TRANSPORT (LONDON) BILL

HL Deb 14 July 1969 vol 304 cc6-118

2.45 p.m.

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Winter bottom, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now re solve itself into Committee (on Recommitment).—(Lord Shepherd)

On Question, Motion agreed to

House in Committee accordingly.

[The Lord Douglas of BarLoch in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 [General powers of Executive]:

Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 6, leave out lines 24 to 33 and insert— ("(a) to carry passengers by stage carriage or express carriage on any road within Greater London, and with the consent of the Minister on any road outside Greater London, but the Minister shall not give his consent under this paragraph unless satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances which make it desirable that the Executive should carry passengers by stage carriage or express carriage on a particular route outside Greater London; (b) to carry passengers by contract carriage on roads within Greater London, and where the passengers consist of a pleasure party of persons employed by the Council, with or without their families or friends, within a radius of 100 miles from Charing Cross; (bb) to carry passengers by any form of rail or water transport (including hover craft) within, to or from Greater London and, so far as is requisite in connection with the exercise of their powers under this paragraph, between places outside Greater London.")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the Marshalled List. First, may I offer my regrets that we do not have the pleasure and enlightenment of the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, who has been managing this Bill so ably to date. We send our sympathies to him in hospital and hope that he may soon be recovered; and we welcome in his place the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who in the past has often taken part in transport debates. This one, I hope, will not try his powers very highly.

Clause 6 is a very important Clause in the Bill. It defines the powers of the new London Transport Executive with regard to the carrying of passengers. The powers under this clause to carry passengers by land anywhere inside or outside London are virtually unlimited. The point I wish to make is that the unlimited powers to carry passengers outside London is an innovation. In the 36 years of its life the London Trans port Board has not had these powers except for a short intermediate period. Throughout this time, Parliament has taken the view that the right balance of the situation was to give London Trans port monopoly powers inside the London area and to leave the area outside to be served by the private companies competing together. This is not rigid, be cause London Transport had power, and have power, to operate stage carriage services outside the Greater London Council area into the Outer Metropolitan area. But this is part of the exception.

The effect of my Amendment is to maintain the balance as it has tradition ally been so that London Transport can operate outside its area only when it can satisfy the Minister that there are special circumstances to justify the ex tension. I should say straight away that the words in my Amendment in that respect are similar to those in the 1962 Act. I do not wish to bring a theme of Party political difference into this Bill which in the main is a non-partisan measure and which has my general sup port. Indeed, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and his noble colleagues do not wish to do so either. It is for that reason that I hope they will be agreeable to keeping the balance between London Transport, this very important nationalised industry, a State corporation which is now to become a local government corporation, and the complementary private bus operators who work in the region round about London.

I believe that the traditional position is the right one. It gives the London Transport Board a complete monopoly within the Greater London area, where they do not pay licence fees and can protect the profitable routes against in vasion by private operators who might like to come in and operate in some places. This enables London Transport to set off the profitable areas against the non-profitable areas.

On the other hand, we believe it is right that there should be some restraint against London Transport operating out side London where they might be tempted to use the great strength of their protected home market inside London and the public subsidies that they receive to undercut the private operators in order to take business away from them. In practice, London Transport has not done this and has shown No inclination to go into the private hire business, even in London. They have preferred to leave the private hire business, as opposed to the stage carriage business, to the private operators. No doubt they have been in fluenced to some extent by shortage of drivers and staff, but I do not doubt that also the irregularities of the private hire business have not been particularly attractive to them. But, whatever the reasons may be, it would seem to me all the more inappropriate to give London Transport powers to extend operations outside the London area. So for reasons of practice, as well as for reasons of principle, I think the argument is against this extension.

On the other hand, if we allowed the Bill to proceed as it is drafted in Clause 6, giving London Transport Executive the power to go into the outside areas, it would undoubtedly disturb the stability of the private operators because it would put them at risk that London Transport might at any time decide to "have a go" in any particular section. I feel that this is a risk that is not in the public interest. I should recognise, on the other side, that Her Majesty's Government have given us some safeguard in Clause 12 with regard to this point in the shape of a ministerial intervention. But noble Lords will have seen, when studying the Bill, that Clause 12 gives the Minister powers to intervene post hoc rather than propter hoc; that is to say, the Minister will need to see the result of the trading operations before he intervenes. This could take 18 months or even two years after the original intervention, by which time the private operators concerned might well have been swept out of existence before the Minister decided that it was a heavily subsidised service and ought never to have taken place. So Clause 12 does not really give an effective practical safeguard that the private operators feel would be fair to them, or indeed which I feel would be fair to them; whereas my Amendment would require the Minister's consent in the first place to a proposition by London Transport before they began to start an operation outside London.

Although I know that this was argued at some length in another place, I hope that on the point of principle the two sides of the Committee are near enough together for the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, with his customary courtesy, to be able to agree with the point that I am making. So I feel that I should not stress it much further but hope that the strength of the point will speak for itself. I beg to move.

2.54 p.m.

Lord SHEPHERD

First, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, how grateful I am for his kind reference to my noble friend Lord Winterbottom. I will see that his remarks are conveyed to Lord Winterbottom in hospital As to whether the Bill will tax me, I feel that I shall be able to answer the noble Lord about that only at the end of the Committee stage, because I entirely depend upon your Lordships. As the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said, this Amendment, and some of the others, raise matters of great principle. They are also matters of principle which we have, I think, discussed on all the Trans port Bills—certainly all those in which I have been involved during some 15 years in your Lordships' House. If I may say so, these Amendments are of the old model. They are not like the "see through dress" which we hear so much about. They are more like the old whalebone and steel corset, for what they set out to do is to seek to restrain the activities of the new Authority.

The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, set out briefly but cogently the points he had in mind when moving the Amendment, and I do not disagree about what these Amendments would do. But I fear I must tell him that this Amendment is unacceptable. Its effect would be to place on the L.T.E. restrictions that at the moment apply to neither the P.T.E. nor the local authority operators under the terms of the 1968 Act. As a matter of basic principle, it must be resisted on the grounds that the L.T.E. has a duty, in the light of the policy guide-lines laid down by the G.L.C., to provide such services are as required—and this I stress—to meet the needs of Greater London. This cannot be discharged by an unrealistic limitation on the freedom of its commercial operation. The White Paper made clear that there would be no formal or geographical limits to its powers of operation.

Greater London certainly has trans port needs outside its own area. The catchment area for commuter travel is wide and the L.T.E. should be free to develop its services to meet these needs. No one intends that it should run all over the country. If that had been intended we should not have hived off the green buses. But to have to obtain Ministerial consent for running on any route outside Greater London would be a massive limitation on it. The issue of what services the Executive should seek to develop is one for the Council and the Executive to work out, and not one on which the Minister should intervene in the way proposed. In relation to the stage and express services, the L.T.E., like a P.T.E., will have a monopoly position within its area, that is, Greater London. Outside Greater London it would be on the same footing—this again I stress—as any other operator. Services picking up and setting down outside London, including cross boundary services, will be subject to control by the Traffic Commissioners under the road service licensing system. Under Section 135 (2) of the Road Traffic Act 1960 the Commissioners be fore granting a licence have to take into account the extent, if any, to which the needs of the proposed routes… are adequately served. This is the provision whereby the Commissioners have a duty to look at the question of undesirable competition, and this is the prime safeguard for other operators. The fares on any such services are also a matter for the Commissioners. This surely is the answer to any allegation of widespread competition by the L.T.E. and to the suggestion that such competition might be undesirably sub-sidised by G.L.C. subvention.

It cannot be denied that the arrangements proposed in the Bill are a departure from the system which has, by and large, prevailed since 1933. At the moment, the L.T.B. is tied to an area around Greater London. Under the Bill, the country bus services will go to the National Bus Company, and their management will be free to develop these services as they think best, subject to the road service licensing system. This will give a possibility of increased competition with other operators in the area; and the L.T.E. itself will also be able to compete without mileage limit, as can the P.T.E.s in relation to bus services to meet the needs of its own area. This is a direct reflection of the provisions for P.T.E.s in the 1968 Act. It is right, therefore, given a system of control by the Traffic Commissioners, that the original complex arrangements of the London area should be removed on the establishment of the L.T.E.

I do not think there is any doubt that as a matter of principle the freedom that has been extended to the P.T.E.s and municipal operators generally under the 1968 Act should extend to the L.T.E. also, but as a matter of practice it is unlikely that this will carry the sort of risks for other operators that have been claimed. In the first place, the L.T. operations must be related—here again I stress this—to the needs of Greater London. In the second place, its prime duty will also remain the running of ordinary day-to day services and it is unlikely that it will have a fleet suitable for widespread contract carriage work. In the third place, there are provisions in Clause 12 aimed specifically at ensuring that contract carriage work is carried out commercially without undercutting the rates, and in the Government's view these arrangements provide fully adequate safe guards, given the basic issue of principle that the L.T.E. should be free within the scope of its operational and financial duties, to put its resources to the best account. This is a speech that has been made on many occasions, particularly last year. I think it is a very good speech. It may not convince the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, but I hope that in the circumstances he will feel, in the light of the 1968 procedure, that he should not now press this Amendment.

Lord BELSTEAD

The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has clearly outlined the needs of the Greater London transport to which the Bill refers. Integration of transport is highly desirable. Train arrivals served by 'bus departures and Underground linking-up with other services undoubtedly provides a policy of sense, a policy where I suppose it is true to say you link stage services. But I would respectfully suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that Clause 6 (1) (a) and (b), which is what we are dealing with here, is really not necessary to achieve this laudable objective, and on this side of the Committee the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has shown that we believe these two paragraphs may give the London Transport Executive powers which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, described as unlimited to compete unfairly with private companies.

The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has just told the Committee clearly that the London Transport Executive is going to be on the same licensing footing as other transport operators. This one quite accepts but there are three points that bear repeating which give cause for worry. First, within the G.L.C. area, the Executive will be operating from the greatest local authority transport mono poly in the whole of the British Isles. Secondly, there must surely be an in credible commercial advantage in writing off a debt of £270 million, and if the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, says he does not think in the future the Executive is going to have much of a fleet for 'bus services into the recesses of this country, all I can say is that if you start with that advantage you probably make up for lost ground later. Thirdly, there is Clause 3 (1) empowering the G.L.C. to make grants to the Executive. I will not repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has already said. He has drawn attention, as Lord Shepherd has, to Clause 12. We are worried about that and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has explained why—because it is going to be a post hoc and not a propter hoc part of the Bill.

There is one more argument, and at the risk of being told that I am being merely inconsequential might I suggest that there are fears that these new powers may lead to the running of a series of unremunerative services which the London ratepayer will be called upon to subsidise? This can scarcely be thought to be a groundless fear in the light of the huge losses of London Transport which have now to be written off. The Amendment recognises that there may be exceptional circumstances for the Executive to operate outside Greater London. Is it not better that the Ministry should be consulted, as the Amendment suggests, than for the Executive to plunge on into new and unknown territory? May I end as I began and say that if there are new circumstances we must be swayed by them, but if the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is basing his case on integration of transport for the good of London I do not think that case stands up.

Lord LEATHERLAND

I think the Bill as it stands is couched in very sensible terms and I do not think the Amendment is. As I understand the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, he would be content for London Trans port, by whatever name it is known in the future, to undertake contract tours within the Greater London area. He would allow London Transport coaches to undertake tours for tourists around the sights of London: to visit the Houses of Parliament, Westminster Abbey, Buckingham Palace, and the sinful sights of Soho, but he would not let them undertake trips to Southend because they are outside the Greater London area. I can understand that point of view, although I do not agree with it. I find it difficult that all those high moral principles can be cast aside, if the dustmen of the Greater London Council decide to have their annual outing or the sanitary inspectors want to have a trip to Brighton, because under paragraph (b) it is provided that pleasure parties of persons employed by the Council, with or without their families and friends, within a radius of a hundred miles of Charing Cross, can travel by a London Transport contract coach. You cannot have a sliding scale of morality. If this contracting by the Greater London Council to have coach trips running outside the Greater London area is wrong, it must be wrong in all circumstances and you cannot salve your consciences by saying it is wrong for the ordinary citizen and right for the Greater London sanitary inspectors.

Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD

We do not seem to have advanced very far. I would thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for his very able exposition in what he rightly says are his not unfamiliar arguments. I am only sorry that we have not the professional help of my noble friend Lord Teviot, who has unfortunately, for professional reasons, had to go off to Newcastle. His contribution would have been very valuable to us this afternoon. I know the Government want to get the right balance between the public Corporation of London Transport and the private operators. We are not discussing, of course, the stage carriage services; we are discussing the contract services, what we as laymen would call the private tours. We all know that London Transport has not for years, if ever, operated these. It has not wanted to. They require a rather flexible organisation; they are rather the crumbs and London Transport has a massive job on its hands operating the scheduled stage services, so that it does not seem to me that the practical point at issue between us is very great.

The noble Lord is saying that he wants to put the new London Transport Executive into the position that when it comes into existence it can go into this field if it wants to. I am saying that if it does reach the position where it finds it has the resources of manpower, drivers and vehicles and wants to go into this field it ought to go to the Minister and make out its case. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in his comment that this would make a massive restriction. It really would not. It is a very reasonable thing to do. If the L.T.E. wants to start something it has not done for years, and probably never will, it is reasonable that it should go to the Minister, rather than putting this provision into the Bill so that it is an open door for them. These masses of small operators perform a very useful job taking people out to Southend. They do it very successfully. They have nice shiny 'buses of different colours which please everybody.

I cannot take the noble Lord's point that we cannot have a sliding scale on morality. I should have thought we already have a sliding scale of morality; we slide much too much. Because I am willing to see London Transport operate such services in the Greater London area, does not destroy the argument of saying, "Leave it to the private operators out side." The fact that London Transport does not operate inside the area and leaves it to the private operators is a matter of choice for them. We are trying to define the areas in which the London Transport of the future shall have an absolute monopoly and what its powers shall be outside, and what the balance shall be between the public corporation and private operators. I think that a fair balance in principle was struck in my Amendment, which will give them

a chance to do this, if they make out a case for it. Otherwise, the present arrangement will go on as it is, the public being well served by the multitude of small operators in this field. I must press the noble Lord, because we feel strongly on this Amendment. I hope that perhaps on second thoughts he will be able to accept it. If he cannot, I feel that I shall have to press it.

Lord SHEPHERD

The noble Lord is always reasonable and from his point of view he has made a reasonable case. But what he has not told us is why the new London Transport Executive should be treated in any way differently from the P.T.E.s that were set up some twelve months ago, with the approval of both Houses. If the noble Lord can make a case for treating London differently from Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow, or any of the other conurbations we have in mind, then I shall be willing to sit back and listen to him, but he has not yet made a case for this.

Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD

I had hoped to spare noble Lords these arguments, which took up about three days to expound last year. We said then that excessive powers were being given to transport executives in the P.T.A. areas. I still believe that the balance was wrongly drawn. I do not think that the noble Lord would wish me to go in detail and at length into why we thought this, because I am sure that the scar is left in the memories of every noble Lord in this House from the arguments made last year. Suffice it to say that this is our view. These powers are excessive and if we have the opportunity in future, we shall wish to redress the balance. But I should like to see London starting off on the right basis, even if the others are on the wrong one.

3.13 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 67; Not-Contents, 47.

CONTENTS
Aberdare, L.	Auckland, L.	Brooke of Cumnor, L.
Aberdeen and Temair, M.	Balfour of Inchrye, L.	Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.
Ailwyn, L.	Barnby, L.	Carrington, L.
Airedale. L.	Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Chesham, L.
Albemarle, E.	Belstead, L.	Conesford, L.
Ashbourne, L.	Boston, L.	Cork and Orrery, E.
Craigavon, V.	Hacking, L.	Napier and Ettrick, L.
Craigmyle, L.	Hawke, L.	Nugent of Guildford, L.
Denham, L.	Ilford, L.	Rankeillour, L.
Derwent, L.	Inglewood, L.	Redesdale, L.
Drumalbyn, L.	Ironside, L.	Rosslyn, E.
Dundonald, E.	Jellicoe, E.	Sackville, L.
Effingham, E.	Jessel, L.	Sandford. L. [Teller.]
Erroll of Hale, L.	Lauderdale, E.	Selkirk, E.
Falkland, V.	Lindsey and Abingdon, E.	Somers, L.
Geddes, L.	Loudoun, C.	Strange, L.
Glendevon, L.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.	Strange of Knokin, Bs.
Goschen. V. [Teller.]	MacAndrew, L.	Strathclyde, L.
Gowrie, E.	Margadale, L.	Templemore, L.
Greenway. L.	Merrivale, L.	Thorneycroft, L.
Grenfell, L.	Milverton, L.	Vivian, L.
Grimston of Westbury, L.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.	Wakefield of Kendal, L.
		Waldegrave, E.
NOT-CONTENTS
Addison, V.	Douglass of Cleveland, L.	Phillips, Bs.
Archibald, L.	Gaitskell, Bs.	Ritchic-Calder, L.
Arwyn, L.	Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Royle, L.
Aylestone, L.	Helsby, L.	Sainsbury, L.
Beswick, L.	Henderson, L.	St. Davids, V.
Bowles, L. [Teller.]	Hilton of Upton, L.	Serota, Bs.
Brockway, L.	Kennet, L.	Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)
Brown, L.	Kirkwood, L.	Shepherd, L.
Buckinghamshire, E.	Leatherland, L.	Snow, L.
Burden, L.	Lindgren, L.	Sorensen, L.
Burton of Coventry, Bs.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs. [Teller.]	Stow Hill, L.
Chalfont, L.		Strabolgi, L.
Champion, L.	McLeavy, L.	Strang, L.
Chorley, L.	Mitchison, L.	Summerskill, Bs.
Clwyd, L.	Moyle, L.	Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Douglas of Barloch, L.	Pargiter, L.	Wells-Pestell, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: Amendment No. 2 is consequential on Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 35, leave out ("or (b)") and insert: ("(b) or (bb)").—(Lord Nugent of Guildford.)

3.22 p.m.

Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 3: Page 7. line 29, at end insert ("and which the Executive are satisfied cannot be satisfactorily obtained for those purposes by any other means.")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 3 on the Order Paper. This Amendment touches on the manufacturing powers of the new London Transport Executive. Subsection (1)(i), which this Amendment would qualify, gives the London Transport Executive power to construct, manufacture and produce any thing which is required for any of the purposes of, or of a subsidiary of, the Executive or any of the national transport authorities or for the purposes of the Greater London Council.

This is an important paragraph in the powers of the new London Transport Executive, and my Amendment would have the effect of safeguarding the position by adding the extra words: and which the Executive are satisfied cannot be satisfactorily obtained for those purposes by any other means.

In other words the new London Transport Executive must make sure that the goods which they seek to manufacture cannot be obtained from elsewhere in the market.

This again is a field on which we have had very long and detailed arguments in the past, but there are two points to which I should like to call the attention of your Lordships. Noble Lords will have noticed that the words I seek to put in paragraph (i) are already contained in paragraph (h) which relates to the powers given to the London Transport Executive with regard to the supply of spare parts and components, the supply and services generally with regard to the servicing and maintenance of vehicles. In this field the new London Transport Executive have to satisfy themselves that these services cannot be provided by the market outside. I am trying to give the same safeguard with regard to these general manufacturing powers as Her Majesty's Government have already provided for this rather lesser activity of trading.

There is one further point here in the structure of Clause 6 (1) to which I should call your Lordships' attention. There is a second safeguard which the Government, wisely I think, have put in relation to the powers given in paragraphs (d) and (i). Paragraph (d) gives the Executive power to let passenger vehicles on hire and paragraph (i) gives power to repair motor vehicles and sell accessories, oil, petrol and spare parts. Both of these activities, if London Trans port carry them on, will be subject to the safeguard contained in Clause 6 (1) (at lines 13 and 14, on page 8 of the Bill) that: the Executive shall in carrying on those activities act as if they were a company engaged in a commercial enterprise…

In other words, they have not only to break even but also to cover the capital charges and interest charges and trade, as any other private operator. It is significant that neither of those two safe guards is provided on this particular manufacturing clause.

I should like to see both of them there. My Amendment asks for only one of them, the first that I have referred to, but I think it would be reasonable to apply it. If the London Transport Executive wish to go into these lines of manufacture they should ensure that the things they are proposing to manufacture cannot be obtained from the market at a satisfactory price and quality to meet either their own needs or the needs of anyone else they propose to supply. This seems to me, without arguing the many philosophical points which lie behind this, and with which your Lord ships are all familiar, a good sound point on its own. I beg to move.

Lord SHEPHERD

As the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has said, this is yet another of our old friends, and like him I think I will spare the Committee the philosophical arguments that we have had over many years. I only hope, however, that it does not mean that because the noble Lord voted on the last Amendment because he voted on the previous Bill for the same sort of Amendment he is going to do it on all the Amendments he has on the Order Paper this afternoon. It seems to me very strange that noble Lords opposite should feel that London should be treated differently from any of the other conurbations that have been given similar powers under the 1968 legislation. We believe that we should give the new Executive the widest possible powers in order that they shall be a commercial organisation and shall be in a position to provide the best services possible for the London passengers. Clearly—and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Nugent would agree—we have to take into account the whole field of the operation, and we have also to see that the new authority is able to use to the best possible advantage all the assets and all the expertise that it has. For that reason, and that reason only, I think that the Committee should not accept the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent.

