| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 45 and 46:
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 177 [Information and publicity about plans as to services and fares]:
Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 47:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 180 [The London bus network]:
Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 48:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 181 [London local service agreements]:
Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 49:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 105, line 10, leave out from ("provided") to ("either") in line 13 and insert ("under--
(a) an agreement entered into by Transport for London under section 156(2) or (3)(a) above, or
(b) a transport subsidiary's agreement,
by a person other than a subsidiary of Transport for London, it shall be the duty of that person and the other party to the agreement in question,").
Page 105, line 22, after ("above") insert ("or to a transport subsidiary's agreement").
Page 105, line 47, at end insert ("or in pursuance of a transport subsidiary's agreement").
Page 107, line 10, at end insert ("or in pursuance of a transport subsidiary's agreement").
Page 107, line 15, after ("above") insert ("or in pursuance of a transport subsidiary's agreement").
After Clause 206, insert the following new clause--
(" .--(1) Section 3 of the London Docklands Railway (Lewisham) (No. 2) Act 1993 (transfer of functions relating to the Docklands Light Railway) shall be amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (7) below.
(2) In subsection (1) (which confers a power on the Secretary of State to make orders transferring functions relating to the Docklands Light Railway) for "Secretary of State" there shall be substituted "Mayor of London".
(3) Subsection (3) (which confers a power to specify in a transfer order circumstances in which the order shall cease to have effect) shall cease to have effect.
(4) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted--
"(3A) The power to make a transfer order under subsection (1) above includes a power to revoke, amend or re-enact any transfer order made under that subsection.
(3B) Without prejudice to subsection (3A) above, a transfer order may specify circumstances in which the order shall cease to have effect before the expiry of any period specified in any such order."
(5) In subsection (4) (which confers a power to include in a transfer order supplementary etc provision) for "Secretary of State" there shall be substituted "Mayor of London."
(6) Subsection (6) (which provides that the power to make a transfer order is to be exercisable by statutory instrument) shall cease to have effect.
(7) After subsection (6) there shall be inserted--
"(7) The Mayor of London shall secure that any transfer order made under subsection (1) above (and any order revoking, amending or re-enacting any such order) is printed and published.
(8) A fee may be charged for the sale of an order printed and published under subsection (7) above."
(8) Any transfer order--
(a) made by the Secretary of State under section 3(1) of the London Docklands Railway (Lewisham) (No. 2) Act 1993, and
(b) in force immediately before the coming into force of subsection (3) above,
shall have effect as from the coming into force of that subsection as if it were a transfer order made by the Mayor of London.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 50 and speak to Amendments Nos. 51, 125, 127, 160 and 182. On Report my noble friend Lord Macdonald indicated that we would need to bring forward some technical amendments in relation to the Docklands Light Railway and the Croydon Tramlink. These amendments are designed to ensure that certain powers of the Secretary of State and responsibilities of London Regional Transport (LRT) pass to the mayor and to Transport for London. They do not significantly affect the current arrangements for construction and operation of the Docklands Light Railway and Tramlink.
Amendment No. 50 passes to the mayor the power of the Secretary of State to transfer functions of Docklands Light Railway Limited to another person for the purposes of the construction and maintenance of the DLR Lewisham extension.
Amendments Nos. 51 and 125 provide for the mayor and TfL to inherit certain functions of the Secretary of State and the responsibilities of London Regional Transport in respect of Croydon Tramlink. They amend the Croydon Tramlink Act 1994 so that the mayor assumes the role of the Secretary of State in transferring functions to the Tramlink concessionaire. They also give the mayor the role of the Secretary of State in determining any differences arising from proposals to alter the level of a street in relation to the tram, and they place a duty on the London Transport Users' Committee to consider representations in respect of Tramlink.
The amendments also provide for the continuation of the terms of agreements entered into by LRT dealing with the performance of LRT's statutory duties, notwithstanding that certain statutory duties of London Regional Transport are to be re-enacted and held by the mayor and Transport for London. The Tramlink agreement is such an agreement.
