LONDON TRANSPORT (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)

HC Deb 27 February 1975 vol 887 cc780-844

Order for Second Reading read.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker

I have to inform the House that I have not selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) and other hon. Members, nor do I intend to select the motion in his name.

Mr. Spearing

From discussing matters of high national policy we turn to a matter of practical importance to the people of London. Although the Bill is relatively modest in scope, it has relevance to the services offered by London Transport, their quality and their reliability. Hon. Members representing London constituencies know how important that it is for their constituents.

The Bill confers further powers on London Transport Executive in relation to manufacture, repair and supply and for other purposes. The phrase "manufacture, repair and supply" refers to public passenger road vehicles and rail transport and equipment. The other purposes relate to the running of the services, particularly to catering.

The history of the powers of publicly-owned transport authorities to manufacture, sell and engage in contracts or to promote subsidiaries in respect of these services is complex. I shall not bother the House with the legal details. Suffice it to say that for many years, indeed traditionally, the railway industry supplied its own equipment through the Victorian railway companies and also bought in from outside suppliers. The Transport Act 1968 gave wide powers to the inheritors of these services, including London Transport. British Rail Engineering is an engineering company in its own right which manufactures and sells equipment at home and abroad. It has techniques and expertise at Derby which create worldwide interest. The same powers are available to the National Bus Company, which has gone into partnership with British Leyland Motor Corporation to produce in Cumberland the national bus.

Unfortunately, those powers did not apply in the same way to London Transport. Within a year of the passing of the Act, and presage within that year, the Transport (London) Bill, which became an Act in 1969, transferred the powers of supervision of London Transport from the Minister of Transport and the House of Commons to the Greater London Council. The Transport (London) Act 1969 did not give similar powers to London Transport. The wide powers which London Transport shared with the British Transport Commission were modified.

Although by the Act London Transport was given power to supply nationalised bodies as defined in the definition section, those nationalised bodies did not include the new passenger transport executives which were established by the 1968 Act or the municipal transport concerns. Whereas it was possible for British Rail and the National Bus Company to carry on as before and to set up subsidiaries or joint subsidiaries, it was not possible for London Transport to do so. Although it may have been legally possible, the subsidiaries would have been limited by the 1969 Act. It was therefore not possible for London Transport to supply what are technically known as outside bodies and outside persons. At first one might think that was fair enough and that nationalised bodies were excluded but "outside persons" included PTEs and municipal bus undertakings throughout the country. That is the anomaly which the Bill seeks to remedy.

The history of London Transport is bound up with the development of transport technology. With the founding of the London Underground Group—UERL as it was called—some American technology was brought in at the turn of the century for the construction of the underground railways and the electrification of the District and Metropolitan Railways. Despite its age, the London Transport system still has a great deal to offer to rapid transport systems throughout the world. Equipment was brought in for the railways from as far afield as Hungary.

The motor bus, which was perfected in the late 1930s, was subject to rapid change in its technology. The old London General Omnibus Company founded a subsidiary called the Associated Equipment Company to manufacture reliable buses which stood the test of the exacting London conditions. It was necessary for that to be done because private suppliers were found wanting. The company produced its own prototypes in conjunction with the operating managers of the London General Omnibus Company, and improvements were made when the buses were in service. The enterprise shown by that company was inherited by the London Transport Board in 1933.

The forward-looking Act of 1933 owed a great deal to the former Labour administration and Herbert Morrison who was its Minister of Transport, but it did not include the Associated Equipment Company, although for many years and into the war period it supplied nearly all London's buses. The London bus, which is of worldwide renown, was developed by a partnership between those who were responsible for economy, reliability and giving a good ride to the passenger and those who were concerned wth ease of manœuvre and operation for the driver. That tradition was continued by London Transport into the late 1960s.

Just prior to the war the Regai RT-type bus was introduced and many of those buses are still running. Large numbers of them pass the Palace of Westminster every day. That bus was designed in 1938 and thousands of those buses, with modifications, are still running throughout the world.

In the late 1960s after the development of the RM bus, its successor, the situation changed, and it is that change which has made the Bill necessary. London Transport Executive developed the RM bus and proved it over thousands of miles. It made an arrangement with the then Leyland Company for the provision of the parts to London Transport specifications. The prototype RT bus was made by London Transport, and the RM bus is the last of the line of the London Transport breed.

In the late 1960s two or three things happened all at once. First, in its wisdom the House decided to give municipal and public operators grants for the purchase of buses. That meant for the first time that the Ministry had some say over design. Secondly, there was the rationalisation of the commercial vehicle industry. There were amalgamations, take-overs and rationalisation within the industry. The old AEC became part of the British Leyland Motor Corporation. The corporation produced other things apart from buses, trucks and cars. At the same time there was a change in the type of bus required. We all know about the development of one-man-operated buses and the demise in certain parts of the country of the traditional crew-operated bus. Different designs were required although the technical requirements of the chassis remained much the same.

Difficulties arose because the Ministry began to say that in order to rationalise resources it was better not to have too many types of buses. It was suggested that the grant would be available only if there were rationalisation of the industry and the construction of buses. From that time onwards, for reasons that are not clear, London Transport could no longer in practice produce its own specifications or carry out its own running trials.

It is no secret that although the process of rationalisation was carried out largely under the British Leyland umbrella there was a slightly different emphasis within the corporation. The House will know that there are Leyland bus and truck divisions. We also know that buses are in two main categories, namely, the highspeed, long-distance coaches and the stage carriage buses. It became apparent to operators that not only did British Leyland take a different line in its truck market but that it began not to pay so much attention to the requirements of stage carriage public operators.

The requirements of the truck market are different from those of the public operators of buses and coaches. Trucks require maintenance and the operators demand economy. It is well known that many truck operators write off their vehicles at a much faster rate than do public stage carriage operators. In general, I am told, a bus lasts twice as long as a truck. Therefore, the requirements of the stage carriage operators are quite different from those of the truck operators and from the operators of long-distance coaches.

Unfortunately London Transport came to the end of the road—I hope that that will be a temporary state of affairs—as regards its own developments.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg (Hampstead)

I am not clear whether the hon. Gentleman has left the RT type and is dealing with the RM bus. I understood him to say that the RM was developed in the early 1960s. Has he any idea of the estimated useful life of the RM when originaly designed?

Mr. Spearing

Perhaps I shall be able to find out during the debate. I revert to the RT, which is familiar to all hon. Members. I have been told that, given proper spares and facilities, the life of an RT is indefinite. I am not sure of the exact life of the RM in terms of mechanical condition, given proper and thorough servicing of the sort that London Transport always carries out. I shall try to find out. The financial life of a vehicle, of course, is a different matter. It is clear that RTs have outlived their financial life in terms of depreciation by many years.

Mr. John H. Osborn (Sheffield, Hallam)

I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. Is he regretting the fact that national standards are being imposed on the transport authorities? Surely London has its own requirements. Anyone producing buses knows that London buses are produced for a limited rather than for a wide requirement. Is not rationalisation to be welcomed rather than regretted? I am not clear what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

Mr. Spearing

I understand the hon. Gentleman's mystification. He obviously does not have much contact with the London public. He does not seem to know what has happened since the situation arose as I have described it. Rationalisation in terms of high Government policy or in terms of City finance may be desirable, but the requirements of those who operate London buses are much more exacting than in any other city in this country or elsewhere. If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, he will understand what has happened.

After the events that I have described, London Transport was forced to buy off the peg. Anyone who knows anything about London Transport—probably Conservative hon. Members do not have many bus drivers in their constituencies, and they do not appear to have a great knowledge of the subject—will know that things began to go wrong quite quickly.

When I first entered the House as the Member for Acton, I was assailed by the unions. They complained of buses that blew up, buses that had flywheels which dropped off and buses from which oil spurted on to the road. They also complained about chassis twisting. All sorts of gory stories came to my attention. I thought that I would be a little disloyal to the bus manufacturers if I brought these matters to the attention of he House. I was glad to see that the former Member for Walthamstow, East, the present hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), brought the matter to the atten tion of the House on 25th May 1971. He said: … the Chairman of London Transport … kindly made it possible for me to visit one of London Transport's garages at Victoria to see the sort of problem that London Transport is up against. I was shown no fewer than 29 major parts—both mechanical and electrical—of the engine that are breaking down fairly consistently. I gather that the trouble lies in the design of the engine. A bus operating in London is worked harder than a bus operating almost anywhere else in the country …"—[Official Report, 25th May 1971; Vol. 818, c. 323.] The hon. Gentleman went on to make it clear that it was not the fault of London Transport that essential spares for buses had not been forthcoming. He then criticised the situation which had occurred.

Mr. Neil Macfarlane (Sutton and Cheam)

A short while ago the hon. Gentleman indicated that since the late 1930s London Transport has been designing from its own specifications. Is he saying that its designing after all these years has proved a little fallible?

Mr. Spearing

Despite the length of my discourse, I am apparently going too fast. Apparently the hon. Gentleman does not understand that the situation I am now describing relates to the new types of buses which London Transport was required to buy off the peg as a result of rationalisation. It was required to buy vehicles built to specifications different from those of its former buses. I am sorry that I did not make that clear.

We are now in an equally bad position. The situation that I have described began in 1971. Indeed, matters had been going that way for some years before. This matter is dealt with in LT News of 14th February. That is a publication which London Transport issues for its employees. In the issue of 14th February there is a photograph of a bus which has been gutted. The article states: This bus is a victim of the maintenance problem that in the past year has had up to 10 per cent. of the LT fleet 'up against the wall'—more than 600 buses out of the 6,000. The current total out of service is 400—nearly seven per cent. That situation applies not only in London. We have had Adjournment debates on matters related to this subject and it appears that there is a similar situation throughout the country. I have asked Questions about bus suppliers and it seems that the situation I have described is the same throughout the country. I have had letters from the Chairman of the National Bus Company to the same effect. There were articles in the London Transport magazine a few years ago to the effect that the Chairman of London Transport had been going to see British Leyland to get the spares situation sorted out. It is known throughout the country that it has not been sorted out. In fact, it may have become worse. This is not the result of the three-day week; the problem existed long before that. Nor is it the result of the series of engineering strikes that took place in the early 1970s. The situation existed long before that.

I am told by my constituents who work on buses that part of the problem is that the buses are not now put together in the traditional way. I am told that many spare parts are made by outside suppliers and that nowadays buses are built more like cars. People tell me that the spares they require are not necessarily available and that difficulties arise because they are supplied by so many outside suppliers. That may not be accurate, but it is what the men are saying. Clearly the national situation has changed since the middle-1960s, and the problems which London Transport and the other bus operators in Britain face are very serious.

One might ask why London Transport does not manufacture some of the spares itself. I am sure it would like to do so, and perhaps it already does to a limited extent. But there are many different types of spares, and London Transport wishes to build up the sort of capacity that will enable it to carry out this operation properly. Existing legislation provides relatively limited scope for such an operation. London Transport is able to deal only with the National Bus Company. It cannot deal with the muncipal companies which have 10,000 buses. London Transport has about 6,000 buses of its own and the passenger transport executives have another 6,000. There is obviously scope for a pooling of resources. Any firm has its peaks and troughs of activity, and if it cannot operate on a large enough scale the manufacture of spares becomes uneconomic.

The same situation does not apply in the case of British Rail. Railway equipment is a different matter altogether. Here too, however, the rules need changing. London Transport offers an extensive advisory service for export. It advises customers all over the world about the design and implementation of rapid transit schemes, and such schemes are increasing in number. There is a demand for its capacity and expertise on signalling control which it cannot satisfy. It has some capacity at its Acton works just as it has capacity at Aldenham and Chiswick in respect of buses. Therefore, this is a question not merely of meeting internal demand but of providing exports.

I am sure that the House will support an attempt to increase the use of resources, brains, initiative and expertise. The activities provided for in the Bill could be carried out in partnership with the National Bus Company and British Rail Engineering. Underground trains have different requirements from those of conventional trains, but a partnership between London Transport and British Rail Engineering and London Transport and the other bus companies would be possible.

There is also the question of the effect of these operations on the competitive position of existing suppliers. I understand that there is only one significant bus manufacturer in Britain, the British Leyland Motor Corporation, which does not seem to have done too well recently. The only other company I have heard of is Metro-Scania, which is a combination of a Scandinavian firm and Metropolitan Cammell. The latter provides the bodies, although the chassis are not produced in this country. The only true competition, therefore, is with British Leyland.

