Mayor 'powerless' to stop Tube plans

Management and maintenance of the network would be split

London Mayor Ken Livingstone will not be able to stop the government from pushing ahead with its part-privatisation plan for the Tube, it has been argued in the High Court.

On the second day of a hearing, a QC said nothing could halt the London Regional Transport (LRT) and London Underground (LU) proposals - even if they were in conflict with the mayor's Transport Strategy for the capital.

Mr Livingstone is challenging the government's £13bn public private partnership (PPP) scheme, which he says would make it impossible to fulfil his legal duty to provide a safe underground network.

It will be our case that this claim is wholly devoid of any legal merit.

John Howell QC, for LRT and LU

Lawyers for the mayor, who is making his unprecedented legal challenge through his transport authority Transport for London (TfL) say he is being left to "carry the can" for an "unworkable, potentially dangerous and prohibitively expensive" plan to revamp the network."

'Potentially dangerous'

The controversial plan would give Mr Livingstone and TfL responsibility for the Underground without control to manage it, because maintenance and management would be split between the private and public sectors.

On Wednesday, John Howell QC, for LRT and LU, rejected allegations that PPP would lead to an unsafe underground system.

He also told a senior judge: "The TfL claim is that LUL and LRT are under some form of implied duty not to act inconsistently with, or so as to frustrate the policy set out in the Mayor's Transport Strategy.

"It will be our case that this claim is wholly devoid of any legal merit.

"Parliament has given the Secretary of State the veto over any PPP arrangements which may be made - but Parliament has quite plainly decided not to give the Mayor one."

Mr Howell told Mr Justice Sullivan the only duty LRT and LUL were subject to under the 1999 Greater London Authority Act was "to have regard" to the Mayor's Transport Strategy.

He said there was nothing in the 1999 Act which supported the contention that "only the Mayor may decide what may lawfully be done in relation to transport matters in Greater London."

Mr Howell added: "That, in my submission, is the end of the case."

'Crunch point'

Mr Justice Sullivan told the court that, contrary to what might be the popular impression in some quarters, the court would not be adjudicating on the safety point and the rival merits of the variations of PPP.

The "crunch point" was whether LRT and LUL could act in a way which was in conflict with the Mayor's Transport Strategy.

The judge had earlier said there was no doubt that the relevant legislation did enable PPP arrangements to be made - either by the appropriate government minister or the Mayor.

"It enables them to be entered into, but doesn't require it," said the judge.

"Subject to argument about the extent to which government policy must be complied with, there is nothing expressly in the (1999 Greater London Authority Act) that says the mayor's strategy must include provision for PPP, as far as I can see."