TRANSPORT (LONDON) BILL

HL Deb 22 July 1969 vol 304 cc807-53

4.41 p.m.

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I beg to move that the Report be now received.

Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Shepherd.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 1: Page 8, line 22, after ("(e)") insert ("0')")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is the concession which on Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, undertook to make if I withdrew my Amendment to Clause 6 (1) (j). I am sure noble Lords will remember that I accepted the offer made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, but since then, from a letter I have received from the Minister of Transport, I understand that difficulties have arisen through the advisers in the Ministry of Transport changing their minds and now giving the opposite advice to that which they gave the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, when he made the concession to me. No doubt the noble Lord will be able to explain what has happened. I beg to move.

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, in considering Amendment No. 1 it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to the Amendments which are consequential to it; namely, Nos. 4 to 10. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, drew attention to the fact that the manufacturing powers of this new authority were not guarded by what are broadly referred to as the commercial requirements—or commercial clauses—of previous legislation; that is, that under the Bill the new authority, when they exercise their power to manufacture, should operate as though they were a commercial organisation.

In my reply to the noble Lord I said that in my view such a provision should be in the Bill. I think I should be frank with the House and say that my conversations with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, were earlier than he has disclosed, because I had an opportunity before the Committee stage of drawing his attention to this particular omission. I suggested that if I were prepared to accept it, it would at least meet him halfway and perhaps we could avoid an unnecessary Division. Therefore I feel under an unusual obligation to the noble Lord in this matter.

I based my offer upon a brief that was made available to me, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, will clearly understand that, apart from being highly complex, this is a Bill which has nothing whatsoever to do with my Ministerial duties; and it is a Bill which was, I think, received on Friday as we were to take the Committee stage the following Monday. But at least over the weekend I had an opportunity to read my brief, and it was after having read it that I made my offer to the noble Lord. I think where I went wrong in making my offer to the noble Lord was that I had not taken fully into account the question whether the manufacturing powers were for external purposes or for internal use. In his Amendment the noble Lord suggests that paragraph (j), which is the only manufacturing power in the Bill, should be treated in a similar way to paragraphs (e) and (k), which in fact provide for the new authority to provide services to outside organisations or private individuals. Paragraph (j). which we are now talking about, provides for the manufacture of goods for the Executive itself or any other national transport authority, or for the purposes of the Council. The commercial obligation on the nationalised transport authority under Section 134 of the 1968 Act—and I referred particularly in my speech to that Act—applies only to the manufacturing activities under Section 48 (2), that is to say, to the general powers of manufacture for the outside market, conferred by that section. It does not apply to the internal manufacturing activities of the nationalised transport authority; that is, manufacture for their own purposes and for those of any other member of the nationalised transport family.

These powers, which derive from Section 13 of the Transport Act 1962 have not the commercial obligation applied to them, but I must make it dear that in the view of the Government, given that the manufacturing activities of the new Transport Executive are basically of an internal nature, akin to those of the nationalised transport authorities, and they have no general power to manufacture for the outside market, it would not be in accordance with the Transport Act at present to apply these commercial obligations to those activities.

In Committee I also mentioned the Iron and Steel Act. In fact this does not place a commercial obligation, as such, on the British Steel Corporation, but it provides for the publication in detail of the accounts of any non-iron or steel business of the Corporation with an annual turnover of more than a quarter of a million pounds. This obligation, placed on the Corporation, while not identical with what I am proposing in the Government Amendments to Clause 12, is nevertheless to some extent relevant. It is also worth noting that the Post Office Bill, which recently received its Third Reading in Your Lordships' House, imposes a commercial obligation on the Post Office in respect of its manufacturing activities for the outside market but not for its own internal purposes. I must concede that the Post Office is slightly different from the various transport bodies, in that it is alone in its field and belongs to no family of authorities engaged in basically similar enterprises for whom it can conveniently manufacture. But this does not remove the point that the Post Office Bill distinguishes clearly between the external manufacture, where the commercial obligation applies, and the manufacture for the purposes of the Post Office, where no such obligation obtains.

Given these circumstances—and I thought it right to explain at some length the position as the Government see it—I have not felt able to put down an Amendment in precisely the form which I indicated to the Committee and which the noble Lord himself has now put on the Marshalled List. However, . [ was extremely anxious, as was my right honourable friend, to fulfil, in as concrete a form as possible, the spirit of the undertaking which I gave to the noble Lord on that occasion. It was with this in mind that the Amendments to Clause 12 have been tabled.

Their effect is to oblige the Executive to publish in their annual reports details of their own or any subsidiaries' manufacturing activities, showing the turnover, the gross contribution to profit or loss, the method by which these calculations were arrived at and any other information about the activity which the Minister directs them to furnish. And this a tracts with it the further provisions that if the Minister then considers that the Executive's charges are too low in relation to that cost he can direct the activity in question either to be modified or to be discontinued. It will be open to any person who suspected the Executive of indulging in improper trading activities to make representations to the Minister who could investigate the complaints. In the Government's view, these mandatory provisions, by compelling the Executive to disclose details of any manufacturing activity and by opening the door for Ministerial intervention at any time, will in fact ensure that the Executive are not tempted to act in a manner that is unfair to potential competitors.

I again apologise to the noble Lord for any misunderstanding, for which I am entirely responsible, and I hope very much that he will feel able to accept that the additional safeguards which we now propose to prevent unfair trading will finally allay the fears which have been expressed and, in the event, will show them to have been unfounded. I think that in some ways these Amendments go further than the commercial obligations as such would have done. Furthermore, they do so in a way consistent—and I stress this—with earlier legislation which has been accepted by your Lordships' House, in that the obligation to publish financial results in annual accounts and the possibility of Ministerial intervention are closely akin to the arrangements which will apply under Section 48 of the Transport Act to all the manufacturing activities of the nationalised Transport Authorities.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, will feel that I have sought to meet the point which he made in Committee, and which I supported, because I felt that some provision should be made in the Bill in this matter. There have been difficulties, as I have explained, as to the method of achieving it, but I believe that the Amendments to which I have spoken, Nos. 3 to 10, more than meet the fears that undoubtedly exist in the minds of noble Lords opposite as to the manufacturing powers of this new Executive.

4.54 p.m.

Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD

My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for the great pains to which he has gone to try to make amends for this unfortunate situation; and let me say immediately that I fully accept his apologies and recognise that there is no reflection of any kind on him. He has certainly argued his case extremely well. I have had over the weekend an opportunity to study the Amendments to Clause 12 which the noble Lord has put before us, and to consider what their merits are relative to the concession which the noble Lord now has to withdraw and, indeed, to my original Amendment. This I would just like to discuss now before we reach a decision on it.

This issue affects the manufacturing powers of this public corporation, the new London Transport Executive, and this matter of the manufacturing powers is something which carries a great deal of political feeling, both on the noble Lord's side and on mine, as to what is the right balance between, on the one hand a public corporation financed by public funds, and subsidised as necessary by public funds, and, on the other, private enterprise, where public corporation meets it in competition. This of course was the objective of my original Amendment—and indeed of my objective to-day: to try to get what I think is the right balance. I am well aware that the noble Lord's and the Government's view is not the same as mine. I am trying to get what I think is the best balance. No doubt the noble Lord is trying to do the same.

As I see it, paragraph (j) of Clause 6 (1), which contains these manufacturing powers, amounts to pretty well unlimited manufacturing powers, and certainly a great deal more than manufacturing powers for domestic purposes—that is to say, for sale to other nationalised industries. Under subsection (1) 01 the Executive is given power to manufacture anything 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 Council". That is what the Bill says. That would apparently confine the power to manufacture entirely to domestic purposes. But when we look at Section 48 of the 1968 Act we see in subsection (2) (b) that these nationalised transport authorities will have power. to sell to outside persons, and for that purpose to purchase, anything which is of a kind which the authority or a subsidiary of theirs purchase in the course of some existing activity of that authority or subsidiary. So it is quite clear that, with the powers of the 1968 Act behind this Bill, one of the nationalised transport authorities could purchase manufactured goods from the London Transport Executive or a subsidiary and then sell them in the open market, if it wished to. Therefore, this is not just manufacture for domestic purposes: it could be, through one of the other nationalised transport authorities, sale in the open market, and therefore in competition with private enterprise.

