taxis and minicabs. As noble Lords will be aware, after considering representations from the users of transport in London, the London Transport Users' Committee is intended to shadow the full range of services and facilities provided to transport users by Transport for London. It is to be a committee for users of services relating to personal transport whether by private or public means. We have therefore introduced these amendments to make clear that the remit does not cover freight and to clarify the LTUC role in respect of taxis and minicabs.
Amendment No. 475YA deals with voluntary arrangements, providing in a practical way for the remit of LTUC to adapt to any future changes in transport provision in Greater London; for example, new service providers outside the TfL umbrella.
Amendment No. 472B places responsibility on the assembly to provide funds for the salary and pension of the chair of the committee in the same way as it provides for the costs of the LTUC secretariat. Amendment No. 473A brings the LTUC within the jurisdiction of the Commission for Local Administration, the body noble Lords will recognise as the local government ombudsman. Amendment No. 576YA is a consequential change to the Local Government Act 1974 arising from Amendment No. 473A. I beg to move.
Earl Bathurst: My Lords, the Minister mentioned minicabs. She has proposed a number of complicated and technical amendments, but can she tell the House that the mayor will ensure that the drivers of minicabs are licensed by the police, as are black cab drivers?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Earl may wish to note that the consideration of representations on taxis and minicabs is not intended to interfere with the process of law or the investigation of breaches of conditions of licence. Rather it is intended to cover complaints about quality of service, such as the failure of a taxi or minicab to turn up for a pre-booked journey.
The amendments make clear that complaints relating to matters of law, such as drivers' conduct or roadworthiness, should be referred to the relevant authorities within TfL.
Earl Bathurst: My Lords, the Minister has given an interesting reply, but is she aware that there is a great deal of ill feeling among registered London cab drivers who, without doubt, provide the best taxi service in the world? They believe that if minicab drivers who do not possess the same skills are allowed to operate there will be a serious reduction in the London taxi service.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I should like to write in detail to the noble Earl. I commend to him the expertise of his noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, who dealt with a Bill tackling this very problem.
Earl Bathurst: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. Of course, I did not expect an answer straight away. However, I assure her that if that provision is within the amendment, it is a serious problem.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 472:
Page 122, line 3, after ("use") insert ("public").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I expect that the amendments in this group are probably quite familiar to Members of the House, as we have viewed

1085
them before. They have as their objective the transformation, in a way, of LTUC into a body which represents the interests of those using public transport rather than the interests of those using all forms of transport.
As I said in Committee, there are already several powerful bodies which represent the interests of cyclists, those who travel in cars (the AA, the RAC and so on) and pedestrians. In fact, almost anyone who moves by whatever means of locomotion has an extremely powerful voice and is quite rightly served by people who can make excellent representations on their behalf.
Therefore, it is our contention, and has been throughout, that the LTUC, which is the successor body to the LRPC should, like the LRPC, only represent the interests of those using public passenger transport. It would then be up to the assembly, or Transport for London, or whoever it is to which those various bodies make their representations, to weigh up the balance as between the interests of one set of transport users and another.
In. Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, responded that it was necessary for the Government
"to bring forward amendments to clarify the structure. The LTUC will be appointed by the assembly"—
I am aware of that provision and I support it—
"and we will bring forward amendments to al low the assembly to issue guidance and directions to LTUC". —[Official Report. 5/7/99; col. 604–5.]
That is what one of the amendments which we have just passed does. My contention is that that does not impinge upon the main point we have been making, namely that there will be under the new dispensation, if it goes ahead, no one whose sole job it is to represent the interests of those—who are indeed the majority of those using transport in London—who travel by public transport. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I hope that I may persuade the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, that her concerns have been addressed by the amendments we have just debated. We naturally want LTUC to speak up for passengers, in the same way as the London Regional Passengers' Committee does now. Unfortunately, the noble Baroness's amendments would fundamentally change the nature of the body which we wish to establish and would run the risk of marginalising the interests of some travellers who cannot use public transport. The London Transport Users' Committee is intended to provide a service for all users of transport services and facilities provided by TfL and to assist the assembly in its consideration of the way in which the mayor and Transport for London are performing in delivering integrated transport services for the capital.
Noble Lords will note from the amendments just agreed that we intend to clarify the way in which the assembly makes appointments so that it has to have specific regard to ensure that members of the committee between them represent the interests of
1086
passengers on the national railway network in the LTUC area, as well as those using TfL services and facilities. Large numbers of people who travel to London by surface rail switch to bus and Underground services for their onward journeys. Therefore, public transport users should be well represented on the LTUC.
The amendments would deprive a significant number of transport users of a representative voice. It would not be right to single out a particular group of transport users in that way; for example, the amendments would mean that complaints from disabled motorists could not be considered by LTUC.
However, we are conscious that the committee may benefit from some guidance by the assembly on the way it should discharge its functions. That is why we brought forward amendments to enable the assembly to issue guidance and directions to the committee. In that way, the assembly will be able to indicate how LTUC should carry out its duties. Such an issue is best left to the assembly. I hope that my remarks have convinced the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, that we have taken her concerns very seriously and that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I concede that the amendments with regard to membership of LTUC are an improvement on the position as it existed in the Bill as first drafted in that there will be representatives of those who travel by public transport on the LTUC whereas previously that was not the case.
However, the Minister will not be surprised that I am not entirely convinced by her arguments because I accept that our approach to this matter is quite different from hers. However, I am convinced that I shall make no progress in relation to the amendment this evening and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 472A:
Page 122, line 4, at end insert (", and

(b) those who use rail passenger transport facilities and services in the area for which the Committee is treated as the Rail Users' Consultative Committee by virtue of section 2(4) of the Railways Act 1993").