I should have thought it desirable for British Leyland and London Transport to get together so that they could pool their knowledge and enjoy the best of both worlds. There might be concern about whether London Transport would undercut the prices of other suppliers, but Section 6(1) of the existing Act would prevent this to some extent. It states: if the Executive engage, either directly or through a subsidiary, in any activities authorised by paragraph (d) or (j) of this subsection, the Executive shall in carrying on these activities act as if they were a company engaged in a commercial enterprise". The activities referred to in paragraphs (d) and (j) concern the letting of vehicles and car parking, so that is the extent of the Executive's present powers. I cannot see why those provisions would not apply to any manufacturing or service activity. Quite clearly it would not be desirable for London Transport deliberately to undercut or to operate other than in the way provided in the Act. I am advised that London Transport is not seeking to have that provision amended.

A further point arises concerning the disclosure of activities by London Transport should it go into partnership with British Leyland, British Rail Engineering or the National Bus Company. Any matter of that sort has to have the approval of the Greater London Council. Therefore I would have thought that any activity by London Transport in that regard would have been covered by the authority of the Greater London Council.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg

On the point about the provisions in the earlier Act when the hon. Member said that London Transport would not be able to undercut, is he saying on behalf of the promoters that they are giving such an undertaking?

Mr. Spearing

I do not think I would use precisely those words. Assuming that the Bill is given a Second Reading that matter might be explored in Committee because there might be some desire by the Executive in that direction. The word "undercut" depends on what criteria are adopted. If London Transport is permitted, by using these provisions, and without making a deliberate loss, to take advantage of opportunities which are not available to other suppliers, in other words if it supplies materials, overhauls and so on at cost plus, I would have thought that would be acting commercially. The fact that London Transport's bid might have been lower than someone else's could be interpreted by some as undercutting. We may have to pursue this point in Committee, but this provision is already in the existing Act and London Transport would wish to give indications that they would not wish to act in an unfair manner in the usual sense of that term.

I hope I have been able at least partly to set at rest any anxieties which hon. Members may have felt about this Bill. I have tried to demonstrate the need for it and that there would be little danger to London Transport's competitors from these activities. I have heard of no objection from those competitors. If there are objections to public enterprise expanding in this way I cannot see that they can be applied to London Transport since British Rail Engineering already has these powers and they were not taken away even by the last Conservative Government.

This question is not only one of discrimination against London Transport, because London Transport consists of Londoners. I have been a bitter critic of London Transport over this matter and I am very glad that this initiative has been taken. I badgered the former Chairman to do something about the reliability of buses. At least that will be done. If I cannot obtain the active support of all hon. Members on both sides, at least there will be tacit agreement to this move, because the interests of London transport are the same as those of London constituents.

We know how difficult it is for London Transport to operate in today's economic and social difficulties. Bus drivers living in my constituency say that people are queueing in the rain, while men are playing cards, because of "NBA", which means no bus available. That situation existed for a long time, even during the staff shortage, and I believe that it continues. I hope that all hon. Members, or at least those with the interests of London constituents at heart, and who want to see good and reliable bus services, will support this measure, which will be for the good of London.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Berry (Southgate)

We are grateful to the Chairman of Ways and Means for affording us this early opportunity of debating this important Bill. Whatever our views on the Bill, it is right that we should discuss these additional powers for London Transport.

It strikes me as odd that whereas the 1969 Act was introduced and considered in the normal way, both in the House and in another place, tonight, when we are discussing the enlargement of the most important part in that Act, a different procedure is being followed, since we have only three hours in which to discuss this important change.

The Second Reading of the Bill was moved not by a Minister, although I am delighted to see the Parliamentary Secretary present. He must have done a little homework on the 1968 and 1969 Acts and must be thankful that he was not Minister of Transport in those days.

Instead of the Parliamentary Secretary, it was a back bencher, the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) who moved the Second Reading. Although I prepared a note of appreciation in anticipation of the way in which he would take us through the intricacies of the Bill, I should like to go further than I originally intended. We are very grateful to him. He took a lot of time preparing his statement. It is always difficult for back benchers to introduce Bills when they have had no responsibility for or concern with the drafting. The hon. Gentleman was outstanding. In my 10 years as a Member of Parliament I have heard many GLC Bills introduced by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I do not believe that I have heard any hon. Member who has taken more trouble or given us more help and explanation, and I thank the hon. Member. Any criticisms I may make of the Bill are not intended against him. Nothing that I say in criticism of the Bill is intended to be directed against those working for London Transport, who do a magnificent job under great difficulties.

As it is so soon after his retirement, I could perhaps begin with a tribute to Sir Richard Way, who was recently Chairman of London Transport. He had a distinguished career as chairman. It was unfortunate that his last year in office was marred so greatly by staff and bus shortages, although there was an improvement in staffing at the end of the year. His term as chairman was also marred at the end of the year by a series of brutal attacks on those who drive our buses and who look after London Transport late at night, working unsocial hours. Such attacks are wholly unjustifiable and inexcusable. Those Members of Parliament who knew Sir Richard throughout his period of office would like to express their appreciation of the way in which he responded to the many letters we sent to him on behalf of our constituents and of the way in which he looked into the problems raised.

I extend a warm welcome to his successor, Mr. Kenneth Robinson. Many of us knew him here as a colleague. He was a distinguished Minister in an earlier Labour Government.

It is interesting how distinguished Labour Members and ex-Ministers become distinguished heads of nationalised industries. We have the examples of Mr. Richard Marsh and Mr. Kenneth Robinson. I was trying to think who might be the next. Perhaps by the end of the year the Secretary of State for Trade may become an EEC Commissioner.

Mr. Robinson has sent out leaflets asking whether we should like to become regular subscribers and to receive information about London Transport. We wish him well in his important job.

It is necessary to think back to the London Transport Act 1969, which this Bill seeks to amend, and to the 1968 Act on which the 1969 legislation was largely based. If passed, this Bill will bring the 1969 Act still more into line with the 1968 Act. That is why it is necessary to study the powers of the 1968 Act in detail.

The 1969 Act, which did not go as far as the 1968 Act, was inspired by a Conservative-controlled GLC and was introduced by a Labour Government. At the time Lord Castle described it as a shotgun wedding, presumably between his wife, the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Social Services, and Sir Desmond Plummer. We were not entirely happy with the Act, and we know that the Government would have liked still larger powers, had that been possible at the time.

The present Leader of the Opposition led for the Conservative Party in Committee on the 1969 Act. During the Second Reading she said: Concerning powers, we are bound to come up against a little controversy, as the Minister indicated. I understand that earlier this afternoon the GLC passed a recommendation in the following terms: That the General Purposes Committee do take such action as may be necessary to secure the amendment of Clause 6 of the Transport (London) Bill 1968 to ensure that the powers of the London Transport Executive to engage in manufacture and trade are restricted to the minimum necessary to enable it to perform its statutory function as a public transport undertaking. It is clear that at the moment the GLC does not wish to have the extensive manufacturing powers granted to it under Clause 6. It is now asking for still greater manufacturing powers.

My right hon. Friend continued: I should like to make one or two comments about those manufacturing powers. The Minister will expect us to oppose some of them. The right hon. Gentleman referred particularly to the construction, manufacturing and producing powers in Clause 6(1)(i). I have one special comment to make about those powers. Although certain of the other powers under that Clause are subject to the sanction that they should be run on commercial principles, there is no direction that the manufacturing powers should be run on commercial principles. The subsection is excluded from the sanction. As the Bill stands, it will enable the Executive to compete on an uneconomic basis with private industry and to deal with its subsidiaries and the other authorities on preferential terms."—[Official Report, 17th December 1968, Vol. 775, c. 1261.] In fairness, having quoted from my right hon. Friend, I should quote from the speech of the Minister during that Second Reading debate. He said: There is the question of manufacturing powers, which we have discussed from time to time in the Chamber. London Transport has traditionally done more in this field and has facilities for doing more, than the undertakings which will make up the new passenger transport executives. It has been inhibited in the past both in not being able to make full use of its resources and in its relations with its suppliers. The Bill, therefore, proposes that, subject to direction by the Council, the Executive should have powers to manufacture for itself, for its subsidiaries, for the various members of the nationalised transport "family", and for the Council."—[Official Report, 17th December 1968; Vol. 775, c. 1246.] There is no mention there of any outside interests. Nor was any reference to outside interests made by the Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Brown), when he wound up the debate. He said: The question of manufacturing powers has aroused great interest. This is clearly a thorny subject with hon. Members opposite, Strong views on it are held on my side of the House, too. It is fair to say that the GLC is not entirely happy about it. On the one side, it has been argued that we should hold back the scope of London Transport more than we have in the Bill and that we should place it in the same position which it was in under the Transport Act 1962. On the other hand, it can be strongly argued that we should confer on the Executive the manufacturing freedom which the nationalised industries generally enjoy under the Transport Act 1968. I am sure that some of my hon. Friends would strongly argue this point. The proposals in the Bill are generally tailored to match the resources and new status of the London Transport Executive. The Executive will not be a nationalised industry. It will be a body placed in a novel way under local government control. It must have all the powers it needs to do its job properly, and it must be able to make reasonable use of the facilities and skills which it possesses. The Executive will be able to manufacture for itself, for the nationalised transport authorities and for the Greater London Council. This gives the Executive a wide field for development of its facilities. We do not think that it is right to deny an undertaking of the size and with the facilities of London Transport the basic powers which it needs to manufacture to this extent. We clearly must hold to this."—[Official Report, 17th December 1968; Vol. 775, c. 1300–1.] Clearly it was very much in the mind of the Minister and of the Parliamentary Secretary at that time that there was no need to increase the powers to the extent envisaged in this Bill.

Then we had the Committee stage of the Bill, when attempts were made by the Opposition to reduce the powers. On the other hand, there were also attempts by some Government supporters, notably the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis), to increase them. He thought that the powers should be virtually the same as those proposed in the present Bill. However, the Government declined to accept his proposal. In Committee, the Minister made it clear that he did not think it right that those powers should be in that Bill. Another amendment was moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Fletcher). That, too, wished to increase the powers. Again the Minister resisted it. I cannot help drawing attention to the fact that the resistance was possible only because Opposition Members voted with the Minister against the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Ilkeston. So once again the Government refused to change the powers laid down in the Bill at the outset. We tried to reduce the powers, one or two Labour back benchers tried to increase them, and the Government said that the Bill was right as it was and should not be changed.

When we come to the 1968 Act, on which the 1969 Act was based, we have to look closely at the powers, because here we come very close to what is envisaged in the present Bill.

On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) said: Let us look at the powers given by Clause 45"— which later became Clause 48— to each of the authorities concerned—British Railways, Inland Waterways, National Freight Corporation, and the rest. Subsection (2) states: 'Each of the authorities to whom this section applies shall have power … to manufacture for sale to outside persons and to repair for outside persons, anything which the authority consider can advantageously be so manufactured or as the case may be, repaired by the authority by reason of the fact that the authority or a subsidiary of theirs have materials or facilities for, or skill in, the manufacture or repair of that thing in connection with some existing activity of that authority or subsidiary … shall have power— (b) to sell to outside persons, and for that purpose to purchase, anything which is of a kind which the authority or a subsidiary of theirs purchase in the course of some existing activity of that authority or subsidiary'. The authorities will have power 'to manufacture road vehicles, bodies or chassis for road vehicles or major components of road vehicles'. These powers will all be given to the nationalised industries in future. The Bill gives powers as to garages, motor accessories, repair shops and shipbuilding. The Clause provides the Government with the possibility of the largest extension of nationalisation in British history without ever again having to come to the House of Commons for legislation to do it."—[Official Report, 20th December 1967; Vol. 756, cc. 1318–19.] My right hon. Friend was not quite right, because now the Government come to this House again for that extra little bit of nationalisation which is envisaged in the present Bill.

We think that the powers in this Bill are quite wrong and that they should be resisted.

It is a custom in this House to debate London Bills, and very often hon. Members on one side or the other table a motion calling for a Bill to be read a Second time in six months in order simply to have a debate on London affairs. That is not the case tonight. We wish genuinely to discuss and if possible to postpone the powers proposed in the Bill.

We do not approach this matter in a parochial way. It is a London matter, but these powers go much wider than any affecting just the capital city. In any event, I do not think that we in London are parochial, unlike people in some other parts of the country. I have not heard any request for London to have its own count in the EEC referendum, for example. But as London Members we have a special responsibility because we are all too aware that, in addition to our constituents up and down the great city, a great many people come into London from outside to work and there are many visitors, many of whom use London Transport. For that reason, any change in London Transport is perhaps most important than a change in any other transport system. We have to ask ourselves whether the change will help London Transport and its customers and, if so, whether it will be in the best way or whether it will have harmful effects.

