Train Operating Company Contracts

Baroness Grey-Thompson Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, in the light of the draft rail reform Bill, will His Majesty’s Government commit to primary legislation to deliver level boarding and accessible step-free station deadlines? By the Government’s own figures, it will take 100 years for stations to be step-free at the current rate of Access for All funding.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I accept what the noble Baroness says. We have discussed this outside the Chamber, and it is something that the Government are working hard to improve.

Air Travel: Disabled Passengers

Baroness Grey-Thompson Excerpts

Thursday 23rd November 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for tabling this debate today and asking such pertinent questions. Nothing that she has said has surprised me. This issue is close to my heart, and working on this speech has been relatively cathartic.

As an athlete, I was privileged to be able to travel extensively, and with that have come many interesting experiences. The issue with being a disabled traveller is that the bad journeys are so horrendous that it is easy to think that getting on and off a plane in a vaguely timely manner, not being forced to sit in a special little room—which is claimed to be better for us—and not having a damaged chair is fabulous, when actually it is just what non-disabled people take for granted. When your view of travelling is so skewed to expect it to be bad, it is easy to see why things are slow to improve.

I do not mind checking in early, getting to the gate early, having to give up my day chair and not getting off until the end. I understand that, being disabled, I have to do things differently, but, even with all that, we do not have equality. I shall take a few moments to recount some of my favourite disasters. If I had the whole hour, that would still not be enough to cover them all.

When flying with my then young daughter, the two of us had preboarded but I was told that I was not a responsible adult to fly with her and that I needed to find someone, literally anyone—in fact, a stranger—to say that they would take responsibility for her.

Over the years, both my racing chair and my day chair have been severely damaged and even lost. One time my day chair was put on a completely different plane to me, which was incredible, seeing that it was carried down the steps and the hold door was right next to them. I realised, thanks to the length of time that I was left on the plane when I arrived back in Birmingham, that there was something wrong, and my day chair did not arrive. I was asked whether I really needed it. That is potentially a fair question, as not everyone is a permanent wheelchair user and I might have been able to use an airport chair. I was asked if I could walk and I said no, I was paralysed. The next question was, “Have you ever tried to walk?” Clearly I was missing the obvious: maybe I had just not tried hard enough.

Later, I was excited to be told that my missing item was going to be returned to me. When it landed on my doorstep, it was two sleeping bags with another person’s name on them going to a destination that I was nowhere near. The individual who dropped them off queried whether I actually knew what I had lost. When I said it was a wheelchair, I was asked whether I was sure it was a wheelchair. My day chair was returned to me several months later pretty much sawn in half, and I was offered £200 compensation for a £5,000 wheelchair.

Disabled people are asked to preboard to give us more time to allow the use of an aisle chair, but on one occasion, when the team did not turn up to help me on, the airline had to start boarding the rest of the plane. When I eventually managed to get on, the pilot announced to the whole cabin that we were late because of me. I have to say that I was angry for being blamed. I was not even accorded the courtesy of being called a wheelchair user; I was called “the wheelchair”. That has happened so many times.

Another time, when I was refused my day chair at the gate, even though it had a gate tag on it, I was blamed for delaying the next flight. My daughter was two years old and by that age we did not use a pram for her; she used to sit on my knee for longer walks, and the distance from the gate to baggage was too far for her to walk. The airport would not allow her to sit on my knee in the airport chair because it was not insured to carry two people. It was suggested that, if she could not walk that far on her own, perhaps she could crawl.

I have also been refused boarding after checking in because the pilot told me, “We already have three of you”. I am not entirely sure what the three of us were. I was travelling with the British team, so we had to work out which three of us should take the first flight to get to our destination in order to compete and which athletes could be left behind. On a different flight, I was asked whether I really needed my racing chair to compete. The answer was yes.

One airline told me that it had put me in a specific seat on the plane because if there was a problem it did not want me getting in the way of anyone else getting off and risking non-disabled people’s safety. In fact, in front of other people I was told that if the plane went down, I was not likely to make it off. I was clearly being told that my value as a disabled person did not exist. As disabled people, there are things that we know and do not need to be told, certainly not in front of other passengers. This happened when we were going off to compete in a major games.

