Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Baroness Hamwee: I am happy to repeat it.

Lord Whitty: Perhaps I may study the question and write in detail to the noble Baroness. The issue is not what the lender feels, or whether the lender is the public or private sector. Whoever lends the money, public expenditure by this public body will increase. That is straightforward and logical.

I thought that the noble Baroness was suggesting that the Secretary of State might veto access to private finance. That is not the way the system works. We shall work under the local authority credit approval process. The Secretary of State does not have any other parallel power. Once that process has been gone through, the credit approval is there.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I do not believe that we shall get much further today with the amendment. We have listened to an interesting series of speeches from both sides of the House. We shall go away and consider them carefully. I suspect that we may well bring this back again at a later stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 133 agreed to.

5.45 p.m.

Schedule 8 [Transport for London]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 250A:

Page 206, line 13, leave out ("its functions under this Act") and insert ("any of its functions")

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 256B, 256E, 258B to 258Z, 259A to 259C, 261A and 265A. These are all relatively technical amendments which tidy up the position relating to TfL.

Amendment No. 250A is a technical amendment to Schedule 8. Paragraph 1(3) allows TfL to do things which will facilitate or are conducive or incidental to the discharge of its functions under this Act. However, TfL will have functions under other legislation; for example, highway and traffic functions, and they also need to be covered. Amendment No. 250A makes clear that it can do that.

The rest of this group of amendments are technical improvements to Schedule 9 which deal with the detailed operating powers of TfL. Schedule 9 is very

1 Jul 1999 : Column 468

similar to the enacted legislation from which London Regional Transport derives its operating powers; that is, Schedule 2 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984.

The amendments do, however, give TfL two powers not previously available to LRT: the power to form joint venture companies and the power to provide transport facilities without having to provide services to them.

Amendment No. 256B amends Clause 136 to give TfL the power to form joint venture companies with private partners for the carrying on of activities which TfL does not have power to carry on. Currently, LRT cannot do that. Although it can form companies with other persons, those companies cannot undertake activities for which LT does not have powers. This has prevented LT from carrying out a number of worthwhile activities, such as the White Card, which is a single ticket allowing entry to a number of London museums. The London Transport Museum has been unable to take part in that initiative because of the lack of London Transport's powers to act in that area.

We believe that such a power will be useful to TfL in that it will be able to undertake innovative projects such as the White Card system, but it will not give TfL carte blanche--excuse the pun--to embark on speculative ventures. The activities of any company formed under this provision must include those activities for which TfL does have power, as well as other activities for which it does not.

Amendments Nos. 258D to 258F make it clear that TfL can provide transport facilities without itself having to provide services to and from those facilities. Although London Transport currently has power to provide incidental facilities (like car parks) it cannot provide "core" transport facilities without running services to and from them. This effectively prevents it from providing such things as river piers without operating services from them. It is entirely possible that TfL will want to provide facilities without services, and this amendment allows it to do just that.

Amendments Nos. 256E, 258H to 258T, 258V, 258X, 258Y and 259A replace references to TfL's "business" with references to "functions". That is because although TfL will be a trading organisation in some ways (for example, its sale of tickets), it will also be a regulatory body in respect of taxi and bus licensing, for example.

Amendment No. 258B, together with 258C, are technical amendments to divide the existing paragraph 3 of Schedule 9. The effect is to create a new paragraph 3A, extending TfL's power to use surplus premises for the storage of goods not carried by TfL. That means that TfL can use any of its surplus premises for that purpose, and not just premises it uses for the storage of goods which TfL carries.

Amendment No. 258G adds the word "or" to paragraph 9 of Schedule 9 to make it clear that TfL can provide "professional or technical advice" rather than "professional technical advice". Amendment No 258GA makes clear that TfL can charge for anything done under its powers in paragraph 9 of Schedule 9 to provide technical assistance and advice.

1 Jul 1999 : Column 469

Amendment No. 258U brings TfL's compulsory purchase powers into line with those of the London Development Agency, by requiring TfL to obtain the mayor's consent before asking the Secretary of State to confirm a compulsory purchase order. Amendment No. 258W is a typographical correction. It ensures that TfL's powers of compulsory purchase are the same as London Transport's, subject only to the changes necessary to reflect the creation of TfL and the GLA.

Amendment No. 258Z removes the need for TfL to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State before acquiring any securities of a body corporate for the purposes of discharging its functions. Amendment No. 259B is a minor technical amendment, being a cross-reference. Amendment No. 259C amends paragraph 29 of Schedule 9 so that TfL may do anything necessary for the purposes of fulfilling a contract entered into by any of its predecessor bodies.

I hope the need for these amendments is clear. They tidy up the powers and in some cases extend them in sensible areas beyond those currently held by London Transport and other predecessor bodies. I beg to move.

Lord Berkeley: Perhaps I can ask my noble friend two short questions. I believe my noble friend said that Amendment No. 258D would enable TfL to build transport facilities but not operate them. Would that include something like rebuilding Victoria coach station without the need to operate coaches to it? I believe the answer is yes, but I shall be grateful for his confirmation.

My second question relates to the word "goods". My ears pricked up as soon as I heard that word. I cannot remember to which amendment it relates because my noble friend was rattling through them nice and quickly. It allows TfL to store goods in places where goods would not normally be stored. Is this the start of a major intermodal facility in London for the transfer of freight from road to rail; or does it relate to Schedule 9, line 37 at page 210,

    "Transport for London may also carry luggage and other goods"? I am not sure what the definition of "goods" is in those two contexts and whether they are the same. I shall be grateful for an explanation from my noble friend.

Lord Whitty: On the latter point, my understanding is--I will correct this in writing if I am wrong--that the reference to luggage and other goods merely relates to goods similar to luggage. In other words, they can carry luggage separately from passengers. If one is travelling with an artist's easel, that could be put in with the luggage, though strictly speaking it is not a case. So it is not creating a new freight company, if that was my noble friend's concern.

In relation to Victoria coach station, conceivably the situation would be covered. I cannot see the circumstances in which it would arise, but it would definitely be covered. In terms of being able to store goods outside its own normal provision, in most cases the situation is probably more limited in that TfL would be able to use its own storage facilities for other

1 Jul 1999 : Column 470

people's goods if the storage was surplus to its requirements. It could, however, lead to substantially greater things, as my noble friend implied.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: We on these Benches are grateful to the noble Lord for his detailed explanation of this large group of amendments and congratulate him on moving such a large group in one go. We will need to study the amended Bill at the end of Committee stage and we reserve our position until then.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: We will also be studying the results of these amendments. I have a small query in relation to Amendment No. 265A where the Minister is proposing to leave out the "Secretary of State" and insert the "Mayor". But, as I read that, if the mayor ended up being chairman of Transport for London, he would effectively be giving consent to himself. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that for me.

Lord Whitty: He would be giving consent to TfL as an organisation rather than to himself. Nevertheless, the noble Baroness has a point which needs some explanation and I undertake to write to her.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page