It is for that reason that I feel that there is great significance in the point I am arguing here, and why I feel that the safeguard I am seeking ought to be better than what the noble Lord has offered me. If I may remind the House, the original Amendment which I moved on Committee would have required that the London Transport Executive or its subsidiary should, before going into manufacture, discover whether the open market had similar goods; and, if so, should get them from there. That was my Amendment. That was the Amendment, indeed, for which the Greater London Council asked. If I had got that I should have felt completely happy that we had secured the right balance between public authority and private business.

In the event, the noble Lord offered me what might be regarded, as he himself said, as second-best—what is called, I think, in the technical jargon, the commercial definition. This means that where a manufacturing business is carried on in those circumstances it must operate as if it were a commercial business; in other words, it must not only cover its day-to-day costs, but it must cover also its capital costs, as a private business would do. That concession which the noble Lord offered me (although, as he rightly says, it was only halfway to what I wanted) I felt that I had to accept, and in the light of that I asked leave to withdraw my Amendment. But the concession which the noble Lord is now offering, in his Amendments to Clause 12, obviously does not go anything like so far.

The effect of making these Amendments would be to require that the London Transport Executive should publish in their annual report details of their manufacturing activities under this heading. Let me say right away that I recognise that it is of value that they should disclose what they are doing for all the world to see. But, at the end of the day, the London Transport Executive are under no obligation to have made both ends meet about a particular manufacture, to have covered its costs and if they need some subsidy in the process of doing it it is not in any way considered a fault. Therefore, this is a very partial safeguard.

Let me say again that I appreciate that it is of some value. Clause 12, as drafted, does no more than give the Minister a discretionary power to do this. Clause 12 (3) says that the Minister may do it if he wishes to. What the Minister, or the noble Lord on behalf of the Minister, is offering is that the Minister should bind himself to do that. The point I am making, however, is that, starting from the point of my original Amendment which I felt made the right balance, we are going by easy stages to a point in this Amendment which the noble Lord has put down to Clause 12 and which really is a most attenuated safeguard compared with the one which I thought was necessary to get the right balance; and I must say that I do not think that it goes far enough. I appreciate that great efforts have been made to try to make a concession which would meet the case. I also appreciate that the noble Lord has taken immense trouble, and has argued the case with great skill to show that this does do it. But it really does not, and I think that I have revealed to the House just how far short it falls.

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, may I intervene for one moment? It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, is particularly concerned about how other nationalised industries, at least other transport industries, could use Section 48. I wonder whether it would help the noble Lord if I were to repeat what the Minister said in another place in Standing Committee A on April 17, 1969, on this particular point. I quote from column 156 of the Official Report. He said: The fear which the honourable Gentleman expressed"— which is similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent,— in the course of his last speech is one which we can understand, but we think that it is not justified in practice. The London Transport Executive will be well aware of its responsibility, and will know that to use the provisions of the Act in this way would be wrong. None the less, it is right to make it quite clear that is not the intention of this part of the Bill. In exercising his powers under section 48 of the Transport Act, in relation to periodic approval of the National Transport authorities' proposals for manufacturing and other services under that section, the Minister would not consent to any such activities involving the London Transport Executive in this wav I wonder whether those last clear words of the Minister at least remove some of the fear that the noble Lord has himself expressed.

Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD

I must again thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for trying to help me. I have indeed studied with great care these passages from the Committee stage in another place, and the subsequent arguments by my honourable friends who, in their own case, were not convinced that the Bill was sufficient. The Minister's words are fine, but they are not in the Bill; and it is for this reason that I feel that there should be a better safeguard there than there now is. There is no doubt that the Bill, as drafted, combined with the 1968 Act would give the London Transport Executive power to manufacture goods to supply to another national transport authority, who could then sell in the open market; and the Minister could only catch up with that later. The Minister, in approving schemes under the later part of Section 48 which gives him power to approve schemes, would not know what these manufactured goods were going for. He may catch up a year or two later when he found out what they were doing: but certainly he would not be able to find out in the first place that that was what was going to happen to the goods.

There really is a chink here. I stress that I appreciate the trouble to which the noble Lord has been to try to meet me on this matter, and had I thought that his Amendment could in substance meet the point I was trying to make certainly I would have accepted it in good faith, especially after all the trouble which has been taken; but it really does not, and I think that the arguments I have produced show just how far short it falls. For these reasons, I am afraid I must tell your Lordships that in my view the Amendment on the Marshalled List ought to go in as a necessary safeguard to this particular clause.

5.7 p.m.

Lord POPPLEWELL

My Lords, I greatly appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has said, particularly because his remarks classify the difference of opinion that there is between both sides of the House in this particular direction. Those of us who know something about London Transport know the difficulty that they have had in the past arising from the fact that they have not been able to manufacture; or, if they have sold some of their old buses, for instance, they have not been able to supply spare parts for those buses but have had to go to outside private people in order to provide them.

This is one of the publicly-owned undertakings that we often criticise for not, as it is termed, making a commercial suc- cess measured in a profit or otherwise. This Bill, as it is, gives to this transport undertaking the opportunity to be commercially viable without putting on the tightening strings that are advocated by Lord Nugent, and usually by his colleagues. We have seen so much of this in the past.

A short time ago I had the privilege in Colombo in Ceylon of seeing how the public services operated. There one saw old London Transport buses still running under their red colouring, as buses do here to-day. When those buses were passed to commercial undertakings, who repaired and renovated them and sent them out to where there was a market, unless in the past London Transport have had a sufficient number of spares they were not able to supply spare parts when anything went wrong. Here in this Bill the London Transport Executive are given the opportunity to be commercially viable. Surely that is not wrong. If we accept the mixed economy of public and private enterprise in all these undertakings there is a case for public enterprises having the opportunity to make themselves commercially viable.

I think we cannot possibly bridge this difference of opinion between the two sides of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent and I have had many arguments in this connection. I think he joined me at the Chiswick works of London Transport and saw what was really developing and what London Transport themselves were capable of doing, but they still could not put any of those improvements on to the market, to help. To take a case in point, it is surprising what London Transport research people have done in so far as oil for buses is concerned. But this must be a commercial secret, as it were, to London Transport. I am probably a little wide in mentioning this fact, but it is indicative of what some of these publicly owned undertakings are doing, and surely they should be allowed to exploit it to the maximum.

I think my noble friend has gone a long way in the series of Amendments which he has put forward, and with which I agree. I think that when any publicly owned undertaking, and I include London Transport, do anything of this description it is right that a full explanation should be given in so far as their accounts are concerned, and that they should be carefully investigated. Of course this is right, but giving them the opportunity is quite different, and I am not yielding to the noble Lord on the other side, who would prevent them making a success of their job.

Lord BELSTEAD

My Lords, primarily this Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Nugent seeks to rectify the view that the London Transport Executive should not manufacture on a commercial basis. Page 8, line 22, of the Bill, where my noble friend is seeking to insert his Amendment, specifically allows for this very thing. My noble friend Lord Nugent has described the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd—which are being taken with this Amendment—as being only a partial safeguard, and I hope it would not be unreasonable to remind the House that under this Bill it is the taxpayers who are to be asked annually to pay the interest charges on the £270 million debt written off under the Bill. I am not seeking to be difficult when I ask whether Parliament can justify a burden like this, while allowing the beneficiary, the L.T.E., to manufacture in any way it likes.