The noble Lord referred to the fact that similar words are used in paragraph (h). The reason they were included there is that paragraph (h) deals with the sale by the Executive of second-hand vehicles to outside persons. Clearly this is a power and an opportunity for the Executive to get rid of buses once they have ceased to reach the high standards demanded. But the authority will not be able to get rid of these vehicles if spare parts are not available elsewhere and they may not supply them. This provision was put in as a protection to private industry. But in paragraph (0 the Executive would be manufacturing or producing only for its own purpose, for a subsidiary, for another nationalised transport authority or for purposes of the Council itself. Therefore, the Executive is not selling, and has not the power to sell outside that narrow confine.

The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, mentioned also what I think is an important point; namely, what is known as the commercial definition, on which we spent a great deal of time on both the Iron and Steel Bill and the Transport Bill 1968. This is an omission that should be rectified. I think that the reservations in previous legislation, that the Authority should act as though it were a commercial organisation, should be included in paragraph (0, and this in itself would give the necessary protection to private industry. If the noble Lord will withdraw this Amendment, I will undertake to see that an Amendment is put down on the Report stage to deal with the commercial aspect.

Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD

I thank the noble Lord for the closing words of his speech, and recognise that he therein gave one of the safeguards to which I referred. It is not the safe guard to which my Amendment specifically refers, but I agree that it is a safeguard which is valuable in practice, because it ensures that when the London Transport Executive go into these lines of manufacture they must conduct the business in the same way as any private enterprise business; they must reflect their capital structure, and therefore will be competing on a fair basis. It is a valuable concession here, as indeed we recognised it to be in the 1968 Act.

I should have liked to see my Amendment incorporated in the Bill, because I think it is desirable. When the noble Lord referred to the invidious position that London would be in if we put this safeguard in the paragraph—that they would be worse off than any other great city or conurbation—it struck me that the G.L.C. have made it plain that the last thing they want is to have these powers. It is very rare for a local authority to say that they do not want more powers, but that is so in this case with the G.L.C. That being so, it seems very surprising indeed that, come what will, the Government have decided to thrust these powers down their neck. However, strange are the ways of Whitehall, and far be it from me to try to understand why they have done this. I would advise my noble friends to take half a loaf rather than nothing. We are being offered a valuable concession by the noble Lord, which I realise must be due in no small measure to his own judgment, in the form of an Amendment which will considerably improve the Bill. I would far rather accept that by agreement than try to force in an Amendment which might suffer a different fate in another place. In these circumstances, I would advise the Committee that we should accept the noble Lord's offer, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.35 p.m.

Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 4: Page 7, leave out lines 34 to 37 and insert ("to provide and maintain such buildings, facilities, and apparatus as the Executive think fit for the repair of motor vehicles for any persons and for the sale to any persons of petrol, oil, and spare parts and accessories for motor vehicles, whether or not those persons are using the car park, and to let or hire out, on such terms as they think fit the buildings, facilities or apparatus so provided, but the Executive shall not have power them selves to repair motor vehicles and sell petrol, oil and spare parts and accessories for motor vehicles, unless the Executive are satisfied that no suit able tenant for the premises is forthcoming.")

The noble Lord said: This Amendment refers to paragraph (f) of subsection (1) of Clause 6, which gives the new London Transport Executive powers to pro vide a garage service of a car park, re pairs, oil, petrol, accessories and so forth. My Amendment would alter the balance of these powers by limiting the London Transport Executive to providing for car park only, and then letting to a private garage operator who would himself carry on the garage business, the repairs, selling petrol and accessories and generally operating the car park. As noble Lords will see, at the end of the Amendment I have included wordings indicating that, unless the Executive are satisfied that no suitable tenant for the premises is forth coming.

There could be circumstances where there was no suitable tenant, and rather than accept an unsuitable tenant obviously the London Transport Executive should proceed to operate it themselves.

I have no statistics to support the joint, but I believe I am right in saying that the kind of leasing arrangement which I am commending is very common form among local authorities. They prefer to avoid the trouble and difficulty of entering into active trading, and consider that, on balance, they serve their rate payers better by getting an economic annual rent for the premises rather than a hypothetical trading profit, which may easily turn out in practice to be a loss.

In this context, noble Lords may remember that last year the Prices and Incomes Board carried out an examination into the garage business. Their Report showed that the garage industry is already oversupplied and that the average return on the assets employed is unusually low. Thus, it is clear that there are no easy fortunes to be made in this business: in fact, the margins are small, and it is a competitive and cut throat business. I should think that if a public authority went into this kind of direct trading, with all the handicaps that a public authority suffer, they would be more likely to make a loss than a profit.

In these circumstances, I think it would be better if the Bill were drafted so as to throw the emphasis in this way, still leaving the Executive the longstop power to operate the garage if, for good reason, they think it necessary, but normally encouraging them to lease it. On the whole, I think that in that way it will operate better and with advantage to the ratepayer. I beg to move.

Lord SILKIN

May I ask the noble Lord whether the local authority has not the option of letting out these services if they so desire? The noble Lord said that many local authorities are hesitant about undertaking these services. They will not be compelled to do so, will they? If they feel it better to let them out to private enterprise, there is nothing in the Bill to stop them doing so.

Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD

I think that probably the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will be more able to answer that question with authority than I am, and I will leave it to him.

Lord ROYLE

May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, a question? I was trying to follow his argument. In previous speeches this afternoon, he has said how undesirable it is for a public authority to own many of these things, and that they ought to be in the hands of private enterprise. Is he now arguing that if there is to be a loss as a result of these activities, it is best that that loss should be maintained by private enterprise rather than by the nationalised industry?

Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD

Of course, private businesses do from time to time make a loss. This is, unfortunately, the experience of life. On the whole, private business works on smaller margins, and would be quicker and more flexible in its operation. It is for this reason, in the main, that this kind of trade is better left in the hands of private enterprise, and that only as a fall-back should a public authority take on and operate a business.

Lord ROYLE

It is a new theory from the other side of the Committee that anything that shows a loss must be undertaken by private enterprise.

3.41 p.m.

Lord SHEPHERD

This is another old friend. Again we will not go into the philosophical arguments, but the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, I am sure will agree that the operation of car parks is an expensive business, and that often only very marginal profits are to be made—that is, if it is a car park that depends merely upon cars being deposited there on payment of the appropriate charge. A car park, as we know, is in difficulties when the local authority is not too stringent with the meter system, or the double yellow lines system, which precludes parking in the area.

It was felt, and I think generally agreed, that assistance should be given to those who operate car parks, by permitting them to sell petrol and to provide the normal services that car drivers desire and require, so that they will be able to find sums of money to help them meet the heavy cost of maintaining garages. When the 1968 Act was passed we felt that since the railway authorities and local authorities may themselves be required to run garages or operate parking lots where private enterprise was not pre pared to do so these organisations should have the opportunity of meeting their heavy cost by selling petrol and so on. In the 1968 Act we provided fairly strict rules and criteria, such as the commercial obligation. They are repeated in this Bill and Clause 12 itself bites.

In regard to the point made by my noble friend Lord Silkin, a local authority is not required to do these things itself; if it wishes to lease it to a private company, it can do so. My guess is that in most cases local authorities, who already have quite enough to do, prefer to get private enterprise to run this kind of garage or parking lot. But if a local authority has to run this, or feels that it should do so, clearly it should have the right, like any other private owner, to be able to sell these services to the driver of the car. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, will feel this is the right answer, not only for the private owner of a garage or car park but also for local authorities that run car parks. In these circumstances I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, will not press this Amendment.

Lord CHESHAM

Before the noble Lord decides on that, I wonder whether I might just say to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that I shall remember the dictum that he has just made about parking being an expensive operation when we come to later parts of the Bill. It struck me as being a little unusual that he was advocating that authorities which were going to run car parks should be allowed to carry on these commercial services, when over the years it has been a stringent requirement of planning conditions for car parks that they should do no such thing. Could the noble Lord tell us how he reconciles the philosophy he has just been putting forward, that this is desirable, with what has been going on for quite some years under the system of planning consent for car parks, where such practices have been strongly frowned upon.

Lord POPPLEWELL

It was not my intention to intervene on this Amendment; but one wonders just which hat the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, is wearing at the present moment. Is he wearing his road haulage hat, or is he wearing his R.A.C. hat? One would have thought that if he was wearing his R.A.C. hat he would be very much in favour of the Bill as it stands, in order that services could be given to his members, as they park their cars at these various car parks. It is hoped these car parks will be instituted near many of the London bus stations and Underground stations. This is in fact a hardy annual that has separated the two parties on several occasions, particularly in the other House. One remembers full well that when we were discussing in the other House, in the Committee on Nationalised Industries, some facets of London Transport, quite a good discussion took place on this kind of point. If we desire to make a contribution towards easing traffic problems as they are to-day, and if we are encouraging the idea of establishing periphery car parking, so far as possible, it is surely common sense that if a person leaves his car at a periphery park, there should be at that place facilities for purchases and minor repairs, as indicated in the Bill.

I hope that noble Lords will not carry their emnity against public trading to this degree, and try to defeat the clause as it now stands in the Bill. One can under stand the high divergence of opinion on both sides. There are many factors of public and private trading. One would have thought that noble Lords opposite would realise that this facility is not just of interest to London Transport itself. It is of interest to a vast majority of motor car users who desire to play their part in relieving the congestion that we are getting in this great city of ours.

Lord CHESHAM

Perhaps I might answer the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell. I hope that he has not misunderstood me, because the hat I was wearing had, I thought, "Equity" written on the front of it, and nothing else. Naturally L am in favour of adequate and well-placed car parks, with services. I am delighted to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, because it is precisely on account of the fact that such services have not been permitted under planning consent that it has not been possible to provide as many car parks as might have been wished. All I am asking the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is: in advancing the principle which he has advanced, how does he square it as being a constrictive thing to do nowadays with the planning consents which have taken a view that such a thing ought not to be done? That is all I ask.

Lord SHEPHERD

That is rather a fast one. As you know, I have had no experience with planning permission. or the legislation behind it. I will look at the point which the noble Lord has made. I would only say to him that very recently, in the 1968 Act, we gave these very powers to the nationalised authorities, and also to the P.T.E.s. It may well be (though I have no knowledge of it) that planning authorities are raising; objections as to the use of these powers. If this is so, I will certainly look at it. It is the first time I have heard of it, but I will certainly look at the point and write to the noble Lord. But it doe; not depart from what we wish to see in the Bill, that this power should be there, and that the local authorities should be able to exercise it. Clearly, it has to be within planning permission.

Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD

I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for the answer he has given to the Amendment I have moved. There is not a great deal between us on this point. The major part of his brief to me did not answer the Amendment, because the burden of his brief was that it was uneconomic to operate a car park on its own and it was, there fore necessary to have the auxiliary services of petrol, oil and service accessories in order to make the thing an economic proposition. I entirely agree with him. I have not suggested that it should be otherwise—in fact it seems to me that I have outflanked the Government brief in my Amendment. I am saying that all these things should be kept together, but that normally they should be let to a private operator, and the London Transport Executive should take over the whole lot only when it is impossible to get a satisfactory private trader.

The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that the Bill gives power for the London Transport Executive to let off the premises, if they wish to do so. I believe they often will, because I believe it is much the best thing for them to do. All I want is to put in this paragraph that the Executive shall take over only if they cannot find anybody else who will do so. It is a matter of taste; it is certainly not something that I ought to invite your Lordships to divide upon. I should like to put on it the emphasis that it would be an improvement to the Bill, but if the noble Lord wants to resist it that is his responsibility. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 6, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL

Before we part with this Clause 1 should like to make a brief point arising out of my industrial experience. For some 25 years I was chairman of the company that built London's buses. I am no longer connected with that company, but that contract, which we had year after year, was of the most tremendous help to us in the substantial export trade that we did. It helped to cover our overheads and made it possible for us to do a world-wide export trade that we could not otherwise have done. In considering the wording in connection with manufacture it may well be that an operator can see some advantages in manufacturing. I always think that an operator perhaps does better to concern himself with operating and to leave manufacturing to those who specialise in it.

Be that as it may, even if there were an apparent advantage for an operator to manufacture, there might be considerable disadvantages in connection with our ex port trade if private enterprise was unable to do that export work which is so vital to this country. I do not want to elaborate this point, because it has been made time and again in this House and in another place. I felt that I ought to make it, however, because it is of such importance that we should maintain our export trade and never lose sight of the value of a firm, substantial home trade to help that export trade. Incidentally, in connection with these contracts to which I referred earlier, any extra profit that was made as a result of increased efficiency or improved production was shared with the consumer, which was a right and proper way to operate. I hope the Government will bear in mind this particular point in considering the wording or the operation of this new Bill.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 7 to 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 [Additional provisions as to control of Executive by Council]:

3.58 p.m.

Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 5: Page 15, line 42, at end insert ("and shall consider any proposal for a contribution by the council of that county to the Executive in respect of the provision of services for the carriage of passengers by rail within, to or from that county.")

The noble Lord said: This subsection provides for certain facilities for consultation by the counties in the outer Metropolitan area which might be affected by the railways run by the London Trans port Executive. It requires the G.L.C. to consult with the adjacent county councils annually and when contemplating a change in structure or general level of the services they are running. I think it is of some significance that this particular sub section was added as an afterthought by Her Majesty's Government in the Committee stage in another place. Evidently there has been a certain amount of to ing and fro-ing behind the scenes which caused this Amendment to be put down rather hastily, having been, as I under stand it, resisted in the earlier months, and it could be that the subSection is not entirely in balance as it now stands. As it stands, it requires this consultation and it gives the county council the right to be consulted without any obligation to meet the financial consequences of that consultation. So the G.L.C. are put in the uncomfortable position of "heads the county council wins and tails the G.L.C. loses". The G.L.C. is in a hopeless position.

My Amendment, which I would not claim to have any particular virtue in its structure, at least seeks to remind the parties that there is a financial implication in consultations of this kind. Obviously the county council will always ask that the fares should stay as they are and that all the services should be at least maintained and, if possible, increased—all of which of course costs money and if there is a loss it will fall on the G.L.C. ratepayer. Therefore I have put down this Amendment which says that the G.L.C. shall consider any proposal for a contribution by the council of that county to the Executive in respect of the provision of services for the carriage of passengers by rail within, to or from that county.

This Amendment does not give any powers to anybody, but to some extent it spells out the financial implication which must be there, and to that extent I think would be an improvement to the subsection.

Lord SHEPHERD

I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, did not tie his virtue to the structure of this Amendment, because it is defective. As it stands, the Amendment does not make it clear that a proposal for a county council to contribute towards L.T.E. services must come from the county council concerned. As drafted, it would be open to any individual to propose a contribution by the county council. The Government accept the principle of this Amendment and will seek to draft a better Amendment for the Report stage. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.

Lord LEATHERLAND

When my noble friend drafts the improved Amendment will he bear in mind that probably about the time that this Bill comes into operation, or shortly afterwards, county councils will cease to exist, and therefore some other term wider than "county council" would be necessary ill his Amendment, a term such as local authority?

Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD

May I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for accepting the principle of my Amendment. I need hardly say that I had not expected him to accept the form. I have never known an Opposition Amendment yet, by noble Lords on that side or this side, to be accepted by the Government of the day, so this is in the best tradition.

On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, although I do not doubt that the Government are going to move with immense speed, I should hardly have thought that they will reorganise local government in time to catch up with this Bill, which I imagine will be in operation in the autumn. I would thank the noble Lord again for accepting the principle, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clauses 12 to 17 agreed to.

Clause 18 [Provisions as to pensions functions]:

4.2 p.m.

Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 6: Page 21, line 17, leave out from ("and") to end of line 26 and insert ("the powers conferred on the Minister by the said section 74—

1. (a) except on the application of the Executive made with the approval of the Council—
1. (i) shall not be exercisable in relation to any pension scheme established in pursuance of the powers conferred on the Executive as aforesaid; or
2. (ii) in the case of any Executive-transferred scheme which is a London transport scheme, shall not be exercisable in relation to participants in that scheme who are or have been employees of, or of a subsidiary of, the Executive; and
2. (b) except as aforesaid, and except where the Minister is satisfied that the exercise proposed of those powers will not result in any increase in the obligations or liabilities of the Executive, shall not be exercisable in the case of any other Executive-transferred scheme in relation to participants in that scheme who are or have been such employees as aforesaid;").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, and speak to Amendment No. 7, which is consequential. Clause 18 extends to the Executive the Minister's powers under Section 74 of the Transport Act 1962 to make orders on pension matters affecting the national transport authorities. The power is, how ever, restricted by subsection (3), which as it stands provides that the Minister can make such orders in relation to new schemes set up by the Executive, and L.T.E. employees who are members of other schemes, only if he is asked to do so by the L.T.E., and if their request has the approval of the G.L.C.

The restriction with regard to schemes of which L.T.E. employees are members has been drawn too tightly, and the Amendment seeks to relax it. Many L.T.E. employees who have formerly been employed by other national trans port authorities or their predecessors are still members of the pensions schemes which they entered at that time. The Minister may well wish to exercise his powers under the 1962 Act in relation to those other schemes in a way which would not adversely affect the L.T.E., and, while the L.T.E. and the G.L.C. would no doubt be prepared to co-operate by making the necessary application to enable the order to be made, it seems better not to put them under an obligation to do so unnecessarily.

The Amendment distinguishes between new schemes set up by the L.T.E.; the schemes for which the present London Board is responsible, which will be in herited by the L.T.E.; and other schemes of which L.T.E. employees will be members. In relation to the first and second the present position under subsection (3) is preserved: an application from the L.T.E., approved by the G.L.C, will be necessary before the Minister can make any order in relation to the first or any order in relation to the second which affects L.T.E. employees. In the relation to the third, the Minister is now enabled to make an order if he receives such an application or (without such an application) if he is satisfied that the order will not result in any increase in the obligations or liabilities of the L.T.E. I beg to move.

Lord SHEPHERD: I beg to move Amendment No. 7.

Amendment moved—

Page 21, line 31, at end insert— ("In this subsection, the expression 'Executive-transferred scheme' means a pension scheme in connection with which rights, liabilities and functions of, or property held by, the London Board have been transferred to the Executive under subsection (2) of this section, and the expression ' London transport scheme' means a pension scheme specified in Part 2 of the Schedule to the British Transport Reorganisation (Pensions of Employees) (No. 3) Order 1962, or established by or for the former London Transport Executive set up under the Transport Act 1947 or by or for the London Board")—(Lord Shepherd.)

Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 19 to 28 agreed to.

Clause 29 [Amendments as to metropolitan roads]:

Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 8:

Page 35, line 9, at end insert— ("(3A) In section 18 of the London Government Act 1963 (which relates to the delegation of functions of the Council with respect to a metropolitan road to the council of a London borough or the Common Council) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection:— '(1A) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that the functions of the Greater London Council which may be delegated by virtue of subsection (1) of this Section include, and shall be deemed always to have included, the functions of that Council under the provisions of section 12 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 (being provisions relating to the temporary prohibition or restriction of traffic on roads), or, as respects any period before the coming into operation of the said section 12, under the corresponding provisions contained in section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1960, with respect to any metropolitan road in the case of which that Council have so delegated their functions with respect to the maintenance of that road.'")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, and speak to No. 9, which is consequential. The object of the first of these two Amendments is to remove some doubts that have recently arisen as to whether, when the G.L.C. delegate to a London Borough, under Section 18 of the London Government Act 1963, their powers of maintenance of a Metropolitan road, this delegation may include powers to make temporary traffic orders under Section 12 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967. There is no doubt about the need for the Section 18 power of delegation to be able to be applied in this way; clearly the authority which is responsible for road repairs and maintenance should also be able to make the temporary traffic orders which may be needed as a result of these works. This Amendment is therefore designed to establish beyond any doubt that the G.L.C.'s powers of delegation under Section 18 (1) of the London Government Act 1963 include, and shall be deemed always to have included, delegation of their powers to make temporary traffic orders under Section 12 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 (and the corresponding provisions of the previous enactment). The second of these two Amendments is merely consequential on the first.

Lord SHEPHERD: I beg to move Amendment No. 9.

Amendment moved.— Page 35. line 13, after ("section") insert ("other than subsection (3A) thereof").—(Lord Shepherd.)

Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 30 to 35 agreed to.

Clause 36 [Control of off-street parking]:

4.10 p.m.

Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 10: Page 42, line 44. leave out ("appears to the Council to be") and insert ("is").

The noble Lord said: In moving the first of the series of Amendments that I forecast would be necessary on Second Reading, I should like to join in ex pressing my sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, and consequential sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I can sympathise with both noble Lords because it so happens that I have torn a muscle in my back. Therefore, I can sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom; but I still have to do all the work, which makes me sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. As to whether this Committee stage will tax him this afternoon, a matter which I understand has been raised, frankly I do not know. But I know full well that it will tax me. and I shall have failed in my afternoon's endeavour; if it does not tax the noble Lord, too.

The first Amendment, Amendment No. 10, is a simple Amendment, needing no great length of introduction, but it is one that is quite important in effect because, as the clause stands, the Council are given quite unnecessarily, unusually and extraordinarily wide discretionary powers. This Amendment would not hamper them in any way, but it would be effective in limiting the Council's use of their powers to those that are clearly expressed by the clause; that is to say, where it says: (1) The provisions of this section shall apply to any area in Greater London… and… (b) may include such supplementary in cidental and consequential provision as appears to the Council to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of this section".

