My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for pressing a point on which he elaborated in Committee. I recognise the importance of his representation on this matter. He quoted the Mayor of London’s press release and comments today and said how much he disagreed. He will not mind my saying that I will pray in aid the fact that the Mayor of London, who has some responsibility to Londoners, thinks that this is an important weapon in his armoury with regard to guarantees for Londoners. We agree with him because the purpose of the scheme is to guarantee concessionary travel in London in situations where there is no agreement among the London boroughs or between the boroughs and TfL. Amendment No. 9 seeks to alter Section 240 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to replace what is currently a voluntary ability for London boroughs and TfL to enter into arrangements to provide travel concessions with a compulsory obligation to enter into these arrangements. That is a pretty significant change, and I am not surprised that it has caught the attention of the Mayor of London.
I recognise that arrangements for concessionary travel are different in the capital. The 1999 Act secures that the boroughs are able to agree schemes voluntarily with TfL. These voluntary arrangements are underpinned by a safety net—the reserve scheme, which the noble Lord says is unnecessary. If the voluntary arrangements do not meet certain minimum requirements, the reserve scheme is triggered. This has been successful in the past; it has delivered uninterrupted concessionary travel in the capital these past eight years and there would have to be some very strong arguments for removing it.
There is a problem with the noble Lord’s contention. The ability to enter into arrangements implies that both parties do so voluntarily and by agreement, but the amendment says that the parties have to agree. How do you force parties to agree? That interesting little exercise has caused great minds to think throughout the course of industrial relations in this country. How does the noble Lord think that this would occur in London?
Concessionary Bus Travel Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Davies of Oldham
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 29 January 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Concessionary Bus Travel Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
689 c37 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:41:28 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_373739
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_373739
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_373739