| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, this is a technical matter and I shall not pursue it at this stage. I have often seen on the faces of government Ministers a look of extreme cynicism when members of opposition parties suggest that they are trying to be helpful to the Government. I understand that cynicism, but this was a genuine attempt to be helpful. I am not in the habit of suggesting that any Secretary of State should obtain additional powers which are not clear on the face of primary legislation.
It may be that this is one of the subjects that has to be dealt with in a "Greater London Authority (Amendment) Bill", which may come down the track at some point. The amendment was a genuine attempt to leave the door open to make a change which may be required. I have not been suggesting to the House that it should tonight make such a major alteration in policy. I heard what the Minister said and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 53:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 239 [Requirements as to scope]:
Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 54:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 244 [The London Transport Users' Committee]:
Clause 245 [Representations to the Committee]:
Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 57:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 253 [Provision of facilities to benefit users of waterways]:
Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 59:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 59, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 61, 145 and 146.
This group of amendments seeks to address concerns expressed by the Port of London Authority and British Waterways over Transport for London's powers in respect of landing places in Clause 253 and Schedule 11. However, in the light of representations and for the avoidance of doubt we brought forward Amendments Nos. 59 and 61. These make it clear that TfL must obtain a licence or consent in respect of any works if that is required by any enactment. Where there is no such requirement, TfL must obtain the consent of the person who is under a duty to maintain the waterway.
At Report stage on 19th October, in relation to an amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, I said that I would look at the issue of potential conflict between Transport for London by-laws and those of the navigation authority. As I explained then, I envisaged that any conflict would be resolved at the time of confirmation. I should like to amplify that by reassuring noble Lords that in considering the confirmation of any by-laws under paragraph 27 of Schedule 11, the department will take full account of the concerns of the relevant navigation authority. This will include British Waterways as well as the Port of London Authority.
Again, for the avoidance of doubt we brought forward some specific amendments to Schedule 11 with regard to the Port of London Authority. This is because such a situation is most likely to arise with respect to landing places on the tidal Thames. Amendments Nos. 145 and 146 ensure that TfL cannot make by-laws for landing places where the PLA has
Lord Greenway: My Lords, my Amendments Nos. 60 and 62 come within this grouping and it is therefore appropriate that I speak to them now. The amendments relate to the concerns of tourist services on the River Thames.
It probably has not escaped notice when looking out of the Library window over the past few years that things have been changing on the river--and I am not referring to that giant bicycle wheel down the road. Some years back the tourist services on the Thames were provided by a motley collection of craft, some of which dated back to the First World War and others which had come from various estuaries around the south coast. They offered services which were at best sporadic and generally of poor quality.
More recently, one cannot fail to have noticed that much larger and more sophisticated craft are being used to take tourist passengers up and down the Thames. Moreover, those craft operate all year round whereas the earlier ones were generally laid up during the winter. The Thames currently draws over 2 million sightseeing passengers and restaurant cruise passengers a year--a figure which will no doubt rise in view of the millennium celebrations. In addition, around 500 people are directly employed in the river services--also a figure which is likely to rise.
I tabled these amendments in response to the government amendments which inserted Clauses 253 and 255 into the Bill at Report stage. Their purpose is to clarify the uncertainty created by those clauses regarding access for tourist boat services to piers and jetties on the River Thames. This is a subject that was broached at an earlier stage by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood.
Clauses 253 and 255 authorise Transport for London to provide facilities such as piers and jetties on the Thames, and to transfer to London Regional Transport (and ultimately to Transport for London) existing contracts for access to existing piers and jetties on the Thames made between boat operators and the Port of London Authority, or River Services Limited which is a London Regional Transport subsidiary. That transfer will occur without the consent of the boat operators by operation of the law.
Transport for London will be the new transport executive for London and as such its primary focus is likely to be the development and maintenance of passenger transport services, particularly those for commuters. Although the development of such services on the Thames will be welcomed, that should not be at the expense of the London tourist industry. Yet there is a danger that Transport for London, unless directed to do so, will not understand or adequately cater for the special needs of this important
At this stage I should say that history relates that past attempts to establish water bus services on the Thames failed, despite considerable subsidy. Nevertheless, they had a considerable impact on those providing leisure tourist services on the river, who lost around 20 per cent of their revenue as a result.
The amendments seek to address my concerns, first, by imposing an obligation on Transport for London when providing facilities on the Thames to take account of the needs of tourists and to ensure that tourist boat operators have adequate access to such facilities; secondly, by requiring London Regional Transport and Transport for London to interpret and apply transferred agreements consistently with a policy document previously issued and adhered to by the existing owners of transferred piers and jetties--notably, the Port of London Authority's document Partners in Progress. I seek a level playing field for those who operate tourist services on the river.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I support the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, in respect of Amendments Nos. 60 and 62, to which I added my name. These amendments would improve Clauses 253 and 255 which were inserted in the Bill by the Government at Report stage.
As the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, explained, the Government's new clauses created an uncertainty regarding access for tourist boat services to piers and jetties on the River Thames. Over the past week I and other noble Lords were contacted by those who are involved in the tourism and leisure industry. They expressed concern about the future of that industry on the Thames and its management by London River Services.
These amendments seek to address that concern: first, by imposing an obligation on TfL when providing facilities on the Thames to take account of the needs of tourists and to ensure that tourist boat operators have adequate access to such facilities; and secondly, by requiring LRT and TfL to interpret and apply transferred agreements consistently with policy documents previously issued, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and adhered to by the existing owners of transferred piers and jetties, notably the PLA document Partners in Progress.
The operator, Catamaran Cruisers Ltd, has pointed out that there are two key points on which it is important to seek assurances from the Minister. The needs of tourism and leisure service operators must be given equal weight to transport matters by LRS, perhaps through the appointment of a director within LRS with experience of, and responsibility for, tourism. Further, there must be an independent assessment of the current impact of the introduction of
Page 144, line 25, at end insert ("or in pursuance of a transport subsidiary's agreement").
Page 145, line 33, at end insert ("or under a transport subsidiary's agreement").
Page 148, line 35, at end insert ("or in pursuance of a transport subsidiary's agreement").
Page 152, line 3, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2) below,").
6.45 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page