I do not know how much wider than that one can get. This power is considerably wider than any House, including your Lordships' House, has, and I do not think powers of this width should be incorporated in a Statute in favour of any council. I think that if the words "as appears to the Council" are replaced simply by the word "is" there is a perfectly open and shut case; and if the Council, perhaps perfectly innocently should go further than is intended by this piece of proposed legislation it is perfectly simple and straightforward to sort out the matter with the aid of the courts. This is, I think, a matter of some sense, and it does not leave unrestricted discretion in this way. I beg to move.

Lord SHEPHERD

The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said that these are unusaul words. I understand that these are normal words for a provision of this nature. It does not mean that we give the Council carte blanche to do what they like under the guise of necessity or ex pediency, and if the Council were to misuse the provision, their action would of course be open to challenge in the courts. But the Government feel that the Council, which is a responsible body, must be the judge of what supplementary, incidental or consequential provisions it is necessary or expedient to include in their regulations.

Examples of similar words occur in Section 36 (2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 where a designation order for a parking meter scheme may make such provsion as may appear to the authority to be necessary or expedient". There are similar words in the Town and Country Planning Act 1962. I would say to the noble Lord that these are normal words, that there is nothing sinister in them; and, of course, if any one is aggrieved by them, these regulations would be subject to the call in which is provided for in the Bill. Clearly the Minister, too, has an opportunity him self to act if he thought that the Council were being unreasonable.

Lord AIREDALE

Suppose a case of this kind went before the court, as the Minister has indicated that it may under this clause of the Bill as it is drafted. The question that the court would have to ask itself is not: are these supplementary restrictions in fact necessary, but rather: do the Council think that these further restrictions are necessary. If in the court's opinion it was not necessary but the court felt that the Council, exercising their own opinion and not acting maliciously, nevertheless, came to the wrong conclusion, that the further controls were necessary, then the court would have no option but to find in favour of the Council, because the Bill says that these further controls are to be imposed if they appear necessary in the opinion of the Council.

The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, is arguing that that is the wrong criterion, that the proper criterion when you are imposing controls is whether those controls are necessary. And if the matter is to go before the court, the court ought to be free to decide itself whether the further controls are in fact necessary; and if they are, to say, "Very well, so be it." But do not tie the hands of the court by compelling them to decide, not the real question, whether the further control is necessary, but the question whether the Council, acting no doubt in good faith, decided that in their opinion the further controls were necessary, whereas the court might think that in its opinion such further controls were not necessary.

Lord SHEPHERD

I can only say to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that I suppose in some way there is a disadvantage in the procedure of our Committee stage; that if we discuss a clause as a whole we discuss it at the end when we have dealt with all the Amendments 10 it. Therefore, at the outset we are precluded from having what one might call a Second Reading debate on what is a most important clause. But I do not think there is any doubt as to the need for wide-ranging powers to be given to the G.L.C. to deal with traffic management in Greater London. We have to give certain powers to the Council and these are in Clause 36. The order here is that the Greater London Council may make regulations.

I dealt with the case of the courts being involved in the context of the use of a wrong guide, of the Council acting, one might say, ultra vires, and I then went on to say that it was for the Council to judge what supplementary and incidental and consequential provisions they thought it necessary or expedient should be included in the regulations. As the noble Lord has said, this is a question of judgment, a question of policy decision; but if those regulations are in any way challenged as a question of judgment, as to whether they are right and proper in the light of the traffic conditions in the particular area, then they come under the scrutiny of the Minister, and the Minister himself can act if he so wishes. All I am seeking to show at this stage is that these particular words are not unusual, as the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has said; that one should not put any construction on them that is not there. They are, in fact, the normal drafting words which we have used and which Parliament has accepted for a number of years. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, will feel that there is nothing sinister in this, that there are the necessary protections, and that in those circumstances he will withdraw his Amendment.

Lord CHESHAM

I have listened with care to what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said, but I should need a little persuading that the words, … such supplementary, incidental and consequential provision as appears to the Council to be necessary or expedient… are very little short of limitlessly broad, whatever may be the precedent for this. However, I do not want to argue about the actual meaning of the words, nor about statutory precedent. What I want to ask the noble Lord is whether he is giving me—as I understood him to do—a definite and categorical assurance that this Clause is challengeable in the courts. If he can do that I will be satisfied and will withdraw the Amendment.

Lord SHEPHERD

I think I can give the noble Lord that assurance, but if, on checking it after the Committee, I find that I am wrong, I will communicate with him. Speaking as of now, I can give the noble Lord that assurance.

Lord CHESHAM

Then I accept with pleasure the noble Lord's assurance, with the reservation that if he writes to me and says that he is wrong, I will come back to this matter at a later stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.23 p.m.

Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 11:

Page 43, line 2, at end insert— ("( ) shall in no way differentiate between the operation of a parking place by a local authority and any other person;").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 11 is an Amendment of very considerable substance and importance. I should point out to your Lordships that Amendment No. 13 and Amendment No. 33 go with it, and I propose to speak to the principle embodied in all three. Again I think I can be quite simple in my approach. In the course of the passage of this Bill through another place, and on Second Reading in your Lordships' House, we have heard a great deal about how necessary these powers are to give a control over traffic using the streets of London (I forecast that they will, if accepted, spread wider than that, but at the moment it is London), and that this is indeed a great social necessity. It is said that it is vital that off-street car parks available to the public should be controlled in the manner provided in the Bill, because this is a social necessity that we must accept. If that is so, why does the Bill limit its application only to off-street car parks provided for the public by private operators—because the off-street car parks provided for the public by local authorities are not subject to the provisions and restrictions of the Bill. Except within certain narrow limits they are relatively free of the restriction of operation which applies to parks pro vided by private operators. If there is anything in the argument that these very restrictive powers are necessary, then surely they should apply to all off-street car parks available to the public. Certainly I cannot see any reason to the contrary. This is the purpose of this group of Amendments, although of course I am now speaking only to No. 11, which I ask your Lordships to accept for that reason. I beg to move.

Lord SHEPHERD

The effect of the first two of these Amendments would be to extend the licensing system for public off-street car parks to cover the London boroughs' car parks as well as those of the private operators. This would involve the London boroughs, as licensing authorities, licensing their own operations; that is, paying themselves fees, issuing themselves licences and giving notice to themselves when they wished to vary or revoke the licences issued. I am quite sure that that is not the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, for it would create a rather Gilbertian situation. I think that what the noble Lord had in mind was that the private car park or garage should be treated in no way different from that of the local authority, and that the local authority should not be able to take advantage of a specially privileged position as against the private company. I can give the noble Lord the assurance that that is not the Government's intention, and Clause 36 and Schedule 5 have been drafted as tightly as possible to bring about a uniformity of treatment as between the municipal and the private sectors. We believe that the whole object of subsection (13), with the words "have regard to" in the first part of the sub section, is designed to require the boroughs to observe the spirit and principles of all the conditions prescribed in the Greater London Council's regulations for their areas, wherever these can be applicable.

Finally, there are two further safe guards against a borough's abusing its discretionary powers to fix conditions within the. framework laid down in the Greater London Council's regulations, by imposing tougher restrictions on private operators in its area than on its own car parks. Part III of Schedule 5 contains provisions for operators to appeal to the Minister, who then has the power to modify the conditions of the licence to remedy the situation. In addition, an aggrieved private operator could apply for compensation for refusal by the borough to vary the conditions of the licence as laid down in Part IV of the Schedule.

I think the question of compensation would certainly have a salutary effect on any local authority. I think that the main protection lies, as I said, in Part III of Schedule 5, which is the appeal to the Minister. I can again give an assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, that we believe we have drafted the Bill as tightly as is possible, to preclude any question of local authorities getting them selves placed into a privileged position as compared with those in the private sector.

Lord CHESHAM

I am sorry to say that in my view the noble Lord is wrong on several counts. He said that he did not think I wished local authorities to be in that position, and that it would be Gilbertian if they were to be. First of all. he is wrong in saying that it would be Gilbertian because it would not; secondly, he is quite wrong in saying that I did not wish it, because that is just what I did wish. I wish it because I can see nothing either wrong or Gilbertian in this. In replying on the last Amendment, the noble Lord was content to rest his defence on the question of precedent in existing Statute, and therefore I shall do the same. If this Amendment is accepted, as indeed it should be—and I hope your Lordships will accept it—this will bring the local authorities and the procedure exactly into line with the situation as it is to-day under the Town and Country Planning Acts, whereby local authorities do in fact license themselves and, for all I know, charge themselves fees—whatever that may mean, because it is the rate payer or taxpayer who pays for it. But there is a perfectly good precedent for this, and perfectly good procedure to rely on.

I do not accept from the noble Lord, either, that the provisions for appeal or the provisions for compensation are any thing like as tightly and safely drawn as he claims they are. Indeed, these are going to be the subject of Amendments I shall move later in the hope of getting some satisfactory situation in this regard. But they are certainly not at the moment a defence against the possibility of unfair competition. This may not be the intention of the Government, and let me hasten to say that I am quite sure it is not the intention of the Government that local authorities should act in unfair competition. But the door is very nicely open for them to do so—and this will not do. Therefore, if the noble Lord has nothing better to say, I do not feel justified in withdrawing this Amendment.

Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH

May I support the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, here? I am not too worried about the part of the noble Lord's argument which is concerned with unfair competition. What worries me a little more particularly is that I do not find the assurances that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, gives regarding appeal completely satisfactory; and I am very reluctant to accept the safeguard of compensation as being at all satisfactory. After all, in this respect a great deal of effort, money and ingenuity will already have been expended. The time element involved in an appeal and the settlement of compensation can be quite consider able, and in that respect, of course, the effort is completely wasted.

Surely it would be far more simple, far more readily understood, if at the outset both municipal and private operations started off from the same base. Unless I misunderstand the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, this is precisely what he is seeking to effect, notwithstanding anything else which may be written later. There is to be, if this Amendment is accepted, a common base, with municipal and private operations running quite parallel and with no question of the one having to appeal against the other or the one having to seek compensation for something that it considers to be wrongful. Unless my understanding is quite wrong, I feel this Amendment must have my support.

4.32 p.m.

Lord SHEPHERD

When I referred to a Gilbertian situation I was referring to boroughs acting as licensing authorities licensing their own operations, paying themselves fees, issuing themselves licences and revoking licences. I am bound to say that I still find it Gilbertian. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, says, if my memory and hearing are right, that under planning legislation this is what in fact happens. I said earlier that I had no knowledge of the planning legislation. That is so, but I have had official advice and I have no reason to believe that that advice is not correct. It is that no licences are issued under planning legislation; nor is there any question of fees for planning permission. Therefore, the planning law does not provide, as the noble Lord himself suggested, a relevant precedent in this matter.

I am one who does not see things as black or white. I do not see this as an argument between private enterprise and public enterprise, one being inefficient and a menace to the other. I am one who frankly believes that ours; is a mixed economy and that it will always be a mixed economy. I myself do not believe that local authorities are going to set up car parks and garages and provide these services merely to put a private company out of business; but there are clearly going to be occasions when local authorities will be providing some of these facilities in areas adjacent to those of private companies. Clearly there is a risk, if they are adjacent to one another, that one could have an unfair advantage over the other. My case is that in fact private enterprise is more likely to have an unfair advantage over a local authority, or at least be in a more competitive position than that authority.

Be that as it may, in this Bill we are trying to find ways and means to ensure that the bigger authority, which has public funds available to it, does not put itself in a position, particularly as it is the licensing authority, where it can act unfairly and impose conditions upon a private company which would make the life of that company difficult and less competitive, and perhaps less attractive, than that of the local authority. As I have said—and I have no reason to depart from this—we have drafted the Bill as tightly as we believe it is possible to do, and I am confident that what we have in this Bill is fair. It provides proper protection; and I fear I have no further consolation to give the noble Lord. I believe we have done all that we possibly can by way of drafting to meet the point that the noble Lord has expressed, and it is a point of which we have been well aware for a good deal of time.

Lord MOLSON

I hope my noble friend will not press this Amendment. I cannot think that it would be in any way effective if it were carried. If a local authority has decided, in the exercise of its discretion, that it wishes to establish an off-street parking place, it really follows quite logically that it will licence itself to do what it intends to do; and the obligation that is imposed upon it to go through two processes—first, to consider the setting up of the parking place and then, having decided to do so, to issue itself a licence to do so—will surely be completely ineffectual for any purpose that my noble friend has in mind. I should have thought that: if there were any danger of unfairness it was better—and indeed was the only possible way to do it—to rely upon the rights of appeal which are provided for in Part HI of Schedule 5 to the Bill. Therefore, while I entirely agree with my noble friend in the hope that the balance will be held evenly between local authorities and private enterprise, I cannot believe that this rather cumbrous procedure will in any way be effective for the purpose.

Lord CHESHAM

It seems to me that the principle which dictated my putting down this series of Amendments is being—and I say this is in the nicest possible way—dodged in a sea of procedure. That is the way it strikes me. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has made great play about authorities licensing them selves and paying themselves fees. That is not the point. That, frankly, is dodging the issue. The issue, I repeat to your Lordships, is this: if it is essential or necessary for the benefit of the traffic position in London that there shall be restrictions on car parks—that people shall not be allowed to use them, that there shall be definite levels of charges and that there shall be a control of the hours during which they may be used, on who may use them and for how long—then, quite simply, this should apply to all car parks. If this is the way local authorities will operate, then there can be no objection to putting it in the Bill, and that is just what I suggest your Lordships may wish to do.

4.39 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 11) be agreed to?

Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 12: Page 43, line 4, at end insert ("and no such regulations shall designate as aforesaid any area which for the purposes of 'the Airports Authority Act 1965 forms part of the British Airports Authority's aerodrome at Heathrow.")

The noble Lord said: This Amendment removes from the scope of the public off-street car park licensing provisions of Clause 36 and Schedule 5 any car parks situated within the limits of Heathrow Airport. The situation at Heathrow aroused a good deal of discussion, both in the House of Commons and at Second Reading in your Lordships' House. The British Airports Authority lodged a Petition in the Lords against the Bill but withdraw this when informed of the Government's intention to introduce the present Amendment.

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 45; Not-Contents, 56.

CONTENTS
Ailwyn, L.	Dundonald, E.	Morrison, L.
Airedale, L.	Ebbisham, L.	Ogmore, L.
Amulree, L.	Effingham, E.	Rathcavan, L.
Auckland, L.	Falkland, V.	Redesdale, L. [Teller.]
Audley, Bs.	Gowrie, E.	Rosslyn, E.
Balfour of Inchrye, L.	Grenfell, L.	Selkirk, E.
Barnby, L.	Ilford, L.	Sempill, Ly.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Inglewood, L.	Somers, L.
Boston, L.	Jessel, L.	Strange, L.
Brentford, V.	Killearn, L.	Strange of Knokin, Bs.
Byers, L.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.	Strathclyde, L.
Chesham, L. [Teller.]	Margadale, L.	Templemore, L.
Cork and Orrery, E.	Massereene and Ferrard, V.	Tweedsmuir, L.
Craigavon, V.	Merrivale, L.	Vivian, L.
Craigmyle, L.	Meston, L.	Wade, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Addison, V.	Gaitskell, Bs.	Moyle, L.
Archibald, L.	Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Peddie, L.
Arwyn, L.	Helsby, L.	Phillips, Bs.
Aylestone, L.	Henderson, L.	Popplewell, L.
Beswick, L.	Hill of Wivenhoe, L.	Ritchie-Calder, L.
Blyton, L.	Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]	Sainsbury, L.
Bowles, L.	Hughes, L.	St. Davids, V.
Brockway, L.	Kennet, L.	Serota, Bs.
Brown, L.	Leatherland, L.	Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)
Buckinghamshire, E.	Lindgren, L.	Shepherd, L.
Burden, L.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs. [Teller.]	Silcoe, L.
Burton of Coventry, Bs.		Sorensen, L.
Chalfont, L.	Lloyd of Hampstead, L.	Stow Hill, L.
Champion, L.	McLeavy, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Chorley, L.	Macpherson of Drumochter, L.	Summerskill, Bs.
Collison, L.	Maelor, L.	Tangley, L.
Crook, L.	Mais, L.	Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Douglas of Barloch, L.	Mitchison, L.	Walston, L.
Faringdon, L.	Molson, L.	Wells-Pestell, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

The question of the car parking at Heathrow Airport is by no means an easy one. On the one hand, there are strong reasons against this exemption at Heathrow. The Airport is such a major generator of traffic over a wide area of Greater London that it can well be argued that its parking arrangements should be capable of control under the Bill. And the Government certainly do not accept that the responsibilities of the British Airports Authority—or any other public undertaking—put it above the law and automatically exempt it from general legislative requirements and control. But there is a very real difficulty at Heath row: its peculiar geographical situation, partly in Greater London and partly in Surrey. This means not only that it would be many years before there would in practice be any question of the G.L.C. seeking to control parking at Heathrow itself, but also that such controls could cover only a portion of the Airport and, there fore, could not really be of much practical value. In the circumstances, the Government propose this Amendmenl to exclude from the provisions of Clause 36 the area of Heathrow.

Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD

I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. Let me say immediately that I do not propose to offer any opposition to his Amendment, but it would be interesting to hear what new factors have occurred since the Minister in another place (this was on May 6) said during the Committee stage that it would be "totally unrealistic" to exempt the British Airports Authority. That was quite a strong thing for a Minister to say. I do not doubt that there are arguments on both sides, but: I am sure the Minister had them before him at the time, and it would be interesting to know what new factors have arisen to cause him to change his mind, and to decide that it has now become totally realistic to exempt Heath row. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, owes it to the Committee to give a little more explanation about why there has been this dramatic change.

Lord SHEPHERD

In explaining the purpose of the Amendment, I explained the difficulties involved. Perhaps there is a strong case for making the car-parking arrangements at the airport subject to the general rule; but I indicated that, because of the peculiar geographical situation of the airport, which is partly in London and partly in Surrey, and perhaps, too, because of the fact that the immediate powers of the G.L.C. will be for the inner part of London and are not likely to extend to Heathrow for some considerable time, it would on balance be right to leave out Heathrow. That is the only reason I know. I do not know what sort of pressure and per suasion has been put upon my right honourable friend, but in view of what he said in May I can only imagine that they were formidable and he has therefore decided that he should proceed with this Amendment.

Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for trying to spell out in a little more detail points which were well known on May 6. My only regret is that I cannot think of some small Amendment which would result in sending this back again to another place so that my honourable friends there could ask this question of the Minister, but I am afraid that my ingenuity does not run to that.

Lord SHEPHERD

If I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guild ford, he will still have that opportunity, because the Amendment will certainly have to go back to another place.

Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD

That consoles me a great deal. If the Minister in another place does as well as the noble Lord has done to-day, he will do very well.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

4.54 p.m.

Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 14: Page 43, line 15, after ("for") insert ("(not exceeding £5 (five pounds) in either case)").

The noble Lord said: I shall be quite honest, particularly with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and say that this Amendment is somewhat in the nature of a probing Amendment; but I hope that it will probe fairly deeply, because the principle embodied here is that surely if it is necessary for an operator of a car park to pay a prescribed fee, the first thing that is reasonable is that he should know what that fee may be. Secondly, I think it is entirely reasonable that the fee should be standard throughout every controlled area. I see no justification for it being otherwise, but I think more important is that a man who is taking on a liability should know what the fee is to be.

It seems to me that much has been made of the benefit to the public at large of these controlled measures, and it does not seem to be entirely equitable that the operator in the private sector should be the one to finance the cost of this scheme which is beneficial to the public, which he is open to do by the way in which this Part of the Bill is drafted. As the noble Lord will have appreciated, I am not ready to die in the last ditch in defence of the fee not exceeding £5 but I had to put in a figure in order to phrase a correct Amendment. I hope that the noble Lord will indicate that, at any rate in principle, something of this kind may be accepted. I beg to move.

Lord SHEPHERD

I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said that this is a probing Amendment be cause it is not acceptable; in fact it is not required. Perhaps I should say at the outset that it would be wrong to impose a rigid upper limit to the fee without any provision for it ever being varied in the future. It is made clear in subsection (3) that the fee is only intended to cover the administrative expenses of the local authority in operating the licensing scheme in its area, and the fee is not to be used in any form what soever as taxation. These expenses will cover the cost to the borough of processing the applications for car-park licences, and of inspections of the car parks and of their records under subsection (5). Fees to cover such expenses cannot seriously be represented as crippling in any way, and I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, suggested that they could be.

The prescribed fees for licences are matters to be laid down in the G.L.C. regulations under subsection (1). They will therefore be open to representations and subject to the Minister's "call-in" powers. There is therefore no case for imposing a rigid ceiling in the actual Statute. Although authorities may have different costs for operating this scheme, I cannot imagine that they will be very different, and since the fee is to be tied to the administrative charge I doubt whether there will be any real difference in the fees in the different boroughs.

Lord CHESHAM

In that case, will the noble Lord please say why it is considered equitable that the operator has to pay an administrative charge to have a system imposed on him that he does not seek and which is not to his benefit but for the benefit of the public for whom supposedly the local authority is acting as a self-appointed or a Government appointed agent? I see no justification for the fee being linked to the administrative cost. There should be a fee, that I can understand; but even if it is limited to this expenditure I do not see why the operator should be called on to pay the administrative cost of a system which is entirely for the benefit of somebody else.

