Greater London Authority Bill

HL Deb 19 October 1999 vol 605 cc1029-90

8.43 p.m.

Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Schedule 9.

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—

1. (a) the use and working of its railways;
2. (b) travel on its railways;
3. (c) the maintenance of order on its railways and railway premises, including stations and the approaches to stations;
4. (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—

1. (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;
2. (b) with respect to interference with or obstruction of the working of the railways;
3. (C) with respect to the smoking of tobacco in railway carriages and elsewhere;
4. (d) with respect to the prevention of nuisances;
1030
5. (e) with respect to the receipt and delivery of goods;
6. (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—

1. (a) danger or annoyance to the public, or
2. (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—

1. (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
2. (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 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—

1. (a) persons or descriptions of persons who" or
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) financial statements prepared on the basis of generally accepted principles of accounting;
2. (b) the report of external auditors on those financial statements;
3. (c) detailed statistics relating to the efficiency and reliability of the discharge of its functions by Transport for London including (but not limited to)—
1. (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
2. (ii) the number of cancellations of proposed journeys during the financial year by any public passenger transport service;
3. (iii) the number of routes formerly operated by public passenger transport services closed during the financial year; and
4. (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 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 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

1. (a) relates to public passenger transport services provided to, from and within Greater London, and
2. (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—

1. (a) the general public, and
2. (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—

1. (a) by Transport for London or any of its subsidiaries, or
2. (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 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.

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 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—

1. (a) between Transport for London and any subsidiary of Transport for London; or
2. (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."). 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—

1. (a) the Mayor of London;
2. (b) each London Borough Council; and
3. (c) the Common Council."").

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 —

1. (a) may promote a local Bill in Parliament; and
2. (b) may oppose any local Bill in Parliament.

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

1. (a) gives its written consent to the Bill; and
2. (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—

1. (a) Transport for London deposits a petition against a Bill in Parliament, but
2. (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 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—

1. (a) the powers conferred by subsection (1) above shall be exercisable with the written consent of the Mayor of London; and
2. (b) subsection (2) above shall not have effect."").

Clause 149 [Powers of disposal]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 396A: Page 83, line 3, leave out ("In").

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 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 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—
1. (i) a reference to being (and, where applicable, continuing after the transaction) in breach of any condition, requirement or restriction, and
2. (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 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.

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 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—

1. (a) routes,
2. (b) terminal points,
3. (c) places at which passengers may or may not be taken up and set down,
4. (d) traffic flow, safety and congestion,
5. (e) environmental amenity,
6. (f) the safety and convenience of the public, including persons who have mobility problems, and
7. (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.

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 moved Amendment No. 403: Page 89, line 27, at end insert— ("(4A) If—

1. (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
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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!

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 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 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) 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—

1. (a) a licence exemption under subsection (1) of section 7 of the Railways Act 1993, notwithstanding anything in subsection (10) of that section, or
2. (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—

1. (a) as respects any time before the transfer date, London Regional Transport; and
2. (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 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—

1. (a) London Regional Transport;
2. (b) Transport for London; or
3. (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 moved Amendment No. 424: Page 99, line 43, at end insert ("Transport for London,".").

Clause 185 [PPP agreements]

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—

1. (a) London Regional Transport;
2. (b) Transport for London; or
3. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) the document which contains the designation under paragraph (a) or (b) of section 188(1) above, and
2. (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 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 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—

1. (a) of any shares in a PPP company, or
2. (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—

1. (a) a relevant body;
2. (b) a PPP company; or
3. (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—

1. (a) Transport for London;
2. (b) any subsidiary of Transport for London;
3. (c) any PPP company;
4. (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—

1. (a) a PPP company, or
2. (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—

1. (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
2. (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 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"). 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 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—

1. (a) a scheme under section (Distribution of property, rights or liabilities) of this Act; or
2. (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—

1. (a) the transferee in relation to that transfer were the same person in law as the transferor; and
2. (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—

1. (a) the grant or creation of an estate or interest in, or right over, any land or other property, or
2. (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—

1. (a) by specifying or describing them;
2. (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
3. (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—

1. (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;
2. (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;
3. (c) for the creation of rights or liabilities as between two or more transferees or as between one or more transferees and the transferor;
4. (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;
5. (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—

1. (a) shall be transferred to the transferee;
2. (b) shall be concurrently exercisable by two or more transferees; or
3. (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—

1. (a) relates to any property which is to be transferred by the scheme; or
2. (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—

1. (a) any local Act; or
2. (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—

1. (a) relates to anything transferred by a transfer scheme, and
2. (b) is in the process of being done by or in relation to the transferor immediately before the transfer takes effect.