We discuss this subject at a time when the GLC has announced the largest rate increase in its history. There has been a continual refusal over two or three years—for electoral reasons—to increase fares. This has led to London Transport's biggest-ever deficit. It is not surprising that we should have doubts about the powers in this Bill.

What are London Transport's problems and will they be helped by the Bill? The greatest problem is the shortage of manpower, which was particularly bad last summer. It has improved a little in recent months. There is still a 20 per cent. shortfall. As a result there are fewer trains and they are running late. There is a shortage of buses. London Transport garages are operating 25 per cent. below strength. The housing shortage affects London Transport workers who, because of their working hours, need to live reasonably near to the depôt. London Transport is now heavily in deficit, after having made a profit for the first four years or so of its existence. We do not know what the size of the deficit will be.

What money is available? Is it being used in the right way? We appreciate that this is a time of expenditure cuts. However, we must look to the future and see that the money available is used constructively. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) and I asked questions yesterday about the Fleet Line. Obviously a shortage of money will affect new lines. It would be a pity if work is stopped and the team disbanded. I understand that the Heathrow underground link is behind schedule. There is a shortage of new buses. I understand that on an average day 600 buses are off the road because of a shortage of parts. I presume that part of the purpose of the Bill is to deal with this problem. Is it necessary to tackle it by invoking mammoth nationalisation powers? I doubt it.

The Government are using the inability of British Leyland to supply sufficient new buses to London Transport as an excuse for introducing these extra powers. We know that British Leyland has its problems. I do not want to add to them, but I am shocked at the way British Leyland has; supported the promoters of this Bill. It can only do damage to its competitive position. This is taking place at a time when the motor industry worldwide has spare capacity. It is counterproductive and financially irresponsible for a nationalised industry to propose embarking upon a plan to extend its manufacturing powers in this way. Perhaps it is to be expected of a nationalised industry, but I am shocked that it should have the support of what used to be a bastion of private enterprise.

The powers in the Bill are far too wide. Why is this so? First, it is because ever since London Transport was formed under the 1969 Act it has been jealous of the powers given to British Railways, the National Bus Company, the National Freight Corporation and the British Waterways Board. They were given these powers in the 1968 Act. It was not until a Labour-controlled GLC and a Labour Government coincided that these things could be put right in the way that is now suggested. I remember what happened last time we had a Labour Government and a Labour-controlled GLC. It was not long before both were changed. It might happen again.

London Transport has had to employ expert research staff and would like to sell its know-how to other transport concerns on a consultancy basis. Further, London Transport does not like being a second-tier nationalised industry accountable to the GLC. There is no justification for the extension of this State trading. London Transport has said that what it needs is the power to enter into associations as necessary with major United Kingdom statutory operators and others to secure, on a long-term basis, the supply of equipment and essential goods and services on the most economical basis possible in this new manufacturing environment.

This suggests a requirement much less widespread than that which is in the Bill. The object is to have more buses. Since we want to see London Transport solve its problems in the right way we tabled an Instruction yesterday to omit the manufacturing powers, which we consider to be wholly unnecessary. In Committee, if we get that far, we hope to table amendments to ensure that there are safeguards which will prevent London Transport from competing with Tube and bus manufacturers by engaging in large-scale manufacturing. We shall seek to ensure—if these powers are given—that London Transport will have to act commercially in its manufacturing activities.

The word "commercially" is vital. It was omitted in the 1969 Act because it was not thought to be necessary. That was probably correct because at that time the extension of powers now proposed was not foreseen.

Mr. Spearing

The hon. Member mentioned the Instruction. I thought he said that it was in relation to manufacturing. But the manufacturing ability is applied to "outside persons". Will the hon. Gentleman clarity that?

Mr. Berry

Yes. The Instruction says: That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill, to remove from the Bill the power given to the Executive to manufacture for supply to outside persons. This is not a Government Bill, which is perhaps an indication of the measure of support it enjoys. I fear that any favourable reaction to it will be short lived. Whatever its parentage, and while I have no doubt that the present Secretary of State for Social Services will not be reluctant to establish her relationship, I am equally sure that Sir Desmond Plummer will be joined by Mr. Richard Marsh, who was even more emphatic in his refusal to accept that these powers were necessary, in declining to accept further responsibility for this so-called offspring.

It is such a dangerous and potentially harmful measure that I find it hard to believe that it did not originate in that special haven of peculiar irresponsibility, the brain of the Secretary of State for Industry. It is a coincidence of a remarkable nature that we are discussing this Bill on a day when our colleagues in Committee were to have begun their discussions on an even more recognisable example of the Government's determination to turn our country into a Socialist State. In the Industry Bill the Government seek to give the State monopolies which they have already created and advantages which they hope will make tighter the stranglehold they intend to put round the private sector. We on the Conservative benches utterly reject this proposal. Accordingly I shall ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Second Reading of this Private Bill.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. John Cartwright (Woolwich, East)

I join the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) in congratulating and thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for the clear and lucid way in which he introduced this measure. My hon. Friend did not wax quite as lyrical as Messrs. Flanders and Swann in his description of the London Transport omnibus, but he was getting on that way.

Mr. Ted Graham (Edmonton)

Hold very tight, please!

Mr. Cartwright

Indeed, hold very tight, please. I wish that I could have been so entertained by the historical introduction by the hon. Member for Southgate. Sadly, I did not find that very entertaining.

The only important point about the history of the matter is that the 1968 Act gave London Transport the same manufacturing powers, rights of association, and the power to sell goods and services, as British Rail and the National Bus Company. However, hardly had those powers been dangled before London Transport's eyes than they were snatched away by the London Transport Act 1969.

It seemed that towards the end of his speech the hon. Member for Southgate admitted that those powers were removed because of the attitude of the leadership of the Greater London Council. Many hon. Members on this side of the House would agree that the attitude of the GLC was extremely shortsighted, because the removal of those powers denied London Transport the opportunity to undertake co-operation and partnership by involving itself in shareholding with outside bodies to produce not only for its own needs but for sale to outside organisations.

The only organisations to which London Transport is allowed to sell under present arrangements or with which it is allowed to go into partnership or shareholding arrangements are the Greater London Council, its own subsidiaries, or other nationalised bodies. This seems to deny London Transport the opportunity to co-operate with other passenger transport executives with which it has a great deal in common, because problems concerning the provision of public transport in the city of London are much the same as in the cities of Manchester and Liverpool or many other large urban areas in this country.

It is a sad fact that London Transport has surplus capacity not only in the production of spare parts but in the overhauling of vehicles, repairs, and so on. Such surplus capacity could be made available to other passenger transport executives. That is one area in which London Transport has lost out as a result of this denial of powers.

Mr. John H. Osborn

I think that that contradicts what was said by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) who introduced the Bill. The hon. Gentleman talked about the shortage of parts and components. That is a normal management problem that faces the private as well as the public sector of activity. I think that hon. Members would like to know whether there is over capacity or under capacity.

Mr. Cartwright

That is a fair point. I will come to the question of spare parts, shortages, and so on, later. I understand that London Transport has spare capacity and is producing certain spare parts. One difficulty about the whole operation is that it cannot produce the complete range of spare parts that it needs because the demand is not large enough from London Transport alone to make it an economic proposition. If there were a wider market, it would become a viable operation. That is one of the arguments in favour of these additional powers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South said that London Transport had been denied the chance to sell its expertise to overseas transport operators and to co-operate with United Kingdom manufacturers in the specialist areas of the provision of vehicles and spare parts.

Turning to the implications of the powers which the Bill would restore to London Transport, I suggest that there are two great advantages. The first is that these powers would help London Transport to cut its present level of costs. I should have thought that hon. Members on both sides of the House would favour that prospect. The second is that they will go a long way to ensure a continuation of the supplies of vehicles and spare parts that London Transport needs.

On the cost front, I understand that there is a definite surplus capacity in London Transport for both the production and the provision of other services. If this spare capacity could be used to provide products or services for other transport operators, that would clearly involve extra income from the revenue which would be generated, which in turn would result in a reduction of the unit costs of production.

Secondly, the removal of the ban on the sale of expertise overseas is important. After all, London Transport is the largest bus operator in the world. I understand that its expertise is in great demand by overseas bus operators. If, by giving London Transport the powers sought in the Bill, we could provide an opportunity for it to engage in the sale of its expertise overseas, possibly in co-operation with United Kingdom manufacturers of vehicles and spare parts, substantial prospects for export orders would result. I should have thought that would commend itself to the House.

Thirdly, there is the possibility of co-operation with British Rail and the National Bus Company in producing and selling components to third parties. British Rail and the National Bus Company are already involved in that way. Because of the absence of powers, London Transport can neither join in those activities nor compete with them. There, again, I should have thought, is an area of additional revenue for London Transport if it had the powers proposed in the Bill.

I turn to the guaranteeing of future supplies. The key to this problem was the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South about the possibility of co-operation with private manufacturers in the production of vehicles, parts and equipment. If that kind of co-operation and production could be achieved, it would be to the advantage not only of London Transport but of other operators. That would be a tremendous step forward for London Transport.

I understand that there are no major objections by the manufacturers concerned. Indeed, I thought that I detected a note of sorrow on the part of the hon. Member for Southgate that there were no objections by the manufacturers. British Leyland came in for some castigation because it was prepared to support these additional powers being provided for London Transport. I suggest that if we could achieve a joint operation between London Transport and private manufacturers of British Leyland's standing there would be a great improvement in the present situation.

We all know about the problem of shortages of spare parts and the implications for London Transport. Like other hon. Members, I have had letters from the Chairman of London Transport referring to its difficulties. The most recent letter that I have had refers to a scarity of spare parts for buses resulting from problems in the engineering industry which have affected not only London Transport but other bus undertakings throughout the country. Representations have been made at the highest level to ensure that all possible priority is given to London Transport orders. We have also sought alternative sources of supply (including some on the Continent) and have 'cannibalised' our own unserviceable vehicles, where appropriate, to keep as many buses as we can on the road. That is an indication of the extent to which London Transport is dependent on suppliers for its important needs. If we could get London Transport involved in a joint operation, with a seat on the board of a subsidiary company, for example, I believe that future supplies would be better assured and that it would be in a much stronger position.

That is also true of the whole area of bus supply. We have heard that the number of firms able to meet London Transport's requirements for both buses and underground rolling stock is very limited. If we are serious about competition, we are forced to look overseas. Here, again, there is a risk that, as rationalisation in British industry increases and as takeover bids follow takeover bids, London Transport and other bus operators in the great urban areas might find themselves high and dry without an adequate source of supply, particularly as the provision of buses is very much the poor relation of truck manufacture. I understand that nine-tenths of production in the bus and truck division is in trucks. If the truck side is so lucrative, there must always be a fear that supplies will dry up and London Transport will be in a difficult situation. Here, too, the involvement of London Transport in the manufacture of these things as a joint enterprise would put them in a much stronger situation.

I notice that, according to The Times today, Mr. Ron Ellis, the head of British Leyland's bus and truck division, had a meeting yesterday with the directors-general of all the passenger transport executives and referred to the repeated criticism of delays in the delivery of double-decker buses. He admitted that, in the short term, British Leyland would almost certainly lose more orders for double-decker buses for foreign suppliers, and he urged some co-ordination of demand by PTEs.

London Transport, with the great deal that it has in common with other PTEs, could play an important rôle in trying to co-ordinate this demand, instead of the present situation in which one transport operator vies with another to get supplies out of manufacturers. Joint ventures in manufacturing, design and so on between London Transport and the private manufacturers is one way of approaching that sort of operation.

I was a little surprised by the sudden lurch by the hon. Member for Southgate into party political dogma towards the end of his speech. I do not feel that his heart was really in it.

Mr. Berry

Yes it was.

Mr. Cartwright

He could have fooled me. The hon. Gentleman made the required reference to "Wedgwood Bennery" which has to come from virtually anyone speaking about anything from the Opposition benches. If the Secretary of State for Industry were to rescue a child from drowning the Press headline would probably be, "Benn's Latest Grab".

What we are talking about here is not political dogma at all but a sensible arrangement on behalf of London Transport to try to reduce the level of costs and to safeguard their future supplies. Since the National Bus Company has these powers and is working jointly with British Leyland, it falls to hon. Members opposite to explain why London Transport should not also have these powers.