Lord SHEPHERD

The noble Lord clearly will get some sympathy from the Committee for those comments. On the other hand, this is not an unusual procedure. I believe that the noble Lord proposes to move an Amendment on these lines later, and perhaps we could deal with the matter then. The reason why the words "administrative expenses" have been put into the Bill is to meet the point made by the noble Lord. Local authorities will not be permitted to use the fee system to raise revenue. The fee is merely to deal with the administrative cost of this scheme. I believe the principle of that arises on a later Amendment which the noble Lord has on the Marshalled List.

Lord CHESHAM

All I can say is that if some of the administrative history of local authorities in the matter of parking meters is anything to go by, the noble Lord's words will be greeted with appreciation by car-park operators. I do not think there is much I can do other than beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.0 p.m.

Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 15: Page 43, line 37, leave out head (i).

The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 15 and 18 hang together on this matter. What I am after here is the interest of the private motoring public. In this I am wearing my proper hat. The first thing these Amendments seek to do is not to subject the public as a whole to the charges to be made for use of the car parks as set out in this Bill. They are also designed to safeguard them against being subject to the controls on space which is available for different types of parking, and also to protect them against the effects of the authorities being able to control the hours of opening and closing of the car parks. One can imagine oneself driving a car, with perhaps a member of one's family, to London for some quite innocent purpose like a day's shopping and carrying out what would be regarded as a social duty, and parking one's car off the street for the day in an off-street car park, only to be told at 9.15 that as you are not a resident you cannot come in till 10.30; furthermore, you cannot stay after 12.30 and it is going to cost five "bob" an hour. This is working up to a situation where the user of a private car—and let us not forget that many users of private cars, particularly in cities, are business people—is liable to be quite heavily handicapped and indeed considerably harassed.

If we are to fill our streets with people who are not only meter-hopping between periods but off-street car-park hopping because of the short-term restrictions, we are creating evils such as we seek to prevent. These powers are something which have been taken in no other country of the world. Though many of them have similar problems to our own, it has not been thought necessary to take this kind of power-and this is on the admission of a Government spokesman. I realise that what I have put down in this Amendment would not be effective—I say this before the noble Lord tells me—were the words in paragraph (b) to remain there. I realise it is defective in that way and that if it was to be accepted it would require a further Amendment. But I wish to put it for ward on the question of principle at the present time. I beg to move.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord St. Helens)

Before putting this Amendment, I must point out to the Committee that, if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 16 or 17.

Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH

If I supported the noble Lord in moving this Amendment it would be from a purely practical point of view. I have had only limited experience in the operation of car parks. The particular in stance was in the North of England. A client for whom I was working took over 12 months to complete his development, and while at the beginning the method of operation, the number of hours and prices to be charged were all agreed, by the time he came to the end of the development the circumstances had changed so radically that it was necessary, about three weeks before the commissioning of the park, to change not only the hours and method of operation but also the cost.

It seems to me, as the Bill is drafted, that by the time the licence is applied for and subsequently granted these conditions will be set down, and by the time the car park is ready to work all these conditions could be considerably changed. Any variations in the licence would be bound to take some time and the essence of any successful commercial operation is the speed at which the circumstances can be altered to fit the changed conditions. This can be done quite easily in a commercial operation where there is not usually a back reference. It would seem to me that a licence: should be granted with the minimum of controls so far as the commercial practicability of the operation is concerned. Apart from that, one can quite easily see a circumstance where in a borough or a particular part of a town a new store opens, something new happens creating new parking demands new pressures on municipal, commercial or any other operator, in which the price may have to be altered in a matter of weeks. As the Bill is drafted, there is not an adequate provision for such changes.

I support the Amendment lastly on the grounds that it is quite unreasonable for any public body or local authority to pre scribe the terms in which either a municipal or, in particular, a private company may operate its concern. It seems to me to be a removal of a liberty, almost a civil liberty, certainly a liberty which is norm ally enjoyed by a concern which by the very nature of its undertaking is subject to the hazards of various conditions, local preferences, local demands and all sorts of conditions. It can stand to lose a great deal of money, or of course to make a great deal of money, but I do not feel that any artificial or extra conditions should be imposed upon those conditions already imposed by virtue of the application for planning permission, the licence to operate, and so on. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, can persuade me that these fears are ill-founded; other wise I am afraid I shall have to support the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, who I hope will in that event take his Amendment to the obvious conclusion.

Lord REDESDALE

I rise to support my noble friend on this point. I appreciate that in its present form the Amendment is unacceptable. My worry is that, as the Bill stands at the moment, it could act as a deterrent to operators planning to open sites, because there seems to be so much doubt as to the economic feasibility of the operation. I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, would give consideration to this Amendment on the basis that a further change could be brought in at a later stage whereby operators could be given a rather more realistic situation to look forward to.

5.11 p.m.

Lord SHEPHERD

I am not sure how far the noble Lord has read the Bill and taken note of the various provisions, which give a great deal of flexibility. One of the reasons why Clause 36, for in stance, is so long and involved is to give a high degree of flexibility in operation with the necessary protections. I can only say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that he seems to forget that in London we are dealing with an increasingly difficult problem. The management of traffic is difficult enough to-day, but in a few years' time, unless something drastic is done, we are going to have a complete seize-up.

In 1956, when the noble Lord, Lord Molson, was Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Transport, the first steps were taken to manage traffic when the parking meter was introduced. The row that ensued in your Lordships' House is one that I still remember. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, was then defending the Bill. All the noble Lords who represented the A.A, and R.A.C. interests spoke in a way similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, to-day, and said that the parking meter was a major attack on the freedom of motorists. But I do not think there is any question to-day that the parking meter provides a reasonable opportunity for those wishing to shop and carry out business calls to find places to park their cars. If there were no parking meters, the streets would be packed with the cars of commuters, who come up at 8 o'clock and leave their cars until they go home at 7, and there would be no room for visitors in London. The noble Lord knows this as well as I do.

Off-street parking is a major contribution to traffic management. It will not in itself solve the problem, but it is one of the ways that is open to the G.L.C., who are the traffic and highway authorities. It is certainly not our intention that investment in off-street car parking should be discouraged. The reverse is the case. Clearly, we need inside London more off-street car parks, if only to get rid of those cars that are still parked in the streets off the meter and which contribute, I suppose, in the main, to the snarling-up of traffic from which public transport is the worst sufferer. Therefore we do not seek to discourage the development of off-street parking either by public or by private enterprise. What we want to do—and this is the purpose of heads (i), (ii) and (iii)—is to provide for some control over how off-street car parking facilities are used.

This is not an attack on the motorist. In the long run, it will help the motorist. It may be that in central London, around Regent Street, in the view of those who study traffic problems, more space should be made available for those ladies who bring up their cars in order to go shop ping instead of for the gentlemen who bring their cars up at nine and leave them in the streets all day. At this stage no one can say what should be the proportion between long-term and short-term parking, but there are ways and means of achieving this and these three heads give us the necessary flexibility. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, will not support the view of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that this is an attack on the motorist.

Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH

On three separate occasions the noble Lord has suggested that I attacked the proposals or their intention. I did no such thing. I started by giving my view on the practicability of the proposal. No such attack was made; an objection to the practicability was certainly made.

Lord SHEPHERD

The noble Lord must not be too sensitive. "Attack" is not a very strong word to use in your Lordships' House. If my memory is right, the noble Lord did say that this was a removal of freedom, and that could be construed as an attack. But if that word hurts the noble Lord, I certainly withdraw it.

May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, that these provisions are subject to the calling-in procedure that is in the Bill. If an appeal is made against the conditions of licence and representations are made, these will be called in by the Minister, who will then be required to consider the case that has been made. There are also appeals procedures in Schedule 5, Part III, against conditions imposed by boroughs; and in the last resort operators have the protection of the compensation provisions in Part IV. I do not think we should underestimate the power of compensation. Local authorities are not going to move without careful thought, or without a strong case, if they know that by doing so they may be required to pay compensation, which in some cases would be quite heavy. I hope that with these few words—too many, I am afraid, but the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, aroused me—the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, will with draw his Amendment.

Lord AIREDALE

I was interested to listen to that part of the Minister's speech in which he referred to the parking meter scheme, which started in 1956, because—although I cannot see that it has much to do with this Amendment, which is concerned with off-street parking—so far as I can remember, the parking meter scheme was designed, inter alia, to raise money to provide off-street parking. Since the meter scheme has been going for 13 years, I was on tenterhooks waiting for the Minister to come to the point when he was going, I hoped, to tell us how the parking meter scheme was getting on, and how all this money which has been accumulating, I hope, for the last 13 years was going to be used, or is being used, to provide off-street parking—in fact how the scheme is working out generally. But suddenly the Minister stopped talking about the parking meter scheme, and the interesting part of his speech which I was awaiting never came. I suppose I cannot complain because it did not really have too much to do with this Amendment, but it was disappointing that we did not hear the answer.

Lord CHESHAM

I must absolve the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, of too much responsibility here because he has been working very hard on this Bill at the last minute and he rather insinuated that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, was not quite aware what was in the Bill. I am certain that the noble Lord is entirely conversant with what is in the Bill, but I am not absolutely convinced that he is aware of what it actually means. One or two things that he has just said would rather appear to indicate that. He has for the second time this afternoon told us that there are great safeguards built into the provisions for the "call-in" procedure by the Minister for compensation, and I have already queried the tightness with which they are drawn. I should be more convinced by what he has told me if I thought he was going to accept the Amendments I have on those subjects later on; but I shall have to wait and see. If they were as I wanted them I should be more convinced than I am with things as they are.

The noble Lord is rather naive if he thinks that these restrictions are no more than a passing inconvenience to the motorist; that is, if they are used. If they are not used, why are the powers required? He referred to the flexibility with which this Bill was drawn. I would agree that the provisions of the Bill are drawn up with the utmost flexibility—so flexibile that whatever happens there is always a restriction that can be brought in to meet it. If that is flexibility, then the noble Lord is right. Granted that it is necessary to achieve something of what Her Majesty's Government wish to achieve and the noble Lord has ex patiated on, I do not call it an attack on the motorist, but I do consider it an unwarrantable restriction when other methods have not been provided. The noble Lord rightly said we must plan for the future. What are we planning—restrictions for the future? We do not seem to be planning car parks, we do not seem to be planning road improvements. Let us get on with those and when we have run out of those and cannot produce any more then we can talk about restrictions—that is the time, not now. This is the wrong way round.

I have said before, and I will say again, that this is putting the cart before the horse. This is restriction in order to cover up for the omissions of the past, and nothing more. Even if some degree of control is necessary, why should there be thought to be merit in the local authority going down to such control as between contract parkers and casual parkers? If there is justification for this sort of control, I should have thought it could be perfectly adequately arrived at by differentiation between long-term and short-term parking, not sub-dividing it into every possible category, unless that is the flexibility of restriction that is thought necessary.

Lord SHEPHERD

Would the noble Lord forgive me? Is it not a fact in this particular clause that the choice is there? This is not laying it down that this is what it shall be. It will be for the local authority itself to decide the manner in which it brings about traffic management and makes use of off-street parking. The noble Lord said you could lay it down by saying how many places should be available for long-term parking and the number of places for short-term parking. That is one of the ways in the Bill. There are other ways as to price; there are other ways as to the time in which a car park is open. In the end, it will be for the local authority which is the traffic authority to make up its mind which is the right way. Parliament will not be telling it. Those responsible for traffic will decide.

Lord CHESHAM

Precisely. We are giving powers to do that. No more can I see why it should be justified that they should have the powers to open and close car parks—other people's car parks—at what hour they choose, which seems to me a form of control which is purely Draconian and can lead only to some great likelihood of non-viability of car parks if those powers are used.

I was going on to say that the noble Lord is at his most naïve if he thinks the measures contained in this Bill are not going to discourage private operation and provision of car parks. Of course, I do not think for a moment that it is the intention of the Government to discourage the provision of car parks by private enterprise, but this is the effect this Bill is having. The noble Lord used the words that he did not "seek" to discourage the provision of off-street car parks by private enterprise. He is already doing it. This is already happening. I can tell him; and the enthusiasm and the initiative to provide off-street car parks by private enterprise in London, I can tell the noble Lord straight across the Floor, is already weakening ahead of this Bill. Let us have absolutely no mistake about that.

Just before he finished the noble Lord used an expression "traffic management". I want to know what he meant by that, because there is a conflict, as I have previously pointed out to your Lordships. The restrictive measures that he has been describing—which I have been trying to modify and he has been insisting on retaining—would seem to be aimed entirely at getting cars off the streets. This much has been admitted by the G.L.C. The Minister's Parliamentary Secretary in a ministerial utterance said: "There is No intention to force the motorist off the street." What then, may I inquire, if the Minister is correct, did the noble Lord mean by "traffic management"?

Lord POPPLEWELL

I am rather surprised at such reactionary arguments coming from Lord Chesham in this direction. What is he asking the Committee to do? He is asking for the elimination of these three heads. He does not want any question of published maximum and minimum charges, but that private enterprise should set up car-parking some where and charge what they so determine. The next point is on the proportion of parking spaces to be available respectively for casual parking and for specific categories. He does not want any regulations or any attempt to bring a common-sense planning method of establishing car parks anywhere. He just wants the whole question of profit and loss or commercial judgment, as Lord Lucas says, to be the deciding factor.

Then you come to the third head: the times of opening and closing of the licensed parking place…". He does not want anything like that. He wants the whole position to be left in the hands of some individuals, so that if they think there is a possibility of establishing off-street parking they should be allowed to do so, and the price they determine, whether for short term or long term, is in accord with their commercial judgment, and they should open just as and when they determine. Surely, that is the interpretation of Lord Chesham's Amendment on this point. He shakes his head. What is it then? He wants the elimination of these controls. Surely that must be the right interpretation. There is much to be said for establishing minimum and maximum prices for car parks. As my noble friend Lord Shepherd rightly said, the short-term user of a car park coming into town for business or pleasure does not want to find these off-street car parks cluttered up by the long-term commuters. Their designation for parking is at the periphery, and then they use public transport. This must be the pattern for the future, and I should have thought that it was not in the best interests of Lord Chesham's members to press this Amendment.

Lord CHESHAM

I think I should come in here if only in justice to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. If I have indicated in any way what the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, seems to think I have, I cannot have expressed myself very clearly. I can sum it up in one sentence. Of course I want car parks; but I do not want a set of circumstances which will militate against us getting car parks set up by this Bill. I have already made that abundantly clear, and I repeat it now.

Much as I should like to suggest that your Lordships should express your opinion on this matter, I cannot do so at this stage, because, as I began by saying, the Amendment is defective through inadvertence in not cross-referencing else where. I put on a white sheet, and I admit that. I cannot ask your Lordships to divide now, but, in the circumstances, I think I should be justified in saying to the noble Lord that, in view of what has been said, I may well return to this question on the Report stage. Mean while, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 16: Page 43, line 37 leave out from first ("the") to ("minimum") in line 38.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment, again, relates to charges and would limit the scope of any charging restrictions under a licence to a restriction on the minimum charge only. It seems, as I have just been arguing, that it would be much better not to impose a scale of charges which would strike at the heart of providing car parking economically and particularly at the flexibility which is necessary in the field of charges. Operators will say that from their experience it is often necessary to make decisions about alterations in charging patterns and amounts, and they have had to do this at short notice, particularly in relation to more ambitious projects involving the investment of large sums of money.

It seems that the main purpose of the Clause is to discourage commuter traffic. I should have thought that it would only be necessary to specify a relatively high minimum charge for all-day parking to do this, and thus ensure that parking space is available for short-term users. As I say, I do not think this procedure, however flexible, would give the operational flexibility that is necessary. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, realises that this can be an expensive and a slow business to get under way, because he said so esrlier. That is why I feel that this Amendment applying to minimum charges should be accepted. I beg to move.

Lord SHEPHERD

If the Committee (or the House, as it may be later) agree with the Government in regard to the previous Amendment, I hope they will also agree with the Government that this Amendment, No. 16, should be resisted. It can be argued that we should leave it to the market forces, and that there should be a free market. If, however, you are going to set minimum charges, and you may also (I say "may" because in the end it will be for those who are responsible for traffic management to decide) limit particular types of parking, then I think it is only right that if you create an artificial shortage for a particular type of parking there should be some control as to what is the maximum charge made by the car-park authorities. It is for this reason that the provision was put into the Bill, and for this reason I hope the noble Lord will agree that the maximum charge should also be provided for in the Bill.

Lord CHESHAM

I cannot say that I agree with the noble Lord, but as he has indicated that we shall return to this at a later stage, at this moment I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord SHEPHERD

On behalf of my noble friend Lord Winterbottom, [beg to move Amendment No. 17. It is a drafting Amendment designed to mike it quite clear that the descriptions of parking referred to in subsection (4) (c) (i) of Clause 36 are those listed in subsection (4) (i).

Amendment moved— Page 43, line 41, leave out ("aforesaid descriptions of parking") and insert ("descriptions of parking referred to in paragraph (b) of this subsection").—(Lord Shepherd.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.39 p.m.

Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 19: Page 44, line 5, at end insert ("the cost of providing such information to be paid by the local authority;").

The noble Lord said: This Amendment relates to the manner in which users of the licensed parking place are to be informed of the effect of the terms and conditions specified in the licence. I think it is not quite enough to rely on an assurance that all local authorities always behave in the most reasonable fashion. This control is, after all, being introduced for the public benefit. It seems to be only reasonable that the information should be promulgated at the expense of the local authority. It would be possible for an elaborate and costly process to be specified in the licence, and I doubt whether that point is really properly covered by the call-in procedure or the compensation provisions, or anything like that. It seems much better to make this modest Amendment and make the matter clear at the time. I beg to move.

Lord SHEPHERD

I will look care fully at what the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has just said, because I am bound to say that I was not quite clear to what extent he was referring to one particular Amendment or to the other. I will look at it carefully to-morrow morning. With regard to the Amendments themselves, I fear that they must be resisted. I will give the reasons. First, where a licensing system, or a controlled system of any kind is set up, those affected by it have to accept its requirements. This has always been Parliamentary practice. For example, the goods vehicle operators are bound by law to keep records of their drivers' hours, and have to bear the cost for so doing. Secondly, the compliance with types of conditions in question should not involve the car-park operator in any significant expenditure, but if in any particular instance it did so, in circumstances which are extremely difficult to envisage, the operator might in some cases be able to claim compensation from the local authority under the provisions of Part IV of Schedule 5 to the Bill.

Finally, there is the point that the operator might choose for his own purposes to comply with either of the two conditions in question in a more costly manner than was strictly necessary in order to secure compliance with the terms of the licence. The local authority would have no control over this, and it would be quite wrong to saddle them with the consequences of the expense. That is the answer I must give to the Amendment which the noble Lord has moved, and also to Amendment No. 22, to which he has spoken. He raised a number of other points which I will take note of when I read them in Hansard to-morrow, and I will consult with my officials.

Lord AIREDALE

I should like to raise a point under head (iv) which I think we are now discussing. Head (iv) seems to presuppose that the users of licensed car-parks are entitled to be told of the manner in which the effect of the terms and conditions of the licence applies. I should have thought that some of the terms and conditions of the car-park licences had nothing to do with the users of the car park at all. Take. for instance, the condition that the present licence will expire on December 31, unless it is renewed. The effect of that upon the car-park users will be that unless the licence is renewed this car park will not be operating after December 31, and in accordance with head (iv) it appears that a notice has to be put up to inform the users of this car-park that, unless the licence is renewed, the park will not be operating after next December. There may be no reason to suppose that the licence will not be renewed, and although that type of information can be passed on to the users of the car-park it will only create alarm and despondency among them, and will have no useful purpose. I therefore challenge the pro position which appears to be contained in head (iv), the manner in which the effect of the terms and conditions of licences has to be brought to the notice of car-park users. I should have thought this information was of No interest to car-park users at all, and that they were interested only in some—certainly not all—aspect of the conditions of the licences under which the car-parks operate.

5.45 p.m.

Lord SHEPHERD

I would only say to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that there are, as he will see in the earlier parts of the Bill, two types of licences: there are the permanent licences and there are the short-term licences, for either two years or five years. As I understand it, Part IV states that the car-park user shall be aware of the conditions under which that car park is operating, the manner in which the area has been divided between long-term and short-term, between commuter and shopping. I do not think fear and trembling will arise in the minds of the car-park user as to whether this car park will be available next year or not.

Lord CHESHAM

I am sorry: I confused the issue with reference to Amendment No. 22, which applies the same principle to a rather different point. That is the question of payment. I am not sure that I am very happy about this thesis. The noble Lord keeps praying in aid the fact that it is customary that anyone who is subject to a fee or causes expense to any form of local authority always has to pay for it, whether he wants it or whether he does not. It seems to me that this has been quietly built into the system of the country, and is always accepted by the House; and it is high time that things changed. In the circumstances, I do not think we can make much out of this so, with some reluctance, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 19.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 20:

Page 44, line 6, leave out sub-paragraph (v) and insert— ("(v) the keeping by the operator of the licensed parking place as respects all, or as respects any respectively, of the descriptions of parking referred to in the said paragraph (b) of records showing for each day the number of vehicles using parking spaces at the licensed parking place and the sums received by way of charges for the use of those parking spaces.")