Another airline sent me a form which asked me whether my impairment would cause offence to other passengers. When the airline then rang up to cancel my flight because it had decided my impairment was offensive—it told me that on the phone—I happened to have a TV crew at my house doing an interview about the competition I was trying to get to. That allowed me to get a full refund. The airline wanted to charge me for it cancelling my flight.

It is not just me. Wheelchair athlete Nikki Emerson said that when she flew to Australia for the Commonwealth Games airline staff told her she would “upset other passengers” by “climbing on the floor”. She had had to drag herself up the aisle after being told she would have to wait an hour to get to her seat from the toilet. I have also been refused access to toilets. I totally understand that the cabin crew cannot and should not assist inside the toilet, but because of the inaccessible nature of the cabin there should be a reasonable expectation of an aisle chair. The reality is that some airlines that run short-haul flights do not even have an aisle chair on board. Many might be surprised to know that “short haul” can include flights of up to four hours’ duration.

Victoria Brignell, who works at the BBC, was left on a plane at Gatwick for 90 minutes, and I despair of the number of times that Frank Gardner has posted about being abandoned. When I talk about train travel, I joke that I want the same miserable experience of commuting as everyone else, which I do not get, but I always hope for slightly better on planes. I know that Frank is not arguing for any special treatment, but if an airline cannot flag his name in the system and make sure that he gets on and off, given the amount he travels and his public profile, what hope is there for anyone else?

While airports and airlines call this unacceptable, change just does not happen. I commend Sophie Morgan on using her platform to highlight this issue using the hashtag #RightsOnFlights. Many are campaigning to ensure that disabled people who need to remain in their wheelchair, such as my noble friend Lady Campbell of Surbiton, are able to travel. I am really interested to see that some trials are now taking place that would stop people being discriminated against.

The reality is that we are always asked to be patient. We are treated as though it is the first time that it has ever happened when, quite frankly, it is not. Earlier this year I met the CAA, which was very helpful, but, sadly, I am now of the opinion that financial penalties are perhaps the only way things will change. It has gone on far too long and it is far too distressing for many disabled people. The time for excuses should now have passed, and I look forward to the Minister’s response to the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.

Covid-19: Transport

Baroness Grey-Thompson Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

The noble Lord is right that staggering working hours is one of the ways that we can reduce demand on public transport. I have a call tomorrow with the main employer groups in London to discuss exactly how they are liaising with their membership on staggering working hours. We are also in touch with all the large urban centres, such as Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds, to get their large employers to do so. Talking about public sector employees, I believe the number of people going into the office at the Department for Transport at the moment is about five.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

The Rail Delivery Group has stated that disabled passengers who need assistance during their journey can still book ahead, but they may be asked extra questions to help staff plan how to help them safely. What will those additional questions be? How will those with invisible impairments be supported? By their very nature, it will not be possible to identify that such people have additional needs.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

This is an incredibly important topic. The Rail Delivery Group—the organisation made up of the train operating companies—is finalising staff guidance, which includes suggested example questions around where a customer may have a preference in the nature of the assistance provided. It has not been finalised. There will be public communications on this in due course, so the RDG will be able to provide further information. The rail industry is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of the passenger journey to understand better the needs of those passengers who have invisible impairments because, as the noble Baroness quite rightly says, sometimes those passengers have other needs.

Covid-19: Public Transport Safety

Baroness Grey-Thompson Excerpts

Tuesday 12th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My Lords, the guidance for transport operators and passengers sets out clear expectations for two-metre social distancing. At some stages that will not be possible: on busier routes and at busier times, and at certain points on the journey. The Government also advise that people should use face masks or face coverings in enclosed spaces, particularly on public transport. I am not sure how much clearer the Government can be on that.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, what assurance can the Minister give to disabled passengers who require assistance—of course within the safety considerations for all—that the current situation will not be used to dial back “turn up and go” or prevent disabled people travelling to work?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I thank the noble Baroness for raising this really important issue. In the operator guidance, there are clear points for those with protected characteristics, be they disabled, elderly or pregnant. We have been very clear with the transport operators that there must be no dialling back on the ability for all passengers to get a safe and reliable service. Travel may be slightly problematic for everybody, and therefore people are advised to plan their journey ahead where they can, to buy their tickets in advance and, most of all, to be patient. I reassure the noble Baroness that services for disabled people will continue as they did previously.