The Bill is a common sense attempt to remove what many of us regard as a harmful and unjustified restriction on London Transport. It is very much in the interests of ordinary Londoners, whether London Transport passengers or London ratepayers, to set London Transport free from the shackles that threaten its future. I commend the Bill as a sensible attempt to do just that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)

Mr. Neil Macfarlane.

8.13 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Carmichael)

It might be convenient if I intervened at this juncture—

Mr. Macfarlane

On a point of order. May I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to repeat the name that you called just then?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Mr. Neil Carmichael.

Mr. Macfarlane

I apologise, Sir.

Mr. Carmichael

It is late and it has been a long week.

This may be a good time for me to intervene to give the Government's views in a brief speech.

I should like to begin, as others have done, by paying a sincere compliment to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who moved the Second Reading. He did a very good job. It has been a pleasant experience for me in the last two Private Bill debates in which I have taken part to have heard my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) do a superb job in difficult circumstances. I sometimes wonder whether the whole process of private legislation has not gone too far—although it is not, of course, my job to interfere. But that is how it is. This is not a Government Bill but is promoted by the people who run the undertaking.

The hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) has obviously done a great deal of homework. I did not take part in the debates on the 1969 Act but I remember that we were both together night after night and day after day in the debates on the 1968 Act. I do not know whether some of the hyperbole of his right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) is beginning to rub off on him, but he rather exaggerated some of his suggestions about the powers in the Bill.

As my hon. Friend indicated, the purpose of the Bill is simple and straightforward. The London Transport Executive has powers to manufacture and repair things required for its own purposes, for the Greater London Council and for the nationalised transport industries. The Bill seeks to extend these powers so that the executive has power to manufacture or repair for anyone things which it has power to manufacture or repair for itself, and to supply to anyone things which it has power to purchase for its own business.

The House has heard why the executive considers that it needs these powers. The points of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) were very illuminating and supplemented the statement by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South. The executive wants these powers basically for two reasons. First, because of the restrictions currently imposed upon it, London Transport cannot optimise the use it makes of the facilities it already has. It has an extensive business in the provision of components and materials for buses and in overhauling and reconditioning vehicles. It can use this capacity for its own vehicles and those of the subsidiaries of the National Bus Company, but not for the vehicles belonging to other operators, such as the passenger transport executives. Also, it is not widely known that London Transport owns a very large catering business—it has to, in order that staff working shifts at awkward hours can get adequate meals. But it is debarred from using this capacity to assist any other firms or undertakings which have similar problems.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend (Bexleyheath)

Can the Minister explain why London Transport needs these powers now but did not need them only a few years ago? What has changed? It is not clear from the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. Carmichael

This is evolution. People look for the best way of using their resources. Everyone is trying to optimise the use of resources. Later I shall try to discuss how we should use every asset we have, particularly those of which we know something and of which these operators have experience. It is in the interests of London, where there are manpower shortages in many industries, that the executive should be able to use some of these resources.

Second, there may be situations where it is sensible for London Transport to be more closely involved in the production and supply of equipment which it and other transport operators use. This is not to say that if Parliament grants the executive the powers it is now seeking it will immediately begin manufacture and sale in direct competition with established suppliers. Through my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South, the promoters assure us this is not so. This we understand and accept. Rather it is the executive's intention to enter into financial collaboration with its suppliers when this can be agreed to be mutually advantageous. Thus, not only will the expertise which London Transport possesses in all areas of public transport be made available to the manufacturer: it will also ensure that the particular needs of the public transport industry are not disregarded in a wider industrial complex.

In support of its case for the Bill, the executive has made reference to the worldwide consultancy services it operates. In my view it justifiably claims that possession of unrestricted manufacturing, repair and supply powers would enable it to give effective support to those consultancy services. All of us have no doubt on occasions—I have heard it done in Adjournment debates—castigated what we consider to be the inefficiencies of services provided by the executive. But it still remains as true today as it has always been—as has been mentioned by hon. Members—that it is to the door of the executive that public transport operators the world over come when they require assistance and advice. There can be no greater compliment to the London Transport Executive than that.

We have heard tonight from Opposition Members very many of the arguments that were so vehemently expressed during the passage of the Transport Act 1968 when the question of manufacturing powers for the nationalised transport industries was under discussion. Similar arguments were advanced during the passage of the Transport (London) Act 1968. I have no intention of wearying the House tonight by restating the many arguments put forward from this side during the long hours of debate we had then. I would only say that, whatever may have been the position six or seven years ago, the case is much stronger now for allowing a public transport operator the freedom to deploy its assets to the best advantage both of itself and of its industry.

The hon. Member for Southgate drew a parallel with the Industry Bill introduced recently by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. Hon. Members should well know by now that it is one of our cardinal beliefs, and a belief held in the Labour Party generally, that if public money is injected into a private industry, whatever may be the circumstances, the investing public authority has a right to have a voice in the affairs of that particular industry. If, therefore, the executive is granted the powers it seeks and in furtherance of its aims as an efficient transport operator embarks on a mutually agreed partnership with private industry, we believe it right, and indeed it can only be right, that financial sharing means decision sharing. To that extent I welcome the analogy with my right hon. Friend's Bill.

I should perhaps make it clear that no question arises of Government grants to finance any use that London Transport might make of the powers sought in this Bill. Taxpayers' money would not be at risk. Nor would any losses that might be incurred as a result of the exercise of these powers be eligible expenditure for transport supplementary grant.

Mr. John Page (Harrow, West)

Perhaps the Minister will forgive me for interrupting after having arrived in the Chamber only recently. I shall explain my position later. The hon. Gentleman has said that no claim will be made on taxpayers' money. Is there a chance that claims may be made on ratepayers' money? If so, will he enlarge on that matter a little?

Mr. Carmichael

The hon. Gentleman must have missed the point. I said Nor would any losses that might be incurred as a result of the exercise of these powers be eligible expenditure for transport supplementary grant. I know that that is a slightly different thing. In other words, there would be no charge on the taxpayer here.

Mr. Page

The ratepayer.

Mr. Carmichael

If, on the other hand the ratepayers decided, through their elected body, that they wanted to finance some venture of the London Transport Executive, obviously that is something which democratically they have a right to do. But perhaps the next part to which I shall come in my speech will ease the problem for the hon. Gentleman.

There has been criticism that the Bill contains no obligations on the executive to use these powers—which I hope that Parliament will give it—in a fully commercial way. Here I should like to address myself to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South. The Government would like to see written into the Bill a provision on the lines of those contained in Section 134(2) of the Transport Act 1968 and Section 6(1) of the Transport (London) Act 1969 that when engaging in any activity under the powers conferred by the Bill the executive should act as if it were a company engaged in a commercial enterprise. Similarly we should like to see provision made for the advance publication of any proposals to use these powers. I hope that the executive will consider whether the Bill might be amended in this way. This matter can be dealt with in Committee.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg

I have taken the point made by the Minister. Does he intend on behalf of the Government at some stage in Committee, if the Bill reaches that stage, to ensure that that is in fact inserted?

Mr. Carmichael

What I am doing now is suggesting to the executive and to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South, who will be involved with the Bill and who is in close contact with the London Transport Executive, that they should accept this as a very strong Government recommendation that this should be put into the Bill.

Subject to those reservations, the Government think it right that London Transport should have these powers. I urge the House to give the Bill a Second Reading so that it may go forward to the appropriate Committee for detailed examination, as do all Private Bills.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Neil Macfarlane (Sutton and Cheam)

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for having the same Christian name as the Minister and for causing some misunderstanding about 10 minutes ago. I am grateful to have a few moments to talk about this important Bill.

I listened with admiration to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for his historical knowledge of the development of the 24-seater, although I was more nostalgically oriented in the graphic description he gave of Newham. I was a parliamentary candidate there in 1970. Alas, I was one of a long line of Conservative candidates who have come second in that area. None the less, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not feel that because he represents that area he is the sole custodian of all bus drivers, and bus depôts, because we all have these excellent gentlemen in our constituencies and recognise their enormous importance and the job function which they have. We are aware of their problems, which were graphically described by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyhealth (Mr. Townsend) during his Adjournment debate last week.

However, I want to look at the Bill because it is important for the House to look at the Transport (London) Act 1969, which states quite clearly: It shall be the general duty of the Greater London Council, hereafter in this Act referred to as 'The Council', to develop policies and to encourage, organise and where appropriate carry out measures which will promote the provision of integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities and services for Greater London. It is that word "economic" in relation to transport facilities and services for Greater London which I want to look at. We are proposing to extend and enlarge the powers, in effect, of the Greater London Council and, more indirectly, the London Transport Executive. This new proposal will cause much concern, not only in the minds of ratepayers in the Greater London area but also in the minds of many of the retailing and wholesaling organisations in the country. The proposed powers would enable the London Transport Executive to manufacture, supply, maintain and repair "anything" required for the purposes of the Executive.

This word "anything" broadens the spectrum enormously. I have been sent during the past few days, as I suspect have many hon. Members, several documents, by the promoters of the Bill and by various opponents of the Bill. But the Bill states quite clearly that: In the event of these powers being conferred on the Executive, there would be opened to the Executive opportunities for participating in joint company ventures with British manufacturers without any restriction on the company's markets for its products and without the company being tied to products for which the Executive have their own manufacturing facilities. It goes on to say: The Executive would be able to carry on the manufacture and repair for 'outside persons' things which they have facilities for manufacturing and repairing for their own business—for example, the manufacture of bus body parts, the overhaul of mechanical units and the servicing of road vehicles. They would also have the power to purchase for supply to 'outside persons' commodities such as spare parts, materials and consumable stores of a kind which they purchase for their own business. It is this area that will cause widespread concern to many people involved in a variety of businesses throughout the country.

It will enable the London Transport Executive to expand its commercial activities substantially. I do not think that this is the sort of power which we should be investing via a corporate body such as the GLC. This is in itself a considerable extension of the present power in Section 6 of the London Transport Act 1969. That section permitted the manufacturing of goods and repairs for the executive itself.

I think that many Conservative Members have a lot of sympathy for various organisations. The motor industry, retailing or wholesaling, manufacturing, spare parts stockists, servicing, and so on, will feel concern at this extension which the GLC will be taking. The motor industry, in its wide range of activities, has had two or three bad years, and it involves itself in an important aspect of our life.

I think it was the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) who said that there was not spare production capacity. I think that is arguable. I think that there is spare production capacity in the motor industry, both nationally and worldwide.

Mr. Cartwright

Not for buses.

Mr. Macfarlane

That, too is arguable.

Mr. Cartwright

I was saying that there was spare production capacity in London Transport. I was also quoting the head of the Bus and Truck Division of BLMC who said that he does not expect to be able to meet the needs of the British market in the short term.

Mr. Macfarlane

I still believe that there is spare production capacity, and the question is whether the Government are doing enough to utilise it. The Bill if allowed to go through will be counterproductive, and it will be financially irresponsible for a nationalised service industry to expand into manufacturing for "outside" use. This is something upon which the Opposition agree.

I agree with the view held in 1968 that the GLC should have powers only sufficient to enable it to function. I do not believe that the GLC and the LTE should act as a commercial undertaking in relation to its manufacturing activities. If the Bill is passed the House will grant, in effect, far wider manufacturing powers.

Perhaps I may ask the House to consider the many organisations which have assailed us. I have here a memorandum from the National Federation of Builders' and Plumbers' Merchants which contains the kind of argument which I regard as valid. The document says: The Federation represents the majority of builders' and plumbers' merchants in the United Kingdom and for many years has consistently opposed powers sought by local authorities in regard to the storage, supply and handling of building materials to other parties. In the majority of such cases the authorities concerned have indicated that they would not wish to deal with such materials; and have conceded assurances or amendments accordingly. The Federation submit that storage and handling of building materials must call for expert experience and knowledge and that operations by others than firms such as the Federation's members would involve heavy overhead expenses and loss arising from the rental or cost of storage space, the labour of handling and transport, loss from breakage, pilferage and the cost of security arrangements. That illustrates the kind of concern which many of these outside retailing, wholesaling and supplying organisations have as they watch the Bill go through.

There are several questions which have to be asked and which have not been touched upon this evening. If the GLC or the LGE want power for consultancy purposes only—and that has been suggested—the Bill is far too wide ranging for that purpose.