After listening to what has been said, it seems that the argument turned mainly on the possible resale powers which may be attached to subsection (j). The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has repeated the undertaking which was given by the right honourable gentleman the Minister in column 156 in the proceedings in Committee. However, as my noble friend Lord Nugent has said, whatever the good intentions of the Minister, under this Bill there is no Ministerial control in this matter. May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, whether it is the intention of the Minister to prohibit the outlet of L.T.E. goods through nationalised industries under Section 48 (4) (a) of the 1968 Act? Is that the exact point where the Ministerial control will come? If that is the Minister's intention, how can it be detected if the everyday goods—literally the nuts and bolts of life—which the L.T.E. are going to be allowed to make under this Bill, are finding an outlet thus?

The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, did not complete the quote from column 156. May I quote the preceding paragraph, where the Minister said, referring to the L.T.E.: It is not the job of the vendor to check the eventual use of every single item that he manufactures. What I am asking the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is whether it is the job of the vendor. If under this Bill the Minister has no power to do it, whose job is it?

There is one other point which the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, led us on to. In paragraph (i)—and my noble friend Lord Nugent mentioned this both on Committee and today—the ability to supply spare parts for passenger road vehicles disposed of by the Execulive is given. This power is given if such spare parts are not for sale elsewhere. But this is a Transport Bill, and yet under paragraph (j), the paragraph we are discussing, the London Transport Executive will be able to manufacture anything and give a full spares after-sales service. But if the Executive wishes to dispose of old vehicles, the spares cannot be supplied if they are to be found on the market elsewhere. If the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, stands up, this is not unreasonable; if it does not, then paragraph (j), taken with paragraph (i), is not only inconsistent but absurd. It is true that this Amendment would not bring the two paragraphs in direct line, but it would at least make them understandable to both sides of the House.

On this side we suggest that the manufacturing powers given to the L.T.E. in the Bill as it stands will divert the Executive from its real objectives—one of them mentioned in Clause 1—to servo the transport needs of Greater London, and also to avoid the ghost of bankruptcy, which part of the Bill we welcome. Unamended these powers could be damaging to many other industries, and therefore it is to be hoped that possibly the Government may give this matter favourable consideration.

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, with the permission of the House I would say one last word because I think that if I went beyond that I still would not convince the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. All I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is that I share with him the view that this new Executive are going to have very big responsibilities and very many burdens to carry; and that is one of the reasons why we feel that they should be in a position to use all their assets to the maximum advantage. We have also put in provisions to see that they do not act unfairly, or trade unfairly, with private industry. My understanding is that under Section 48 of the Transport Act, if it was known by the Minister that such things were happening as the noble Lord has mentioned—that is that goods were being sent by the L.T.E. to a nationalised Board who were selling them on the cheap—then the Minister clearly would stop it. However, I just cannot contemplate these large nationalised organisations going into what I might call Petticoat Lane trading operations. I just cannot conceive of it. I do

not believe that a Bill could be drafted to prevent that happening if that is what some local manager or official decided to do. This Bill lays down the principles by which these authorities have to work. I have no doubt at all that those authorities will work within these principles.

I will not say any more because I do not believe, as on so many other occasions, that one can really convince noble Lords that their fears are merely fears of their dreams, and I must leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford.

5.18 p.m.

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

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 64.

CONTENTS
Aberdare, L.	Daventry, V.	Kinnoull, E.
Ailwyn, L.	Denham, L. [Teller.]	Lambert, V.
Airedale, L.	Derwent, L.	Lansdowne, M.
Allerton, L.	Drumalbyn, L.	Lothian, M.
Ampthill, L.	Dundee, E.	Mancroft, L.
Amulree, L.	Ebbisham, L.	Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Atholl, D.	Eccles, V.	Merrivale, L.
Auckland, L.	Effingham, E.	Mersey, V.
Audley, Bs.	Emmet of Amberley, Bs.	Molson, L.
Barnby, L.	Falkland, V.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Beauchamp, E.	Falmouth, V.	Nugent of Guildford, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Fraser of Lonsdale, L.	Rankeillour, L.
Belstead, L.	Geddes, L.	Rockley, L.
Berkeley, Bs.	Gisborough, L.	Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.
Bessborough, E.	Goschen, V. [Teller.]	St. Aldwyn, E.
Boston, L.	Gowrie, E.	St. Helens, L.
Brooke of Cumnor, L.	Gray, L.	St. Oswald, L.
Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.	Greenway, L.	Sandford, L.
Burton, L.	Grenfell, L.	Sandys, L.
Carrington, L.	Gridley, L.	Sempill, Ly.
Chesham, L.	Grimston of Westbury, L.	Sinclair of Cleeve, L.
Colyton, L.	Hawke, L.	Stamp, L.
Conesford, L.	Headfort, M.	Strange of Knokin, Bs.
Cork and Orrery, E.	Henley, L.	Strathclyde, L.
Craigmyle, L.	Inglewood, L.	Tweedsmuir, L.
Cranbrook, E.	Jellicoe, E.	Vivian, L.
Crathorne, L.	Kilmany, L.	Wolverton, L.
Cromartie, E.	Kilmarnock, L.
NON-CONTENTS
Addison, V.	Crook, L.	Kinloss, Ly.
Archibald, L.	Douglass of Cleveland, L.	Leatherland, L.
Arwyn, L.	Energlyn, L.	Lindgren, L.
Beswick, L.	Gaitskell, Bs.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.
Birk, Bs.	Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)	McLeavy, L.
Blyton, L.	Garnsworthy, L.	Maelor, L.
Bowles, L. [Teller.]	Geddes of Epsom, L.	Mitchison, L.
Brockway, L.	Granville of Eye, L.	Moyle, L.
Brown, L.	Hankey, L.	Noel-Buxton, L.
Burden, L.	Henderson, L.	Phillips, Bs.
Chalfont, L.	Hill of Wivenhoe, L.	Plummer, Bs.
Champion, L.	Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]	Popplewell, L.
Chorley, L.	Hughes, L.	Raglan, L.
Collison, L.	Kennet, L.	Ritchie-Calder, L.
Royle, L.	Shepherd, L.	Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Rusholme, L.	Silkin, L.	Walston, L.
Sainsbury, L.	Snow, L.	Williamson, L.
St. Davids, V.	Sorensen, L.	Willis, L.
Samuel, V.	Stow Hill, L.	Wilson of Langside, L.
Segal, L.	Strabolgi, L.	Wise, L.
Serota, Bs.	Summerskill, Bs.	Wootton of Abinger, Bs.
Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

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

Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 2: Page 16, line 8, at end insert ("and consider any offer by that council to make a financial contribution to the Executive in respect of the provision of services for the carriage of passengers by the Executive's railways within, to or from that county")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment fulfils an undertaking given by me during the Committee stage to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. A county council may put forward a proposal to contribute towards railway passenger services run by the London Transport Executive to, from or within their county area. It is empowered to make contributions for this purpose under Section 136 of the Local Government Act 1948. This Amendment obliges the G.L.C. to consider such proposals from a county council before approving any submission from the L.T.E. for a substantial change in the general level and structure of their fares on the services in question. It is designed to focus both the G.L.C.'s attention on a possible reason for withholding approval of substantial increases in L.T.E. rail fares outside Greater London and the county council's attention on a possible means of influencing the G.L.C.'s decision. I beg to move.

Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD

My Lords, on this occasion I have much pleasure in accepting without qualification the Amendment which the noble Lord has kindly moved: it entirely meets the undertaking which he gave during the Committee stage. It will, I think, make a useful improvement to the Bill, and will be helpful both to the G.L.C. and to adjacent county authorities.

Clause 12 [Minister's power to prevent improper conduct of subsidiary activities]:

5.30 p.m.

Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 3: Page 16, line 25, after ("on") insert ("(a)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am not sure whether I should ask your Lordships to accept this Amendment. I put this and a number of the following Amendments down to meet the fears of the noble Lord on Clause 6. However, the noble Lord has divided the House this afternoon and, not surprisingly, with his majority in this House, he has been able to carry his Amendment. I am not quite sure now whether he would wish me to go on and move what he referred to as "half a cake" or "half a stage". If the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, is willing to support me in these Amendments (which meet his point to a certain extent, taking into account the view that another place may perhaps take of his Amendment) I am prepared to recommend to your Lordships that the House should accept them. I beg to move Amendment No. 3.

Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD

My Lords, I shall have much pleasure in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in this Amendment, although it has not by any means the substance which I should have liked to see as a safeguard. I said in my earlier speech that I recognised that it made some improvement. I thought the noble Lord was rather overdoing the heaping of coals of fire on my head in moving this. He would be the first to recognise that, had he offered me this concession in order to persuade me to withdraw my Amendment on the Committee stage, I should never have accepted it. I should have been bound to press my original Amendment to a Division at that time; and the fact that I asked that the concession that he gave me should go into the Bill was, I would have thought, no more than reasonable. However, I will let that pass.

As to this Amendment, it gives something of value. It removes the discretionary part of Clause 12. Whereas the Minister could order that subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 12 shall apply to such activities as are mentioned in paragraph (j) of Clause 6, this will now be obligatory, and it will be there for all the world to see. This is a safeguard which will have some value and give some satisfaction, and I am very pleased to support it.

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, Amendments Nos. 4 to 10 are consequential on Amendment No. 3, which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, would wish to see in the Bill. It may be for the convenience of the House if I move them en bloc. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 16, line 28, at end insert ("or (b) of any business of a description which the Executive are authorised to carry on by section 6 (1) (j) of this Act, subsection (1A) of this section shall apply to that business.

(1A) In the case of any business to which this subsection applies")

Page 17, line 2, leave out ("such business as aforesaid") and insert ("any business to which subsection (1A) of this section applies")

Page 17, line 4, leave out from ("made") to second ("the") in line 6 and insert ("by the Executive or subsidiary in the course of that business are unduly low having regard to the cost of carrying on that business")

Page 17, line 16, leave out ("subsections (1) and (2)") and insert ("subsection (1A)")

Page 17, line 17, at end insert ("of that subsection and subsection (2) of this section")

Page 17, line 21, leave out ("(j)")

Page 17, leave out lines 28 and 29.—(Lord Shepherd.)

Clause 36 [Control of off-street parking]:

5.34 p.m.

Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 11: Page 46, line 4, after ("available") insert ("(not being less than the number available at any date on which such regulations are made)")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is the only one standing in my name on the Marshalled List which is in the same form as the Amendment I moved at an earlier stage of this Bill. It is in the same form because, when I came to read Hansard, and to consider the reasons which were put forward and which led me, with some misgiving, to withdraw the Amendment on the last occasion, I found them to be, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who gave voice to these thoughts, even poorer than I described them at the time. In fact, it seemed to me that the reasons for objecting to this Amendment did not in fact apply to the substance of the Amendment. Therefore, I thought I could return with this Amendment, at least, again.

Your Lordships will possibly recall that I said on the last occasion that the purpose of this Amendment was to ensure that the number of parking spaces made available in off-street car parks in any area to be designated by the Greater London Council as a controlled area under this clause would amount to at least the number available at the date on which the regulation was made. I think that is only reasonable because, despite the pressure of traffic control, nobody has yet abandoned the principle that it is highly desirable to provide as much off-street car-parking space as can possibly be made available at the present time to relieve our traffic problems; and I cannot see any possible justification for taking powers to reduce the number of those spaces. It is not as if they have grown up piecemeal and willy-nilly, or grown like mushrooms. They have all come about because of rights of operation which have emanated and stemmed from planning consents, and they have been approved by the local planning authority. It must surely be right that we make certain that we preserve all the spaces available at the present time.

The noble Lord said on the last occasion that this would make it impossible for the spaces concerned to be allocated, as the Bill provides, between different classes of user—short-term, long-term, contract, casual, and so on. My Lords, it does nothing of the kind. It merely seeks to preserve the number of spaces already there when they come under regulations in this way. It seems to me entirely reasonable. I beg to move.

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, says, this Amendment is identical to one that he moved on Committee stage. It concerns the powers of the Greater London Council under subsection (6) (a) to lay down maximum numbers of parking spaces at licensed parking places for (a) all or (b) particular types of parking. The Amendment seeks to provide that these limits on numbers shall be not less than the numbers existing at the date of the making of the Greater London Council regulations. What are the purposes of Clause 36? I could not help reflecting, as I was preparing for this debate over the weekend, when the Americans were achieving one of the most fantastic technological projects it is possible to conceive, that of putting a man on the moon, that they were able to do all that yet they have not been able to deal with their own traffic problems in New York and other major American cities. We may not be able to deal with ours, either, but at least we must make efforts. We believe, and so do the Greater London Council, that controlling off-street parking is one of the ways in which traffic management is possible. We believe that the Greater London Council should have the power to say how off-street car-parking should be used. I do not accept, and I cannot personally conceive, that the Greater London Council will come to the view that the amount of off-street car-parking in London is sufficient, or that it should be reduced. I am quite sure they will take the view that it should be increased.

The Amendment should be resisted on two grounds. First—and this was fully covered in Committee—it would prevent reallocations of spaces at car parks in controlled areas or parts of controlled areas falling within particular boroughs in situations where the G.L.C. had no wish to reduce the overall number of parking spaces. To take an example, the Council might wish to reduce the number of spaces which could be used by commuters in certain central areas while at the same time increasing the allocation for shoppers or residents. It would clearly be most undesirable if this were to be prevented by the Amendment.

Secondly—and here perhaps it would be as well to enlarge on what was said in Committee—it would make it im- possible for the Council to reduce the overall numbers of parking spaces in particular areas. Although in the event they might not wish to do this in particular areas one could visualise situations in which this power might be very desirable in the interests of traffic management. It might, for example, be necessary to reduce the overall numbers of parking spaces in a particular part of a borough while at the same time making provision for a corresponding increase in spaces in another part of the same borough where the increase in road traffic could be fairly readily accommodated on the existing roads. There is no doubt that it must be possible when and if circumstances dictate, for these licensing controls to be able to bite on existing as well as future car parks.

There is adequate protection for the interests of existing operators. They have the safeguard of the Minister's "call-in" procedure on the regulations (and the Minister would certainly be particularly interested in any proposals to reduce the overall numbers of parking spaces in particular areas), coupled with the ability of objectors to make representations about these regulations and the Minister's power to hold a public inquiry. Finally, there are the compensation provisions to cover situations where operators suffer damage as a result of licensing decisions. This, of course, raises the very practical consideration that the G.L.C. will not be likely to decide to make cuts in the numbers of car park spaces in particular areas when it knows that at the end of the day this is likely to lead to the borough or boroughs in that area being subject to probably quite substantial claims for compensation.

My Lords, I have spelled out the question of compensation and the Minister's powers to show that this is something which must be very carefully considered by the authorities concerned if they were to reduce the number of parking sites in a particular area. But in present circumstances I cannot conceive of the G.L.C. reducing the overall number of parking spaces in Central London. But it may need to reduce parking space in one particular area if only to increase it in another, taking into account the flow and use of traffic. I would ask the House not to accept the noble Lord's Amendment.

Lord CHESHAM

My Lords, I was much struck by the noble Lord's analogy with the American achievement. We salute the moon programme; but I do not think that the Americans are unaware of their traffic problem. One thing they have not seen fit to do about it is to take powers of this kind—and neither has any other nation, so far as I am aware. Therefore I am right, and I think your Lordships are right, to be concerned about the introduction of these powers. I wish that the noble Lord had said something which had rather more regard to the facts of life and to the life of the individuals than: "Do not worry about this; because, after all, if the local authorities did this it would cost them an awful lot in compensation." I do not believe that this is a sound basis for legislation of this kind.

I cannot recall a single valid reason in his speech for not putting this Amendment in the Bill. The noble Lord churned out the same arguments as those produced in Committee—arguments which, as I said in moving my Amendment, had not convinced me in the slightest. They still do not convince me. I see no reason why this Amendment would prevent the changeover of spaces between commuters and short-term parkers; and I am not even sure that the noble Lord is correct in thinking that it could do so. I do not feel inclined to withdraw this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

5.46 p.m.