Equality Act 2010: Wheelchair Users

Baroness Grey-Thompson Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer]

The noble Baroness is right: this is the problem most highlighted by people in wheelchairs or who have guide dogs. There is currently no requirement under the law or within the taxi licence that taxis have to stop. They are not allowed to discriminate but they are not required to stop for anyone. The Law Commission recommended that this issue should be addressed. As I say, the Government are working on their response to the Law Commission and legislation may follow.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, it is quite a tough time for disabled people at the moment, whether because of the increased cost of taxi fares, which is reported as being rife, the recent High Court case about priority for wheelchair users on buses or the fact that 100 Motability cars are being removed from people every single week. Do not disabled people deserve the same rights to access public transport as everyone else?

[Baroness Kramer]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. The constant message from the Government is that people with disabilities are a normal part of our community. She will be aware of the great strides that we have made in terms of accessibility on trains and buses. That has involved driver training, along with our recent progress in creating cheap audiovisual systems which can be retrofitted in buses. A great deal is happening, but much more must be done.

Transport for London Bill [HL]

Baroness Grey-Thompson Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Grey-Thompson]

That the Bill be read a second time.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson]

My Lords, I have an interest to declare in that I am a paid board member of Transport for London, or TfL, which is a public body constituted under the Greater London Authority Act 1999.

This is a Private Bill that was promoted by Transport for London, deposited on 26 November 2010 and ordered to commence in the House of Lords. The Bill was read for the first time on 24 January 2011. Its purpose is to provide Transport for London with a broader set of financial and disposal powers to meet its business needs more flexibly and to allow it to deliver better value for money for the farepaying and taxpaying public.

Specifically, Clause 4 will remove the requirement for the Secretary of State’s consent to the disposal of surplus land from Section 163 of the GLA Act, as that consent imposes an unnecessary restriction on TfL, given that the Mayor of London is required to provide an opinion in advance of sale that the land to be sold is surplus to the requirements of TfL in conducting its functions. Clause 4 will reduce uncertainty for TfL when selling land, while maintaining the Mayor's opinion’s statutory safeguard that the land to be sold is surplus to requirements.

One petition was deposited against the Bill by the West London Line Group. The petition primarily concerns Clause 4. TfL has entered a dialogue, having met the petitioners' representative, and is hopeful of reaching an agreed position with the petitioner, rather than an opposed Bill Committee being required.

At present, TfL and TfL subsidiaries are not permitted by law to grant security, such as a mortgage, over their assets and revenue streams. That reduces TfL's capacity to finance projects and functions at the best available interest rate or at the lowest risk. That extra cost or risk is ultimately borne by farepayers and taxpayers through higher costs or greater risks on TfL.

Clause 5 will allow TfL subsidiaries to borrow and charge against assets and revenue streams. This will provide TfL with cheaper finance for its projects and more flexibility in how it borrows. Under secured borrowing, TfL subsidiaries can achieve lower interest rates than can be attained through the Public Works Loan Board or issuing bonds—two of the significant debt financing options for TfL now. TfL subsidiaries can also borrow for a discrete purpose, and the security can be structured so that a creditor has recourse only against the subsidiary borrowing, but no recourse against TfL and other TfL subsidiaries. That can better protect the farepaying and taxpaying public from liability for TfL debts.

Clause 5 also allows TfL to purchase subsidiary companies with secured debt. TfL would not be required to restructure secured debt once Clause 5 is operating, as was the case with the purchase of Tube Lines Ltd and Tube Lines (Finance) plc. Had this been operating at the time of those acquisitions, it would have spared TfL significant costs at the time of purchase—ultimately borne by farepayers and taxpayers. Importantly, existing TfL creditor rights are reserved in full by the Bill. Also, TfL subsidiary borrowing under Clause 5 will be subject to existing borrowing limits set by the Secretary of State as applied to TfL, operating as an effective limit on the new power.

Clause 6 will allow TfL to form or join others in forming limited partnerships. TfL would like to be able to use a partnership structure to seek third-party investors in its property estate and to manage secondary income generated from that investment. Pension funds are identified as likely investors who often prefer limited partnerships to other legal structures in which to invest. A partnership structure can better attract long-term investors to property development, because partnerships are tax-transparent.