The noble Lord said: If I may, I should like in moving this Amendment to speak also to No. 23. The first of these two Amendments is designed to make it clear that the documents which the operator of a public off-street car park may be required to keep as one of the conditions of his licence may be only those showing the use being made of his car park, either overall or by the different types of parker—long-term, short-term, casual, regular, and so on—specified in Clause 36 (4) (b), and his receipts from that use. Fears were expressed both at Committee and Report stage in another place that local authorities' powers of inspection of the records which car-park licensees are requited to keep could be used to examine operators' general profit and loss accounts which they might be keeping for their own private business purposes. This has never been the intention, and the purpose of this Amendment is to make this clear by spelling out the nature of the records which may be required to be kept so as to place a clear limit on what documents may be inspected under the provisions of Clause 36 (5) (b). The second Amendment, No. 23, is merely consequential on the first.

Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD

I should like to say a word of thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for moving this Amendment. This paragraph is quite a significant improvement on the original one in the Bill as it now stands. I think it should resolve the anxieties which were felt and expressed in another place about what might be asked for. This will improve the Bill considerably and I have pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

Lord CHESHAM

I also am grateful to the noble Lord for this Amendment which does, as near as makes no difference, what I was setting out to do in Amendment No. 21. I have nothing more to add except to say, "Thank you" for it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord SHEPHERD: I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 44, line 18, leave out ("accounts or other")—(Lord Shepherd.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.50 p.m.

Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 25: Page 44. line 35, after ("available") insert ("(not being less than the number available at any date on which such regulations are made)").

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed to make quite sure that the maximum number of parking spaces to be made available in off-street car parks in any area designated by the Greater London Council as a controlled area under this clause would at least amount to the number available at the date of the making of the regulations. It seems that the rights for the operation of a parking place have been granted in the past by the local planning authority, and it seems right that operators of existing car parks should be assured that the licence they are to be granted under these new powers will be on terms which reflect the terms on which the parking place is currently operated. I beg to move.

Lord SHEPHERD

The Greater London Council may well not wish to reduce the existing overall number of parking spaces in a particular area, or the number of certain types of parking spaces, but they might, for example, want to cut down the maximum number of parking spaces for, say, long-term parkers in order to give benefit to short-term and other types of parkers. If controls over parking, and in particular certain types of parking, are needed—and we have no doubt at all that they are—they must be able to bite on existing as well as future car parks.

As I have said before, and I repeat, adequate provision has to be made to protect the interest of operators, the safe guards of the call-in procedure of the G.L.C., with the possibility—and here I stress this perhaps for the first time—of a public inquiry being held and the compensation provisions being invoked if they can show that they have suffered damage as a result of the licensing scheme. For this reason, I ask the Committee to resist this Amendment.

Lord CHESHAM

The noble Lord seems to have given poor reasons for resisting the Amendment, because there is nothing in the Amendment which will stop the local authority doing what it is that the noble Lord wishes it to do. There is nothing to stop it re-categorising (if that is the right word) different classifications of space. All this Amendment seeks to do is to ensure that a garage operating with a given number of spaces shall continue to operate with the same number of spaces. It seems to me to be a simple and entirely reasonable Amendment.

Lord SHEPHERD

It is, but on the other hand it may well be that a garage may have to be removed for planning reasons, such as road development, and therefore it is not possible to put such a provision into a Statute. As I see it now, the noble Lord is talking about the overall number available. I will look at that point, but as I read the Amendment it needs tying in rather more specifically, and we wish to see that there is the maximum flexibility in traffic management for the authorities to change from time to time what may be the balance between one type of parker and another.

Lord CHESHAM

As I have said before, as often as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has commented on it, I still remain unconvinced (unless we are to get a tightening up later in the Bill) of the worth of the "call-in" procedure. If he is going to rely on that—and we shall watch this carefully—the Minister will be a very busy man. Unless we get some satisfaction in regard to the tightening up of the "call-in" procedure in the compensation clauses later in the Bill we shall have to return to the subject again. The noble Lord is nodding his head with apparent delight; I will join him if he so wishes, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord CHESHAM

This is a small Amendment which is designed to ensure that a decision of the authority is at once communicated to the recipient who needs to have it. I think it might equally read, "immediately". It is perhaps a fraction more than a drafting Amendment, but not very much. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 45, line 15, after ("shall") insert ("at the same time").—(Lord Chesham.)

Lord SHEPHERD

I fear that this Amendment cannot be accepted as it stands. A decision on a licence application would be made at a council meeting, and clearly the local authority could not inform the applicant of the reasons for the decision actually "at the same time". But I express sympathy with the object of the Amendment and will undertake to move an Amendment at Report stage to meet the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham.

Lord CHESHAM

That would suit me very well. It reminds me slightly of the case of putting in an extra comma. The wording could be "without delay" or "as soon as possible", or whatever the noble Lord thinks suitable.

Lord SHEPHERD

It will probably need a paragraph.

Lord CHESHAM

In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 27: Page 45, line 37, leave out ("revocation or").

The noble Lord said

This Amendment can be dealt with in conjunction with Amendments Nos. 31 and 32. Clause 36 (8) (d) states how the local authority shall have the powers of revocation of a permanent licence, and gives the reference to the Schedules to enable it to do so. In my view it is a simple and short fact of life that if there is this power to revoke a permanent licence at 12 months' notice it is bound to act as a deterrent to people to seek permanent licences for the construction and operation of car parks. The matter is as simple and straightforward as that. I do not believe that a permanent licence should be revocable, and I hope your Lordships will agree. I beg to move.

Lord SHEPHERD

I fear that this is not as simple as the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has suggested. We believe that the borough should have the power to revoke permanent licences. It is required that 12 months' notice should be given, and there are the various safe guards which are written into the Bill. The reasons why it is necessary to have this power to revoke a permanent licence are, first, that it may be in the interests of the proper planning of transport in Greater London. Secondly, that the operation of the licensed car park has been discontinued for a period of not less than two years. Powers of revocation are needed here to prevent the accumulation of dormant licences which would make it impossible for the boroughs to assess the numbers, and so on, of parking places which could be granted in new licences. Thirdly, that a new car park was ready for operation at the time of issue of the licence, but the holder has failed to make any significant number of parking places available to the public at the car park for a period of two years. Revocation of a licence in this case can only take place where an operator is failing to make the car park available for public use, not, of course, if he is merely failing to get a significant number of customers. Again the powers of revocation are needed to prevent the accumulation of dormant licences.

There is another reason, that the development of the car park has not been begun within three years of the grant of the licence, or if a development has not been completed within seven years of the grant of the licence, or if within two years from the completion of the development the holder of the licence has failed to make any significant number of parking spaces available to the public. Again revocation powers are needed to prevent the accumulation of dormant licences.

In all four sets of circumstances out lined above the power of revocation of a licence is subject to the rights of appeal and compensation set out in Paris III and IV of Schedule 5. Moreover, no such revocation can take place before the expiration of the period for giving notice of appeal under Part III of the Schedule or, if an appeal is lodged, before the determination or abandonment of the appeal itself. There would have to be clear reasons why a permanent licence is to be revoked, but there may be cases, quite apart from failing to carry out part of the licence, when it is necessary in the public interest to revoke such a licence; but in these circumstances of course compensation would be paid.

Lord CHESHAM

There may be something in what the noble Lord has said, but I would remind him of the words he himself used—that it is not sought to discourage the provision of off-street car parking. He does not really believe, surely, in the prospect of taking on an expensive project over a long period with a permanent licence which can be cancelled at 12 months' notice because the local authority think it expedient to do so in the interests of the proper planning of transport. Compensation or no compensation, even full compensation, which is not provided for in the Bill, is not going to be very satisfactory for a man who is put out of business. Therefore he will think twice before he goes into the business. But if the noble Lord thinks that the creation of this bureaucratic structure is more important than the provision of car parks, I must leave him with it, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 28:

Page 46, line 11, insert— ("( ) In so far as any decision of a local authority under this section with which compliance is required by the operator of a public off-street parking place is to any extent in conflict with the terms and conditions of any lease, agreement for a lease or licence or contract under or by virtue of which the operator has or gives possession or right to the use of the premises or any part thereof at which the parking place is situate, then such terms and conditions shall to that extent be null and void, but damage as respects which a claim may be made to the local authority pursuant to paragraph 4 of Part IV of Schedule 5 to this Act by any person shall include damage suffered by that person by virtue of such annulment or voidance.")

The noble Lord said: This Amendment provides for your Lordships' consideration a fairly lengthy subsection. No doubt all your Lordships have seen it. Its purpose—and it is quite an important point here—is to provide that if compliance with the terms and conditions of a licence for an off-street parking place are in conflict with the covenants and conditions attaching to the terms under any existing lease, agreement for lease or licence or contract, there should be relief against forfeiture of the lease or other assurance so as to safeguard all the people who are interested in the matter.

This possibility of conflict is not just a piece of academic imagining on my part, because I can tell the Committee that a significant number of leases entitle the lessor to a share in the profits by way of rental, and this could very well be affected by the charges requirements of a car-parking licence; and they could also contain provisions restrictive of the user or otherwise prescribing some form of requirement which would affect the use and operation and viability of a car park. And in fact such leases are frequently held actually from local authorities. I think that unquestionably we should en sure that the provisions of this Act do not override the provisions of existing legal agreements of one kind or another. I beg to move.

Lord SHEPHERD

This Amendment seeks to provide that where any conditions imposed in a licence conflict with the conditions of any lease, contract, et cetera, under which the operator uses the car park premises, the conditions of the lease et cetera should be null and void and the lessor et cetera entitled to compensation for any damage thereby suffered. In the first place, no comparable provision in relation to conditions imposed in planning permissions exist under the planning laws—on which, of course, Clause 36 and Schedule 5 have been closely modelled. Secondly, the Amendment could open the door widely to abuse. Landowners might enter into leases and contracts which deliberately included conditions which were likely to conflict with those in the parking licences in order then to be able to "fleece"(to use an appropriate phrase) the local authorities for compensation.

If, under the licensing system, conditions are imposed by the local authority which conflict with the terms of the operator's lease or contract, it will be up to him to seek to vary those terms with his lessor, landowner, et cetera, if in fact these terms are not frustrated by the licensing system as could happen in some cases. In appropriate cases compensation may be claimable by landowners or operators under Part IV of Schedule 5 to the Bill where there has been a genuine diminution in the value of an interest in the land or where disturbance has been suffered. For these reasons I must ask the Committee to resist this Amendment.

Lord CHESHAM

I do not know, but it really seems to me that this is getting a little out of hand, because only one reason is ever advanced for anything: ultimately, if you have a grievance you can seek compensation under a rather weak compensation clause. I shall come back to that later on. I think this is a reasonable Amendment. I do not see why one should simply be hopeful of the provisions of the Bill, or of the Schedules, that one might be able to get out of the troubles into which one is put by the compensation provisions of the Bill. I think that this should quite well and clearly be expressed in the Bill and that the Bill will be the better for it.

6.10 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 28) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 41.

CONTENTS
Airedale, L.	Hertford, M.	Redesdale, L. [Teller.]
Alport, L.	Killearn, L.	St. Oswald, L.
Audley, Bs.	Lauderdale, E.	Strange of Knokin, Bs.
Chesham, L. [Teller.]	MacAndrew, L.	Strathclyde, L.
Daventry, V.	Milverton, L.	Templemore, L.
Gray, L.	Morrison, L.	Tweedsmuir, L.
Grimston of Westbury, L.	Mountevans, L.	Vivian, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Addison, V.	Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Mais, L.
Archibald, L.	Garnsworthy, L.	Milner of Leeds, L.
Arwyn, L.	Henderson, L.	Molson, L.
Beswick, L.	Hill of Wivenhoe, L.	Phillips, Bs.
Birk, Bs.	Hilton of Upton, L.	Popplewell, L.
Bowles, L. [Teller.]	Hughes, L.	Ritchie-Calder, L.
Brockway, L.	Kennet, L.	St. Davids, V.
Brown, L.	Leatherland, L.	Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)
Chalfont, L.	Lindgren, L.	Shepherd, L.
Champion, L.	Lloyd, L.	Stonham, L.
Collison, L.	Lloyd of Hampstead, L. [Teller.]	Stow Hill. L.
Crook, L.		Strabolgi, L.
Evans of Hungershall, L.	Macpherson of Drumochter, L.	Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Gaitskell, Bs.	Maelor, L.	Wells-Pestell, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

6.20 p.m.

Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 29: Page 46, line 25, leave out ("local authority") and insert ("Court").

The noble Lord said: It does not seem right and proper that a local authority should be put in the position of a quasi judicial body in its own affairs; in other words, that it should be both administrator and judge in its own cause. This is the position as the Bill is at present drafted. This suggested change will be quite in accordance with precedent in relation to the position of local authorities in the case of, for instance, music and dancing licences. I think that this change would be beneficial. I beg to move.

Lord SHEPHERD

The object of these Amendments is to provide that the courts, instead of the local authority, shall have the power to revoke an operators licence where he has persistently or wilfully failed to comply with the conditions of the licence. The Government are sympathetic towards this object and agree that it would be more appropriate for a court than a local authority to decide on the ultimate sanction of revocation of a licence for breach of conditions. But we should like to consider the best drafting to meet the point, and will put forward an Amendment at Report. I think the noble Lord, on moving Amendment No. 29, would also be speaking to Amendment No. 30, which I regard as consequential.

Lord CHESHAM

The noble Lord is quite right, Amendment No. 30 is consequential on Amendment No. 29. I am, of course, happy to accept what he has just said, and I imagine that the best plan is that I beg leave to withdrew No. 29 and do not move No. 30.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.22 p.m.

Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 34:

Page 47, line 17, at end insert— ("( ) The provisions of Part VI of Schedule 5 to this Act shall have effect with respect to the making of objections by the holder of any licence to operate a public off-street parking place in a controlled area or any other person entitled to an interest in the premises used for the purposes of that parking place, to the terms and conditions on which the use of parking place, to the terms and conditions on which the use of parking spaces at a public off-street parking place provided by a local authority under section 28 of the Act of 1967, in that area is offered.')

The noble Lord said: This has now become quite an important Amendment. It proposes to insert, as your Lordships will see from the Marshalled List, a new subsection. With it goes Amendment No. 79, which puts in a very substantial lump—in fact a whole new Schedule, to form Schedule 6 to the Bill, instead of the present five Schedules. The purpose of these Amendments is to fill a gap in the Bill as it stands. It was decided by your Lordships' Committee earlier that the conditions would remain whereby it would be perfectly possible for a local authority car-park operator to be in competition with the private operator—and possibly in a very advantageous competitive position, because the local authority operator is not caught by the provisions of the Bill. Therefore the purpose of this Amendment is to give a licensed operator a right of objection to the terms and conditions on which a public off-street parking place is provided by a local authority in the same area.

As things stand, the Bill provides that only the regulations of the Greater London Council, which are quite narrow, apply to the operation of the local authority parking places, subject to modifications. The local authority is there fore, or may be, in a privileged position and under no restrictions particularly as regards charges. This freedom could operate—I am not saying it would—to the grave detriment of private parking-place operators in the vicinity, and if local authorities are not to be subject to the full licensing procedure of the Clause 1 think it is only right that there should be some more positive and more definite right of objection to the Minister for the safeguard of private operators in these circumstances. I think that is the shortest and simplest introduction I can give to what is a rather formidable and complicated piece of verbiage on the Marshalled List, and I therefore beg to move.

Lord SHEPHERD

The object of these Amendments is to introduce an appeal procedure to the Minister for any one with interests in a particular licensed public off-street car park who feels that he is being subjected to unfair competition. I hope to prove to the noble Lord that these Amendments are unnecessary. We had a long discussion on Amendments Nos. 11, 13 and 33, and I said then that we had drafted the Bill as tightly as possible so as to oblige the boroughs to run their own car parks under similar conditions and restraints as those imposed on privately owned car parks under the licences. In the unlikely event of the G.L.C.'s draft regulations seeking to discriminate in favour of the boroughs' car parks by imposing less stringent requirements on them as compared with the conditions for other car parks in the controlled area, private operators could make representations against the regulations under Part I of the new Schedule. These representations would have to come to the Minister who could then call in the regulations and disallow them, in whole or in part, or direct that they be suitably modified. In the unlikely event of a borough's breaching the provisions of the G.L.C. regulations applicable to the borough's own car parks in order to give them an unfair advantage, the normal processes of the law could be invoked against them.

Furthermore, if a borough were to abuse their discretionary powers to impose conditions in car park licences so as to impose unfairly stringent conditions on private operators' car parks compared with their own, the private operators could appeal to the Minister against the imposition of these conditions under the machinery provided in Part III of the new Schedule. Again, if some time after the private operator had been granted his licence, with certain conditions imposed by the borough, the borough subsequently opened a car park of their own under less stringent conditions, the operator could apply to the borough for a variation of the conditions of his licence to put it on an equal basis with the borough's own car park. If the borough refused a variation in this way, again the operator can appeal to the Minister under Part III of the new Schedule.

Finally, as a last resort, the operator has the protection of the compensation provisions, which we shall discuss later. If, as a result of unfair conditions imposed by the borough, or their refusal to make a variation in the licence conditions for which an operator has applied, he is unable to operate a car park as advantageously as before, he can invoke the compensation provisions of Part IV of the new Schedule. Private operators are thus protected in all these different ways from a borough's abuse of the licensing system by operating its car parks at an unfair advantage. The Government believe that the London boroughs are responsible authorities, and that this position would not arise, but there are ample safeguards available to private operators if any borough were so misguided as to attempt to do so.

Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD

May I interpose one word before my noble friend gets on his feet again? I was puzzled over this Amendment be cause it refers to Part VI of Schedule 5. I imagine that it was intended to refer to either Part III or Part IV. There is no Part VI to Schedule 5. Am I not right?

Lord CHESHAM

There would be a Part VI if this Amendment and the other I referred to, No. 79, were accepted. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, if I did not misunderstand him, that this Bill was drafted as tightly as possible to ensure that local authorities would operate their car parks on the same basis as private operators, and subject to the same restrictions. Perhaps it is I who do not understand the Bill, but could the noble Lord say how?

Lord SHEPHERD

One has to take the Bill as a whole, and Clause 36 is a very complicated provision. If the noble Lord still does not accept what I have said, that we have drafted it as tightly as possible, I am quite willing to meet him, with my officials, and to go over the points which are clearly in his mind. Having said that we have drafted the Bill as tightly as possible, I am not now saying that I do not mean it. I have been advised that this Bill has been drafted as tightly as possible to meet the fears, the genuine fears, of private operators; but if there are some legal drafts men who can show to my own drafts men where it can be tightened up with out the loss of the necessary flexibility, then I am prepared to listen. But I am not a lawyer. I have to accept the legal advice which I am given—and I have no reason not to accept it. But, as I say, if the noble Lord is still concerned about this I am prepared to discuss it with him in my office to see whether it can be dealt with.

Lord CHESHAM

I am delighted about that because I would never wish to turn down a genuine offer made by the noble Lord. But, frankly, I am not satisfied about this matter. I regret that, rather like the noble Lord, I am not myself in a sufficiently informed position legally to be able to speak with all the clarity on these matters that I should like; but there are people who are not satisfied about this, and I am myself not satisfied. I should like to take advantage of the noble Lord's kind offer in due course to try to sort this matter out; but there are quite a number of people about the place who are definitely not satisfied that they are adequately safeguarded against the risks they see. The noble Lord says that they are, and there we are facing each other saying, "They are"—"They aren't "—" They are "—" They aren't", and rather leaving it like that. But on this particular point I think it might be a very advisable thing to do, and I should very much like to take advantage of the noble Lord's offer. I know that, having made the offer, he means it, and I shall therefore withdraw the Amendment now.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.35 p.m.

Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 35:

Page 47, line 17, at end insert— ("( ) No regulations designating any area in Greater London as a controlled area for the purpose of this section shall be made until the Minister has by order, which shall be subject to annulment by a resolution of either House of Parliament, authorised the Council to make such regulations. Before making such an order, the Minister shall lay before each House of Parliament a report fully explaining the intentions of the Council and the reasons for its proposals.")

The noble Lord said: I do not think it unreasonable to ask for what is set out in this Amendment. It is intended to ensure that before the Greater London Council is authorised to exercise the powers which are contained in the Bill Parliament is satisfied with what is pro posed. As I have said, these powers are extremely drastic; they are quite new, and are novel in the world. They have not been introduced, or been found necessary to be introduced, anywhere else in the world. It seems to me that since they are new, since they are drastic and since they are very far-reaching powers, at least there should be a residual measure of proper Parliamentary control by means of the Negative Resolution procedure, and it is this for which the Amendment asks. I beg to move.

Lord SHEPHERD

The Greater London Council, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, will agree, are a responsible local authority. They are already the traffic authority for Greater London, and under the Bill they will be come the overall transport authority. The Government believe that it is right and necessary for them to have the powers contained in Clause 36, and that the Council can be trusted to use these powers responsibly. Moreover, adequate machinery has already been built into the clause to safeguard against any unreasonable regulations of the Council. The draft regulations have to be published, and any representations made against them have to come to the Minister, who then has the power to call in the regulations; so that they cannot then be made without his consent. He may, if he so desires, hold a public inquiry; and, finally, he can disallow the regulations, either in part or as a whole.