Lord SHEPHERD

The purpose of Amendment No. 12 is to meet a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, in Committee. He was concerned to ensure that where under subsection (7) of Clause 36 the local authority has reached a decision on a licence application, it should inform the applicant of the decision and the reasons for it at the same time. As I pointed out in Committee, I felt that the noble Lord's Amendment was slightly defective in drafting and I undertook to move an appropriate Amendment on Report. This is the Amendment. I hope the House will approve it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 46, line 30, at end insert ("at the same time as they inform him of that decision").—(Lord Shepherd.)

Lord CHESHAM

My Lords, what I have to say about this Amendment is such as to have made it doubly distasteful for me to have had to take the view I did of the previous one. With this Amendment the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, meets an undertaking he gave on Committee. I am grateful that he has done so. The noble Lord has tabled other Amendments to meet similar undertakings. To save the time of the House, may I be permitted now to express my gratitude and appreciation for all of them. I acknowledge with appreciation the discussions which have taken place, and only wish that I could acknowledge with as full an appreciation in every case the results of those discussions. Those cases in which I cannot do so form the subject of a few remaining Amendments in my name. With the possible exception of Amendment No. 25 (to which I shall make a remark or two) I welcome these Amendments and in accepting them formally shall do so in a spirit of appreciation and gratitude.

Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 13:

Page 47, line 25, at end 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 entered into prior to the 22nd day of July 1969 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: My Lords, this Amendment, of some size and substance, is similar to an Amendment I moved on the last occasion. There is an important difference which I will explain. This Amendment provides for the situation where compliance with the terms and conditions of a licence for off-street parking places is in conflict with the covenants and conditions attaching to the premises under any lease, agreement for lease or licence on which it may be held. There are many car parks held under such agreements or licences or contracts, and those operating them could be put at considerable risk of frustration by the imposition of conditions under the regulations to be made under the Bill.

At the time when I moved my Amendment in Committee the noble Lord made the point that it would open the door to a great deal of potential abuse. That was the main and almost the sole piece of major advice that he gave to your Lordships; and your Lordships disagreed with the Amendment after a Division. I feel that if that Amendment had been in the form in which this Amendment now appears, your Lordships might not have disagreed to it. Therefore I thought that I should be justified in moving this Amendment in order to find out. The abuse which was foreseen by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was that if contracts could be frustrated and thereby attract compensation, people would create contracts in order for them to be frustrated. I think that the expression used by the noble Lord was to "fleece the authorities". No one wants that to happen and therefore I have included in this Amendment that its provisions would apply only to car parks operating under leases or contracts which are valid today. I have put in to-day's date to avoid any possibility of am/one being able to create a contract for the sole purpose of having it frustrated and therefore making themselves entitled to compensation. I think that the noble Lord had a point originally and that I have met it, and I beg to move.

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, this Amendment is virtually identical to the one moved by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, during the Committee stage and which on that occasion was lost by a short head—in fact by one vote. It 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 shall be null and void and the lessor entitled to compensation for any damage thereby suffered.

The Amendment as now drafted refers only to leases entered into before July 22, 1969, and to this extent it obviates the risk inherent in the earlier Amendment of abuse by entering into a lease or contract in terms designed to undermine the whole system. I fear that this Amendment also is unacceptable and for the following reasons. First, we believe that no provision of this kind is needed. We think that the rules of law about the frustration of contracts would apply to the obligations with which this Amendment deals. This means that the operator would be discharged from future performance where this would conflict with the terms of his licence and the courts would have power to make financial adjustment under the Law Reform (Frustration of Contract) Act 1943.

Secondly, this question of conflict with the requirements of the lease or contract can arise in planning law. A discontinuance order under the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 could require a tenant to discontinue activities which his lease requires him to carry on. But there is no specific provision in the planning Acts for setting aside a lease or contract. Thirdly the question of possible conflict with obligations or restrictions in posed by a parking licence is in no sense limited to leases, licences or contracts. Conflict could arise over other obligations; for example, obligations under a restrictive covenant binding on a freeholder To make specific provision in relation to one kind of situation would cast very serious doubts on other situations where the same problem arose.

Fourthly, by limiting the provisions as to leases et cetera entered into before a particular date, the Amendment implies that subsequent leases could override the requirements of a parking licence. This is clearly unintentional. Nevertheless it is a major flaw in the Amendment. It could provide a way for getting round the controls which the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, himself does not wish to see. In so far as the interests of a landlord or tenant are prejudicially affected by the decision of a local authority under Clause 36 they will, in appropriate cases, be entitled to compensation under the provisions of Schedule 5 to the Bill. In practical terms, operators have little to fear. The terms and conditions of any lease would, of course, be matters: hat a local authority would take into account, as would the Minister on appeal. A local authority might hesitate before laying itself open to the liability to compensate anyone with the sort of interest in the land which would give him a compensation entitlement. For those four or five reasons I hope that the House will not accept the Amendment.

Lord CHESHAM

My Lords, I think that is a worthy thought on the part of the noble Lord. I wish that the House would rise to its feet and inform me that it thoroughly understands the five reasons why it should not accept the Amendment. If that happened I should take off my hat to the House. Frankly, there is a technique (I absolve the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, from deliberately using it) which is known as"blinding with science". The noble Lord shakes his head, but in point of fact that is what has occurred on this occasion, so far as I am concerned. Through the maze of the somewhat legal tangle which the noble Lord has given, I simply do not think I am capable of reasoning it straight back again, having heard it once across the Floor of the House. It is too complex for that. What am I to say? May I ask the noble Lord this? Despite all the information about non-performance and so on, for which one could apply, can he tell me whether what he said means that if an operator is prejudiced, put to loss or suffers damage as the result of this action he has under the law a claim for compensation in some way? Yes or no? If the noble Lord can tell me that this was what he meant in the rather long passage that he gave, I may feel happier.

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, I think I have made it clear in the past what is the position of operators when they feel that their business has been prejudiced by any of the consequences of this Bill. They have their appeal procedure. They have also, under procedures identical to the Town and Country Planning Acts, avenues for compensation within the law; means of obtaining compensation if it goes as far as that. If they have anything about which they feel they should appeal they have the procedure of appeal to the Minister. The Bill, in fact, as the noble Lord knows, goes further than merely the operator. A land-owner who may be prejudiced by this Bill also has protection and the opportunity for compensation. As I have said on many occasions, we have done our utmost to see that anyone who suffers as a con- sequence of this Bill should, through the proper procedures, be properly compensated.

Lord CHESHAM

My Lords, is the noble Lord answering, "Yes" to my question?

Lord SHEPHERD

Yes, my Lords, I am sorry that I had to use so many words, but the answer is, "Yes".

Lord CHESHAM

My Lords, on the assumption that the noble Lord has answered correctly—and I am sure he would not have said otherwise—I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 14: Page 47, line 26, after ("section") insert ("and to the provisions of Part V of Schedule 5 to this Act").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Winterbottom, I beg to move Amendment No. 14 and at the same time would like to speak to Amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 48, which are consequential. The purpose of these Amendments is to meet a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, in Committee. He was concerned to cover a gap in the Bill as drafted, whereby an operator who was granted a licence on terms and conditions unacceptable to him and who appealed against those conditions could not carry on operating on the original basis pending the outcome of the appeal. The Government accepted that there was a point here that needed putting right.

The Amendments now drafted go somewhat further than the noble Lord's Amendment originally suggested. They provide that 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, may continue to function as he was doing before the control applied, pending the outcome of the appeal. They also make similar provision for the case of an operator in a controlled area who holds a licence for a limited period, makes an application to the local authority for a new licence—either limited or permanent—and is granted a new licence on conditions unacceptable to him. He also will be able, should he decide to appeal, to continue to operate on the earlier conditions pending the outcome of the appeal.

Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 15: Page 47, line 39, leave out from ("subsection") to ("proper") in line 40 and insert ("the court before whom he is convicted may, if on an application made for the purpose by the local authority the court is satisfied that it is").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 15 and at the same time speak to Nos. 16 to 19. These Amendments are again to meet a point raised in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham. He pointed out, and the Government agreed, that the ultimate sanction of revocation of a licence for breach of conditions would more appropriately rest with the courts than with the local authority. I agreed with this in Committee. The Amendment to page 47, line 39, is the basic one that removes the decision from the local authority to the courts. It does so, which seems correct, on the basis that the court would be invited to act on the basis of an application by the local authority. The remaining Amendments are consequential.

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 16, 17, 18 and 19 en bloc.

Amendments moved—

Page 47, line 44, leave out ("revoke") and insert ("make an order for the revocation of")

Page 48, line 3, after ("licence") insert ("in pursuance of an order")

Page 48, line 6, after ("giving") insert ("notice of appeal from the order or, as the case may be")

Page 48, line 10, leave out from ("given") to end of line 11 and insert ("until the effectiveness or otherwise of the order or, as the case may be the local authority's decision is finally determined in accordance with the relevant procedure").—(Lord Shepherd.)

Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 20: Page 48, line 28, leave out from ("modifications") to end of line 29 and insert ("as may be prescribed for the purpose, being modifications appearing to the Council to be necessary to ensure that the parking place is operated by or on behalf of the local authority with suitable provision as to the matters referred to in subsection (4) (b) and (c) (i) to (iv) of this Section in like manner as if it").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 20. Fears were expressed during the Committee stage of the Bill that the Bill did not in fact place a tight obligation on local authorities, in relation to the operation of their own car parks, to comply with the framework of the G.L.C. Regulations for a particular area. The fear was that local authorities would so operate their own car parks as to compete unfairly with private enterprise car parks, using a latitude which it was alleged the Bill gave them. In reply I emphasised that the Bill was in fact drawn completely tightly on this point, and that the fears expressed were groundless.

In the light of the debate, I have looked at the matter again. There is no reason to change our earlier opinion on the drafting of the clause, Nor, indeed, do the Government think that local authorities would in fact behave in this sort of way. Nevertheless, purely for the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that any fears on the point are dispelled, an Amendment has been tabled to spell out more clearly in the wording of Clause 36 the obligations to be placed on local authorities. It must be emphasised that this involves no change of substance whatsoever or any alteration of these obligations; but it is of course desirable that there should be no misconceptions on this important issue. It is to be 'toped that the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, who particularly raised this point, will find this Amendment acceptable.

6.7 p.m.

Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 21:

Page 48. line 31, at end insert— ( ) Not less than one month before publishing any proposal to make regulations designating an area in Greater London as a controlled area for the purpose of this section, the Council shall publish a report fully explaining its intentions and the reasons for the proposed regulations.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is akin to, but by no means the same as, the Amendment I previously moved. It is directed to the fact hat I believe that people should be better informed than they are. I have already said in another context to-day that these powers lead to regulations which have not been used anywhere in the Western hemisphere before, and I think we should at least know what is happening. On the last occasion, I moved an Amendment to make the regulations subject to the Negative Resolution procedure in Parliament, and this was furiously resisted by the noble Lord. Not unnaturally, I have not returned to that in view of what was said, but it is only right and proper that where these powers are taken people should know what is going on. These powers are wide and sweeping and are unprecedented. According to the noble Lord on the last occasion, they are subject to Parliamentary control—presumably through the Parliamentary Question procedure, because I cannot think of any other form of control here, and I do not think it is too much to ask that people should know about these measures when they are brought in.

I am not talking entirely about people operating car parks but also about people operating temporary, or what I might call unofficial, car parks, such as using a field as a car park to take advantage of a nearby football match, a practice which I believe occurs in the neighbourhood of Twickenham at times and elsewhere in the Greater London area. If they are not aware of these regulations they may be put in the position of committing an offence without knowing that there is an offence there for them to commit. I do not think that my Amendment is difficult of fulfilment and it should not impose any intolerable burden on the Council. I do not think that we can rely here on the Press or on reports of council proceedings, and something stronger is wanted. I beg to move.

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, as a general principle, I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord has said, but in the Government's view the Amendment is unnecessary, in that the arrangements already proposed in the Bill or dictated by the G.L.C.'s own internal machinery will ensure that the aim is achieved. In the first place, the proposed G.L.C. regulations would require Council approval, and thus a report would need to appear in the Council agenda. This is a public document, and secures substantial publicity in the Press.

Secondly, under an Amendment which I shall move in a moment, the Council are to be given a positive obligation in respect of prior and formal—and, I stress formal—consultations on proposed regulations. What will these consultations be? We have clearly not specified them in Amendment No. 25, which we shall discuss later, because if we put in certain names there is always the fear that others not mentioned will be involved. It is clear to me that in this matter consultations are bound to take place between the R.A.C. and the A.A.; with the British Parking Association and, I should have thought, particularly when one thinks of the impact that certain regulations may have on particular shopping areas like Regent Street or Bond Street, with the Chamber of Commerce. These consultations would certainly cover major organisations representing users of the car parks and car park operators. There seems no reason why this consultation should not be entirely open, and will thus provide another opportunity for those interested to become aware of what is going on.

Thirdly, once the draft regulations are formally published, there is a six-week objection period during which anyone concerned may make representations on the regulations. All objections have to be transmitted to the Minister, and he may, if he thinks fit, call in the regulations; and, if he does so, he can order a public inquiry. This is the major opportunity for all relevant points to be thoroughly ventilated.

In these circumstances, the Minister feels that the Amendment is not required, and, indeed, places an unreasonable extra obligation on the G.L.C. The matters it seeks to cover will be fully met by the procedures that will in any case have to be gone through. I hope that, in the circumstances, the House will not accept this Amendment.

Lord CHESHAM

My Lords, the noble Lord has given us a long expose of certain things that are true in regard to other things, but I fail to see that they have anything to do with this. He has given us a long talk on what might be the object of Amendment No. 25, but in my view this does not in any way go to meet the point that I have tried to make in this Amendment, and this I should have thought the noble Lord would appreciate. I do not know, because the noble Lord did not say so, where else in the Bill this matter is covered. It simply is not good enough to say that the public who need to be informed will be informed because it will have to go on the G.L.C. agenda, which is a public document. I do not know what the readership of the G.L.C. agenda is—perhaps it would be interesting to know that. The public at large do not study regulations when they are published.

I am delighted, of course, to hear that under another head the Council will consult my own organisation, and the A.A., and so on, from which I take it that it is proposed to leave this matter to those with whom the Council see fit to consult in due course. But I do not think that any of the bodies which are liable to be consulted are necessarily publicists in areas where there are people of many different kinds who wish and need to know that these regulations are to be made, and who may be put in a position of some personal jeopardy by innocently operating what I call an ad hoc car park, taking advantage of somebody else's event, without knowing anything about it. I cannot see any reason why this should not be publicised by such a report as I have mentioned.

Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD

My Lords, perhaps I may say a word or two on this matter. I wonder if my noble friend Lord Chesham is not taking a rather limited view of his Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has told the House what his Amendment No. 25 will do, which is most valuable in terms of consultation. But on the point my noble friend Lord Chesham picked up, that this would appear on the agenda of the G.L.C. and be in their report, the Press are present on these occasions and pick up anything that is of general interest; and there is no doubt that if anything new in this way is proposed by the G.L.C. the Press will pick it up and give it full publicity.

One is always up against the problem, with any innovation of this kind, of how to tell everybody. Even if the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, agreed that the G.L.C. should publish a report, there is no certainty that everybody would read it. We should be no further forward. I should have thought the fact that the G.L.C. themselves will have their proceedings reported, and that there is then this specific consultation, which means that those directly interested will be brought into it, has gone quite a long way to meet my noble friend's point. I should have thought that he had done rather well in persuading the Government to go as far as they have. He seems to have done rather better than I have done on most points. I rather hope that he might accept this.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

6.18 p.m.

Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 22:

Page 48, line 31, 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 (4Xc) (i) (ii) and (iii) of this section, the local authorities shall require he applicants to display notices concerning the proposed conditions at the parking places of not less than thirty days.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment relates to the same sort of subject, but brings it down to a matter of more local detail. Where it is necessary for the local authority to publish details of their intended scheme, which is to be found in paragraph (1) of Schedule 5, you find the words, "together with a summary of their effect". I think that where a motorist is using a car park, and there are to be major changes in the conditions under which he may use it—they may be of time, price, hours of opening and so on—it is only right that he should know about it.

A similar Amendment that I put down I on the Committee stage introduced what I understood was an objectional principle, in that it brought in a statutory right to complain. This I have now removed, but I am after information. I have cured that problem, and it is at least reasonable that one should make certain that users of car parks are informed in advance of changes and alterations which may have an injurious effect upon their lives and their fortunes. I beg to move.

Lord MITCHISON

My Lords, I hesitate to intervene, but I have been here recently for quite a time. I was wondering when anybody was going to say anything about Schedule 5. What the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has done is to give us a little extract from Schedule 5 and to omit the part which I should have thought answered his difficulties. Not only must there be a summary, which I should have thought would give anybody warning that something was happening—and the specific kind of things happening—but there must also be a place where someone who is interested can go and read the draft regulations. Surely, one cannot do any more than that, can one?

Lord SHEPHERD

I am grateful for the comments of my noble friend. I would accept that users have a perfect right to know what is going on and, if they have views, to put those before the appropriate authorities. As I have said before, these regulations will receive wide publicity; they will be required to be printed in anewspaper. I will refresh my memory on this point, and draw the noble Lord's attention to Schedule 5 which refers to one or more daily newspapers circulating throughout Greater London and says that in this newspaper or newspapers shall be published a notice stating what is proposed in the regulations. Local papers reporting matters concerning a smaller locality than Greater London are bound to take up such regulations and the effect they will have upon local users. If motorcar users have a complaint they have their own organisations, the R.A.C. and the A.A., or any other association. I see that the noble Lord is screwing up his face, but we have put these special organisations into the Bill to meet this particular point. The noble Lord wanted these user-associations to be consulted, and now the noble Lord screws up his face as though this does not meet the point.

Lord CHESHAM

My Lords—

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, if the noble Lord will let me finish my remarks, may I say that we clearly must have some limit to how far one goes in circulating information. In my view, we have gone in the Bill as far as is practicable or reasonable. I see no reason at all why users will not know about the effect of these matters. At the end of the day, the issue will not be between the users, although they are clearly involved; the issue will be between the two parties alone; that is, the local borough and the car park operators. If there is any question of changing the number of places that are available in a car park that will not be done to cause incon- venience to the users of that car park, but only because the local authority and the Greater London Council believe that changes are necessary in the light of traffic management.

Lord AIREDALE

My Lords, I am bound to say that I do not feel very satisfied with the reply the Minister has just given. I should have thought that it stuck out a mile that the proper place to put up a notice about changes in carparking arrangements was at the car parking places concerned, quite apart from publishing information in newspapers. In exactly the same way, the proper place to put notices about British Railways' by-laws is on the platforms of the railway stations. That is where people who travel by rail can conveniently read those regulations if they want to. It would not be an answer to say that from time to time British Railways have their regulations published in advertisements in newspapers, because not all travellers by train read those particular newspapers.

Surely it is not unreasonable to have an Amendment down which says that arrangements for changes at car parking places shall be displayed in notices at those particular parking places where the people who use them will be able to read the notices, and know what is going to happen. I have never found a more sensible-looking Amendment to any Bill than this one, and I do not think we have had a satisfactory reply from the Minister.

6.27 p.m.

Lord CHESHAM

My Lords, I should not like the noble Lord to think that any facial expression I may have assumed was at something he directly said. Any expression that may have crossed my face I can assure him was occasioned by the most appalling width of the margin by which he completely failed to understand the object of the Amendment. The noble Lord is shaking his head, but what he has said indicates that this is so. I am asking that the time table should be put at the station. The noble Lord says that this is not necessary and that it can be put in the local papers. That is not the point. We have dealt with that under the previous Amendment. What I am asking for in this Amendment—and it is a perfectly right, reasonable and proper thing to ask for—is that people who use car parks where there are to be changes, where they are no longer to be allowed in at certain hours, where the prices are going up or down, or where the time they may stay is being altered, should be specifically told.

It is no good the noble Lord saying that it has been published in the newspapers, because I am perfectly certain that whereas regulations, and the proposals to make them, will be published in newspapers, they will not publish definite announcements such as, "that the so-and-so car park in so-and-so street as from 12 p.m. next Friday it will cost you 4s. 6d. an hour to be there instead of 3s. 6d.

6.38 p.m.

Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 23:

Page 48, line 31, at end insert— ("( ) If the imposition of any condition in regard to the granting of a licence under this section to permit the operation of a public off-street parking place prevents the continued enjoyment of any contractual rights obtained prior to 22nd July 1969 in regard to the use of the parking place, the local authority shall

as previously. Furthermore, unless you have a local resident's permit, or some kind of qualification, you will not be allowed to come in before 9.30 a.m.", and so on. Those facts will not be told to people, and even if they are circulated, people using car parks do not all live in the area in which the car park is situated. I think this is a most reasonable point on which I am not prepared to let go.

6.29 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 22) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 38; Not Contents, 59.

CONTENTS
Aberdare, L.	Derwent, L.	Kinloss, Ly.
Amulree, L.	Falkland, V.	Lambert, V.
Audley, Bs.	Fortescue E.	Lauderdale, E.
Airedale, L. [Teller.]	Gisborough, L.	McCorquodale of Newton, L.
Beauchamp, E.	Goschen, V.	Rankeillour, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Cowrie, E.	St. Helens, L.
Berkeley, Bs.	Greenway, L.	St. Oswald, L.
Boston, L.	Gridley, L.	Sandford, L.
Burton, L.	Hacking, L.	Sandys, L.
Chesham, L. [Teller.]	Hawke, L.	Sempill, Ly.
Craigmyle, L.	Henley, L.	Strange of Knokin, Bs.
Daventry, V.	Jellicoe, E.	Vivian, L.
Denham, L.	Kilmany, L.

NON-CONTENTS
Addison, V.	Granville of Eye, L.	Rusholme, L.
Archibald, L.	Headfort, M.	Sainsbury, L.
Arwyn, L.	Hill of Wivenhoe, L.	St. Davids, V.
Beswick, L.	Hilton of Upton, L.	Segal, L.
Blyton, L.	Hughes, L.	Serota, Bs.
Bowles, L.	Kennet, L.	Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)
Brockway, L.	Lindgren, L.	Shepherd, L.
Brown, L.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs. [Teller.]	Silkin, L.
Burden, L.		Silsoe, L.
Chalfont, L.	Lloyd of Hampstead, L.	Snow, L.
Champion, L.	McLeavy, L.	Sorensen, L.
Chorley, L.	Maelor, L.	Stow Hill, L.
Collison, L.	Milner of Leeds, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Crook, L.	Mitchison, L.	Summerskill, Bs.
Energlyn, L.	Noel-Buxton, L.	Tayside, L.
Evans of Hungershall, L.	Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]	Wells-Pestell, L.
Faringdon, L.	Plummer, Bs.	Williamson, L.
Gaitskell, Bs.	Popplewell, L.	Wilson of Langside, L.
Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Raglan, L.	Wise, L.
Garnsworthy, L.	Ritchie-Calder, L.	Wooton of Abinger. Bs.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

pay compensation to any person suffering loss or damage as a consequence thereof. Any question as to the right to, or the amount of, compensation payable shall be referred to and determined by a county court or the High Court.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 23 relates once more to the position of a user of a car park where, in a rather similar fashion to that relating to the previous Amendment, his interest is in some way damaged by the frustration of a contract that he has made for the use of a car park. This is not an unusual kind of occurrence, both for private individuals and in business. The Amendment is designed to provide for a position where the user of a car park (as against the case in the previous Amendment which related to the operator) is damaged in some way by his contract being frustrated by the regulations, as and when they may be brought in. Here, again, I have endeavoured to provide against the abuse which I understood a previous Amendment on the same lines could have created, and I hope I have adequately done so. I think that in the circumstances it is quite wrong that if individual users, of whatever kind, suffer in this way they should not be adequately catered for.