There is very limited tax benefit to TfL from using a limited partnership vehicle, as Clause 6 provides that a TfL subsidiary company will bear the incidence of the tax liability generated by the partnership, as a subsidiary company is not exempt from income, corporation or capital gains tax. The exemption to that relates to stamp duty, where TfL will be subject only to a proportionate share, should any charges relating to stamp duty arise.

At present, TfL is limited to exercising its functions only through a company limited by shares. Clause 7 expands the list of legal structures through which TfL functions can be undertaken to include a company limited by guarantee, a limited liability partnership or a limited partnership. This will allow TfL to conduct its functions more flexibly and better enable TfL to seek third party investors in its property estate.

Clause 8 amends TfL’s hedging powers and responds to changes in the way that financial institutions hedge risk away from specific commodity trading to trading by indices. It also expressly permits TfL to hedge risks that impact the rate of contributions that TfL is required to make to the TfL pension fund, including for membership longevity. It also responds to the evolution of the financial markets.

In summary, the Bill will assist TfL in seeking the most cost-effective borrowing. It also allows TfL to mitigate the risk that applies to its pension contribution liabilities through improving the hedging power. The Bill will assist TfL to maximise income from and investment in its assets and allow TfL to deliver better value for money for fare payers and taxpayers. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grey-Thompson]

My Lords, I thank all the noble Lords who have taken part in the debate this evening on what I think everyone will agree is a very technical Bill. It appears that Clause 4 has raised the most interest.

In response to the Minister, TfL is in discussion with the Department for Transport on the drafting of Clause 4. It recognises that the protection of strategically important railway assets must remain a priority. I understand what the Minister said about the scope of the existing Section 163 to dispose of operational land, and I confirm that TfL is looking further at this option and will be in touch with the department in due course to take this forward.

I understand the concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on the long-term view that must be taken on the protection of land. TfL wrote to the noble Lord on 20 April 2011, and I reiterate what was said in that letter. TfL is now persuaded of the merit of retaining the requirement for the Secretary of State’s consent in circumstances where Network Rail or the British residuary board is an adjacent landowner or has land in close proximity to the land to be disposed of. TfL is liaising with the Government about Clause 4 to resolve their concerns. I hope that that goes some way to easing the noble Lord’s doubts over the disposal of land, but I would welcome continued discussion on this matter.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, raised the issue of independent scrutiny and Clause 4. I thank her for mentioning the letter that TfL wrote to her. TfL does not feel that it would be appropriate to move to a consent mechanism which is entirely different from the Secretary of State’s consent if it were retained in certain cases. The noble Baroness also mentioned securities. TfL currently has no plans to securitise revenue generated by the Tube. Instead, TfL may use the power to grant security to raise finance from assets generating a secondary revenue scheme, such as car parks and property with a rental income.

TfL subsidiaries may grant security over both physical assets and revenue streams under Clause 5. However, TfL has no plans to do this over key infrastructure such as the Tube. TfL’s expectation is that the power to grant security may be used on car parks or property with a rental income, such as office space and new infrastructure that generate specific income. The noble Baroness also raised the issue of limited partnerships. TfL would like to form limited partnerships so that it can utilise a partnership structure to manage secondary income generated from its property estate; to better attract long-term investors to property development on non-operational land, because partnerships are tax transparent, which can be attractive to particular investors; and to better attract pension funds to invest in these developments as likely sources of investment. I am very glad that the noble Baroness mentioned the pension fund. If members of the TfL pension fund live longer than the actuarial estimate then TfL will have a prospective liability that is not currently accounted for. Hedging that potential risk is one way that TfL can offset that liability if eventuated.

Once again I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate this evening. I have taken all the points on board, and no doubt all the Bill’s provisions will be closely considered in Committee.

Bill read a second time.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Baroness Grey-Thompson Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, on the Front Bench, because I told her that I would go away and stop being a nuisance. But before I decided to be a nuisance again, I established that it was not to her that I was going to be a nuisance but to my noble friend Lord Attlee.

I will not be that much of a nuisance, because having listened to the debates so far I found myself completely ambivalent about the merits of the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, the words of my noble friend Lord Lucas and the cautionary remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. I shall reflect on all that.

