---

Mr. Spearing: New clause 1 concerns the visibility of the decisions taken by London Regional Transport and the Secretary of State, whoever he or she may be. Quite apart from the merits of this important Bill and what it may permit, the new clause, which is in two parts--one requires additions to the annual report and the other requires the consent of the Secretary of State to any agreements--will essentially give visibility, as I think we can all agree. I hope that it will at least attract the Government's sympathy and assent in principle, because it pursues their advertised policy of open government.

To argue the case for the two safeguards, I have perforce to talk a little about the agreements that would have to be reported under the new clause in London Regional Transport's annual report and the other sort of agreements that I believe--and which the House should believe--the Secretary of State should have the power to assent to. Alas, to argue the merits of the two safeguards, some description of the Bill is necessary, without which it is impossible to understand their importance.

The intention behind the Bill is to

3 Apr 1996 : Column 425

"extend, and facilitate the exercise of, the powers of London Regional Transport to enter into and carry out agreements; and for connected purposes."

That is the long title of the Bill, which further emphasises that the agreements are at the centre of the legislation.

In shorthand, the Bill extends in certain respects London Regional Transport's power over and above the powers that it has in existing legislation. It adds to the London Regional Transport Act 1984. Section 3(2) of that Act reads:

"London Transport shall have power to enter into and carry out agreements with any person for the carrying on by that person, whether as agent for London Regional Transport or otherwise, of any activities which London Regional Transport have power to carry on".

As one might expect, it gives London Regional Transport the power to contract for those persons for those purposes.

Section 2(1) of the 1984 Act gives London Regional Transport the general duty to

"secure the provision of public passenger transport services for Greater London".

Clause 1 of the Bill extends the agreements in two ways. It adds two powers to section 3 of the 1984 Act. I shall paraphrase because the Bill is complex. The first is to have power with the consent of the Secretary of State

"to enter into and carry out an agreement with any person for the carrying on by that person ('the contractor') of any activities which London Regional Transport does not have power to carry on if the agreement includes provision for one or more of the following".

Constitutionally, the Bill is extraordinary, because it extends the existing powers granted to London Regional Transport under the 1984 Act without specifying what the activities should be, providing that one or more of three criteria are covered in the agreement with the said person or contractor.

This is a legally permissive Bill that allows lawyers, contractors and London Regional Transport a doorway to walk through into territory that is not perceived and might be unknown. For that reason, the nature of the agreement ought to be included in the London Regional Transport annual report as my new clause provides.

The remarkable thing about clause 1 is that it includes three necessary criteria in relation to the contractors. The first is the carrying on of activities that are already under the power of London Regional Transport. The second is the provision by the contractor of

"services ancillary to the provision of public passenger transport services",

which goes beyond the present Act. The third criterion is the most remarkable. It concerns

"the use by the contractor of land or other property owned by London Regional Transport, or transferred to the contractor by London Regional Transport for the purposes of the agreement."

I shall deal with the merits of that later. That is the legal outline of the Bill--it is the first type of agreement, with rather complex criteria.

As the Bill says, the agreements are within the consent of the Secretary of State. Therefore, the Secretary of State has to consent to them. As the Bill stands, London Regional Transport does not have to lay anything before Parliament about that, nor does anything have to appear in its annual report--unless the Government agree to this change.

The second sort of agreement is even more remarkable in constitutional and legal terms. The proposed subsection (2B) provides:

3 Apr 1996 : Column 426

"Where an agreement has been entered into under subsection (2) or (2A) above, the powers conferred on London Regional Transport by that subsection include power to enter into and carry out other agreements with other persons".

There is a cascade of these two sorts of agreement, with two sorts of contractor. It is remarkable--London Regional Transport can enter into and carry out this second type of agreement with other persons for the purpose of

"(a) fulfilling any condition which must be fulfilled before the agreement can have effect; or

(b) satisfying any requirement imposed by or under the agreement."

In other words, there is a labyrinth of agreements for purposes that are outside the scope of the present Act. For those reasons, the consent of the Secretary of State is wanted not only for the first set of agreements but for the second set of agreements. This presents a possible scenario that must be made public. I shall use the analogy of doorways to a remarkable legal labyrinth, which could give powers to the Secretary of State, to London Regional Transport and to a contractor for all sorts of activities that are not related to the provision of public transport.

The Minister for Transport in London quite openly said in Committee and in the notes on clauses--but it is not stated in the Bill--that this is to facilitate the use of what is known, in the jargon, as the private finance initiative. The private finance initiative allows private money--from banks or investment agencies--to be used for public purposes to finance, design, build, maintain and operate any public facility for which the contract with the money lender, the bank or the credit house is available. That is tremendously important these days, because we hear about these things in many respects, even in relation to hospitals. Perhaps in the future it will relate to roads--I do not know. The PFI is now a big thing in local government and there are attempts to use it to provide all sorts of public facilities, of which public transport is one.

The Minister was very kind and answered a question that I submitted for answer yesterday. It is not yet in Hansard--I believe that it will be printed in a big version that will come out shortly. I asked for details of how visible the public finance initiative agreements would be. The Minister provided the following answer:

"The London Regional Transport Bill does not require London Transport or its subsidiaries to publish information about their projects under the Private Finance Initiative. Invitations to tender will continue to be published where this is a legal requirement."

I do not know what the legal requirement is--in other words, they may not be visible at all. The answer continues:

"I understand that London Transport will normally announce the award of such contracts, giving an indication of their value and duration where this information is not commercially sensitive."

We know that, very often, information on contracts of this sort is commercially sensitive.

The answer continues:

"When a contract ends, assets transferred from London Transport to the contractor at the beginning of the contract will generally be transferred to a new contractor, or will revert back to LT until a new contract can be let. Assets no longer needed by LT may remain with the contractor, and LT already have powers to make such disposals."

I submit that that answer suggests that we would not get the visibility that the new clause and the consent of the Secretary of State would like if it is laid before Parliament.

3 Apr 1996 : Column 427

I suggest that, without these safeguards in the legislation, all sorts of things will happen--there will be a cascade of agreements for purposes that are not necessarily known or clear. That is why amendment No. 4 states that consent should be laid

"together with a general description of the purpose and scope of each such agreement".

I refer to agreements of both sorts.

I hope that the Minister--purely on the merits of public visibility, of open government and of the arrangements that we may come to in later amendments--will agree to my proposal. Without it, how can we tell what is going on? This also applies in relation to the annual report, because it will show the use of powers that Parliament is giving the Government.

If we give powers to the Government, they should have a responsibility to tell us how they are using them, both in respect of London Regional Transport's annual report and the use of the Minister's powers when he gives consent under the Bill. He should be accountable to the House for that agreement. That is covered in amendment No. 3. Such matters should be laid before Parliament. I hope that, purely on the merits of open government, the Minister will give a nod in the direction of the new clause and these amendments--perhaps better ones could be made in the other place. In any event, public visibility is absolutely essential.

---