Secondly, it is clear that Government Members and the GLC see the Bill as a further advance into subsidised nationalised industries which will erode further private enterprise. Labour Members and the GLC probably see the Bill in the context of the Industry Bill, and that in itself must be worthy of a "No" vote from the Opposition.

The hon. Member for Woolwich, East said that we were looking at the Bill from a party dogma point of view. The hon. Member for Newham, South mentioned Herbert Morrison. Greater London Conservatives are bound to quake and think it important that people should hear our views on the subject. This is a fairly large step into the kind of legislation which is running in tandem with the Industry Bill now going through the House.

Mr. Graham

Hear, hear.

Mr. Macfarlane

The hon. Gentleman says, "Hear, hear", and that sums up the situation admirably. There is no justification for the extent of State trading which the Bill will empower.

Finally, the poor old ratepayer could as a result of the Bill have to stump up cash at some future date. What we have not heard is how this kind of enterprise will be funded, how it will be financed. We have not been told exactly what amount of money will be required to launch it, and again it could be the poor old ratepayer who will be called upon to subsidise and capitalise the kind of enterprise which could develop over the next two or three years and could develop into a kind of commercial extravagance, without the necessary expertise which is available to other organisations. The London Transport Executive and the GLC are not the experts in this field in which they seek enlarged powers.

I hope that we shall hear from Labour Members how these matters will be financed and costed and what plans are to be put forward. No doubt at some future stage we shall find out. It is a bad time nationally to seek this extension of activities, especially when many local authorities are facing huge deficits. The London ratepayers have put up with all they can stand. One of the critical arguments against this Bill is that we do not know where the money is coming from. We must have an answer to that question at some stage, and we hope that it will be answered tonight.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. John Parker (Dagenham)

Many London Members of Parliament have had numerous complaints about bus services. Our constituents may be prepared to accept the fact that shortage of staff makes it difficult to provide the services which people want, but people are not prepared to accept the fact that there are not adequate supplies of spare parts to keep the buses running. Therefore, since the Bill will make a contribution to improving London Transport services as a whole, I support it.

The Opposition are eaten up with the whole idea of creeping nationalisation. They are terrified about that bogy the whole time. Let us examine their arguments. The hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) appeared to regret the amount of co-operation proposed between private enterprise firms and London Transport. The Conservative Party stands for competition with a capital "C" yet takes a different view when unnecessary competition does not work as between one part of manufacturing industry and another. British Leyland and London Transport together can not only meet their own obligations but meet the needs of other transport undertakings obligations as well.

I wish to quarrel with the view of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane). I believe that London Transport has the requisite expertise to undertake this work. I believe that a combination of the efforts of British Leyland and London Transport should lead to the winning of valuable overseas markets. A few years ago when I was in Dubrovnik I saw a number of ex-London Transport buses operating in the streets. The transport undertakings in that city were extremely pleased with the performance of those vehicles, even though they were second hand. At some future date they will wish to replace them with new vehicles. However, new London Transport buses were not available at that time and I hope that due note will be taken of this factor in future trade negotiations. Undoubtedly there are a large number of overseas markets to which we can sell these vehicles, and this can be done by co-operation between a private concern such as British Leyland and London Transport.

We are experiencing an enormous exodus of population from London. I do not quarrel with the fact that new towns are being developed and that people are moving out to them. However, we must look ahead to the London of the future and plan for the time when we shall need an expansion of such activity here. This will involve the employment of expertise in London and many skilled workers. Certainly the provisions of the present Bill will provide jobs of this type in the Greater London Area. That we should welcome.

I have looked at a number of transport services overseas. If we compare London Transport with the transport service of New York, we see that London Transport is top every time. London Transport has a very fine record and a lot to tell and to sell to the world, but we have to give it every opportunity to do its best and not stand in its way. We must ensure that it holds the lead over New York and similar transport services.

I will not repeat what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), but there is a very strong case for the Bill, because it will assist London Transport by giving a better service to London. That is one of the main reasons why we should support the Bill.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. Cyril A. Townsend (Bexleyheath)

I am all in favour of London Transport's influence being extended. I am proud that the Victoria Line is a world-beater. But our basic point of view is that London Transport can produce world-beating equipment without the powers in the Bill. We opposed the extension of London Transport's powers in this respect in 1969. I have not been convinced by the arguments tonight from the Labour Front Bench that there is a need to make a change now.

The Bill is too wide ranging for the purposes which London Transport appears to have in mind. My hon. Friend on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry), quoted an extract from a brief which we have all received from London Transport. I refer to the section which says: L.T. has no wish or intention of going into manufacturing in order to compete with anyone. Its duty is to provide the transport service which best meets the needs of Greater London. If that is the case, the Bill is not required. It is as simple as that.

I am not critical of London Transport. I have great respect for that organisation. It is not the dog that is mad, but I am a bit worried about the sanity of the dog owner. London Transport is controlled strategically and financially by the Greater London Council, which is a dangerous Labour council. I say that it is dangerous because it has just made a fantastic rate increase, and there was a fantastic increase last year. The Greater London Council is spending approximately £70 million a year on buying up private housing in Greater London. Not unnaturally, the Opposition are a little suspicious when London Transport, which comes under the Greater London Council, produces a Bill of this nature.

I could not help noticing that Mr. Harrington, the deputy leader of the Greater London Council—to whom I hope responsibility has come with power—said in his budget speech not long ago that there was a need for more municipal enterprise to help the ratepayers. That sort of attitude makes us suspicious of what they have in mind across the river.

I do not welcome the extension of municipal enterprise, because I believe that it will not help the ratepayers, and that at the end of the day the ratepayers will have to cough up more. I welcome the remarks we had from the Government Front Bench, because I believe that private industry has a right to certain safeguards. The London Transport Executive should be made to act commercially. I cannot support the Bill in its present form. In my view it is yet another step towards State socialism.

8.43 p.m.

Mrs. Millie Miller (Ilford, North)

Far too little has been said in the debate about the London travelling public. What we are really talking about is the service that London Transport is trying to provide to all our constituents. That should be in the forefront of our minds when we are discussing this problem.

The London travelling public has suffered greatly over recent years. First it suffered because of staff shortages, as an Opposition Member said. He also said that one of the reasons for the staff shortage was the housing problem of London, which the Greater London Council is trying to alleviate by buying up the private houses to which another hon. Member referred.

Another reason for the staff shortage was the extremely low pay. That problem has been overcome. But the misery of the London travelling public has been added to by the fact that, knowing that the staff shortage has been overcome, they are still left with delayed or absent buses because of the shortage of spare parts. That is a vital reason for the Bill.

A number of Opposition Members have referred to the original Bill which gave London Transport these powers. As somebody who was deeply involved in London government at the time, I well remember the battle which took place with the Tory-controlled Greater London Council when it was demanding more and more bribes, to take over the service, bribes which ran into millions of pounds and which were strongly opposed by Labour members of the individual boroughs, as well as being opposed in the House. Some of my colleagues on this side of the House will remember where the responsibility for the Bill lies. We have to ask for these changes to take place today to rectify the short-sightedness of the Greater London Council at that time in accepting these powers.

A number of Conservative Members who have applauded the able way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) moved the Second Reading of the Bill appear not to have listened very closely to his historical account. In speaking of these proposals, several hon. Members have said that London Transport does not have the expertise to do the various tasks that the Bill envisages, and yet the historical account given by my hon. Friend covered the whole development of buses and how London Transport, until the time when these powers were taken from it, was responsible for bus development of the kind we have accepted up to the present time.

Mr. Macfarlane

Perhaps I can clear up one point for the hon. Lady. I am not saying that London Transport is lacking in expertise to run its own services, but it lacks expertise in running an organisation to sell to outside bodies and to set up that kind of organisation.

Mrs. Miller

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has clarified that point, because the tragedy is that apparently nobody else in the country has the expertise to do this kind of thing either. Sadly—and my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) referred to overseas purchases—I had a very irate letter from a constituent recently about the decision of London Transport to go to Saab of Sweden to buy buses for our service because British Leyland was unable to provide such buses and, what is more, was unable to provide an effective programme of spare parts to keep those buses running.

On the question of overseas use of buses, I am aware that there is a large fleet of British Leyland buses and I was very distressed to learn that these are to be replaced in the near future by a fleet of Saab buses for the same reason—not because London Transport has not the expertise to run its own services but because the British vehicle industry is apparently unable to compete, either in this country or overseas, in this provision.

It is very important that we pay regard to the development of a sturdy, reliable bus which London Transport happily provided to the extent mentioned by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) whereby second-hand buses originally made in this country are still providing effective service overseas. That is a great tribute to the design and development which London Transport initiated. Unfortunately, because of the changes in the powers of London Transport, much of the opportunity to continue with this development has been lost. It needs to be restored.

For example, London Transport has been carrying out some very effective experiments with a new minibus service. The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) will have had the benefit of a new service being introduced in his constituency to carry small numbers of passengers on rather unusual routes to get them across boroughs. This has been a most welcome experiment but, sad to say, the buses on that service have been extremely inefficient. Many of them break down and they can often be seen standing by the roadside along the route because, first, spare parts are not available, and secondly, and far more important, the buses have had to be bought "off the peg", as we have been told, and are not of the high standard and specification that London Transport itself would have desired.

Mr. John Page

Will the hon. Lady say why the buses had to be bought off the peg?

Mrs. Miller

I should willingly do so, but my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South has adequately described the situation. I refer the hon. Gentleman to tomorow's Hansard, where he will be able to read the history of the development.

It is a great pity that once again we are dealing with such matters as this in terms of public versus private enterprise. Private enterprise has admitted that it is unable to provide the service. Public enterprise has the expertise. Together they might be able to provide a worthwhile service for Londoners and people overseas, which will not only provide additional employment in a sector in which it is declining rapidly in other areas but be a valuable additional export market for this country which it badly needs.

The hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) said that the problem would be solved in a few years and, therefore, we need not take the measures proposed in the Bill. I hope that he will tell his constituents who wait hours for buses which do not come "We cannot accept these proposals, which will enable London Transport to do something about the situation, but if you wait all will be well within a few years". Now we have the chance to do something to help a failing industry in the private sector by giving it the expertise which is available to it from London Transport.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. John H. Osborn (Sheffield, Hallam)

The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) gave a very interesting introduction to the Bill. I speak not as a Member representing a London constituency but as someone who has occasion to live in London and has to pay rates, which hit anyone who lives in London.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) and I were involved in the passing of the Transport Act 1968, and the powers given to the passenger transport authorities were the subject of much debate at the time. Section 10(xix) provides for the purposes of the business of the Executive, to form, promote and assist, or join with any other person in forming, promoting and assisting, a company for carrying cm any activities which the Executive have power to carry on … Similar words appear in the Bill. If local authorities and passenger transport authorities have power to manufacture, what are the consequences?

I said that I spoke as a ratepayer in London, but in adidtion it is seven years since the passing of that Act. I have had the privilege of visiting many London Transport establishments, including the Aldenham bus depot. I was fascinated by the management structure there. The way in which the depot was operated gave rise to considerable discussion.

I am concerned about the giving of powers which may not be exercised with commercial prudence, thus adding to the burdens of the ratepayers of London and elsewhere.

The hon. Member for Newham, South deployed the interesting history of the RM bus and the RT bus. He said that British Leyland was unable to provide suitable buses and he referred to Saab and Scania. It has been suggested that London Transport and British Leyland might get together to produce buses which are suitable for London Transport. I am not certain whether between the two there is a love—hate relationship or a love relationship. British Leyland has not been able to provide suitable buses. Should London Transport take on this activity and supply buses to others?

I did my apprenticeship in the engineering industry. An engineering company requires castings and forgings. The management of an engineering company, because it cannot get an adequate supply of castings from outside, may decide to run a foundry. That kind of decision might be of advantage to London Transport as a business operation because there is co-operation on design and joint production control. One disadvantage in the case of engineering is that if the castings fall below standard the engineering firm may have authority to go to a competitive supplier. In this example, the engineering group has to decide what to do if the foundry is unable to meet demands on its capacity. The problem arises in the case of the bus service if private industry is unable to provide the components. If in an engineering firm the foundry or forge does not come up to requirements, the management can close it and rely on outside suppliers. The Greater London Council would never get away with doing that, and the cost of a failure to make that type of decision would fall on the ratepayer.