Schedule 14 [London Transport Users' Committee]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 472B to 472D:
Page 261, line 28, at end insert
("3A. The Assembly shall provide the Committee with funds with which to make payments in accordance with any determination made by the Assembly under paragraphs 1 to 3 above.").

1087
Page 262, line 15, at end insert—
("Accounts
6A. —(1) The Committee shall keep accounting records which—

(a) set out and explain the Committee's financial transactions,

(b) disclose with reasonable accuracy the financial status of the Committee at any time, and

(c) enable the Committee to comply with the requirements of this Act in preparing any statement of accounts.

(2) The Committee shall prepare in respect of each financial year a statement of accounts giving a true and fair view of—

(a) the Committee's financial status at the end of that year, and

(b) the Committee's income and expenditure for that year.

(3) If the Assembly issues guidance to the Committee as to the preparation of a statement of accounts, the Committee shall prepare the statement of accounts in compliance with the direction.
(4) A statement of accounts shall be audited by a person appointed by the Assembly as auditor to do so.
(5) A person shall not be qualified to be appointed as auditor unless—

(a) he is eligible for appointment as a company auditor under Part II of the Companies Act 1989 (eligibility for appointment as company auditor), and

(b) if the Committee were a company to which section 384 of the Companies Act 1985 applies (duty to appoint auditors), he would not be ineligible for appointment as company auditor of the Committee by virtue of section 27 of the Companies Act 1989 (ineligibility on ground of lack of independence).

(6) As soon as reasonably practicable after a statement of accounts has been audited, the auditor shall send a copy to the Assembly.
(7) The Committee's financial year shall be such period as may be determined by the Assembly and notified to the Committee.").
Page 262, line 34, leave out from first ("the") to first ("the") in line 35 and insert ("provisions of this Schedule").
[Amendment No. 473 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 473A:
Page 263, line 25, at end insert—
("Investigation of complaints
13A. —(1) Section 25 of the Local Government Act 1974 (authorities subject to investigation by the Commission for Local Administration) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) the word "and" preceding paragraph (d) shall cease to have effect; and

(b) at the end of paragraph (d) there shall be inserted "; and

(e) the London Transport Users' Committee."

(3) After subsection (4A) (which is inserted by section 63(3) above) there shall be inserted—

"(4B) Any reference to an authority to which this Part of this Act applies also includes, in the case of the London Transport Users' Committee, a reference to a sub-committee of that Committee.").

Clause 219 [Representations to the Committee]:
[Amendment No. 474 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 474A to 474G:
Page 122, line 23, at end insert (", other than a matter relating to the transportation of freight.").
Page 122, leave out line 25 and insert ("any matter relating to").
Page 122, line 26, at beginning insert ("services or facilities").
Page 122, line 27, at beginning insert ("services or facilities").
Page 122, line 29, at beginning insert ("services or facilities").
Page 122, line 29, at end insert—

("(d) a hackney carriage or a person licensed to be the driver of a hackney carriage, or

(e) a private hire vehicle or a person who holds a private hire vehicle driver's licence or a private hire vehicle operator's licence.").

Page 122, line 34, at end insert ("or

(ii) hackney carriages or private hire vehicles,").

[Amendment No. 475 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 475WA and 475XA:
Page 123, line 7, at end insert—
("(5A) Where a representation is made to the Committee about a matter falling within subsection (2)(d) or (e) above and the matter relates to—

(a) any contravention of, or failure to comply with, any rule of law, or

(b) any breach of condition of a licence which has been granted by Transport for London,

the Committee shall refer the matter to Transport for London and shall notify the person who made the representation of the referral.").
Page 123. line 10, at end insert—
("( ) In this section—

"hackney carriage" means a vehicle licensed under section 6 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869;

"person licensed to be the driver of a hackney carriage" means a person licensed under section 8 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 or section 8 of the London Hackney Carriages Act 1843;

"private hire vehicle" means a vehicle for which a private hire vehicle licence for London is in force under section 7 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998;

"private hire vehicle driver's licence" means a licence granted under section 13 of that Act;

"private hire vehicle operator's licence" means a licence granted under section 3 of that Act.").

Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 475YA:
After Clause 219, insert the following new clause—
VOLUNTARY ARRANGEMENTS WITH TRANSPORT PROVIDERS
(" . —(1) The Committee may enter into arrangements with any person providing public passenger transport services or facilities in Greater London under which the Committee may consider any matter—

(a) which relates to such transport services or facilities provided by that person, but

(b) which is not a matter falling within section 219(1) above.

(2) Arrangements under subsection (1) above shall be on such terms as may be agreed by the parties but may in particular include provision for the person with whom the Committee enters into the arrangements to make such payments by way of reimbursement of costs incurred by the Committee under the arrangements as the arrangements may specify.
(3) Arrangements under this section may be entered into by the Commit tee only with the consent of the Assembly.").
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 475ZA:
After Clause 220, insert the following new clause—
DIRECTIONS BY THE ASSEMBLY
(" . —(1) The Assembly may issue to the Committee—

(a) guidance as to the manner in which they are to exercise their functions, or

1090

(b) general directions as to the manner in which they are to exercise their functions.

(2) The Committee shall exercise their functions in accordance with such guidance or directions as may be issued by the Assembly under subsection (1) above.
(3) Any guidance or directions issued under subsection (1) above must be issued in writing and notified to such officer of the Committee as the Committee may from time to time nominate to the Assembly for the purpose.").
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at eight minutes past eleven o'clock.