The point that interests me is on the appeals system. The noble Earl, who is answering this debate, presumably knows something about this from his transport connections. With appeals on ordinary parking offences we already have a pretty shambolic system. In London there are the London parking adjudicators; outside London there is another set of parking adjudicators, who are all part of the tribunal system, which is what I know something about. Outside London it depends on whether your council decides to opt in to decriminalise parking or pursue it in the ordinary, old-fashioned way through the magistrates’ courts. I do not think that the variation in the sort of justice depending on where you live is terribly sensible.

From reading the briefing that somebody—presumably the Government Whips’ Office—helpfully sent me, I have couple of questions. The briefing says:

“Government amendments to Schedule 4 have been tabled to make clear that notices to keepers and drivers must include relevant information about what impendent appeals/dispute resolution arrangements are available to them, in addition to any internal arrangements. We have also made a commitment not to commence the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 until the parking industry establishes an independent appeals body”.

I understand both those sentences on their own but I do not understand them taken together. Are we talking about an insistence that the industry must have a single approved appeals system, whether approved or not? Or are we saying that everybody who becomes eligible to benefit from Schedule 4 must have their own appeals system, and will that be approved or not? I simply do not know the answer to these questions. What I do know is that if there is to be a single approved appeals system that everybody has to join to get the benefits, that seems sensible. If there is to be an endless series of different appeals systems chosen by different providers, whether approved or not as providers or an appeals system, I do not think that is sensible. It puts me in mind of an absolutely daft proposal produced by another government department two or three years ago to have rival ombudsmen in a particular industry—I think that it was electricity or telecoms—chosen by the providers, not the customers. The worst providers would choose the least effective ombudsmen. This is just not a sensible way to run a railway. I would like to know the answer to my questions.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson]

I want briefly to support Amendment 42. I mentioned even more briefly at Second Reading that I am particularly keen on eradicating blue badge abuse. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for tabling the amendment, because it highlights where my concern most closely fits. I declare an interest, in that I have a blue badge. I support legal clamping but would like to stop illegal operators.

This is a personal view, but there are two groups of abusers. First, there are those people who steal or buy blue badges, which is an increasing market and can be very profitable. In some areas, it has been shown to have increased sevenfold to tenfold in recent years. Also in this group are those who borrow their grandmother's badge and see it as a right to use the family badge. The worst offenders are those who take grandma out and leave her in the car. We have laws for not leaving dogs in cars, but sadly not for grandmothers. When she was younger, my daughter and I used to play a game at the local shopping centre, which was “Count the grandma”.

In the second group, there are those who do not have a blue badge and who may be stopping for five minutes, while popping into a shop or picking up family, who blatantly abuse the system and stare out those who possess blue badges legally. Perhaps there is occasionally a good reason for stopping in those spaces, but I am passionate about blue badge abuse—not just for the abuse in itself but because I believe it shows a wider indication of attitude towards disabled people. I believe it is important to crack down on this. At a time when the media portrayal of disabled people is perhaps at its worst, the Glasgow Media Unit recently looked at some comparative data of media portrayal of disabled people from 2005-06 and 2010-11, which showed that the portrayal was significantly worse than at any time in the past 10 to 15 years. Recent articles have shown disabled people as benefit scroungers and workshy.

I spend a lot of time driving around the country and what I see, too often, is disabled people with hidden impairments being verbally abused because the system is not fully understood. It is only a few steps later that we see why some people think it perfectly acceptable to abuse the system rather than understand the reason for it. There is shocking abuse around the country. I see people who suddenly develop an incredible change of gait when they see me getting out of my car with my wheelchair, or whose limps mysteriously disappear as they walk around the corner. I do not mean to make light of this but it is really important.

It is not just about being close to the shops or the supermarkets—some supermarkets have tried very hard to combat this—but about being closer to work. It is about integrating disabled people in society and having a wide enough space to get a chair in and out of a car. It may be about getting your wheelchair and a child in and out of the car. I have lost count of the number of times I have had to give my car keys to complete strangers and ask them to pull my car out of a space, when someone has just parked across the yellow hash lines between spaces. Wherever I go, at any time of day or night and pretty much every day of the week, I see people abusing blue badge parking spaces. While I do not generally agree with increasing powers, I believe that we need to do more to protect disabled people who have parked legally. I believe in clamping for blue badge abuse, and perhaps we could do even more to protect parking for disabled people.

