LT: Parliamentary move
Page 17
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A LONDON Labour MP will introduce a private Bill in the House of Commons on Tuesday next week, in an effort to amend the 1969 Transport (London) Act so that the Greater London Council can subsidise London Transport.
Former Government Minister Douglas Jay, who represents Battersea North, announced this on Thursday last week, after 15 of the capital's 92 MPs attended a briefing session on the aftermath of the House of Lords' ruling that the Greater London Council's Fares Fair subsidised programme was illegal.
Nine Labour, five Conservative, and one Social Democrat MP listened to explanations from GLC director-general Sir James Swaffield and LT chairman Sir Peter Masefield and their staff, along with GLC leader Ken Livingstone and transport committee chair Dave Wetzel.
Mr Jay said that his Bill would be introduced under the 10-minute rule, and he said he was acting as a backbench London MP.
Supporting his move, fellow Labour MP Jock Stallard (St Pancras North) said that Mr Jay's Bill would bring the entire question much closer to those MPs who do not yet understand the full implications of the problem.
The GLC was concerned in particular that it should not be compelled to increase fares by another 50 per cent in July, on top of the 100 per cent increase which is to be applied in March.
This could happen, it believes, if the Government does not refund the £140m loss of block grant which it took from the council after the Fares Fair scheme was introduced last October.
Mr Wetzel pointed out that, if the grant had not been withdrawn, the £1.30 supplementary rate levied this year would only have been 70p.
Several of the MPs expressed concern afterwards about the need to amend legislation, and to return the lost grant and Roger Sims (Conservative, Chislehurst), whose constituency includes Bromley Borough which defeated the Fares Fair policy in the courts, summed up most MPs' view by saying: "It is clear that what was done was illegal. But it is not clear what would be legal."