Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We will give very careful consideration to that. Of course, extensive provisions are made in Clauses 156 and 157 for consultation on the guidance document. For example, the mayor will be required to publish the document and revisions to it and to put notices in newspapers where appropriate. The assembly therefore will have every

1 Jul 1999 : Column 535

opportunity to comment. It seems inconceivable that the assembly will not take that opportunity. I understand the depth of concern being expressed by noble Lords and I undertake to give the matter consideration, without any commitment to the points raised.

Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 270B not moved.]

[Amendments Nos. 271 and 272 not moved.]

Clause 150 agreed to.

Clause 151 [Grant of London service permits].

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 272A:


Page 80, line 25, leave out ("local") and insert ("London")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 273 not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 273A:


Page 80, line 32, leave out ("local") and insert ("London")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 273AA:


Page 80, line 32, after ("affected") insert (", the London Transport Users' Committee")

The noble Baroness said: The amendment concerns Clause 151, which deals with the grant of London service permits. The clause states that a large number of people are to be consulted before Transport for London grants the service permit. Those people include the local authorities which are affected, the commissioner or commissioners of police who are affected, the London Transport Users Committee and any other person and so on.

However, when Transport for London grants the permit most of the consultees are informed, except for the London Transport Users' Committee. Our amendment simply adds the name of the London Transport Users' Committee to the list of those who have to be informed when the grant is given. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We do not feel able to accept the amendment. Notice of granting permits is not a mirror image of the consultation process. When permits are granted it is important that local authorities and the police, who may be affected by the traffic implications, are made aware of the situation. We are confident that the appropriate information will be disseminated to other interested parties such as LTUC. However, as with all the points that were raised, we are prepared to give consideration to the noble Baroness's strength of feeling about the issue. With that commitment, we will consider the matter further if she is prepared to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood : I am grateful for the Minister's response. The Committee will come

1 Jul 1999 : Column 536

presently to the clauses that deal with London Transport. It is intended to be an important player on behalf of the users of transport in London--and particularly public transport in London. That is one of the issues that we will discuss. That is why I moved the amendment, but in light of the Minister's comments, I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 273B:


Page 80, line 34, leave out ("local") and insert ("London")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 273C:


Page 80, line 35, leave out ("local") and insert ("London")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 151, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 152 [Appeals]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 273D:


Page 81, line 2, leave out ("refusal") and insert ("decision to do so")

The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 273E to 273F, Amendment No. 273G and Amendment No. 277A. These amendments are intended to allow further appeals by London service permit holders, as trailed by my noble friend. As currently drafted, the Bill allows applicants for London service permits whose applications have been refused to appeal against the decision. The appeal provisions were discussed in another place, and, after reflecting upon those discussions, we have concluded that it is appropriate to provide further safeguards.

The amendments will allow holders of London service permits also to appeal against TfL's decision to attach conditions to a permit or to revoke or suspend a permit. Appeals must be made within 28 days of the notice of that decision. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 273E and 273F:


Page 81, line 5, leave out ("against the refusal")
Page 81, line 5, at end insert ("against the decision in relation to which the notice was issued")

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 273FA not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 273G:


Page 81, line 5, at end insert--
("(2A) Where Transport for London--
(a) attaches any condition to a London service permit, or alters or removes any condition so attached; or
(b) revokes or suspends a London service permit,
it must issue a notice to the holder of the permit stating the reasons for the decision to do so.
(2B) A holder of a London service permit to whom a notice has been issued under subsection (2A) above may appeal to the Mayor against the decision in relation to which the notice was issued.

1 Jul 1999 : Column 537


(2C) An appeal under this section against a decision of Transport for London must be made before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of issue of the notice relating to the decision.")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment Nos. 273GA to 273GD not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 273H:


Page 81, line 11, at end insert--
("(3A) The Mayor may charge a person making an appeal under this section such reasonable fee as the Mayor considers appropriate having regard to any expenses incurred or likely to be incurred by the Mayor in respect of the appeal.")

The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 274A. These amendments allow the mayor to charge a reasonable fee to anyone making an appeal. Amendment No. 274B allows the appeal panel to recommend that the fee is repaid in full or in part. These appeal provisions were discussed in another place and, after reflecting on those discussions, we have concluded that it is appropriate to provide further safeguards.

The amendments allow the mayor to charge a fee to anyone making an appeal. However, the fee must be reasonable to avoid its being set at a level that would act as a deterrent to potential appellants. Furthermore, the independent appeal panel can recommend that a fee be repaid in full or in part. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 273HA not moved.]

10.45 p.m.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 273J:


Page 81, line 16, at end insert (", or
( ) a director of a subsidiary of Transport for London or a member of staff of such a subsidiary.")

The noble Lord said: This amendment prevents a director of a TfL subsidiary or a member of staff of a TfL subsidiary from sitting on the independent appeal panel. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 274:


Page 81, line 16, at end insert (", or
(d) any officer or employee or member of a company having business with the Authority or with Transport for London, or any company in which Transport for London has an interest, which generates revenue in any twelve month period (measured according to generally accepted principles of accounting) in excess of £10,000, or any officer or employee of any company under the control of such a company or which is controlled by a company which also controls such a company")

The noble Lord said: This amendment adds another person to the list of people who should be disqualified. The Minister has just added one more category. I should like to add people who have a financial interest in a company having business with the authority or with Transport for London. They might be working for a company competing with the company that is appealing. Therefore, I do not think that they should be allowed to sit on the appeal panel. I have set a figure of £10,000. That is not necessarily the right figure. I am perfectly

1 Jul 1999 : Column 538

open to suggestions as to what the right figure might be. The Bill sets out who cannot sit on the appeal panel. I just wonder who will sit on the appeal panel. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am afraid that I cannot accept Amendment No. 274. Clause 152 deals with arrangements for an appeal to the mayor in the event of TfL refusing to grant a permit. The mayor may appoint a panel to consider the appeal and to make recommendations.

Amendment No. 274 seeks to disqualify from being appointed members of such a panel the officers and employees of companies which have some commercial involvement with TfL. We believe that that is unnecessarily restrictive and quite disproportionate to the issue. It would also be extremely difficult to enforce as it would be almost impossible to determine at any given time who is disqualified from sitting as a panel member.

However, we can see the value of adding the subsidiaries of TfL to the list of organisations in Clause 152(4)(c) whose staff and members are excluded from membership of the appeal panel. We are bringing forward an amendment, Amendment No. 273J, to achieve that. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page