The further safeguards which this Amendment seeks to provide are neither necessary nor, in the view of the Government, justifiable. As I understand it, Parliament still would not be precluded from raising matters if they thought regulations were wrong; if they thought they were too hard, or that the Minister had not himself taken proper notice or the proper action. It would still be open to either House of Parliament to raise this matter, and for the Minister to be answerable for it. But I think it would be wrong, having got this very responsible authority, the Greater London Council, for us to say that it cannot make regulations of this sort without Ministerial and Parliamentary approval.

Lord CHESHAM

I still think that it is a curious situation that we are asked to agree to the introduction of these very sweeping, very formidable and, in this country, unprecedented powers, yet Parliament does not even care to retain some rather tenuous (let us face it) degree of control by means of the Negative Resolution procedure. However, I should like to study a little more carefully what the noble Lord has said on this subject, and to study the matter again with the possibility of returning to it after I have done so. If the noble Lord does not mind my saying that, I will now ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.38 p.m.

Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 36: Page 47, line 17, at end insert—("( ) Before publishing any proposals to make regulations under this section, the Council shall consult organisations representing the users of motor vehicles and the operators of car parks affected by the proposals.")

The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to ensure the very desirable state of affairs that provision is made for consultation between local authorities and interested organisations, by which I mean largely those representative of the users and of the operators of car parks, before decisions are made to propose the application of the new powers to particular areas. This will mean that full details of the intentions of the local authorities can be explained and that the views of interested organisations can be taken into consideration at an early stage. This will probably save a good deal of grief: be cause I have to tell the Committee that the form of consultation is something which has been singularly lacking in the introduction of this Bill. Therefore I think that I have some reason to press for this Amendment; because I have reason to feel that the arrangements for consultation are somewhat weaker than they should be. What I propose is not novel; there is already a similar procedure, recognised and perfectly smooth working in regard to traffic regulation orders; and the Ministry of Transport advise local authorities to consult the R.A.C. and various other organisations in this way. I should like to quote an extract from the Local Authority Traffic Orders Procedure (England and Wales) Regulations 1969. I know that this does not apply to London—and I say that before Lord Shepherd tells me so—but I do not think that that is the slightest argument against my Amendment applying to London. The regulation reads as follows: Before making the order the authority shall in all cases consult with one or more organisations representing persons who use any road to which the order relates or who are likely to be otherwise affected by the pro visions of the order unless it appears to the authority that there is no such organisation which can appropriately be consulted.

This is a perfectly honourable and precedented Amendment, and I hope that it can be accepted. I beg to move.

Lord SHEPHERD

I said before, and I say again, that the Greater London Council are a responsible authority. They are experienced in making other traffic and parking orders and regulations. It was because of this that the Government expressed their confidence that the Council would undertake prior consultations before publishing draft regulations. I must say that on this occasion I was rather impressed by what the noble Lord. Lord Chesham, said, particularly when he drew my attention to the Road Traffic Regulations and the provision for consultation. I will see what can be done between now and the Report stage to bring into this Bill something in line with what is in the Road Traffic Regulations.

Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD

Before my noble friend withdraws the Amendment (if he is going to), may I add a word of support, which I am glad to do on this occasion from the Front Bench. It seems to me that this is a good point, and I hope that the noble Lord will find some way of putting it in the Bill.

Lord CHESHAM

Again, I welcome the co-operative spirit of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in this matter. Naturally, I am going to accept what he says. I would be less than honest if I did not say that this is a matter on which I set great store to the extent of wishing to press it. But having said what he has, I accept it—with only one cloud on the horizon; and that the size of a man's hand. It depends on what happens. I may have to press this Amendment on another occasion; but, from what the noble Lord said, perhaps I shall not have to do so. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 37:

Page 47, line 17, at end insert— ("( ) Before imposing any conditions in regard to the granting of licences to permit the operation of public off-street parking places, which relate to the matters described in subsections (4) (c) (i), (ii) and (iii), the local authorities shall require the applicants to display notices concerning the proposed conditions at the parking places for not less than thirty days and shall consider any objections received from users of the car parks.")

The noble Lord said: From what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has been telling us—somewhat repetitively, if I may say so—it seems that operators who are aggrieved in some way have (in his opinion adequate and in mine inadequate') appeal to the Minister; but nobody has thought much about the users. I think it might be claimed that those who use the car parks and the roads might also have a little consideration in this matter. This Amendment is designed to introduce a procedure whereby users would be able to object to proposals by the authorities to impose conditions related to the operation of the car parks which would unreasonably restrict the facilities available to them. The procedure which the Bill now proposes enables the users of individual car parks to have notice of intention to apply the new powers to a particular area. The information that they get about that will probably not indicate sufficiently precisely how the powers will be exercised and, in particular, will not specify the conditions to be imposed with regard to the operation of individual car parks.

This is shown by paragraph 1 of Schedule 5 which says that the Council shall cause to be published… a notice… giving a summary of their effect…

I think that "a summary of their effect" may not be quite enough to inform a user how it is likely to affect him. I think that private motorists, especially those who use a particular car park regularly, will undoubtedly resent the imposition of restrictive conditions which affect them adversely when they have had no chance to express their views to the authorities. This Amendment makes certain that people are not treated with disdain and that they know what is going on—although I am not suggesting that there should be any provision other than the fact that their objections should be considered. This seems reasonable. I beg to move.

Lord SHEPHERD

I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that at present, with car parking as it is, the car driver has no powers and no opportunities to complain. We know that certain of the car parks are pretty well full with regular parkers and that there is very little opportunity for getting in unless one is known there. Having said that, I would put to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, that we are bringing this whole operation into the range of the local authority; and in this situation persons who feel aggrieved, being perhaps closer to local authority members than they are to Members of Parliament and to the Minister, have ways and means of getting their views known.

On the instructions that I have, I can not undertake to put down an Amendment on Report stage; but I think the noble Lord has a point. I should like to give further thought to the idea that there should be some channel by which grievances can be expressed. I will look at it again; but I do so on the basis that there is no firm commitment.

Lord CHESHAM

That is co-operative; but the noble Lord is a little off-track about one thing. I do not know that so many car parks are as permanently crammed as he seems to think. I am talking about the motorist who comes to London, say, two or three times a week and who expects to leave his car in off-street parking, as he is supposed to; to leave it there all day while he goes to the office and to pay so much for doing so. If one day the man at the gate says: "You can not come in until 10.30; you must go at 4 o'clock and it is going to cost double", he has a ground for complaint and he can go immediately to the manager's office. He could ring up the firm that operates the park. But under the new procedure he has no very obvious channel of complaint when something like this happens to him, and this is what I am seeking. If the noble Lord is prepared, even without commitment, to have a look at it, I will accept that offer and withdraw the Amendment while reserving, as he will recognise I must, my right to come back with it if he feels that he cannot do any thing about the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.51 p.m.

Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 38:

Page 47, line 17, at end insert— ("( ) The imposition of any conditions in regard to the granting of a licence to permit the operation of a public off-street parking place shall not prevent the continued enjoyment of any contractual rights then existing in regard to use of the parking place for such further period as they may have been obtained.")

The noble Lord said: This again is a matter which relates to the interests of the user. It might well be that the imposition of the powers under the Bill could frustrate existing contracts relating to the use of particular car parks by individuals. The most obvious case is that of contract parking arrangements, whether short, medium or long term. I think it would be as well if I asked the noble Lord to clarify the legal position because I do not think that it is entirely free from doubt. My Amendment attempts to make it so.

There may also be occasions when hardship and inconvenience may be caused—for instance, where people have undertaken commitments in respect of shops, offices, or whatever it may be, on the understanding that parking facilities are available. In such cases there would be a frustration of what might be called an unofficial contract. It might not be a legally binding contract but hardship or loss to someone might result. It seems reasonable to ensure that the new power should not be exercised in a way that would interfere with existing contractual rights, or that it should be crystal clear that there would be adequate grounds for compensation for those affected. I beg to move.

Lord SHEPHERD

It is possible that conditions imposed, on traffic or trans port considerations, for a car park licence might conflict with an operator's contractual obligations, and it would frustrate the working of the licence system if the latter took precedence, as this Amendment seeks to provide. If we were to give continuing validity to the contractual rights—which the acceptance of the Amendment would make possible—an operator would be able to create contractual obligations that would override the licensing restrictions. The practical result would be that the licensing system would become as it were a dead letter.

As Clause 36 now stands, the requirements of the licensing system could operate to override and frustrate existing contractual obligations—indeed, it must do so if it is to be effective. I am sure that the system would be a nonsense if, in a case where a local authority was prepared to grant a licence for 50 parking spaces, an operator could continue to provide 100 spaces because he had, immediately before the control became operative, issued 100 season tickets to 100 different individuals. I cannot accept the Amendment but, as I have said before (I hope that by now it is beginning to sink in), if the business of a private individual is disturbed by the introduction of a licensing system he will have a claim for compensation under Part IV of Schedule 5, provided that there has been a genuine diminution in the value of an interest in the land or that disturbance has been suffered as a result of the licensing decision.

Lord CHESHAM

That does not answer the point at all. I want to know what right I, as a user, have, through the injury to my business or position, because my contract is frustrated. I am not talking of the operator; on this occasion I am speaking as the user. I want the noble Lord to tell the Committee where I stand if I have a five-year parking contract which I need for my business and which has been frustrated by the creation of these conditions and the making of these regulations. As I see it, I am "out in the cold". I think it is entirely wrong that an individual should ever find him self in such a position. There may be some validity in what the noble Lord has said: that a loophole might be provided; but that is not the only consideration. I think that the view which the noble Lord has taken is a slightly bureaucratic one—that we must defend the system at all costs, never mind the interests of the individual. That is not good enough for me, and I should like to hear a little more about it.

Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD

May I join in this discussion? My noble friend Lord Chesham is fighting a doughty fight for the interests and the rights of the individual; so much so that the temperature is progressively rising, and I learn to my regret that the cooling system in the Chamber has broken down—no doubt under the strain—and we are to have the windows open instead.

It seems to me that there is a point here. Would the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, have a look at it to sec whether there is any way to meet it? I am sure that he has received a message telling him to resist the Amendment, and that the Government must not give way on this matter; but there is a point to be considered. What about the case of some one who has a year's contract to park his car, and has paid for it in advance, and who then finds that the situation is changed by regulation? I wonder whether the noble Lord would be good enough to have another look at my noble friend's Amendment.

Lord SHEPHERD

I am willing to have a look at it, but I am bound to say that the legal position is clear. Contracts for parking could be frustrated by the conditions of a licence. The user of a car park would have no claim. When I spoke before about compensation I was referring to the operator. But I will look at this point, not so much from the point of view of the private car driver—although I recognise that he has his rights—but from the point of view of a business which may be seriously affected by any change that arises from the provisions contained in this Bill.

Lord CHESHAM

Provided that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, recognises that the rights of anything up to 5 million people may be injuriously affected by what he has said, I am more or less content. I will accept what the noble Lord says and eventually ask leave to withdraw the Amendment—almost as usual. But I must say also that I and my people will examine carefully what the noble Lord has said. He has said, slightly reluctantly, that he will have another look at it. I say quite the opposite. I shall look at what he has said with great enthusiasm. If I do not like what I see I shall come back with an Amendment at the next stage in the progress of the Bill. Meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.59 p.m.

Lord STOW HILL had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 39.

Page 48, line 7, at end insert— ("( ) Nothing in this section shall apply to the lands or property of the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple or the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple.")

The noble Lord said: I do not propose to move this Amendment, but if it meets with the approval of the Committee I should like to offer certain observations on the subject matter of the Amendment at a later stage when a debate takes place on the Question, That Clause 36 shall stand part of the Bill? I notice that there is an Amendment down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, to leave out Clause 36. I do not know whether that Amendment is to be taken, but if it is, perhaps that would provide a convenient opportunity for me to offer my observations to the Committee.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES

Amendment No. 39 not moved. The Question is, That Clause 36, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Lord CHESHAM

In view of what has happened on the various Amendments, much as I should love to see Clause 36 left out altogether, I have a feeling that I should be slightly over-optimistic if I thought I could persuade the Committee to do so.

Lord STOW HILL

I am much obliged to the noble Lord. At the out set I should declare a personal interest. It is not a financial interest but an interest in terms of sympathy and affection, because I am a Bencher at the Inner Temple. I promise to try to prevent my judgment from being clouded by my feelings. I should explain that the reason why I did not move the Amendment down on the Order Paper in my name is that I was advised that, supposing the Committee decided to accept that Amendment and incorporate it in the Bill, the result would be that the question would arise whether Clause 36 was or was not a hybrid clause, and that would bring into operation the elaborate rules relating to Private Bill procedure and could take some considerable time, involving a serious risk—indeed virtually a certainty—of this very important measure being lost this Session. In those circumstances, I think it would not be proper to persist with the Amendment.

The purpose of the Amendment, to which I should like to speak, was to exclude from the ambit of Clause 36 the lands of the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple, which many of your Lordships will have visited. They are a source of great pleasure to those members of the public who walk in them. There are gardens, courts and buildings of great antiquity, and the lands upon which they stand are purely private property, having been vested by ancient charter in trustees for the two Inns. My Amendment relates only to the Inner and Middle Temple, but my noble and learned friend Lord Upjohn has authorised me to say that Lincoln's Inn would be in very like case; and I should probably be right if I made the same observations with regard to Gray's Inn.

A public off-street parking place can only be a place in which parking space is made available to the public at large for payment. At the moment there is no question that the four Inns of Court would not fall within the scope of that definition. They do not offer parking space to the public for payment or other wise. The parking space available, for example, in the Inner Temple, in King's Bench Walk and in the Middle Temple in Brick Court and in Queen Elizabeth's Buildings is reserved to licence holders. They are practising barristers who are members of the Inn; they are residents in the Inn; they are firms of solicitors who have offices in the Inn. and some members of other Inns who have chambers there in which they practise professionally as barristers.

The space which is not occupied by the licence holders is permitted to be used by persons such as solicitors who come for purely professional business reasons to consult barristers who are practising within the Inns of Court. To those persons not members of the Inn temporary permits are granted, and they could not conceivably fall within the definition of members of the public. So that, so far as those persons whom the Inns of Court license on to their property for the purposes of parking are concerned, there could be no question that the Inns of Court could not bring them selves within the scope of the definition, since they do not afford parking space for payment or otherwise to members of the public at large.

If the matter rested in that way it would not be necessary to trouble your Lordships at all. The situation (if I may take as examples the Inner and Middle Temples) is that they employ commissionaires for the purpose of seeing that parking arrangements are kept in an orderly way and that parking takes place in an orderly fashion. These commissionaires are on duty from early in the morning until six in the evening during the five working weekdays. They are not on duty on Saturdays or Sundays. As a result, there is a growing problem. The gates of the Inns are open and there is nothing to prevent members of the public from driving their cars in and parking, as they are beginning to do in growing numbers, on the lands of the two Inns—I presume I am right in saying the four Inns; certainly Lincoln's Inn has similar means of access.

In those circumstances, the authorities of the Inns are faced with the dilemma that either they must do something to bring this possible invasion by the public into some manageable system of order or they will be driven to do something which they are most reluctant to do; that is, to close their gates. They do not want to do that. They do not want to adopt a dog-in-the-manger attitude and are glad that the members of the public may enjoy themselves by walking through the Inns and admiring the gardens, and the courts and the buildings. Either the Inns will have, when the commissionaires are not on duty, to close their doors, or they will have to engage further commissionaires to be on duty when those now in their services are not on duty. That would mean considerable expense. A great deal of extra service would have to be made available. The Inns of Court feel it is unreasonable, if they are driven to that, that they should have to do so without drawing from the parking any income to support the expense that would be occasioned. In those circumstances I very much hope that Clause 36 would never be regarded as applicable to any of them.

I do not formally move this as an Amendment, but I hope that the Minister in charge of the Bill will be able to say that, supposing the Inns do find they are obliged to make charges to members of the public who insist on coming on to their territory, and to engage commissionaires to look after them—they have not yet decided so to do, but should they so decide I hope my noble friend the Minister in charge of the Bill will be able to say it is not the intention to use this clause for anything of that sort; that these are not the sort of premises envisaged, but something much more elaborate; such as the multi-storey car parks and such like, are the premises which the Government have in mind. I am quite conscious that the clause vests powers in the Greater London Council and that the Minister is, as it were, only a long-top, as an appellate resort for persons who feel that they are aggrieved. But the Minister would be greatly helping those who are responsible for the conduct of the affairs of the Inns of Court if he could say when he replies to what I have ventured to offer by way of comment, that I am right in thinking that the Government envisage entirely different premises from these private lands invested in the Inns of Court which the Inns wish to use only for their members and for people who live there, and others outside who have business reason to visit persons practising as barristers.

It is for this reason that I venture to make these observations, and I should be grateful if my noble friend were able to give me positive assurance in the matter so that those responsible for the Inns may know how to regulate their affairs in future.

7.10 p.m.

Lord SHEPHERD

The purpose of Clause 3 and Schedule 5 is to provide some degree of traffic management in London. Traffic congestion is in its most acute form during the working week between the hours of 8.30 a.m. and 5.0 in the afternoon. During this time the parking area in the Temple and other Inns of Court is used solely, without payment, by those who work there or who are visiting the Inns.

Lord STOW HILL

A charge is made for the licence.

Lord SHEPHERD

If that is the case, it seems to me that it comes within Clause 36 and the G.L.C. regulations would apply, but it will be for the G L.C. in its policy making to discuss with the authorities of the various Inns what action should be taken by the G.L.C.

Lord STOW HILL

I would respect fully submit to my noble friend that as the Inns of Court make charges to licence holders who are not the general public but persons who have business in the Inns or have to work there or live in the Inns, they are not within the scope of Clause 36. What I am anxious about is that, supposing the Inns of Court had to change or expand their existing practice by making charges to members of the public who go—I will not say trespass upon the territories of the Inns by making use of the parking, because the doors are left open when the commissionaires are not on duty, would they be caught within the scheduling regulations? I had hoped that my noble friend would be able to say, even though they would in law be within the scope of the regulations that might be made, that it was the Government's intention that this sort of area should not be affected by any regulations. The sort of thing I thought the Government had in mind was the multi-storey car park. The territory of the Inns of Court is entirely private and not used or designed for making money by affording facilities for public parking. That is something which might be thrust on them against their will. I hope that my noble friend may be able to say that that is not the sort of thing the Government have in mind which could be brought within the purview of Clause 36.

Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD

Before the noble Lord replies to Lord Stow Hill's further intervention, may I add a brief word about this important clause. If this Amendment is granted in principle and the Inner Temple and Middle Temple are to be excluded, as a humble member of Gray's Inn I should like Gray's Inn to be included in this. Turning to the more general point, I feel reluctant here to support my noble friend Lord Chesham, who has put up such a doughty fight for those safeguards and modifications he wants to see in Clause 36. I think that I should declare that in my opinion Clause 36 is necessary. The G.L.C., as traffic authority, must have a positive and comprehensive power of traffic management, and even then they have an enormously difficult job to try to manage the traffic of London so that everybody can get about with reasonable comfort. All experience has shown that control of parking by price, by location and by quantity is the best and simplest method of controlling the total number of vehicles that come into the city. If we do not do this we shall be forced to turn to what might be regarded as the more draconian method of the black box that would measure the mileage done. I would prefer the proposed powers to be tried out during the next few years. But I am certain of this: if these powers are not comprehensive and relatively full and unfettered, we are not going to be able to do this.

In my judgment, the safeguards in Clause 36, with some valuable additions which my noble friend Lord Chesham has secured, are adequate. I know from discussions with the G.L.C. that they think they are much more than adequate. They are wondering how they are going to implement so many safeguards. It is quite right that these new powers should be there. I am convinced that this power of control is right, and I would have thought that it has to apply to everybody. Although it is pleasant in a way to see the B.E.A. excluded, I was surprised that the Government gave way on this. I think that the main reason for doing so is that they are 10 or 15 miles out of London. But when it comes to the Inns of Court, right bang in the middle of London, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is up against a different problem. I would give the noble Lord this support. I am solidly in favour of this and would say that it should go on to the Statute Book with all the powers that the G.L.C. can be given to grapple with this enormously difficult problem.

Lord SHEPHERD

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guild ford. As he rightly says, there is a great deal of difference between Heathrow and the quiet closes of the Inns of Court, to which my noble friend Lord Stow Hill has drawn our attention. My noble friend is quite right. Although tenants may be charged, this does not necessarily bring them within the scope of Clause 36. On the other hand, if the parking is open to the general public for payment, even if it is in the evening, then Clause 36 would apply under the Bill as it now stands. I cannot give my noble friend any assurance this evening. As he will understand, this Bill has been drafted in close consultation with the G.L.C., the authority which is going to administer its provisions. What I will do between now and the next stage is to see that there are consultations with the G.L.C. to find out whether on their be half I can give my noble friend any assurance at all. I think my noble friend will understand that I cannot move unilaterally this evening on this matter, but can only offer to consult with the regulative council.

Lord STOW HILL

I am grateful to my noble friend for saying that. He, I think, on occasions during to-day intimated to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, that possibly consultations might take place in which the noble Lord, or those advising him, might be invited to participate. I wonder whether my noble friend would think it appropriate that those responsible for the mangement of the Inns of Court might equally receive invitations when the consultations take place. I would be grateful if that is possible, and I am grateful to my noble friend for what he said.