The GLC is asking for greater manufacturing powers. Factories in Japan have a philosophy of letting out as much as possible to sub-contract and developing the management expertise that makes that possible. The management of a large engineering group has to decide what is to be made within the group and what is to be purchased from outside. The greatest skill in an assembly unit or engineering group is the skill of the purchaser and his skill in maintaining good contact and continuity with the supplier. The worst body for doing that is a bureaucratic body. A public body may not be a good purchaser, there may be a failure in supplies, and a public body is not the best body to take on a factory to produce something which it does not know how to purchase from outside.

One of the reasons for State manufacture, whether in British Rail or British Steel, is to bring about rationalisation and a reduction in the number of factories. I am not certain whether the powers which are being sought by the GLC would achieve a national policy. The Government should rather be encouraging one or two suppliers to supply all the passenger transport authorities, including the GLC, with their bus requirements.

For far too long we have been entangled in a national and regional bureaucratic, mixed economy. One bureaucratic body—it could be the GLC in this case—has perhaps found it difficult to be commercial in its approach and to balance spare capacity on the one hand with shortages on the other. That is a challenge for a private enterprise, flexible company. It is also a challenge for a local authority which is ill equipped to provide the balance and flexibility that is required.

It is suggested that London Transport—I do not deny this—has developed an expertise that is the envy of the world and which can be sold to the world. Perhaps the tragedy of that development is that the expertise has grown within London Transport and has not been developed by the suppliers of buses and other equipment to London Transport.

The guaranteeing of supplies is a problem that is facing every sector of private enterprise. At a time of full employment such as we have had during the past two or three years, and at any other time, it is inevitable that supply will fall out of balance with requirement unless a reasonable economic and commercial criterion is achieved. That situation has hit the poor man in the street trying to get a bus ride home in the evening in the London area.

I must accept that it is reasonable that London Transport should have similar powers to the National Bus Company or the powers of other transport authori ties. It could well be that the result of the 1968 Act has been to give passenger transport authorities powers that are too wide-ranging and powers that have stopped them becoming good purchasers. I should like to see the development of a national policy so that if outside suppliers let London Transport down they could be strengthened. I should like to see a joint venture so that the suppliers could provide London Transport with what it needs.

I have been to Paris and to Brussels and I have seen their local transport facilities. I would welcome the authorities in Brussels and Paris having the chance to buy British. In a jam I would welcome the GLC having a chance of buying overseas so that there could be competition in supplying its needs. If the Bill is passed as it stands, it could well turn out to be a millstone around the neck of an already pressed ratepayer and taxpayer. That could be the result if these powers are not managed properly. In terms of economic assessment and in terms of management audit, this could be a costly exercise.

I welcome the Minister's suggestion that powers to allow London Transport to operate as a company should be brought into the Bill. But that does not go far enough. We are saddled today with criticism of private enterprise. We are already too much entangled in a mixed economy at national and regional levels. This is one more example of public ownership of the means of manufacture, distribution and exchange but at regional rather than national level. It is one more example of Bennery that has been forced upon us because of a series of measures which the present Socialist Government have passed to make our economy more mixed. When we debate the problems of the GLC, it seems to be a solution to the Labour-controlled GLC and to Labour Members that we must have more State control to provide for the shortcomings that have been found.

I have been a Member of the House for 15 years and I have been involved in these matters for 25 years. We have heard mention of Dubrovnik, and I was in Belgrade only a few years ago. I also know Moscow. As we move into a state of more and more bureaucratic stagnation, it could well be that the passage of the Bill will result not in a Utopia for the passengers of London but a slide into greater and greater stagnation. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate will examine the Bill and ensure that we do not get into a state of even more stagnation in the supply of equipment. By all means let us have competition. Let us persuade the passenger transport authorities and the GLC to look outwards and to be better purchasers from the private sectors of Britain and Europe. Let us try to get out of our difficulties in that way. Let us not denigrate private enterprise. It is short of money and going through a difficult time. I hope that these points will be considered.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Bryan Davies (Enfield, North)

First I have an interest to declare which is probably not unique among my right hon. and hon. Friends but which would be among Conservative Members, and it is that I travel on buses. That gives me an insight into the problems of London's transport which is denied Conservative Members. The bus queue is an important social institution which recently has shown degrees of civil violence rather than aspects of communality. The problem is that in recent years the reliability of London's buses, which used to be a byword, has deteriorated so that passengers have lost faith in the arrival of their buses.

For a time the trouble arose because of staff shortages and inadequate pay levels for London Transport staff. However, people have begun to realise that there is now a major difficulty in the supply and maintenance of buses. The Opposition have put forward a poverty of argument on the Bill. They have engaged in a certain amount of party sloganising about "Bennery" and the idea that somehow London Transport Executive are like Soviet commissars. Their arguments stem not only from a lack of understanding of the Bill but from a lack of contact with the problems of our cities. The Bill drives home the point that commercial criteria cannot provide the necessary resources for maintaining the social fabric of a city where this is dependent upon the reliability of its transport. We have had to learn this lesson on housing, a whole range of social services and sewerage.

To say that commercial supplies represent the weakest aspect of London Transport is not to criticise suppliers such as British Leyland, or to suggest that British Leyland has no eye to a commercial market. The requirements of London Transport represent a very small proportion of British Leyland's orders and it is natural that British Leyland should concentrate its efforts on trucks and supplies overseas which make more commercial sense. However, it is the people who live in London who have to bear the burden of an unreliable bus service. The Bill does not spring from dogma or from the desire to extend public enterprise for its own sake. It arises because of the desire to extend public enterprise to come up with an answer to the problem.

London Transport plays a crucial social rôle. If roads are some of the arteries of our city the buses are the red corpuscles which make possible the healthy functioning of the body of London. Circumstances will make us increasingly dependent on public transport. Demands for fuel economy, pressures for road space and the enormous costs of the motor car, not merely in terms of its consumption of fuel, will lead inevitably and ultimately to dependence upon the bus and other forms of public transport if we are to maintain the social life of our cities.

In Los Angeles and New York commercial criteria have been predominant in the operation of public transport, and the needs of the people have not been met. London would be a much poorer place if we adopted some of the attitudes expressed by Conservative Members who say we should cut down London Transport and adopt commercial criteria more widely, and that we should refuse to provide facilities which would guarantee a reliable service.

In the context of the speeches a clear realisation has been established that London Transport has the resources, in terms of expertise and physical resources, with which to carry out its intentions and wishes under the provisions of the Bill. We have also heard of the enormous research potential and the consultancy possibilities, which represent a gain to this country.

Within that framework we support the Bill on the basis that we shall safeguard the basic interests of London Transport in the reliability and provision of buses. Public transport can develop in a city only on the basis of the reliability of the arrival of buses. Anything which increases the reliability of London Transport will win the approval of vast numbers of Londoners who use the buses daily, especially since the population of London is likely to increase if we make the correct social provision. On that basis I support the Bill.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. John Hunt (Ravensbourne)

During the life of the previous Government the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and I served in Committee on the Water Bill, of blessed memory. Therefore at that time I came to know the hon. Gentleman's very persuasive, if somewhat long-winded, oratorical powers. Therefore, I begin by adding my own tributes to those already paid to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he opened the debate.

I should like to compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) on his speech from the Opposition Front Bench. I understand that while he was addressing the House he became Conservative Chief Whip for the Greater London area. Therefore I congratulate him both upon his speech and upon his appointment, and I am pleased to take this early opportunity of establishing myself firmly in his good books.

The Opposition came to the debate with some apprehension regarding the powers contained in the Bill. As the debate has proceeded our fears have not been allayed. We have been left in considerable doubt why these powers are requested, what is to be done with them and how they are to be financed.

The powers proposed in the Bill will enable the London Transport Executive to manufacture, repair and supply to outside persons anything connected with its operations. Those are sweeping powers and go much further than those contained in the Transport (London) Act 1969.

Why is London Transport not content with its present powers? Much of the criticism made by the hon. Member for Newham, South, and many of his scathing remarks about the quality of spare parts and servicing, could be dealt with under the existing legislation. We are entitled to know why these additional powers are required.

Clause 2 refers to "construct and produce", "exchange", and "supply by sale"—in other words, the means of production, distribution and exchange, words which have a familiar ring.

Mr. Spearing

I fear that I did not make the point very clearly in presenting the case for the Bill. However, the hon. Gentleman has put his finger on it. As, regards manufacture, one of my arguments was that it was impossible for London Transport to go into partnership with others with manufacturing capacity and that one of the major reasons for asking for these powers was to enable it to do so. If I catch the eye of Mr. Deputy Speaker again later, I shall develop that a little further.

Mr. Hunt

I am grateful for that intervention, and I shall listen with interest to the further explanation which the hon. Gentleman has promised us.

In this interesting speech, the Minister referred to the involvement of London Transport in catering and its desire to make its services more widely available. That would seem to be an example of London Transport dabbling in matters which are emphatically not its concern, although I am tempted to suggest that it might take over the catering services of the Palace of Westminster. It could do hardly worse than our present Kitchen Committee.

We are assured in a memorandum from the promoters that London Transport has no wish or intention to go into manufacturing in order to compete with anyone. But I submit that whether or not that is its wish or intention, it will be the inevitable effect of what is proposed.

The hon. Member for Newham, South spoke about undercutting and said that this was safeguarded under existing legislation. However, it was significant that, in reply to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), the hon. Gentleman was unable to give any specific undertaking on behalf of the promoters. Perhaps he will do so in his later remarks. I was encouraged to hear the Ministerial intervention and the recommendation of the Government in that respect. This requirement which we would like to see for London Transport to act commercially in its manufacturing activities goes to the very heart of the Opposition's fears and objections.

If, as we are told, London Transport needs the powers to enter into associations, as necessary, with major United Kingdom statutory operators and others to secure on a long-term basis the supply of equipment and essential goods and services on the most economical basis possible in this new manufacturing environment, I say, well and good. But if that is so, why are the powers so wide and sweeping?

I echo one or two comments already made by Opposition Members. I sense a political element in this proposed legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Southgate rightly reminded us of the history of the Committee stage of the 1969 Act when there was substantial pre-sure from a group of Government supporters to do precisely what London Transport is proposing now. Therefore, this measure is, in a way, a reflection of the pressure which has been maintained over a substantial period by the more Left-wing Members of this House and others of similar persuasion at County Hall. It is not surprising that many of us see the measure as the thin end of the wedge, or perhaps the thin end of a Wedgie.

We are told that London Transport has to employ expert staff for research and that it would like the opportunity to export this know-how on a consultancy basis. In a memorandum submitted on behalf of the promotors of the Bill we are told that because of its long experience as a pioneer in a number of transport systems, London Transport has know-how which is in demand by United Kingdom and overseas operators who sustain London Transport's consultancy business which is currently confined to providing advice. I accept that. If the Bill is limited to that specific objective there would certainly be no quarrel from Conservative Members. It is because the Bill is so widely drawn that we object so much to it.

Instead of involving itself, as it now wants to do, in a wider degree of manufacture, repair and supply of vehicles, London Transport should be more pro- their reasons. I accept that, besides trying perly and usefully involved with other matters such as staff shortage. I have long felt that London Transport has missed many opportunities to provide living accommodation for its staff, possibly over station premises. I am sure that more could be done here. Equally, the provision of car parks for commuters is something which it has been slow to develop. These are all ways in which we can show that London Transport has its priorities wrong. It should be tackling these problems instead of entering into spheres which are none of its busines.

The Bill has to be seen against the background of the actions of the Government, who by harsh and penal taxation, by the threat of more and more State control and interference, have placed British industry in dire straits leading to a grave lack of cash and confidence. The Bill, therefore, represents yet another encroachment upon the réle of private enterprise. For that reason it should be resisted and, I hope rejected.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. Ted Graham (Edmonton)

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. It is not without significance that the hon. Members for Southgate (Mr. Berry) and Enfield, North (Mr. Davies) and myself—all within the borough of Enfield—have been able to take part.

I speak with the knowledge of a commuter. I am a daily user of public transport and travel from Bush Hill to Seven Sisters and then to Victoria. I am not unfamiliar with the problems, stresses and strains which are placed not only upon the travelling public but upon the servants of London Transport and British Rail. Without exception, hon. Members have expressed their understanding of these stresses and strains.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) laid great stress upon what the promoters of the Bill hope it will achieve—greater efficiency, profitability, safety and reliability in the operation of London Transport.