(3) Anything which—

1. (a) was done by the transferor for the purposes of or otherwise in connection with anything transferred by a transfer scheme, and
2. (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—

1. (a) relate to anything transferred by a transfer scheme, and
2. (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—

1. (a) the employee's period of employment with the transferor shall count as a period of employment with the transferee; and
2. (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—

1. (a) to provide the Transport for London with such information as Transport for London considers necessary to enable it to make the scheme; and
2. (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—

1. (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
2. (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—

1. (a) to produce any documents which he could not be compelled to produce in civil proceedings in the court; or
1064
2. (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—

1. (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; or
2. (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—

1. (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
2. (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—

1. (a) the transferor,
2. (b) any transferee affected, and
3. (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—

1. (a) may make, with effect from the coming into force of the scheme, such provision as could have been made by the scheme: and
2. (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—

1. (a) prepare a draft of the proposed Bill ("the draft Bill");
2. (b) send copies of the draft Bill to the bodies and persons specified in sub-paragraph (2) below; and
3. (c) consult those bodies and persons about the draft Bill.

(2) Those bodies and persons are—

1. (a) the Mayor;
2. (b) the Assembly;
3. (c) every London borough council; and
4. (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—

1. (a) at the principal offices of Transport for London, and
2. (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—

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

1. (a) representations made pursuant to paragraph 2 above;
2. (b) other representations made within the consultation period; or
3. (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—

1. (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
2. (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—

1. (a) a London borough council; or
2. (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—

1. (a) at the principal offices of Transport for London, and
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (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
2. (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—

1. (a) to produce any documents which he could not be compelled to produce in civil proceedings in the court; or
2. (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—

1. (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; or
2. (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—

1. (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
2. (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—

1. (a) has been obtained by the PPP arbiter under or by virtue of any of the provisions of this Chapter, and
2. (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—

1. (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;
2. (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;
3. (c) for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out by —
1. (i) any Minister of the Crown,
2. (ii) the Director General of Fair Trading,
3. (iii) the Competition Commission,
4. (iv) the Director General of Telecommunications,
5. (v) the Director General of Gas Supply,
6. (vi) the Director General of Water Supply,
7. (vii) the Director General of Electricity Supply,
8. (viii) the Civil Aviation Authority,
9. (ix) the Insolvency Practitioners Tribunal, or
10. (x) a local weights and measures authority in Great Britain,
4. of any of his or, as the case may be, its functions under any of the enactments or instruments specified in subsection (3) below;
5. (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;
6. (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;
7. (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;
8. (g) for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out by the Comptroller and Auditor General of any of his functions under any enactment;
1070
9. (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—
1. (i) the Directive of the Council of the European Communities dated 29th July 1991 on the development of the Community's railways; or
2. (ii) Council Directive 95/19/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the charging of infrastructure fees;
10. (j) in connection with the investigation of any criminal offence or for the purposes of any criminal proceedings;
11. (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
12. (l) in pursuance of a Community obligation.

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

1. (a) the Trade Descriptions Act 1968;
2. (b) the Fair Trading Act 1973;
3. (c) the Consumer Credit Act 1974;
4. (d) the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976;
5. (e) the Resale Prices Act 1976;
6. (f) the Estate Agents Act 1979;
7. (g) the Competition Act 1980;
8. (h) the Telecommunications Act 1984;
9. (j) the Airports Act 1986;
10. (k) the Gas Act 1986;
11. (l) the Insolvency Act 1986;
12. (m) the Consumer Protection Act 1987;
13. (n) the Electricity Act 1989;
14. (o) the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991;
15. (p) the Water Industry Act 1991;
16. (q) the Water Resources Act 1991;
17. (r) the Railways Act 1993;
18. (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—

1. (a) by the individual mentioned in that subsection, or
2. (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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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. 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 moved Amendment No. 453: Page 111, line 42, leave out subsection (8).

Clause 201 [Staff]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 454: Page 112, line 26, leave out ("relevant authority") and insert ("Secretary of State").

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 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 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—

1. (a) by all the parties to the PPP agreement acting jointly, if they so agree; or
2. (b) by any party to the PPP agreement.").

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

1. ("(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
2. (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 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,—

1. (a) taking into account such matters as may be specified in the PPP agreement, and
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) for appeals to be heard and determined by independent adjudicators,
2. (b) for the appointment of such adjudicators,
3. (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
4. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 472A: Page 122, line 4, at end insert (", and

1. (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 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."). Page 262, line 15, at end insert—

("Accounts

6A. —(1) The Committee shall keep accounting records which—

1. (a) set out and explain the Committee's financial transactions,
2. (b) disclose with reasonable accuracy the financial status of the Committee at any time, and
3. (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—

1. (a) the Committee's financial status at the end of that year, and
2. (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—

1. (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
2. (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 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)—

1. (a) the word "and" preceding paragraph (d) shall cease to have effect; and
2. (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 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 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—

1. (a) any contravention of, or failure to comply with, any rule of law, or
2. (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 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—

1. (a) which relates to such transport services or facilities provided by that person, but
2. (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 moved Amendment No. 475ZA: After Clause 220, insert the following new clause—

DIRECTIONS BY THE ASSEMBLY

(" . —(1) The Assembly may issue to the Committee—

1. (a) guidance as to the manner in which they are to exercise their functions, or
1090
2. (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.