Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Clause 225 adds a new Section 121C after the new Section 121B of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to provide for TfL to commission or to carry out consultancy services relating to traffic control including pedestrians. This is not required. The general provisions under Schedule 9 to the Bill provide for TfL to commission or to carry out consultancy services relating to traffic control, including pedestrians, thus obviating the need for this specific provision under Clause 225. I beg to move that Clause 225 do not stand part of the Bill.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: There is more joy in Committee at one clause removed! That is all I am willing to say.

Clause 225 negatived.

Clause 226 [Interpretation and exercise of functions by the Mayor]:

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 297XN:


Page 125, line 8, leave out ("definition") and insert ("definitions").

The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 297XP and 297XQ. These are technical amendments that regularise the definitions in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

5 Jul 1999 : Column 688

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 297XP and 297XQ:


Page 125, line 9, leave out ("place") and insert ("places").
Page 125, line 11, at end insert--
("""trunk road" has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980 (see section 329(1) of that Act)".").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 226, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 227 [Repeal of certain enactments]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 297XR:


Page 125, line 39, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 41 and insert ("In subsections (6) and (7) below "relevant local plans" means any local plans prepared or in the course of preparation by a London borough council or the Common Council under section 54 of the Road Traffic Act 1991.
(6) To the extent that they relate to roads which are or become GLA roads, within the meaning of the Highways Act 1980, any relevant local plans shall, until such time as they are superseded by the transport strategy, continue in force and have effect as if they were prepared or, as the case may be, in the course of preparation as part of that strategy.
(7) To the extent that they relate to roads other than those mentioned in subsection (6) above, any relevant local plans").

The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment. As the Bill stands, a red route local plan prepared by a borough continues in force until such time as it is superseded by a local implementation plan under Clause 127 of the Bill. However, the Government intend that the GLA road network should be based largely on the red route network. This means that most, if not all, red routes currently subject to local plans will transfer to TfL. So the red route plans will not be superseded by borough local implementation plans.

Therefore, this amendment provides that local plans in respect of roads that become GLA roads will continue in force until they are superseded by the mayor's transport strategy. Local plans for roads that continue to be borough roads will remain in force until they are superseded by local implementation plans. I hope that the amendment clarifies the issue and I commend it to the Committee.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 227, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 228 [Road user charging]:

[Amendment No. 297XRA not moved.]

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 297XRB:


Page 126, line 3, at beginning insert ("Where the revenue raised is to be invested solely and exclusively in better provision for public transport, cycling and walking in Greater London,").

The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 312ZA. I rise to speak briefly to these amendments, the purpose of which I think is extremely clear. They will put in the Bill, at the earliest opportunity, mention of the new charges and levies that the Bill enables the authority or the London borough councils or the Common Council to make. The amendments seek to ensure that it is stated at this early stage that the revenue raised from the road user charging

5 Jul 1999 : Column 689

scheme or from the workplace parking levy is invested solely in public transport, cycling and walking provisions in Greater London. I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: At this early hour of the evening by our standards, we come to the vexed issues of congestion charging--or road user charging, as it is called in the Bill--and workplace parking. I put it on record that we on this side of the House are not really in favour of either measure but, as we are going to get them in this Bill, we are advancing a series of amendments--and will do so again in the next stage--to lessen the impact of the charges and to reinforce the essence of the noble Baroness's amendment that they should be used mainly to improve public transport. That does not exclude certain improvements to the road network when that could assist the movement of public transport and cycling provision. However, the point remains the same. We have a number of amendments to the provision to which we shall come in due course, but I wanted to put that principle on the table in response to the noble Baroness.

Lord Whitty: We understand the noble Lord's opposition to the provisions, but we are not entirely clear about his alternative to the congestion problems in London. I also appreciate the keenness of the noble Baroness to put forward a further proposal on what is already a substantial ground-breaking arrangement for the application of charging revenues. But, first, the amendments are out of place in Clauses 228 and 229. They simply empower the mayor and the boroughs to bring forward road user and workplace parking charges. The arrangements for the retention and use of charging revenues are in Schedules 18 and 19. The noble Baroness is already well aware of those because she has tabled amendments to them, too.

I would argue that for the immediate period the amendments are unnecessary because the schedules already make it clear that every penny from the new charges will be hypothecated for at least 10 years for each scheme brought forward within the first 10 years of the GLA. It is true that those arrangements will be reviewed in 10 years' time, but the noble Baroness's amendment is largely met by the provisions.

The amendments are restrictive. They would inhibit the mayor and boroughs from spending those revenues on other areas of transport; for example, the support of river bus services. They would also rule out spending on road improvements and enforcement activity within the capital. Services to bring people into London would not be compatible with the services in Greater London, which is how the amendment is phrased. Those drafting shortcomings are avoided by simply allowing charging revenues to be spent in support of the mayor's transport strategy, which would cover all of those aspects. For those reasons, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: For once, the Minister's reply has made me more enthusiastic about my amendments. I do not agree that supporting the mayor's

5 Jul 1999 : Column 690

plan is the same thing as doing what we are suggesting should be done with the revenues. The mayor will have a number of objectives in his plan and no doubt one of them will be to enable whatever traffic is still on the roads, whether it is private or public, to move more smoothly. That is always one of the objectives of everyone in local authority in towns and counties because stationary traffic is polluting, disagreeable and costly to individuals and business. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the mayor to have as part of his strategy sensible measures to improve the flow of vehicular traffic on the road space left to it after the cycle lanes have been drawn.

However, we should like to see the revenues from congestion charging and so forth being put to support public transport and cycling and walking. Both take up relatively little space on the road and are not polluting. The noble Lord said that that would not cover river buses. I contest that; river buses might well be in public transport and if not they might well be set up as part of Transport for London's powers to provide or cause to be provided transport services. Therefore, I am more enthusiastic about the two amendments than I was originally. However, I will do as we always do and that is withdraw these amendments for the present moment. I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, that we may well return to this rather vexed subject, albeit from slightly different points of view as we, of course, support the idea of road charging and workplace parking levies, at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.30 p.m.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 297XS:


Page 126, line 4, leave out ("the Authority,") and insert ("Transport for London,").

The noble Lord said: These are technical and drafting changes to the Bill, as the notes of my noble friend Lady Farrington inform me--she so often comes to my rescue. Amendments Nos 297XS and 312A are small but significant technical amendments. They are needed because any road user or workplace charging scheme introduced by the authority would be established and operated by TfL on behalf of the authority. It is therefore necessary to empower TfL to establish and operate charging schemes rather than to empower the authority to do so. I should make clear that the decision to allow TfL to establish an operator charge scheme will still rest with the mayor acting on behalf of the authority.

Amendments Nos. 455BA and 455BB are minor amendments to tidy up the drafting of Clause 325(6). Subsection (4) of this clause states that regulations which amend workplace parking charges and amend the definition of workplace parking will be subject to the affirmative resolution in this context in another place. Subsection (6) therefore needs to make clear that all these provisions will not therefore need to be subject to the negative resolution procedure of both Houses. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 298 not moved.]

5 Jul 1999 : Column 691


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page