I welcome the extension of municipal enterprise. I do not burke the issue. In 1968 there were people in power able to provide the powers proposed in the Bill but they decided not to do so. I believe that politics was not far removed from their reasons. I accept that, besides trying to correct the wrongs in the system, one of the reasons why a great many Labour Members favour this extension is that it would be compatible with efficiency to extend the boundaries of public enterprise. It is sound business practice not only to develop and expand horizontally but to do so vertically. The Bill gives us an opportunity to use the capital and expertise which has already been used to service the fleets of London Transport and possibly to enable London Transport to compete with other undertakings. For the life of me, I cannot see why Opposition Members are so concerned not only to restrict London Transport but to protect private enterprise from competition.

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane), with a great deal of wringing of the hands, said that retailing and wholesaling organisations had expressed great anxiety about the competition that would result from the Bill. The purpose of this House in this context is not to protect retailing and wholesaling organisations from another source of competition. If the people to whom they supply goods have the opportunity of obtaining them from London Transport because of competition, that is fair and proper.

Conservative Members believe that one motivation for the Bill is that London Transport is jealous of some of the powers enjoyed by nationalised industries. I see nothing wrong—indeed, I see a great deal that is laudable—in London Transport wishing to extend to itself the opportunities to be more efficient and reliable in its efforts to serve the public in a better way. I appreciate that time is short. I certainly believe that it is proper for London Transport to seek these powers. I support the Bill.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg (Hampstead)

rose—

Mr. John Page

rose—

Mr. Finsberg

I am prepared to give a minute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page).

9.27 p.m.

Mr. John Page (Harrow, West)

I am extremely grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) for this courtesy.

I must declare an interest in two ways. First, I am a director of a company which supplies goods to the heavy transport industry. Secondly, were it not for the graceful agility of my mother, I would have been born on a No. 88 bus at Lancaster Gate. Eight minutes after she dropped off, I appeared, smiling and dynamic, on a welcoming world.

This is a sad moment because many of us who have had a pre-natal interest in London Transport realise its expertise in the design of buses. Were it not for two matters I would support the Bill. The first is that the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), the Kung Fu of the then Ministry of Transport, twisted the arms and put her foot on the jugular vein of London Transport and said that if it did not buy "off the peg" buses it could not have a grant. Because of that, the old-time relationship between AEC and London Transport expired and Londoners have had to use buses quite unsuited to and improperly designed for London roads. It is the fault of the right hon. Member for Blackburn, nobody else.

The second is that the Industry Bill, introduced by the Secretary of State for Industry, has so offended ordinary manufacturers and the political world that it would be impossible for us to hand on a plate, on our knees, the key which the Bill provides for total manufacturing rights over a wide range of activities.

That is why, with sadness because of the expertise and knowledge in the London Transport design centre. I shall have to vote against the Bill.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg (Hampstead)

How could I have deprived the House of that contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page)? We shall have to look very carefully to see where omnibuses are going when carrying expectant mothers in future. It may make a lot of difference to a football or cricket team.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) on his new appointment. I thought that he finished his utterances in this House in a superb fashion. My hon. Friend now enters a period of Trappist silence in his new appointment. We shall miss him very much indeed.

This has been an interesting debate. One or two points of dispute still remain between the parties. The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) appeared to support the Bill because it would provide more buses for Londoners. The hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Davies) should not be so arrogant as to say that it is only Labour Members who travel by public transport. Two of the richest people in the House are members of the present Cabinet. We do not have that kind of wealth on this side of the House.

Even if every bus which could be produced were on the roads, we have had admissions from London Transport chairmen past and present that they do not have the staff to drive them. So there is no purpose in saying that had these powers been available in the 1969 Act, London Transport could have done any more than it has to overcome the bus shortage. If London Transport had decided to manufacture and to put its capital—that is, ratepayers' cash—into buses, those buses would have been eating their heads off in the garages and not earning their corn. That would not have been sensible.

The Minister was very helpful and gave a welcome assurance about the Government's attitude. He said that London Transport was looking for better ways to use its resources. I should have thought that everyone who stands in a bus queue waiting for a convoy of No. 11 buses to arrive would believe that London Transport had enough to do supplying viable bus and tube services before going into all these outside ventures.

I do not believe that it is London Transport's job to offer catering, for instance, to outside firms. I should have thought that it would be possible, if the matter were properly worked out, to get many outside caterers to do London Transport catering. That does not come within the Bill but its power to compete with private enterprise catering does.

The Minister then said that London Transport had, through its sponsor, said that there was no immediate intention to use these powers to enter into manufacturing. That is said in some of the documents that we have had from the spon sors. But if we pass the Bill, tomorrow it can decide to implement it. It is the words of the Act of Parliament which have to be construed, not the assurances, however well-intentioned, of the Minister, which will count in the end. The Minister talked of these arrangements being entered into on a mutual basis. I wonder whether it will be the same sort of mutual basis as the voluntary planning agreements that we are promised under the Industry Bill.

We all welcome the Minister's recommendation to London Transport that it should seek to amend the Bill should it be given a Second Reading so as to accept commercial responsibility for that clause. It is a pity that that provision was not in the Bill as it was presented to us.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) in a carefully reasoned case, pointed the concern of many industries at the effect of the Bill. It is right to say that such diverse bodies as those manufacturing building materials and those engaged in catering are worried about the all-embracing powers that the Bill could give London Transport.

The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) talked about competition. Let the House be quite clear: no one on this side is afraid of competition. What we are afraid of is unfair competition in which the hidden overheads of State industries are never costed in and we never know the true rate of return on their capital. That is unfair competition and it is that sort of competition to which the Bill could give rise.

The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mrs. Miller) spoke about the bus route that she and I know—the C11. I doubt whether there are many opportunities for mass manufacture of that sort of bus. I should not have thought that London Transport would be well advised to enter into a large building contract for them.

The hon. Lady went on to talk about her recent visit to Lisbon and to comment on the view of the Lisbon authorities who are worried because they cannot get new British buses. I am sure that she knows that constant complaint of all manufacturers of British buses is that it is the industrial disputes that they have had which have caused their foreign buyers to put no reliance on delivery dates.

The hon. Lady is not the only person who has been to Lisbon or to Stockholm, where I have had conversations with Saab-Scandia. They glory every time there is an industrial dispute in British Leyland, because it gives them the opportunity of getting more of our orders.

I come to some of the provisions of the Bill. Suddenly, London Transport believes that it is expedient that further powers of manufacture should be conferred on it. Why? Many of my hon. Friends have asked why. It appears to be because London Transport wishes to get into the same league as all the other members of the nationalised industries. Indeed, that is in the submission that has been sent to us from 55 Broadway—why, we are asked, should London Transport alone not have powers to supply outside bodies. Just because other nationalised industries have these powers, we see no reason why London Transport, until it is doing a proper job, should be in a position to expand services and divert scarce resources.

I have already mentioned competition. Clause 3(1)(b) refers to supplying outside persons in the course of any activity for the time being carried on by the Executive. This presumably, could mean that London Transport could manufacture uniforms for sale to other people—that is, if, in the course of its duty, it is providing uniforms for its staff. It might hold out a case for selling uniforms outside.

I do not believe that London Transport has made out its case at all. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate pointed out, the 1968 Act gave powers to London Transport to do certain things. The 1969 Act specifically recreated London Transport. Although there was a Conservative GLC, there were in power in this House a Labour Government, with a far more tenable majority than that of the present Government. Yet that Government were not prepared to put those powers back, because they realised that London Transport was not capable of doing the sort of work that it wants to undertake.

London Transport must get this right. It certainly is in a position to capitalise upon its know-how. No one on the Opposition benches has denied that it has expertise. It goes abroad and gets substantial fees for advising authorities all over the world how to run a very good bus service. It is perhaps true that it cannot run a good bus service itself, but others are prepared to pay for its advice, which is good in other parts of the world.

Mr. Ronald Brown (Hackney, South and Shoreditch)

I cannot agree with many of the hon. Gentleman's points. What he has said is a little unfair. He knows quite well that the reason for the poor bus service in London has nothing to do with the inefficiency of the service itself. It is due to a whole range of other problems which his Government encouraged at the time, and they stopped the buses from running.

Mr. Finsberg

The hon. Gentleman would have heard that said three or four times if we had had the pleasure of his company very much earlier in the debate.

Mr. Brown

It is still true.

Mr. Finsberg

However, the hon. Gentleman managed to defeat the Department of Industry over IDCs in London and we are grateful for the way he twisted the Minister's arm on that matter.

London Transport has know-how. If that is what London Transport wants to sell in co-operation with private enterprise, that is what should have appeared in the Bill—not blanket powers for utter and complete nationalisation.

Let me quote from a document which many of us received on 14th February from the Parliamentary and Legal Council of the Motor Industry. The Parliamentary and Legal Council of the Motor Industry, representing the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the Motor Agents' Association, the Scottish Motor Trade Association, the Institute of British Carriage and Automobile Manufacturers, and the Motor Cycle Association of Great Britain, is gravely concerned at the extension of powers being sought by the London Transport Executive in this Bill … At a time when the motor industry both worldwide and nationally has spare production capacity, it is seen as counter-productive and financially irresponsible for a nationalised industry to propose embarking on a plan to extend its manufacturing powers in this way. That was 14th February. But what has happened since? Suddenly on 26th February, there was a further letter from the Parliamentary and Legal Council of the Motor Industry, which said: As I explained to you on the telephone yesterday, at the time when the note which you received from us through Commander Powell was prepared, we understood that the views expressed in it were those held by all the SMMT members who were most affected by the Bill. However, we are now advised that British Leyland do not oppose it. Why does not British Leyland still opposite it? We are entitled to ask and look behind the scenes. There are three possible scenarios. One is that the presence of the Ryder investigatory team may have put into the British Leyland management the fear that the coffers of Her Majesty's Government will not be opened to any opponent of State enterprise. Or perhaps pressure from Ministers to the same effect was applied. Or perhaps, thirdly, this is another example of the jellyfish attitude of British Leyland when it is called upon to defend private enterprise and when it is asked to manage its own affairs properly on the shop floor.

This is a matter of principle, and British Leyland cannot have it both ways. One either believes, or does not believe, in nationalisation. The Opposition do not believe in nationalisation. We do not believe that State enterprises should compete unfairly with private enterprise. I hear mention of Rolls-Royce. That was a foolish contract entered into by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Industry on the RB-211 which nearly bankrupted Rolls-Royce. We remember many other enterprises with which the right hon. Gentleman claimed to be connected. The fact is that it is wrong, and one cannot call it fair competition, that private enterprise which pays taxes has to compete and pay taxes to subsidise nationalised industries which make a loss. That is another reason why we are not prepared to let the Bill go through tonight.

Reference has been made to the Secretary of State for Industry. It would be unfair not to make further reference to him, but I shall go back a little further, to the Labour Party conference in Brighton on 6th October 1971.

Mr. James Wellbeloved (Erith and Crayford)

A very good conference.

Mr. Finsberg

I accept that from an expert. The right hon. Gentleman said: We want industry to be in the public sector to change the power structure of our society. That may or may not be apposite to the Industry Bill and the National Enterprise Board. It is certainly not apposite to the mandarins at 55 Broadway. They should be concerned with one thing and one thing only, and that is satisfying the demands of the travelling public in London who feel badly let down by London Transport.

As has been said on more than one occasion, this is in no way a criticism of the overworked staff of London Transport. It is a criticism of a management which, without having completed its task, wishes to turn to other fields of endeavour which will bring no direct benefit to the travelling public of London. London Transport should stick to its last. I repeat that its commuters are far from satisfied with its progress. London Transport ought to get its own house in order before trying to get into someone else's house.

I welcome the Minister's statement that the Government will expect London Transport to insert the commercial clause into the Bill, but in spite of that I do not believe it would be right for the House to give a Second Reading to the Bill and I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in throwing it out.

9.44 p.m.

Mr. Spearing

I hope that I may have the leave of the House to reply to the debate. We have had our differences, but this has been a most interesting debate and I thank the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) for his appreciation of some of the points I made.

I, too, had some contact with Sir Richard Way. I do not think we agreed on the majority of occasions on which we met, but we met and corresponded and he said that he would do all he could in the way he thought proper to get London Transport on to a good working basis. Therefore, I join the hon. Member for Southgate in that respect.

The hon Gentleman gave us a legal historical outline, which I think complemented mine and which was a little more practical in approach, and led us into a consideration of the 1969 Act. It is true that the then Labour Minister did not give London Transport the kind of power for which we are asking now. The hon. Gentleman implied that that was London Transport's free choice and that it was something it did not wish to have. We were not told what were the views of his friends on the other side of the river at that time.

