Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 311ZAF:


Page 254, line 8, leave out ("Authority") and insert ("Mayor and Assembly").

The noble Baroness said: The amendment would substitute for the word "authority", as a consultee of the Secretary of State in setting up licensing arrangements, the words "Mayor and Assembly". Once more, I have used the period of leisure that has occasionally been afforded to study the Bill in greater detail. I suspect that I shall be told by the Minister that when the word "authority" is used it means the mayor and the assembly acting together. It that is right, I shall unreservedly and immediately withdraw the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: I cannot say that I noticed the noble Baroness having hours of leisure during the progress of this Bill. She has assiduously concentrated on the business in hand.

As I said previously, the mayor will have the executive role to provide London with strong leadership and the assembly the scrutiny role. Consequently, Schedules 18 and 19 make it clear that the road user and workplace charging power and functions conferred on the authority are exercisable by the mayor acting on behalf of the authority. That is the appropriate way to express it. It is therefore right that the Secretary of State should consult the mayor before regulations are tabled. The mayor will be subject to the general scrutiny of the authority and may well need to seek the views of the assembly. That will be a decision for the mayor or for the assembly to assert its powers of scrutiny. However, for the purposes of legislation, the Secretary of State's

5 Jul 1999 : Column 709

consultation should be with the mayor acting on behalf of the authority. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I am extremely disappointed with the Minister's answer, as I am sure he understands. However, at this hour I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.45 p.m.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 311ZAG:


Page 254, line 24, at end insert--
("(7) In determining the amount payable by the Secretary of State pursuant to section 86 of this Act, no account shall be taken of any sums which are attributable to the net proceeds of any charging scheme.").

The noble Baroness said: These are two amendments which seek to put the principle of additionality more clearly on the face of the Bill. We have spoken about this before and I cannot say that we are entirely reassured by the response the Minister has given to our concerns. We think it is very important that revenues which come from the charge and levy programme are in addition to revenues granted to the authority from the Secretary of State. It is very difficult to see how this principle is actually incorporated into the Bill. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: These amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, seek to ensure that all the proceeds from road user and workplace parking charging schemes will be in addition to the mayor's transport grant. The Government are committed to ensuring that the proceeds from charging schemes will be additional moneys for improving transport in London. That is why Schedules 18 and 19 already contain provisions for the establishment and publication of ring-fenced accounts for these charges. This will make it absolutely clear to Londoners how much money is being raised and how this money is being spent. However, there may come a time in the future when having a world class transport system for London could mean that further spending on transport, whether financed through the authority's transport grant or through charging revenues, might not be the best value-for-money improvements that Londoners will want. Londoners will want to be confident that the charging revenues are being spent wisely on value-for-money measures.

This legislation needs to look beyond the next 10 years and to provide for the medium to longer term when substantial improvements to transport in London will have been implemented. In any event, the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness are virtually unworkable. A number of factors will influence the level of the transport grant and it would be difficult in practice, in legal terms, to separate out and prove exactly what weight was given to those decisive factors. Unfortunately, the amendment of the noble Baroness

5 Jul 1999 : Column 710

could make the determination of the transport grant open to judicial challenge, which would not be in the interest of Londoners.

We are committed to the additionality of charging revenues but are unable to accept these amendments and therefore hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw them.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I welcome the very clear statement from the Minister as to the Government's commitment to the principle of additionality. For the time being, that will clearly have to do and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 311ZAH:


Page 254, line 33, at end insert ("or provision for pedestrians or cyclists").

The noble Baroness said: This is another effort to bring the spending of money on public transport, including cycling and pedestrians, into the uses of the hypothecated moneys. I think the two amendments--they apply to both schemes; that is why there are two of them in each of these pairs--are quite clear. Earlier on in today's Committee, we spoke at some length about the necessity of ensuring that the moneys spent by the authority or by Transport for London of these hypothecated sums covered the important areas of cycling and pedestrian travel. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: I contend that the amendments are unnecessary. The Government have ensured that the revenue from those charges can be spent on any measure which directly or indirectly supports the policies and proposals contained in the mayor's transport strategy, which undoubtedly would include measures to encourage walking and cycling.

Therefore, the inclusion of the amendment would cast doubt on whether support of the strategy included those measures. It clearly does and it is clear that it is our intention so to do. Therefore, the power to spend the money on cycling and walking exists already in the Bill. Therefore, it is not necessary to pursue the amendments.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I thank the Minister for that satisfactory response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 311ZAJ to 312 not moved.]

Schedule 18, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 229 [Workplace parking levy]:

[Amendments Nos. 312YA and 312ZA not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 312A:


Page 126, line 17, leave out ("the Authority,") and insert ("Transport for London,").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

5 Jul 1999 : Column 711

Lord Brabazon of Tara had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 313:


Page 126, line 21, at end insert--
("( ) The purpose of any licensing scheme established pursuant to this section shall be to encourage the use by individuals of public passenger transport services in preference to other forms of transport.
( ) Regulations issued to give effect to any such licensing scheme shall be drafted, applied and interpreted in the light of this purpose, and any feature of or provision within any purported regulations which is neither essential nor reasonably incidental to such purpose shall be void and of no effect.").

The noble Lord said: These amendments could have been grouped with the large group of amendments which related to congestion charging. They are similar amendments but relate to workplace charging. Therefore, I shall not move them.

[Amendment No. 313 not moved.]

[Amendment No. 314 not moved.]

Clause 229, as amended, agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 315 and 316 not moved.]

Schedule 19 [Workplace parking levy]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 316A:


Page 262, line 25, leave out ("or business customer") and insert (", business customer or business visitor").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 316B and 316C. This group of amendments improves the drafting of paragraph 3 of Schedule 19. It makes clear the difference between business customers and business visitors.

I should explain for the record that business customers are those who are visiting premises in the course of their work as clients or customers of the building's owner whereas business visitors are those who are visiting the premises in the course of their work but are not clients or customers of the building owner; for example, those who are visiting the building for a seminar or conference. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 316B and 316C:


Page 263, line 5, leave out (", or an employee of a client or customer,").
Page 263, line 7, at end insert--
(""business visitor", in relation to a relevant person, means an individual who--
(a) in the course of his employment, or
(b) in the course of carrying on a business or for the purposes of a business carried on by him,
is visiting the relevant person or any premises whose occupier is the relevant person;").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 317 to 325 not moved.]


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page