Lord SHEPHERD

I should prefer my noble friend to be his own advocate and not rely on me.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 37 agreed to.

Clause 38 [Payments on termination of appointment of members of London Board]:

Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 40: Page 49, line 40, leave out ("Treasury") and insert ("Minister for the Civil Service")

The noble Lord said: I move Amendment No. 40 and speak to Amendment No. 41. Clause 38 enables the Minister to require the London Transport Executive to compensate members of the London Transport Board on termination of their appointment before the expiry of their term of office. The Minister will need to obtain the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service, both as to his requiring the Executive to pay compensation and as to the amount involved. The Bill as currently drafted specifies Treasury approval and these two Amendments are needed to take account of the fact that approval of these compensation arrangements is one of the functions transferred from the Treasury to the Minister for the Civil Service. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord SHEPHERD

I beg to move Amendment No. 41.

Amendment moved— Page 49, line 41, leave out from ("as") to end of line 42 and insert ("the Minister may with the like approval determine").—(Lord Shepherd.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 39 to 47 agreed to.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3 [Disposal of Certain Statutory Functions of London Board]:

Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 42: Page 62, line 30, leave out ("and") and insert ("under").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 42 and speak to Amendment No. 43. These Amendments together ensure that all powers of the London Transport Board to make by-laws are transferred to the new Executive. The Schedule as drafted at present transfers to the new Executive the powers previously conferred on the Board in respect of bus premises, but makes no mention of the powers which the Board are currently seeking in the London Transport Bill, their Private Bill currently before Parliament. If granted, these latest powers world in due course pass to the Executive and to the National Bus Company's subsidiary which is to take over the country buses and Green Line coaches running largely outside Greater London. The Minister, however, sees no reason to let the National Bus Company or any of its subsidiaries be able to make by-laws and would certainly consider it anomalous for one small subsidiary to have powers denied to the remainder of the N.B.C. companies. These Amendments therefore specify that by-law making powers conferred on the Board during this session of Parliament shall like previously granted powers pass on to the Executive only. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord SHEPHERD: I beg to move Amendment No. 43:

Amendment moved— Page 62, line 30, after ("1938") insert I "and under any section conferring power on the London Board to make byelaws which is contained in any Act of the present Session").—(Lord Shepherd.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Schedule 5 [Control of Off-Street Parking]:

7.25 p.m.

Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 44: Page 69, line 28, leave out ("thirty") and insert ("sixty")

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 44 goes with Amendment No. 45, and they are very simple indeed. They re late to the time which is allowed for the making of objections when an authority publishes notice that it proposes to make regulations. It is simply due to the fact that the minimum of 30 days, which might also, if this figure were to be accepted, be the maximum, is in fact too short. All I ask is that the objection period be made 60 days and the period of hold-up for making the regulations consequently be extended from 60 to 90 days—a simple and perfectly reasonable thing to ask for in the circumstances. I beg to move.

Lord SHEPHERD

We thought the period provided in the Bill was perfectly adequate if we take into account the objection period allowed for traffic and on-street parking schemes, which are normally 20 to 28 days. I fear that there does not seem to be any substantial reason, nor did I think that the noble Lord, Lord Chesham gave substantial reasons for there being this marked difference between what are the existing objection periods and those now proposed in the Bill.

Lord CHESHAM

I think that in the circumstances there is a difference here, because when an area is designated this fact has to get to the ears of all concerned. This is not a casual thought, that 60 days might be more convenient than 30 days; but it is thought that 30 days is undesirably short for the purpose of lodging objections in so complicated a matter and having to assess what is the likely impact of the proposed regulations on the operation of the car park. I do not make this comment lightly or for fun. I think this is a perfectly serious and reasonable thing to ask.

Lord SHEPHERD

I will have a look at this point between now and the next stage to see whether there is an way in which I can meet the noble Lord. If he will withdraw the Amendment on that condition I will certainly look at it.

Lord CHESHAM

I will do that and hold my fire pending the noble Lord's peep. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord SHEPHERD

It is now 7.30 p.m. I wonder whether the noble Lord can give any indication of how long he considers his Amendments will take. It has been a very hot afternoon and our air conditioning has not been functioning for quite some considerable time. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has already been on his feet for some considerable time making his case. I should be quite prepared to suggest that the Committee be adjourned for, shall we say, some 30 minutes. There is a meal ready. Or if the noble Lords wish to press on I will press on. I will meet the convenience of the Committee.

Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD

May I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for his offer? I think it depends on how long my noble friend Lord Chesham feels he would like to take in order to complete his Amendments. If he can finish in the next half an hour to an hour I should have thought we might well go on. If we are going to be longer than that, then I should have thought that we should break off. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, will give us some indication.

Lord CHESHAM

It is extremely difficult to say. There is not much that I want to skip. I have tried, in introducing the Amendments, not to use two words where one would do. I want to get through the Amendments, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, wants to finish to-night. It is impossible to say how long it will take, but I guess probably about an hour, and certainly not less. If it is agreeable to everybody else, it is certainly agreeable to me to adjourn for half an hour to have a drink and a quick "bite".

Lord SHEPHERD

I put it to the Committee that we should adjourn for half an hour and resume consideration of the Bill at eight o'clock.

[The Sitting was adjourned at 7.31 p.m. and resumed at 8.0 p.m.]

Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 46:

Page 70, line 1, leave out paragraphs 3 to 6 and insert—

("3. If representations by way of objection to any of the draft regulations are sent in writing to the Council in accordance with paragraph 1 (b) of this Part of this Schedule and are not withdrawn, the regulations shall not be made except with the consent of the Minister and the Minister, before giving any such consent, shall cause an inquiry to be held and subsections (2) to (5) of section 290 of the Local Government Act 1933, shall apply to any such inquiry as they apply to such an inquiry as is referred to in subsection (1) of that section, with the substitution for any reference to a department of a reference to the Minister.

4. The Minister may give his consent to the making of any regulations, where such consent is required under this Part of this Schedule, either unconditionally or in terms that he is prepared to consider consenting to the making of such regulations if a revised draft is submitted to him for the purpose in corporating modifications of a specified nature or in other specified circumstances, but where the consent of the Minister requires the sub mission to him of such a revised draft and he considers that persons other than the Council may be adversely affected by any variation in the revised draft from the terms of the draft regulations as sent to him pursuant to paragraph I of this Part of this Schedule, he shall require the Council to give and publish additional notices in such manner as he thinks best adapted for informing all persons so affected of the variation proposed and affording an opportunity to those persons of making further representations in writing to the Council before the expiration of such period to be specified in the said additional notices as the Minister may direct; and paragraph 2 of this Part of this Schedule shall apply with respect to any such additional notices and representations given or made under this paragraph as they apply to any notice and representations referred to in that paragraph.

5. In deciding in the case of any such proposal as aforesaid, whether or not to give any consent under this Part of this Schedule to the making of regulations by the Council in pursuance of any such proposal, the Minister shall have regard to any such representations received by the Council by the date specified under paragraph I of this Part of this Schedule and (where the case requires) to any further representation so received pursuant to paragraph 4 of the said Part, as well as to the report of any person appointed to hold an inquiry under paragraph 3 of this Part of this Schedule in connection with the proposal in question: and the Minister shall cause notice of the giving by him of any consent under this Part of this Schedule to be published in the London Gazette.")

The noble Lord said

In my opinion this is an Amendment of great importance and considerable substance, because during the course of the afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, his on numerous occasions said that certain situations could be coped with because the Minister had power to "call-in" a case in certain circumstances. I do not think I need go into the text of this Amendment in detail. It is a long Amendment and a rather technical one. It consists of the removal of the principal paragraphs which apply to the Minister's powers of "calling-in", and substitutes a somewhat strengthened procedure. This is where I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. He says that the Bill has been drawn as tightly as possible in this context, whereas I say that it has not. The proposed Amendment draws it, without dissatisfaction, more tightly than the drafting of the Bill itself.

Paragraphs 3 to 5 of Part I of the Schedule provide for the "call-in" procedure, tinder which the Minister can "call-in" such of the draft regulations which in the light of objections he thought required special consideration so that he could determine on their propriety. I think I am justified in using the word "propriety". This is where I differ from the noble Lord, because I think it is too much at the choice of the Minister. If objections are made, he can then "call-in" the licence if he wishes and thinks fit to do so. He can order a public in quiry, and have regard to the objections and results of that public inquiry. But the fact remains that the procedure is 70 per cent., tightly drawn, and depends a little too much on the discretion of the Minister.

I know that it has been argued in the past that in support of the procedure, as drafted, a full objection with inquiry procedure would be unduly tedious and unnecessary, but I do not see why that should be so. I do not see why there should not be a right of objection which can be carried to inquiry on any of the regulations which the Greater London Council may propose. This is a similar kind of procedure. It is normal in planning and, indeed, in almost any other circumstances where a similar procedure applies. I do not think that the argument that it is unduly cumbersome and tedious holds good at all, because in most cases the regulations will be made initially only, and I should not have thought that there would be a question of continually changing them which would give rise to fresh quantities of appeals, inquiries and so on.

Therefore, if I am to accept the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has been putting forward that this, that and the other is adequately catered for by the "call-in" powers of the Minister, then he should accept my Amendment to make sure that his argument is a satis factory and good one in the various matters that we have discussed. I do not think I am asking too much—I am not asking for anything unprecedented. If anything, it is the proposed procedure as drafted in the Bill which is unprecedented. It does not go as far as most procedures in the circumstances, and I there fore think I am reasonable in begging to move this Amendment.

Lord SHEPHERD

On the whole I do not think there is a great deal of difference between the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, and Her Majesty's Government. Despite that, however, I shall be advising the Committee that this Amendment should not be accepted.

There are three paragraphs to the Amendment. May I therefore take paragraph 4 in the first instance. The effect of this is to provide for the Minister to require the G.L.C. to give notice of any revised draft of their regulations submitted to him at his suggestion, to those affected by the revision and give opportunity to them to make representations against the revised draft. This point is already covered by sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 4 of Part I of Schedule 5. This sub-paragraph was put in as a Government Amendment at Report stage in the other place and what seems to have happened here is that Lord Chesham has copied this Amendment from an identical one tabled by the Opposition during the Committee stage in the other place, be fore the Government Amendment mentioned above was moved on Report. Therefore, that point we have met.

With regard to paragraph 5, like paragraph 4 this part of the Amendment is already covered as a result of a Government Amendment at Report stage in the other place. This paragraph seeks to ensure that the Minister, in considering whether or not to consent to the G.L.C.'s making their regulations, should have regard to any representations made against the draft regulations under paragraphs I and 2 of Part I of the Schedule, to further representations made against any revised draft which the G.L.C. submits at the Minister's request, and to the report of any person holding a local inquiry. Paragraph 6 of Part I of the Schedule already covers these points—and indeed goes further in that it also requires the G.L.C. to have regard to any representations made to them within the prescribed period before deciding whether or not to make the proposed regulations as published.

As regards the first paragraph of the Amendment, paragraph 3, the effect of this is to provide that where any representations are made against G.L.C. regulations, the Minister's consent to the regulations must be obtained, and before giving it the Minister must arrange for a local inquiry. The Government can not agree to this. Representations received against G.L.C. regulations might be trivial or even mischievous, and it would be ridiculous in these circumstances for the regulations to require the Minister's consent, and still more so for the Minister to be obliged first to hold a public in quiry. The object of the "call-in" procedure is to give protection to persons concerned with the provision of car parking who may consider the regulations unjust, whilst avoiding a cumbersome procedure of Ministerial consent and automatic public inquiries in all cases where there are objections. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel well satisfied and will now with draw his Amendment.

8.10 p.m.

Lord CHESHAM

At the rate at which the noble Lord has spoken I must admit that it is a little difficult to feel satisfied. The only point he made with which I find myself in some agreement is that perhaps my Amendment is worded a little strongly in calling for an automatic public inquiry. I do not think I personally should resist the idea of writing in an element of discretion for the Minister, if the noble Lord sees fit in that particular context. But I must say that I am still not satisfied about the actual safeguards. The noble Lord has not offered to look at it again, but in the circumstances that we are in to-night, it might be better if I offered—not from a position of strength such as his, but from whatever position I have—to look at it again and to study what he has said, so long as he accepts that I may return to this particular point at the next stage of the Bill.

Lord SHEPHERD

I am most grateful to the noble Lord, but I am sure he will agree that the Minister already has discretion. That is clearly the intention in the Bill. I am sorry that I spoke at such a fast rate, but we still have quite a few Amendments to get through. If I do not make myself clear I hope that the noble Lord will interrupt me. I was referring to that part of his Amendment which deals with the automatic public inquiry, and he said he would accept that there should be discretion. I suggested that the discretion is already in the Bill, and having agreed to that I think he will now find that on the other two points he is met in another place.

Lord CHESHAM

I will concede to the noble Lord from what he has said that the Minister has a discretion, but I am not convinced that he has enough of it. However, I shall be quite content to have another look at it if the noble Lord will accept that I may wish to return to this point at the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 47: Page 71, line 46, after ("has") insert ("otherwise than by reason of a happening be yond the control of the holder of the licence").

The noble Lord said: With this Amendment we might deal also with Amendments 51 and 53. The principle of this part of the Schedule is not, so far as I can see, basically objectionable be cause, as I understand it, there is not a lot wrong with the fact that licences which have ceased to be used should, after a reasonable period, be cancelled. But I rather feel that the paragraphs do not contain adequate safeguards for the licence holder, or recognise the substantial period which a major parking development requires for its planning and implementation. Also it is not generally realised how long it takes before maximum usage is obtained at a new car park. Basically, the fact of this matter is that in my view it is not right or equitable for the Committee to agree to the possibility that an operator may lose his licence for reasons beyond his own control. There fore the Amendment would exclude that, while admitting the possibility that he would lose his licence if he acted in this way through circumstances that were within his control. I do not think there is anything very exceptionable about that. I beg to move.

Lord SHEPHERD

These Amendments concern the provisions at paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of Part II of Schedule 5 which provide for the local authority to be able to revoke a licence when the operator has discontinued making parking spaces available to the public for a period of two years or, in the case of a car park ready for operation at the time of granting of the licence, has not made any significant number of spaces available by the end of two years, or, where the development has not been begun within three years, or completed within seven years, of the granting of a licence or where a significant number of parking spaces has not been available within two years of completion of the development. The effect of the Amendments is that the licence should not be revocable by the local authority if the reason for the discontinuance or non-provision of parking spaces is due to a happening beyond the operator's control.

The Government are not prepared to accept these Amendments. Even if the circumstances beyond the operator's control are the cause of his deciding to discontinue the car park, or not to make a significant number of spaces available, if he makes such a decision and applies it over the periods specified in paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of Part II of the Schedule respectively, it is right that the local authority should be able to revoke the licence. Otherwise a highly unsatisfactory position would arise, with "dormant" licences accumulating and making it impossible for the boroughs properly to assess the number of parking spaces which can be allowed in new licences.

I wish to emphasise most strongly that paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 are drafted so as to apply when the operator discontinues to use the parking place, or does not make the parking spaces available or does not begin or complete the development. They are framed so as to apply to the operator's own acts and not to mere non-use of the parking spaces by the public. In other words, if the public do not support the car park that is not a reason for the revocation of the licence. It is as a result of his own acts that the revocation applies.

Lord CHESHAM

I do not disagree with that—indeed, I said so; but I think it is a most unfair situation. I accept that the noble Lord has dismissed that particular argument, but if the operator is going to provide a new car park by applying for a licence, which he has to do, there are perfectly good reasons why he may not be able to produce what is necessary within two years. The noble Lord must perfectly well know about such matters as the delays that take place in obtaining planning consent. He must know perfectly well of the delays that take place in building construction, particularly where it is of a fairly extensive nature. He must know about the possible impact of contractors' strikes, and so on. I am not asking that the operator should be absolved from this by his own misdoings or misdeeds, only that he should be protected against the misdeeds of other people who, presumably, are beyond his control. That seems to me to be eminently reasonable.

Lord SHEPHERD

I now see the point that the noble Lord is making, particularly now that he has drawn my attention to the effect of strikes. There is a building not so far away from here where this could have had serious consequences. As I have said, the purpose of these Amendments was to deal with the operator's own act and not with the way in which the public have used it. Clearly a strike might be construed (and for this moment of time I will accept it as being of the same consequence as the public's not supporting the parking scheme) as not being an act of the operator. On that basis, I certainly will look at this point to see whether this position can be covered, without, of course, opening the possibilities of abuse by operators. But I think there is not much between us.

Lord CHESHAM

I do not think there is much between us. I am not asking for anything unreasonable or in breach of the principle which the noble Lord on behalf of the Government is trying to incorporate in this clause. But I think it is eminently reasonable that an operator should be protected against acts for which he has no responsibility. I regard it as important, and I suggest that we add that to the list of things the noble Lord will look at, hopefully with a benign expression; otherwise, I must come back to it at a later stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord CHESHAM

I beg to move Amendment No. 48. This is a modest Amendment which merely indicates that the two-year period should be immediately preceding the notice concerned. I do not think it is right that the Bill should give powers for a notice to be issued in respect of a two-year period that might have occurred previously, and subsequently the operation got off to a good start. It may be said that people do not behave in this way, but while we are drafting this Bill we may as well get it right. I think the words I propose to insert detract nothing from the Bill and merely indicate that after two years action can be taken. Other wise, it becomes retrospective and that, too, seems wrong. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 71, line 48, at end insert ("immediately preceding the date of the notice hereinafter mentioned").—(Lord Chesham.)

Lord SHEPHERD

There are some difficulties involved here, but in the light of what I undertook to look at in the other Amendments I will look at this one also. I am sure the noble Lord will agree with me that in trying to deal with matters of detail we must not open ourselves to possible abuse. I will certainly look at this point when I look at the previous Amendments. I hope the noble Lord will agree to that.

Lord CHESHAM

I will agree to that, although I cannot agree that this is not the moment to look into matters of detail; this is just the moment to look at matters of detail, unless I have misunderstood the noble Lord. This is our chance to go through the Bill word for word, and comma for comma. I accept what the noble Lord has said. I still think that it is a reasonable point, and really very little more than tidying up, because when the noble Lord looks at it I am sure he will find that it emphasises exactly what he wants. How ever, in view of the fact that he has said he will look at it, I will leave it, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.24 p.m.

Lord CHESHAM

I beg to move Amendment No. 49. This is, if not quite the same point, very similar, because I have already explained, and I need not repeat myself, that the two years may be rather too short a period to get into full operation, because of building delays and so on. I hope that the noble Lord will feel inclined at least to look at this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 72, line 1, leave out paragraph 4.—(Lord Chesham.)

Lord SHEPHERD

This Amendment seeks to leave out paragraph 4 of Part II of Schedule 5 which provides for the variation of a licence where the car park has been operated for not less than two years to a substantially lower capacity than that authorised by the licence. This power of limitation of a licence is necessary to prevent the existence of large numbers of dormant licensed car-parking spaces, which would make it impossible for the boroughs to assess the numbers of parking places which could be granted in new licences, and also to determine other appropriate conditions for new licences. The legitimate interests of the operator are safeguarded in that any such variation of a licence is subject to the provisions of Part III on rights of appeal and to the provisions of Part IV with respect to compensation.

Lord CHESHAM

If one gets the same answer, one has the same reaction. I am not satisfied about these matters. The noble Lord and I have undertaken to have another look at this and that, but I am no more satisfied about this Amendment either. I think that there is in fact every good reason to suppose that a two-year period is too short to get into full operation. I am not talking about the provision of spaces which people do not use. I am not making that argument, because it would not be valid to do so. If the spaces are there, they are provided, whether people use them or not. That argument is not good. I think this two- year period is too short. If the noble Lord is prepared to look at it along with the other points that he has already agreed to look at, I shall be content. I cannot leave it entirely. If he will look at it, I will withdraw the Amendment now.

Lord SHEPHERD

I am prepared to look at it, without any commitment. I said I would look at other Amendments in considerable detail. I will under take to look at this one, but it is in line with some other Amendments I have had to resist.

Lord TEVIOT

Would it not be helpful to the Committee if the noble Lord gave examples of the dormant licences to which he referred?

Lord SHEPHERD

The dormant licences to which I have referred are where there have been a large number of applications for licences to provide a large number of parking spaces and these are not in fact produced. Therefore, on paper there are spaces which are available, but are in fact not available to the motoring users. This is my understanding of the phrase, "dormant licences".

Lord TEVIOT

I thank the noble Lord. I hope I am not being too controversial here. Could he perhaps give a hypothetical example of this? I think he is being too obscure; he has not explained the occasion of one dormant licence.

Lord SHEPHERD

Where an operator has applied for 500 spaces, 200, shall we say, for commuters, 300 for short-term, and only 100 of the short-term spaces are provided; on paper there are 300, in fact there are only 100 in existence. When you have the cumulative effect of this, your planning would be completely "haywire", and that is why we have used this phrase "dormant pro vision".

Lord TEVIOT

I thank the noble Lord for his explanation.

