Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 265B and 265BA:

After Clause 143, insert the following new clause--


(" .--(1) Transport for London may provide or secure the provision of public passenger transport services to, from or within Greater London.
(2) Without prejudice to section 138 below, any agreement entered into by Transport for London by virtue of section 136(3) or (4)(a) above may in particular provide for--
(a) combined services for the through carriage of passengers or goods to be provided by Transport for London or any of its subsidiaries and any other party to the agreement,

1 Jul 1999 : Column 525

the quoting of through rates and the pooling of receipts and expenses in respect of such services;
(b) securing efficiency, economy and safety of operation in the provision of any public passenger transport services in pursuance of the agreement;
(c) the exercise by Transport for London, in accordance with the agreement, of control over fares in respect of any such services and their routes and frequency of operation and over charges in respect of any other facilities provided in pursuance of the agreement; and
(d) the making of payments by Transport for London to any other party to the agreement.")
After Clause 143, insert the following new clause--

(" .--(1) The council of a London borough and the Common Council shall each have power to enter into and carry out agreements with--
(a) Transport for London,
(b) the Franchising Director, or
(c) any person who is the holder of a passenger licence, a network licence or a station licence,
with respect to the provision or retention, and financing, of public passenger transport services and facilities which would not be available apart from any such agreement.
(2) Transport for London and the Franchising Director shall each have power to enter into and carry out agreements with the council of a London borough or the Common Council with respect to the matters specified in subsection (1) above.
(3) The terms of an agreement entered into under this section shall be such as may be agreed between the parties to the agreement.
(4) 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.")

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 265C:

After Clause 143, insert the following new clause--


(" .--(1) Transport for London shall in each year inform the bodies mentioned in subsection (2) below of its current plans with respect to--
(a) the general level of transport services and facilities to be provided by Transport for London, any subsidiary of Transport for London or any other person in pursuance of an agreement entered into by virtue of section 136(3) or (4)(a) above;
(b) the general structure of routes of such services;
(c) the general level and structure of fares to be charged for such services; and
(d) the general level of charges to be made for such facilities.
(2) The bodies are--
(a) the London borough councils;
(b) the Common Council;
(c) the council of any county or district any part of whose area appears to Transport for London to be affected significantly by any plans falling within subsection (1) above; and
(d) the London Transport Users' Committee.

1 Jul 1999 : Column 526

(3) Transport for London shall cause particulars of the general level and structure of the fares falling within subsection (1)(c) above as they apply for the time being to be published in such manner as it thinks fit.")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 144 agreed to.

Clause 145 [Provision of London local services]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 266:

Page 77, line 41, at end insert--
("(4) This section shall be interpreted subject to section 150 below.")

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 266 is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 272 which is grouped with it.

According to the Bill a London local service is a service with one or more stopping places in Greater London. According to my interpretation, therefore, as drafted someone running a bus service from, say, Land's End to John o'Groat's making a single stop anywhere within Greater London--for example, somewhere on the M.25 for Heathrow--falls under TfL regulations and TfL can make it illegal. As TfL is under a duty to put London first under Clause 136 arguably it could be obliged to close down such a service.

The amendment attempts to protect bus operators which are only incidentally connected with Greater London by allowing them the opportunity to demonstrate that to be the case. I hope that the Minister can give me a reason why there is no need for the amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I cannot accept Amendments No. 266 and 272. Clause 150 requires that a London local service (essentially a bus service with stopping places less than 15 miles apart), which is not provided by, or on behalf of, TfL, can only be provided by the holder of a London service permit issued by the mayor.

The amendment risks leaving the door open to wholly unregulated bus operations in London. As such it would lead to additional traffic congestion, would scarcely be helpful to the passengers and would hence make it harder for the mayor to achieve his or her strategic aims. This amendment is entirely at variance with government policy for buses in London.

Our buses "daughter" document to the Integrated Transport White Paper, "From Workhorse to Thoroughbred" set out our intention to deal with matters in the deregulated regime outside London by strengthening powers of the traffic commissioners and by means of quality partnerships and quality contracts to enable local authorities to plan and control bus services in a fully integrated manner.

For London this Bill contains provisions which will broadly give continuity to the planning of a London bus network and provide opportunities for additional services which the mayor may authorise by means of his permit.

1 Jul 1999 : Column 527

This amendment is not necessary, nor is it conducive to the promotion of integrated public transport for London. I therefore urge the noble Lords to withdraw it.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to the Minister for the reply. I am not certain that it took fully on board the point I made in my amendment. I did not seek to propose that deregulated bus services should return to London. I think that they were last there in the 1930s. It appeared to me that if there were a long distance bus service with just one stop in Greater London it would be caught by the provisions of the Bill. However, I shall read with care what the noble Baroness has said. Having done so, I hope that I shall be satisfied. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 145 agreed to.

Clause 146 [The London bus network]:

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 266ZA:

Page 78, line 3, after ("providing") insert ("environmentally sustainable,")

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 266ZA in the names of my noble friends. The amendment seeks to provide that TfL should determine which services are required to provide environmentally sustainable transport services. The Government may feel that this is an unnecessary addition. I turn to what the clause actually provides in terms of what the buses should be like. Nowhere does it state, "They shall not be dirty, smelling and polluting". That is the reputation of buses historically and, although the Government are taking steps, as are bus operators, to clean up the service, sadly economic transport does sometimes mean running stock that is less state-of-the-art in terms of providing clean transport.

I thought some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, about the speed of developments in cleaner technology make the inclusion of the phrase "environmentally sustainable", as we have in the amendment here, even more important. The buses that we have now might provide everything in Clause 144(1) but, without "environmentally sustainable", we could have a fleet of buses which were many years behind the times.

Lord Whitty: I understand the intention behind the clause and clearly it is part of our concern--indeed, TfL's duty is to promote progressive improvements in the environmental impact of all of its public transport, including its bus fleet. However, to insert "environmentally sustainable" immediately in front of "bus services" could lead to serious legal challenge. It takes a very long time to replace a bus fleet. To say that any bus running on conventional fuel at the moment did not comply with that requirement in that it was dependent on fossil fuel, or that the degree of emission was outwith the general power on a particular bus or a particular route, would have grave difficulty in meeting the other objectives of accessibility and an adequate bus service. It will take many years to replace the existing

1 Jul 1999 : Column 528

fleet and, even if we engage in some improvement of the existing fleet engines, they will not entirely meet the sustainable criteria by themselves.

We explained at earlier stages that transport strategy would have to take account of the mayor's environmental strategy, and part of that no doubt would be to speed up the degree of environmental improvement by public transport and other vehicles. However, to put the adjectives immediately in front of that could lead to some difficulties of interpretation and to legal challenge which would not be helpful. I therefore hope that, in the light of that explanation, the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page