[The Earl of Lytton]

My Lords, I have an interest to declare: by virtue of my profession, I am a manager of commercial property. I well remember, not very long ago, a tenant of one of my clients explaining, in the context of a rear service yard behind some shops, how perilous it would be for the continuation of that facility were she not able to involve a clamping firm to deal with serial offenders, because that is what we need. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for raising this because I was unable to be present for Second Reading of this important Bill and therefore this is the first occasion I have had to comment on this matter.

The Government’s intentions certainly need clarification here. The Minister’s clear statement at Second Reading about there being no option but to ban clampers overlooks the need, as other noble Lords have mentioned, to have a workable system to discourage the abuses. I will not follow the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, about the number of apparently able-bodied people who I have seen leaping out of cars with blue badges, other than to draw the Committee’s attention to there being, I am told, quite a flourishing market in stolen and counterfeit blue badges themselves. Apart from that, we have a system where serial abusers of parking facilities are putting their cars where they should not and serial malefactors, in terms of clampers, follow on to make life disproportionately unpleasant for people who have sometimes inadvertently parked in the wrong place for a short period.

Transport for London (Supplemental Toll Provisions) Bill [HL]

Baroness Grey-Thompson Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Grey-Thompson]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson]

My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am a paid board member of Transport for London, which is a public body constituted under the Greater London Authority Act 1999. This is a Private Bill promoted by TfL. No petitions were deposited against the Bill and it was considered by an Unopposed Bill Committee on 11 November 2008, when it was amended and permitted to pass to the next stage.

The purpose of the Bill is to provide Transport for London with additional powers where TfL has made a toll order under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 that would supplement the enforcement powers under the toll order. At present, TfL can seek authority to charge tolls by means of a New Roads and Street Works Act toll order, but the powers in the 1991 Act for the collection and enforcement of the tolls would not enable TfL to have recourse to sophisticated modern mechanisms that allow traffic to flow freely and are similar to those used to collect and enforce charges under the central London congestion charging scheme. Those mechanisms include giving motorists options to pay through the internet, by telephone or by text and to use automatic number plate recognition technology, and imposing escalating penalty charges for non-payment instead of criminal penalties.

In cases in which TfL has been authorised to charge tolls under a toll order, the Bill will enable TfL to make a supplemental order that makes provision for the operation and enforcement of the toll order. These powers to make supplemental orders are similar to those already conferred on TfL in respect of road user charging schemes under Schedule 23 to the Greater London Authority Act 1999, of which the best known is the congestion charging scheme. It is intended that the enforcement regime to be provided in a supplemental toll provisions order will be similar to the tried and tested regime currently operating in respect of congestion charging that is, of course, very familiar to all Londoners. Most importantly, that regime will be subject to the same safeguards. The principle is that motorists will be able to pay the tolls in exactly the same way as the congestion charge and will be subject to the same sanctions for non-payment with the same safeguards.

In the Second Reading debate on the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, raised a number of points of concern. I am pleased to report to your Lordships’ House that the Bill was amended in Committee in response to his points as well as to meet other points raised by the Minister. In particular, the powers to immobilise and remove vehicles were removed from the Bill and reliance is instead being placed on the existing powers in the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2008, which were subjected to very careful scrutiny during the Bill’s passage through this House. The Bill has also been amended to make it clear that the power to make provision in a supplemental toll order to enter vehicles and seize articles can be exercised only by a constable or a person authorised by TfL in the presence of a constable. These safeguards are the same as those that apply to congestion charging. TfL had always intended that these safeguards would apply, but they are now expressly provided for in the Bill in response to assurances given to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, during the debate on Second Reading.

Transport for London first became aware of the need to modernise the enforcement powers for a toll order made under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 in the context of the promotion of the Thames Gateway Bridge project. It was proposed that the new bridge would be financed partly by means of tolls collected under such a toll order, and the Bill was needed for the project. However, it was also recognised that the Thames Gateway Bridge project was just one example and that there would be other cases in which TfL might wish to seek tolling powers in respect of which additional powers of enforcement would be needed. The Bill was therefore deliberately drafted in general terms so that all such cases would be covered.