Lord CHESHAM

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord CHESHAM had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 51: Page 72, line 16, after ("has") insert ("otherwise than by reason of a happening beyond the control of the holder of the licence")

The noble Lord said: On the under standing that this is included in another Amendment, I will not move this Amendment.

Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 54: Page 73, line 35, leave out ("that it appears to him")

The noble Lord said: This Amendment, together with Amendment No. 55, is of some substance, because if one reads carefully the paragraph in the Bill, it will be seen that the discretionary powers in it are very wide indeed. They are so wide that they could nullify the rights of appeal incorporated in this part of the Schedule and, as we all know, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, relies heavily on the adequacy of these rights of appeal for his justification of other parts of the Bill. These rights of appeal could be nullified to a considerable extent by the provisions of the paragraph as drafted. I think that the Amendments proposed make the matter a good deal more certain and, above all, they leave one with a better chance of any such decisions being tested in court. I therefore beg to move.

Lord SHEPHERD

This Amendment concerns the provision at paragraph 2 of Part III of Schedule 5 that the Minister shall not be required to entertain an appeal against a licensing decision to any extent that it appears to him that the decision was necessary in order to comply with the requirements of Clause 36 or with any regulations made by the G.L.C. under subsection (6) of the clause. This would prevent the Minister from having to take an appeal on matters which have already been decided by Parliament or have been subject to the call-in safe guards. The Amendment seeks to delete the Minister's power to determine how far the decision was necessitated either by the requirements of Clause 36 or by the G.L.C. regulations.

The formula "if it appears to him" is a normal and well-precedented one for provisions of this kind. For example, Section 23 (3) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962 similarly provides that the Minister of Housing and Local Government shall not be required to entertain an appeal in respect of an application for planning permission "if it appears to him" that planning permission could not have been granted by the local planning authority, or could not have been granted by them otherwise than subject to the conditions imposed by them, having regard to other provisions of that Act. My advice is that this Amendment is in fact unnecessary. In the unlikely event of the Minister's abusing paragraph 2 of Part III of Schedule 5, and refusing to entertain an appeal by an improper reliance on the provisions of this paragraph, his actions would be open to challenge in the courts.

Lord CHESHAM

On an earlier and rather similar occasion I was able to accept the noble Lord's assurance, which he kindly confirmed to me, that such a decision would be challengeable in the courts. If he is saying to me that this is a similar case I will accept that and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.32 p.m.

Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 56:

Page 74, line 5, at end insert— ("( ) Any such regulations shall include provision for the giving of notice to the Council of any appeal under this Part of this Schedule and of any request made under paragraph 3 (1) thereof, and for enabling the Council to make representations with respect to the matter in question and to appear be fore and be heard by any person appointed by the Minister for the purposes of sub paragraph (1) or (2) of the said paragraph 3.")

The noble Lord said: This Amendment ensures that the procedure regulations to be made in connection with appeals to the Minister by actual or prospective car park operators against licensing decisions taken by the London boroughs include provisions requiring the G.L.C. to be given notice of the appeal and of any request for a hearing made by the operator or by the local authority and enabling the G.L.C. to put any views which they might have to the Minister and, if they wish, to attend and take part in any subsequent hearing or inquiry. Although licence conditions which result from provisions in the G.L.C.'s regulations for the controlled area in question are excluded from the scope of these appeals it is nevertheless right that the G.L.C, who will be involved jointly with the boroughs in the establishment and operation of the licensing scheme, should, where they feel it necessary and helpful, be able to make their views known. I beg to move. On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 59: Page 75. line 6, after ("as") insert ("within five years prior to that date")

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 59 carries with it Amendments Nos. 60, 61 and 62. The effect of these Amendments is quite important, because I think it is most esssential to ensure that this paragraph should cover surface sites which are used as par parks, in addition to constructed car parks which have not been in use for a period of six months at the date of the proposal to designate as a controlled area. The point here is that as the Bill is drafted the provisions for compensation (on which again the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has relied consider ably) do not, as I understand it, apply to surface car parks but apply only to car parks where some building construction of some kind has taken place. I think it is perfectly clear that in the circumstances they ought to apply also to surface car parks. This is the object of these Amendments. I beg to move Amendment No. 59.

Lord SHEPHERD

The noble Lord refers to surface car parks. Here, I presume he means the ordinary car park that one finds on a bombed site.

Lord CHESHAM

Bombed sites or other open spaces.

Lord SHEPHERD

This is a new point which is not referred to in my brief. But the point that here concerns us about these Amendments (I will look into the question of what he now refers to as surface sites) is that their effect is to widen the circumstances of compensation by removing the safeguards. With these Amendments a person would be able to claim compensation who had merely obtained planning permission for a car park within five years before the publication of notice of the G.L.C. regulations. This would open the door widely to abuse, in that once word got around that the G.L.C. were considering designating an area as a controlled one, speculators might rush in to obtain planning consent, with the sole object of claiming compen- sation in due course from the local authority. The noble Lord has raised a point about which I had not previous knowledge, and in the light of that I would certainly wish to consider his point. Perhaps we can have discussions between now and the next stage.

Lord CHESHAM

Gladly, because I do not wish to open the door to undesirable incursions. The only point here is that the Bill, as drafted, excludes surface car parks by reference to development. My sole intention was to bring them within the scope where they belong, but I should not want to do that and thereby create difficulties and anomalies and other evils such as the noble Lord has described. I am therefore quite happy to accept what he says and to consult with him, and in the mean time to see how these differences can be resolved. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 63: Page 76, line 1, leave out ("permanent").

The noble Lord said: It is possible that this Amendment, as put down, may look as if it tries to do something different from what in fact it tries to do. Under Clause 36 (8) (c) the local authority may refuse an application to vary the terms and conditions of a limited period licence, as well as a permanent licence, and it seems only right and proper that there should be provision for compensation to be payable in the case of a limited period licence if, for some reason beyond the control of the holder of such a licence, refusal is made. This would result from the removal of the word "permanent", and it is to extend the possibility of compensation in these circumstances that the Amendment is put down. I beg to move.

Lord SHEPHERD

These short-term licences have some advantages. The main object in having provision under the system for temporary licences is that there may well be circumstances in which it is more appropriate to grant a licence on more generous and less restrictive terms, if it is for a limited period only, rather than for an indefinite period, as with permanent licences. Clause 36 (3) accordingly provides as an alternative to a permanent licence, a licence for a limited period up to five years, if the operator so desires.

I think that having given this more generous treatment and less restrictive form, it would be wrong to do as the Amendment suggests and treat it as though it were a permanent licence.

Lord CHESHAM

I take the noble Lord's point, but it does not seem to me to be a convincing argument as to why, if a licence is taken away from an operator he is not entitled to comsation.

Lord SHEPHERD

He would know know when he took the temporary licence what were the terms and conditions of taking a temporary licence.

Lord CHESHAM

Then I should doubt if anybody will snatch up this tempting offer. But, I think this is some thing I ought to think about between now and the next stage, and I will have a more careful look at what the noble Lord has said. I may or may not come back to this point, but meantime I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.43 p.m.

Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 64:

Page 76, line 14, at end insert— ("or (d) to refuse an application by the holder of a licence (being a licence for a limited period, not exceeding five years) for a new licence to be operative for a further period after the date of expiry of the first mentioned licence, such application having been made before that date.")

The noble Lord said: This is a slight off-shoot of the same subject because it seems reasonable that the holder of a licence for a limited period should, contrary to the noble Lord's argument which he has just put forward, be the subject of compensation. There are many car parks which, though they are apparently temporary and therefore would be a suit able subject for a limited licence, for various reasons continue for many years. It seems to me to be quite wrong and unjust that the provision for compensation should not be made in relation to the refusal to renew, because the fact is that such a decision can effectively put the operator of a car park of this kind out of business. Despite the rather beguiling arguments of the advantages of a temporary licence, I think temporary licences can be renewed and they can stretch on for quite some time. If that were to be the case, and the person was put out of business, he certainly ought to be en titled to compensation. I beg to move.

Lord SHEPHERD

I fear that I may have misled the Committee. Originally I had expected that we should be taking Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 together. My notes were prepared on that basis, and when I was speaking to Amendment No. 63 I overlooked what could have been a very helpful point in regard to Amendment No. 63. I think I should stress here—and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, will forgive me if I have mis led him—that temporary licences cannot be revoked or varied by the local authority during their term except by agreement with the operator, and as a result this type of licence may well be more attractive, as I said earlier, and provide stronger short-term security, particularly for the operator of a temporary car park. I am sorry that I misled the noble Lord, but I think he will know my difficulty in that I did not see this Bill until, I think it was, late on Friday afternoon, and I fear that both he and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, have some advantage over me. It is quite clear that a temporary licence cannot be revoked or varied by a local authority during its term except by agreement of the operator.

Lord CHESHAM

I accept this in teresting fact that the noble Lord has revealed, and I should like to consider it together with the other points. I think I ought to apologise to him in that certainly on my own papers I did not bracket the two together. Perhaps I should have done so. However, we have got it sorted out now and I will take that away and look at it carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 65: Page 76, line 16, leave out ("six") and insert ("twelve").

The noble Lord said

Amendment No. 65 hangs together with Amendments Nos. 67 and 75. I feel that six months is an insufficient time to establish whether compensation would be payable and to what extent, particularly when a car park can be operated on any basis until the result of an appeal is known, which could very well be more than six months after the original notification. I think there could be a further complication with car parks which are operated on a seasonal basis, because the effects of any decisions, particularly in those cases, may well take considerably over six months to make themselves felt. Therefore, I am again claiming that the time is rather unreason ably short in car park operations, and that it should be extended to 12 months instead of six. I beg to move.

Lord SHEPHERD

The compensation provisions of Schedule 5 follow closely those in the Town and Country Planning Act 1962, which relate to discontinuance orders made by a local planning authority under Section 28. The compensation regulations made under that Act (section 124) provide for a claim for compensation to be made within a period of six months. As the noble Lord will know, the field of compensation and the manner of asses sing and providing compensation is very close, if not identical, to the Town and Country Planning Act 1962. In these circumstances, I think they are so much akin that I must resist this Amendment and ask the Committee to agree that the period required for such an appeal should be as proposed—the same as between this Bill and the Town and Country Planning Act 1962.

Lord CUESHAM

I can see what the noble Lord means, but we are dealing specifically here with car parking; and, while there is certainly some kind of analogy, I can see that, particularly in a seasonal operation, such as at the seaside and so on, six months can perfectly well have elapsed before any evidence is available on which to claim compensation. This seems to me inequitable. I do not think that, just because six months is precedented in another Act and it works all right there, it automatically means that it is adequate for this Bill. In fact, I would maintain that it is not.

Lord SHEPHERD

The fact is that the compensation provisions in this Bill are akin to, and have been based upon, the Town and Country Planning Act procedures. I am bound to say that I must resist very strongly Amendments in the field of compensation, but as the noble Lord and I have already arranged to discuss some earlier, detailed pro visions in which timing is a factor, if he has any evidence that might sway me towards taking up this matter with my right honourable friend he will have an opportunity to present it. And if he can make a case to me then I shall be willing to tackle my right honourable friend. But at the present moment my advice to the Committee is to keep these two procedures close to each other.

Lord CHESHAM

Mine would be not to do so. Therefore I think that the noble Lord's solution to this—further discussion before the next stages both of us reserving our positions of feeling quite strongly about it—is the best we can do to-night. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.53 p.m.

Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 66: Page 76, line 20, leave out ("the sail Part III") and insert ("Part II of this Schedule").

The noble Lord said: This is purely a drafting Amendment put down to correct a small mistake in paragraph 4 (1) of Part IV of Schedule 5. The reference should be to Part II and not Part III of the Schedule, since it is Part II which deals with the revocation or variation of permanent car park licences. I beg to move.

Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD

May I briefly thank the noble Lord for explaining the purpose of this Amendment? As it is the last Government Amendment, perhaps I may also thank the noble Lord for the courtesy and skill with which he has dealt with an enormous range of detailed technical points and assure him that from this side of the Chamber he never appeared to be in any difficulty at all.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 68: Page 76, line 25, leave out from ("has") to end of line 28, and insert ("sustained loss or damage which is attributable to that decision by the depreciation of the value of his interest in those premises or by being disturbed in his present or future enjoyment of those premises the local authority shall pay the claimant full compensation in respect of that loss or damage.").

The noble Lord said: This Amendment hangs together with Amendment No. 69. It seems that, as the Bill stands at present, it is doubtful whether these provisions adequately cover the potential earning capacity and value of car parks, particularly as a car park is frequently run at a loss during the earlier years of its existence. I think that the drafting needs tightening up in this way to make sure that these points are adequately covered. I beg to move.

Lord SHEPHERD

I am not quite sure that I take the noble Lord's point, he moved the Amendment so quickly. Am I to understand that the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, is concerned whether the drafting covers compensation in respect of, perhaps, the worsening position of an operator's future? I am sorry; I did not quite catch it.

Lord CHESHAM

I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. What I in tended to convey is that it seems to me rather doubtful whether the provisions as drafted adequately cover the potential earning capacity and value of car parks, which has to be taken into consideration for the assessment of compensation, particularly as a car park often runs at a loss during the earlier period of its existence. I just want to make sure that these points are adequately dealt with: that is the purpose of the Amendment.

Lord SHEPHERD

This point, of course, is taken into account in assessing compensation. I think I should prefer my noble friend Lord Kennet to be at this Box this evening to explain the procedures under which compensation claims are assessed by the authorities. They are very well tried. To the best of my know ledge there are rarely any criticisms about these procedures or the awards. All I can say to the noble Lord is that when the Government were considering how best to provide the machinery for compensation they had no hesitation in going to the procedures, which have been well and truly tried, under the Town and Country Planning Act 1962. I think that is the best assurance I can give the noble Lord. We have done our best to cover this matter, and I have no reason to believe that we have failed.

Lord CHESHAM

In view of the noble Lord's explanation that it has merely been copied out of another, and successful Act, I am ready to have another look at the wording. Pending doing so, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 70: Page 76, line 31, leave out ("could") and insert ("can").

The noble Lord said: This Amendment, together with Nos. 71, 72 and 73, also concerns a fairly simple point. The matter concerns the possibility that a local authority could grant planning per mission for such alternative use as would deal with the matter, but that other requirements, such as an office development permit, or something of that kind, might not have been met and, therefore, could effectively block the alternative use which the claimant sought to put into effect. My Amendment would merely make the wording more positive, because it does not seem to me to be entirely fair as it stands. Simply to say, "It is all right where planning per mission can be granted for alternative use, but there are 16 other reasons why you cannot actually do it", is not really fair, I think, to the person who is claiming compensation. Or it could even be alleged that somebody else could do this. I do not think the wording is right as it stands, and these Amendments would put it in the correct light. I beg to move.

Lord SHEPHERD

The first two of these Amendments seek to restrict the alternative use for the premises which is to be taken into account to whatever alternative use can be made of the premises by the claimant; and by the claimant alone. The third Amendment seeks to remove the provisions that planning permission for any such alternative use either has been given or has been promised. The provisions as at present drafted in Part IV of the Schedule follow closely the compensation provisions in the planning field and, as with preceding Amendments, we can see no reason to depart from them in the present context.

Perhaps it may be helpful to the noble Lord to know that the formula we have used in this particular field is Section 124 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962, on which the compensation provisions of Schedule V are based. In any case, we do not wish to accept that the only alternative use of the premises which should be taken into account in assessing compensation should be the alternative use by the claimant himself. After all, he is free to dispose of his interest in the premises to other persons for use in other ways, and thus to realise the value of his interest in the premises; and the inclusion of provisions that planning per mission must have been given or under taken to be given for any alternative use which is to be taken into account is a safeguard to the operator to ensure that the alternative use which is to be taken into account is a realistic one. Here again my strong advice is that we must stick to these well-known and well-tried procedures which have served us well under the Town and Country Planning Act.

Lord CHESHAM

I think I need notice of that statement; because it seems to me still wrong that in assessing compensation it should be possible to take into consideration what the claimant could do, hypothetically, with the premises but is not in fact able to do with them. He is not always able to dispose of his interest in this happy way. This is not right. But if the noble Lord is saying that this is well-tried procedure, I ought to look into it further. I must confess, however, that I am not happy about the situation as it exists. I think that there is, or could be, an inequity being built in. But I will study the matter to make sure whether this is so. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 74: Page 76, line 44, at end insert ("The pro visions of section 129 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 shall apply in relation to any decision of the local authority as respect which a claim to compensation may be made under this paragraph, as those provisions apply to any application for planning permission to develop any land and which is refused or is granted subject to conditions.")

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is directed to insure that where no alternative beneficial use can be made by persons interested in the car park premises because there are none avail able under planning law, the person concerned should be entitled to serve a purchase notice under Section 129 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 so as to require the local authority to purchase the premises. It is very important that the operation of Section 129 is available to people interested in car parks in these circumstances, because it seems that compensation, in whatever amount, is unlikely to represent a substantial redress to those with interests in the premises if it is limited to the scope of paragraph 4 (1). I think the only proper redress in the circumstances would be the purchase of the whole of the interest in the premises. This would apply only if the man is really hampered by virtue of the operation of the planning laws. It does not seem unreasonable to me. I beg to move.

Lord SHEPHERD

This Amendment seeks to provide that an owner of a car park who has suffered damage as a result of a licensing decision should be able to require the local authority to purchase his premises in the same way as can be done under the planning laws when a person can require the planning authority to buy up his land if a planning decision has rendered the land incapable of reasonably beneficial use.

Section 129 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 lays down a procedure which can operate only in the context of planning law, as it makes express provision for the grant of planning permission by the local planning authority or by the Minister of Housing and Local Government as an alternative to the obligatory purchase of the land by the local planning authority. The Minister of Transport is not the proper authority to grant planning permission and; here could be cases where the authority operating the parking licensing system is not the same body as the local planning authority. A straight application of Section 129 of the 1962 Act is therefore inappropriate.

But whenever a person is refused a parking licence or has a permanent licence revoked, it is always open to him to apply to the local planning authority for planning permission for some alternative use or development, and if that application is refused he can then serve a purchase notice under Section 129 of the 1962 Act. Section 129 will then operate in the full context of planning law and the relevant operator or other land owner will have its benefit in all cases where he should do so. I hope that I have not read those words too quickly to be understood by the noble Lord.

Lord CHESHAM

I have certainly understood one thing. The noble Lord has been lifting large lumps of legislation out of other Acts, and here is yet another addition to the list of the pro visions of the Town and Country Planning Act as they specifically apply to car parks which needs to be reconsidered. I must confess that I did not follow the noble Lord fully, but I will leave it at that and add this to the list of things to be looked at. I beg leave to with draw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 76: Page 78, line 20, after ("refused") insert ("or grant the same subject to conditions").

The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with a situation in which, pending decisions and appeals, a car park may continue to operate. One situation which is left out is where inequitable or unacceptable conditions against which an appeal is lodged can apply to a licence, and I think it only right to make this Amendment so that such conditions do not apply until the decision on the appeal has been made. This is the effect of the Amendment. As the Bill is drafted, it is possible for an operator, without wishing to do so, willy-nilly, to be put in a position of committing an offence, which seems a pity. I beg to move.

Lord SHEPHERD

The object of this Amendment is to provide in Part V of Schedule 5 for the case of an existing operator who, when an area first becomes a controlled one, is granted a licence on conditions unacceptable to him; and who appeals against the conditions. We agree that such an operator should be allowed to continue to function as he was doing before the control applied and the appeal has been dealt with, but we are not happy with the drafting of the Amendment. We will undertake to table a suitable Government Amendment to achieve the same object on Report.

Lord CHESHAM

That is good enough for me. I am very happy and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.10 p.m.

Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 77: Page 78, line 26, at end insert ("or (f) pending the decision of the Court or any appeal, therefrom, pursuant to sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 5 of Part III of this Schedule or the abandonment of any such proceedings.").

The noble Lord said: This Amendment goes with the next Amendment in my name. Here again there is some thing that has been left out, and I have put down the Amendments for the sake of completeness. This method of appeal described in the Amendment should also affect the operator of a car park under a licence on which an appeal under this paragraph is lodged. I think that this should also be included by means of the Amendment which I have put down. I beg to move.

Lord SHEPHERD

We accept the principle of the Amendment, but here again we are not happy with the actual terms. With the permission of the Committee we will table our own Amendment on Report to meet this point.

Lord CHESHAM

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that. I accept with pleasure, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Schedule 5, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord CHESHAM

I shall not detain the Committee with comments on this Schedule for more than half an hour or so, but I should like just to express my personal appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for the way he has dealt with the mass of Amendments. I am sorry that I had to table so many. His courtesy and his expertise have, as always, been unflagging and I am grateful to him for the way in which he has dealt with them.

Lord SHEPHERD

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, for what he has said, and also for what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, earlier. That at least provided the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, with a grateful exit, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, and myself, who are still here. I am grateful for the way in which the Committee proceedings have been conducted. I feel that there have been occasions, particularly on the very detailed points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, on which I might not have been adequately—I will not say briefed: that would be unfair to my officials, but where I had not adequately taken in all that was given to me, so that I could impart it to the noble Lord. There will be another time and I renew my invitation to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, and to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, to discuss these detailed matters with me. Some of them are so detailed that they may be dealt with more easily round the table than across the Floor of the Committee. I thank the Committee for the way in which it has worked and I hope that the next stage of the Bill will be as happily conducted.

Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining Schedule agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.