Amendments Nos. 127 and 160 make provision for the continuation of penalty fare arrangements which fall outside those for bus and Tube, such as Tramlink, with the mayor assuming the role of Secretary of State, in respect of the making of orders modifying the penalty fare procedures. Amendment No. 182 makes the necessary repeals. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
Clause 237 [Travel concessions on journeys in and around Greater London]:
Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 52:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 52 returns to the issue of concessionary fares and in particular the equality of age between men and women for concessionary fares. My noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood moved an amendment at the last stage, giving an opportunity to the Government to put right one matter of inequality between the sexes in what she reminded noble Lords was to be "a unique and modern authority", to quote the Government. The Minister did not take the opportunity at that point to put a modern or indeed a post-modern stamp on the authority. He said that the link between eligibility for travel concessions and the state pension age is long-standing and clearly understood and that any changes should follow the 1995 Pensions Act and any alterations that it may introduce.
The amendment, which will allow for regulation by the Secretary of State, rather than attempting to change the provision at this point, differs from the one
The second reason is more technical. I understand that the Minister has received correspondence from solicitors instructed by the organisation Parity, which campaigns for equal state pension ages and equal rights for men and women. The correspondence mentions a possible problem in this area in relation to the decision of the European Court of Justice in Atkins, but distinguishes that case, and alerts the Minister to having been instructed to commence proceedings on behalf of a 62 year-old man to establish his right to travel concessions under the London Regional Transport Act 1984. The case of Atkins was brought under the Transport Act 1985. It raises the question of whether the legislation that we are now considering will breach the European Union equal treatment directive.
I do not at this stage ask noble Lords to look at the detail of that directive; nor do I wish to enter into a long debate about the criteria to be applied in this situation. However, having been alerted that there may be a problem, we should allow for alteration through the mechanism of regulation by an order made by the Secretary of State in order to correct the difficulty and to ensure that the legislation is capable of meeting the relevant criteria. This is not something that I would normally recommend.
The amendment would allow for reflection at a later stage, after the passage of the Bill. We hope that there will be action, but the amendment would allow the right steps to be taken by the Government to meet the point. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the prospect of redrafting this piece of legislation so that it is capable of taking into account any possible variations of any possible legislation rather threw me, and I was a little daunted by that prospect. I can confirm that we have received representations from Parity and we are considering points raised in that letter. I am not in a position to go further than that at this stage.
The amendment would give the Secretary of State a power by order to make all London residents eligible for travel concessions at the age of 60. The London concessionary fare scheme, like schemes in the rest of the country, provides concessionary travel on public transport to men and women of pensionable age: men at 65 and over, women at 60 and over. Perhaps at this stage I should declare a rather unwelcome, looming interest for myself in June next year.
One of the reasons for settling on the state pension age for eligibility was that the link was clearly understood. A person's eligibility for a state pension means that he or she is also eligible for travel concessions. It could be argued
The issue of an equal age of eligibility for travel concessions has already been addressed in the Pensions Act 1995. This Act provides for women's eligibility for travel concessions to be raised from 60 to 65 (in line with their eligibility for the state pension) over a long transitional period from 2010 to 2020. This maintains the link between concessionary travel and the state pension age and will, in time, eliminate any discrimination against men. The Government have no plans to accelerate this transition, given all the other calls on public funds.
Were the amendment to be implemented, there would be unwelcome anomalies. Setting an equal age of 60 would allow men still in full-time employment to take advantage of travel concessions. The anomaly would be compounded when the state pension age is equalised at 65. At that time, both men and women would be able to enjoy concessionary travel while they were still working.
There is also the issue of the local authority bearing the cost. In London, the boroughs currently choose to provide a free fare concession on London Transport and London rail services for their eligible residents. The current cost of the scheme to the boroughs is £142 million. We estimate that were the noble Baroness's intentions to be implemented, it could cost the boroughs at least an extra £20 million per annum. If that were extended across the whole country, it could cost local authorities in the region of £65 million.
After there has been more time to consider the correspondence to which the noble Baroness referred, I shall continue to keep her fully informed. In the mean time, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Page 143, line 44, at end insert ("or, if the Secretary of State by order so directs, who have attained 60 years of age").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page