As was explained to the Unopposed Bills Committee, the new mayor had a few days earlier, on 6 November 2008, released Transport for London’s 10-year business plan. Under that plan, it was determined that Transport for London would not pursue the Thames Gateway Bridge project, given the pressures on funding and concerns over local traffic impacts. Transport for London was tasked with undertaking a wider study, together with other parties, to assess the transport and land use needs of the London Thames Gateway, including undertaking an assessment of options for a new east London river crossing.

Transport for London has in consultation with local boroughs and others therefore undertaken a review of river crossing options in the area east of Tower Bridge up to the existing Dartford Crossing. The review has highlighted that the problems experienced in east London through the lack of river crossings mean that further crossings are warranted, and has identified that it is likely that a package of solutions is required, including the construction of a bridge or tunnel at Silvertown.

The Mayor's Transport Strategy, which was issued on 10 May 2010, states that the mayor, through Transport for London, will take forward a package of solutions in respect of east London river crossings, including a new fixed line at Silvertown. Transport for London is currently considering the development of the package. Consideration is being given to the tolling of new crossings to help to finance their construction. Any toll order made under the 1991 Act would require the enforcement powers contained in the Bill.

The Bill will assist Transport for London in financing the construction and operation of this important new infrastructure in London. I beg to move.

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for so eloquently moving the Motion that the Bill do now pass and for any influence that she might have had in securing the amendments that she described. I am quite content with the Bill as it is now, partly because TfL is a much more benign institution under current management than it was. Where it finds levels of misbehaviour, it seems interested not in immediately slapping down fines but in exploring the reasons for it, amending signage and handing out warning notices beforehand. I find it a civilised and easier-to-deal-with institution these days. I am also comforted by the level to which the Secretary of State will be involved in granting TfL any substantial powers under the Bill. I thank the noble Baroness and Transport for London, and wish this Bill good luck.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, it has been more than two years since Parliament last considered this Private Bill. This is therefore the first time that the Bill has been considered by the coalition Government and this Parliament.

Our capital city's transport network is large and complex, and it should come as no surprise that the promoters of this Bill occasionally encounter challenges that prompt them to seek specific powers further to those already on the statute book. This Government recognise the critical role that transport has to play in supporting London’s economy and with it the nation’s prosperity. We are continuing to invest in London's infrastructure, with Crossrail, the Tube upgrades and Thameslink all under way.

The Government are content for this Bill to pass to the other place, where it can be further scrutinised. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for putting forward the Bill and for the clear way in which she explained it.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords and the noble Baroness who have taken part in this debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his support and should like to address the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.

The mayor’s transport strategy had an impact on the passage of the Bill. The Bill was not intended to be applied solely to the Thames Gateway Bridge and it continues to be relevant to other projects. Other projects will be carried through in the usual way in terms of tolling.

The powers in the Bill are very wide, and the supplementary toll provisions order will not take effect unless it is confirmed by the Greater London Authority. Lots of provisions are in place. I am afraid that I cannot answer the noble Baroness’s question on emissions. I hope she will accept Transport for London writing to her on that matter; I am afraid that I am not an expert on that area of the Bill.

[Baroness Kramer]

I apologise to the noble Baroness. I should have let her know that I was going to ask that question. I am afraid that it did not come to me until the early hours of this morning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grey-Thompson]

I thank the noble Baroness.

Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

Transport: Mobility Scooters

Baroness Grey-Thompson Excerpts

Wednesday 12th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My noble friend makes an extremely good point. We are considering the feasibility of a number of options for more consistency on the carriage of mobility scooters on public transport, and we will make an announcement when a decision has been taken. In reviewing the options for a uniform policy on the carriage of scooters on public transport we have in mind the timetable for developing an accessible transport strategy for the Olympics. The London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games has established a working group to develop arrangements for the renting of mobility scooters for the Games. The department will be working with LOCOG on the transportability issue.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson]

My Lords, what consideration can the Minister give to the current rules on the number of wheelchair users who can travel on London’s buses, specifically—bearing in mind the increased number of spectators and athletes—during the Olympics and Paralympics? Under the current rules, only one wheelchair user is allowed to travel on a bus. As my husband is an occasional wheelchair user, if he chooses to use it, we are not allowed to travel together.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Baroness makes an important point. A considerable amount of money has been spent on ensuring that all buses are wheelchair accessible, but there will obviously be a limit to how many wheelchairs—probably only one—can be accommodated at any one time. I will discuss the issue with my officials after the debate.