It was suggested that Sir Desmond Plummer set the scenario at the time I suggest that the situation was a little different from the fact that the then Government were asking a reluctant Greater London Council to take on board a local enterprise, such as London Transport, which it did not wish to have. My understanding is that the resistance of the Minister had rather more to do with the susceptibilities of Sir Desmond Plummer because the manufacturing facilities of London Transport would have been anathema to the then administration at County Hall. I can understand that a Minister, acting on the view that politics is the art of the possible, would not wish to thrust such a measure on to a reluctant GLC. That is a much more likely explanation of the anomaly.

Mr. Ronald Brown

Does not my hon. Friend realise that at that time Sir Desmond Plummer did not wish to take over London Transport, even though this House was urging him to do so? Indeed, when he got it he tried to cripple it by introducing a provision that it should strive for profitability in each financial year. That made it impossible to run anything better than the sort of service about which the Opposition are now complaining.

Mr. Spearing

There were many considerations involved at the time, but it is news to me that Sir Desmond did not wish to take on London Transport, despite the statutory legal obligations on the GLC at that time in terms of the strategic plan.

I should like to reply to the points made in the debate. The Opposition implied that this was a provision the effects of which would be massive. I do not think that is true. I have already said that there is at present workshop capacity within London Transport. To take an example which is relevant in this context, at the Park Royal coach works, adjacent to my old constituency of Acton, 60 per cent. of capacity goes to London Transport. If the Bill is passed, an arrangement could be made for the use of those facilities on a joint basis with British Leyland—on the same sort of basis as the Conservatives appear to be happy to allow nationally. The Green Line buses which run to Parliament Square, and parts of the London Country Bus Services are serviced by London Transport. Therefore, when we look at the practicalities of the matter, the political theology is less relevant. I shall return to that matter a little later in my reply. The fact that this partnership has been prevented by the present legislation is at the heart of the need for the increased powers which are sought.

The question has been asked whether the promoters will accept the concept of acting commercially. I am glad to say that that is certainly so. Had I been approached on this matter earlier as a promoter of the Bill, I would have made inquiries. I would have been willing to accept similar wording to that in the existing Act and to apply it to the new legislation in accordance with the Minister's request—wording similar to or identical with the wording in Section 134 of the 1968 Act. That task can be undertaken in Committee, and I hope that the Opposition will bear that conclusion in mind when they take their decision a little later.

I was asked about the length of life of buses. It is true that the RM has a design life of about 15 years, but we must remember that the RT had a design life of 15 years too. Some of those vehicles are running well after 20 years. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) mentioned the ex-London Transport buses which he had seen operating efficiently in Dubrovnik. Therefore, the long life of London buses has been proved throughout the world.

It would be a pity if bus spares or new designs could not be obtained. If we cannot get spares at home, how will users abroad be able to obtain them? That is not a failure of London Transport. That failure lies elsewhere, and it began long before Sir Don Ryder appeared on the scene. We cannot blame public enterprise or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry for lack of spares abroad. London Transport has an overseas advice service. It cannot manufacture abroad or license a company for manufacture, construction or assembly. At present it can provide the advice and know-how, but it cannot enter into a commercial arrangement on production. With the Bill, it could.

I enjoyed the lucid speech of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane), who went on about the ratepayers. He seemed to suggest that there would be no scrutiny of how the powers were used. The scrutiny would be not with the House but with the GLC, under whatever political colours it happened to be running at the time. The hon. Gentleman's friends, whether in a majority or a minority, would scrutinise the use of the powers in the Bill.

Hon. Members asked where the money was coming from. Any money raised is possibly a responsibility of the taxpayers. But I have explained that in at least one case it could come in kind from existing plant. There need be no large amount of capital involved, or no capital at all, if existing plant such as that of Park Royal is used in a joint effort funded by London Transport and British Leyland. I am told by the promoters that they would wish to borrow the money in the normal manner, under scrutiny from the GLC, which would have to debate the matter and be satisfied that the money raised would be properly spent and that the interest on it could be paid. Therefore, although there may be some risk, it would be up to the GLC to judge.

Mr. Macfarlane

That is why we are seeking to curb the Bill. We are not anxious that the GLC, controlled by a Labour administration, should have wider powers for the purposes to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. John Page

rose—

Mr. Spearing

I do not have time to give way again.

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam is entitled to his views, but he is showing a disregard of the qualities of his friends on the GLC and their ability to judge whether a scheme would put ratepayers' money at risk. I do not think that it would necessarily do so. Indeed, I believe that the interest on the capital would perhaps work in the opposite way. But it would be up to the hon. Gentle man's friends to scrutinise the matter properly.

I am in favour of greater scrutiny of what I think the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) called the mandarins of London Transport. Great concern for the ratepayers has been expressed, but not much concern is expressed by hon. Members or members of the GLC about the efficacy and efficiency of London Transport. It is doing a difficult job in difficult circumstances, and by and large is doing it quite well. But many of my colleagues in London Transport have given examples of ways in which economies could be made and services could be provided with less money. Often, these suggestions are not taken up. If Opposition Members are concerned about ratepayers' money subsidising London Transport, let them look to the practicalities, and not so much to the theology.

I had a request to have regard to good suppliers and good purchasers. The problem is that London Transport wishes to be a good purchaser, but, for reasons which I have outlined, it has not been able to be one. The goods and machines it wishes to purchase apparently have not been available. That is the point which Opposition Members seem to have forgotten. The matter has not suddenly arisen since Sir Don Ryder and BLMC appeared in a difficult light. It has been going on for many years.

The Parliamentary and Legal Council of the Motor Industry has not had the courtesy to send me a copy of the document which the hon. Member for Hampstead mentioned. Perhaps it did not know that I was involved in the matter. That is up to that body.

I would have thought that there would be ample opportunity for bus exports and bus manufacture in this country. The tragedy is that for reasons at which I can only hazard, those in charge of BLMC do not seem to have ploughed this furrow at all well. It is a very specialised field but one in which Britain has so far excelled and at which perhaps we are not excelling as well as we once did.

Mr. John Page

Could the hon. Gentleman say, first of all, who owns Park Royal Motors? Secondly, as I said in my speech, it was the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) who was then Minister of Transport who refused to allow the grant unless "off the peg" buses were used. She is the source of our troubles, and nobody else.

Mr. Spearing

Had the hon. Gentleman been present at the beginning of my speech he would have heard my reference to that point. On his question on Park Royal Motors, I understand that it is a subsidiary of the British Motor Corporation but it is not far from the works of London Transport.

The hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) mentioned catering and suggested that that was not a fit matter for London Transport. He forgets that, unlike this House, London Transport catering has to operate uncommercially over very long hours, sometimes for very few people. That is one of the things that London Transport has to do to keep a good staff and to be a good employer.

My bus friends tell me that "P and T" is one of the most important things in their job and it is something which London Transport must provide. Why have a large kitchen at a bus depot which is empty, and only partly used for a very long time during the day, and an ILEA school or perhaps some other institution close at hand where facilities are duplicated? This is only a proper use of public facilities. There could be some interchange arrangements between these bodies who, after all, are supplying the community with food and supplying the other institutions of which we are all in need.

The hon. Member for Hampstead said that London Transport should concentrate on providing a good service and that it was not shortage of buses which

was causing some of the problems. I am afraid he is wrong. Had he talked to some of the bus drivers in his constituency he would have found that this is not true. One of the things which has caused them the greatest anger in the last few years has been seeing thousands of people waiting in the streets for buses when there are no buses to drive. This was true to a certain extent even at the time of the greatest staff shortage.

Mr. Macfarlane

To a certain extent.

Mr. Spearing

Subsequently it has been even more true as, fortunately, greater numbers of staff are available. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the policy of the GLC. It was his party that was advocating a great construction of ringways in this country which would have meant that we would have had large numbers of cars and further difficulties for public transport.

I conclude by requesting hon. Gentlemen opposite, in particular—indeed, all hon. Members—not to be so concerned with political theology. I believe that many people want to do a good job and want to be part of a good organisation. I believe that potentially London Transport is a very fine organisation—if it is given adequate powers to do its job. With proper scrutiny from the GLC, with people on either side looking at this once-great organisation, it can once again become the lifeblood of London that it was in the 1930s. I am sure we all agree on that. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will allow them to do it.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 122, Noes 104.

Division No. 115.]	AYES	[9.59 p.m.
Anderson, Donald	Coleman, Donald	Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Armstrong, Ernest	Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen	Flannery, Martin
Atkinson, Norman	Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)	Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Cox, Thomas (Tooting)	Fraser John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Bean, R. E.	Cryer, Bob	George, Bruce
Bonn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood	Cunningham, Dr J. (Witeh)	Gilbert Dr John
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Dalyell, Tam	Graham, Ted
Boothroyd, Miss Betty	Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)	Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Deakins, Eric	Hamling, William
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)	Dell, Rt Hon Edmund	Harper, Joseph
Buchan, Norman	Dempsey, James	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Buchanan, Richard	Dormand, J. D.	Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)	Douglas-Mann, Bruce	Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)	Duffy, A. E. P.	Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Campbell, Ian	Dunn, James A.	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Carmichael, Neil	Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Cartwright, John	Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)	Jackson Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)	English, Michael	Janner, Greville
Cohen, Stanley	Evans, John (Newton)	Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Ovenden, John	Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
John Brynmor	Owen, Dr David	Stoddart, David
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Palmer, Arthur	Strang, Gavin
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)	Parker, John	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Kelley Richard	Pavitt, Laurie	Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Kerr, Russell	Peart, Rt Hon Fred	Tinn, James
Lamond, James	Pendry, Tom	Torney, Tom
Leadbitter, Ted	Penhaligon, David	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)	Prentice, Rt Hon Reg	Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Luard, Evan	Price, C. (Lewisham W)	Ward, Michael
McElhone, Frank	Roderick, Caerwyn	Watkins, David
Mackenzie, Gregor	Rodgers, William (Stockton)	Watkinson, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)	Roper, John	Wellbeloved, James
Madden, Max	Ryman, John	White, Frank R. (Bury)
Marks, Kenneth	Sandelson, Neville	White, James (Pollok)
Marquand, David	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)	Whitehead, Phillip
Mason, Rt Hon Roy	Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert	Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Mikardo, Ian	Skinner, Dennis	Young, David (Bolton E)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)	Small, William
Molloy, William	Spearing, Nigel	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Newens, Stanley	Spriggs, Leslie	Mr. George Cunningham and
O'Halloran, Michael	Stallard, A. W.	Mr. Ernest G. Perry.
NOES
Adley, Robert	Higgins, Terence L.	Raison, Timothy
Alison, Michael	Howe Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Rathbone, Tim
Baker, Kenneth	Hurd, Douglas	Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Berry, Hon Anthony	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Blaker, Peter	Jenkin, Rt Hon p. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Bradford, Rev Robert	Jessel, Toby	Sainsbury, Tim
Braine, Sir Bernard	Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Brotherton, Michael	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine	Shepherd, Colin
Carlisle, Mark	King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Shersby, Michael
Channon, Paul	Kirk, Peter	Silvester, Fred
Clark, William (Croydon S)	Lamont, Norman	Sims, Roger
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Lawrence, Ivan	Sinclair, Sir George
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)	Le Marchant, Spencer	Skeet, T. H. H.
Cormack, Patrick	Mates, Michael	Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)	Mather, Carol	Stanley, John
Crouch, David	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Crowder, F. P.	Mayhew, Patrick	Stradling Thomas, J.
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Durant, Tony	Montgomery, Fergus	Tebbit, Norman
Dykes, Hugh	Moore, John (Croydon C)	Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	More, Jasper (Ludlow)	Townsend, Cyril D.
Finsberg Geoffrey	Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)	Tugendhat, Christopher
Fisher, Sir Nigel	Mudd, David	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Nelson, Anthony	Viggers, Peter
Fookes, Miss Janet	Neubert, Michael	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Fowler Norman (Sutton C'f'd)	Newton, Tony	Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.	Normanton, Tom	Weatherill, Bernard
Goodhart, Philip	Nott, John	Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Goodhew, Victor	Onslow, Cranley	Wiggin, Jerry
Gray, Hamish	Osborn, John	Winterton, Nicholas
Grieve, Percy	Page, John (Harrow West)	Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Griffiths, Eldon	Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)	Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Hampson, Dr Keith	Paisley, Rev Ian
Hastings, Stephen	Pattie, Geoffrey	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hayhoe Barney	Percival, Ian	Mr. John Hunt and
Hicks, Robert	Prior, Rt Hon James	Mr. Neil Macfarlane.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a Second time and committed.