Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Brabazon of Tara: The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned my name twice in moving the amendment. I do not propose to respond. He appears to me to have made a speech which bears absolutely no relation whatever to the amendment. It was more applicable to a general transport debate, which we could have at a more suitable hour.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I shall not speak at any length because of the time. The noble Lord has included in his amendment the words "in particular"; I could suggest to him places such as Hyde Park, where a cycle track across the bridge has restricted all other traffic to one lane. The park is now full of stationary, polluting traffic. There are all sorts of arguments, but I cannot support his amendment.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My name is joined with that of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in the amendment. I regard it as an extremely interesting

28 Jun 1999 : Column 150

amendment. From the way the noble Lord introduced it, it is clear that he considers it a probing amendment to see whether this important matter can be incorporated into the Bill.

We are not in a situation in London--and never will be--where we can create more road space. We have all the road space we are ever going to have, with very minor amendments to that statement. As a result, if we are to have efficient movement of people through the streets of London we have to have regard to the allocation of road space in the most efficient way as between different uses. That is what the amendment is about. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on having brought it to the attention of this Committee. I very much hope that the Minister in responding will deal with it in the serious way in which it was proposed, because these are ideas which could be extremely fruitful in terms of the mayor's transport strategy.

12.15 p.m.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I agree with my noble friend, but I could not disagree more with the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, about the amendment not being relevant. If we were a little younger, we would know that there is yet another group of potential road users who are neither pedestrians nor cyclists. I wonder where roller-bladers fit into the definition. Roller-blading is a growing method of transport and it is not as strange as people may think. You get from A to B more quickly than if you walk, and blades are more transportable than a bicycle. That is the sort of group that I think is addressed by this amendment, which is useful in widening our minds with regard to the groups of people who may be able to use the roads safely if they were not quite so much taken up with motor vehicles.

Lord Whitty: This has been an unexpectedly wide-ranging debate. I do not come suitably briefed on a national strategy for roller-blading, but I recognise that it is a particular form of transport which we have failed completely to register in our integrated transport policy so far. Nevertheless, I take the point

My noble friend Lord Berkeley raised a lot of issues, many of which I have some sympathy with; but the terms of his amendment run up against the same objections as I raised earlier in relation to specifying cyclists as if they were not subsumed by "transport". It also runs up against some of the problems raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. Whether or not one agrees with her, it is clear that not in all circumstances will one wish to give preference to a particular modality. It must be part of the mayor's broader decisions on a strategic transport policy not to have the word "particularly" written into the Bill in one context when clearly in other contexts it may give some priority to particular modes and not to others. We have therefore couched the clause in a non-modal form so as to give the mayor responsibility for considering an integrated approach. I appreciate some of the points raised in our

28 Jun 1999 : Column 151

discussion but I do not think that the drafting of this amendment is helpful. I therefore hope that my noble friend may feel able to withdraw it.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I am more and more regretting this negative and legalistic attitude to the suggestions that have been made. This whole series of amendments seeks an inclusive approach to a transport policy up-front, so that we do not have to keep coming back over and over again to a series of arguments about whether a certain set of road-users should be mentioned in this or another context. There may be deficiencies in the drafting of the amendment, but it is an important one and, in my view, deserving of a more serious answer.

Lord Berkeley: I am very grateful to my noble friend for his comments. This was a probing amendment, as has been pointed out. I shall read very carefully what he said and perhaps revisit the amendment in a different form at the next stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 123 agreed to.

Clause 124 [The Mayor's transport strategy]:

[Amendments Nos. 245 and 245A not moved.]

Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 245B:

Page 67, line 36, at end insert--
("( ) In preparing the transport strategy, the Mayor shall take into consideration--
(a) the government's policy for integrated transport;
(b) the needs of those who do not have access to a motor vehicle;
(c) the availability of strategic routes, water, rail and road; and
(d) the needs of commerce and environmental protection.
( ) In preparing the transport strategy, the mayor shall consult--
(a) the Strategic Rail Authority;
(b) London borough councils;
(c) local authorities covering areas within the responsibility of Transport for London;
(d) representatives of users of transport, including train, bus, underground, cyclists, pedestrians, as well as road, rail and air freight;
(e) any other person or body whom the Mayor considers it appropriate to consult.").

The noble Lord said: I shall be brief. This is entirely a probing amendment. It seeks to ensure a nice, long list of those who should be consulted in preparing the transport strategy. I felt initially that there was a great deal of consultation at the next level down, but not much in regard to a particular transport strategy.

The whole business of consultation was discussed on an earlier Committee day. It is important that the mayor consults with those listed. However, I expect that I shall be told that it is not necessary to put this list on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: It is very late. I shall do no more than register my support for the amendment.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: We had amendments very similar to this in regard to the national health Bill,

28 Jun 1999 : Column 152

where everyone set out pretty well everything. No matter what is set out, someone will be left out. Therefore, it is far better not to have such a list.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I hope that I can convince my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, that the amendment is unnecessary.

Looking first at the matters which it is suggested the mayor should take into consideration, the transport strategy will be subject to Clauses 33 to 36 of the Bill. Those clauses lay down the process by which the mayor's strategies will have to be prepared. He or she will have to ensure that all strategies are consistent. That means that the mayor will need to integrate transport policies with environmental, economic development and planning policies.

The mayor will also need to ensure that the transport strategy is consistent with transport policy; in other words, with the Government's policy for integrated transport. He or she will need to have regard to how the strategy furthers the principal purposes of the authority, one of which is promoting social development in Greater London. Under Clause 124, the strategy must also include proposals for accessible transport for people with mobility problems.

I hope that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness can therefore agree that the Bill as drafted will require the mayor in drawing up the strategy to take into account the matters listed in this amendment.

The matter of consultation occupied us for some time in our earlier consideration of the Bill. Under Clause 34, in preparing a strategy, the mayor must consult each London borough council and any other body that he or she considers appropriate. In deciding which other bodies are appropriate, the mayor must consider the list of bodies in Clause 27. That list includes voluntary bodies, and bodies which represent businesses.

The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, indicated the difficulty in drawing up lists. This list is not intended to be exclusive. It is simply impractical to list every single body which the mayor should consider consulting. The fact that the noble Lord has included on his list a body which does not yet exist--the strategic rail authority--shows the difficulty of the task facing anyone seeking to do so.

The provisions in the Bill as it stands mean that, where the mayor fails to give proper consideration as to whom he or she should consult, or fails to consult bodies representing groups with legitimate interests which would be affected, he or she could be challenged by the interested parties, the assembly or, ultimately, the courts. I hope that, with that comprehensive reassurance, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page