The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in what he finally said about a previous Amendment somewhat let the cat out of the bag, I thought, when he said that one must remember that the making of these regulations is a matter between the local authority and the operators. The implication is that this is something in which the user does not have any stand. If words mean anything, what his remark must have meant makes me doubly keen to move this Amendment, as I now beg to do.

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, the effect of the Amendment is to provide that, where any condition of a licence frustrates any contractual right in connection with the use of a parking place, then the local authority shall be liable for compensation to any person suffering loss or damage thereby. The sort of case in mind is where someone has a contract with a car park operator for a particular number of spaces at the car park, and this proves impossible of fulfilment because of the terms and conditions of the licence. This Amendment is unacceptable. It reflects, although in a different form, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, in Committee. Admittedly the new Amendment rules out any question of abuse by a car park operator deliberately entering into a contract for the provision of parking space with the intention of frustrating the system, but in so doing it imports a basis for compensation that is quite new—and I stress this—in terms of the related town and country planning legislation.

The concept is that the local authority shall be liable for any damage caused by the frustration of an existing contract for the provision of parking spaces. No such provision applies to a contract frustrated by the discontinuance of the town and country planning legislation; nor indeed, so far as we know, elsewhere in the general law. The existence of such a contract will of course be taken into account by the G.L.C. and by the Minister, on appeal, but the Government cannot accept that if, in the event, it is decided that a particular contract must be avoided in the overall public interest, this decision should carry with it compensation requirements of the kind that the Amendment provides. I hope that the House will not accept the Amendment.

Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD

My Lords, I must join in on this Amendment because, unlike the replies given by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to the other Amendments to Clause 36, I am afraid that his reply here does not entirely convince me. It would be impossible for us to examine here all the ramifications of town planning law; nor would it be fair to expect my noble friend Lord Chesham to deal with it all. Nevertheless, I think my noble friend has made out a good case that where, for instance, some private person has made a contract—let us say for a year, for three parking places in a particular garage—and then, for good reasons, the G.L.C. decide that this particular parking site must be closed down, or reduced, so that the contract has come to an end, it seems to me that the contractee, having paid in advance, is entitled to some compensation for losing the benefit of, say, six months—or it might be nine months—of his contract, where he has paid out quite large sums of money in order to reserve those places.

This is a perfectly reasonable case in which to ask for compensation, and I cannot understand why the noble Lord has been given advice to the effect that it just cannot be considered. I should have thought that the noble Lord's advisers in the Ministry of Transport might have looked at it further. It is just common sense that there should be compensation in such a case, and to provide for it in some way. I hope that the noble Lord may feel able to look at this Amendment again.

Lord M1TCHISON

My Lords, I rise only to say that I should have thought the answer was again to be found in Schedule 5. There is a long series of provisions about compensation, headed "Right to compensation in certain circumstances". I may have the sense of the Bill all wrong, and the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, may have it all right; but it looks to me to be very odd to put in an entirely independent right to compensation here, and in very large terms. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has really considered what addition is made by his Amendment to Part IV of Schedule 5?

Lord CHESHAM

My Lords, I hope the House will accept that I should not be quite so incompetent as to put this Amendment down, and to put this amount of effort into moving it, if I thought the situation was adequately provided for in the Schedule. Therefore I will return to the Amendment. As I have said, the whole of the emphasis here—and this makes me, for one, pretty annoyed—is that in this transaction the user does not count. I do not like that attitude, and I do not suppose that many of your Lordships will like it. But the noble Lord has, perhaps rather innocently, confirmed this and we have now had it confirmed all through these Amendments: that the attitude is: '"We do not want the user to be informed of what is to happen in principle or in detail; we do not want him to be compensated." The noble Lord has now confirmed that this is a matter between operators and the local authorities in the interests of traffic control, and the user is to be regarded as a nonentity—as non-existent in the matter. Clearly I shall get nowhere with this Amendment, but I will not withdraw it.

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, I should like to refute what the noble Lord has said. All through this Bill we have sought to protect the position of the operators and land owners, and anyone who may be involved in the property. But, clearly, in a matter like this one cannot go too far, in the course of either compensation or even, perhaps, consultation—in the sense of consultation with any individual who may park a car in a particular car park. But later on in the Bill we have included special statutory provision for consultation with organisations that represent users. For the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, to say what he has just said either shows ignorance of the Bill, deafness to what has been said in this House, or he is prepared to put before this House a travesty of the truth.

6.49 p.m.

Lord AIREDALE

My Lords, we are on the Report stage, and the noble Lord who moved this Amendment has made the two speeches to which he is entitled and then the Minister, having made one speech (to which he was entitled), without seeking leave of the House made not just another speech but a speech in which he attacked the noble Lord who moved the Amendment with a charge of ignorance. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment has exhausted his opportunities for reply, and I think that is rather unfortunate.

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, may I speak again with the permission of the House? If I did not seek permission on the second occasion then I ask the House's forgiveness. As the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, himself knows—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, does not—when one is a Minister dealing with a Bill at Report stage one is often obliged to get up and down, and perhaps on occasion one tends to forget that one should seek the consent of the House to speak a second time. So far as attacking the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, is concerned, if I did, I have known him long enough over many years in your Lordships' House to know that he will not take any offence.

Lord CHESHAM

My Lords, with the leave of the House, if I need it, which I think I do, I would say this. I hope my shoulders are broad enough and my understanding of the noble Lord deep enough to be able to resist his attacks, which have always been quite welcome. What I said was based on what be himself has recently said and which he will find when he comes to look at Hansard to-morrow morning. Therefore, I was justified. If this be thought a counter-attack, I would say that I think he is entirely wrong and misguided to keep confusing it with the Amendment on consultation, with which it has nothing to do; it is nothing to do with the case at all. If I have said a wrong thing, then he has laid a red herring.

Lord SILKIN

My Lords, we have a very long agenda and we have gone through less than half of it. May I ask the Deputy Leader of the House to set a good example and adhere to the rules of the House, and confine himself to the number of speeches to which he is entitled and not ask the House for permission to make further speeches? Otherwise, we shall have an all-night sitting.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Schedule 3 [Disposal of certain statutory functions of London Board]:

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, in view of what my noble friend Lord Silkin has said, I will move this Amendment very briefly. It is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 64, line 31, leave out from ("under") to ("shall") in line 32 and insert ("section 25 of the London Transport Act 1969".—(Lord Shepherd.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 5 [Control of off-street parking]:

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, I undertook at Committee stage to say whether provisions could be put into the Bill that the Greater London Council should consult with representative organisations before regulations were made. The purpose of this Amendment is to implement my promise. I could make a much longer speech, but in view of the situation I hope the House will accept this Amendment with these few words. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 71, line 19, leave out from beginning to ("they") in line 20 and insert ("Before deciding to propose the making of regulations under section 36 of this Act with respect to any matter, the Council shall consult with such representative organisations as they think fit and, if after such consultation they decide to make such a proposal").—(Lord Shepherd.)

Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD

My Lords, may I briefly thank the noble Lord, as one of those who pressed him to make this concession. I think it is a very valuable one and I am most grateful to him for making it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 26: Page 71, line 28, leave out ("thirty days") and insert ("six weeks").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of these Amendments is to meet a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, in Committee. The Government cannot go quite as far as Lord Chesham asked. We are anxious that the process of considering the regulations should not be unduly protracted and thus delay the whole process. But we can accept that some extension would be reasonable, and the Amendments provide for the periods in question to be extended to six weeks and 12 weeks respectively. I beg to move.

Lord CHESHAM

My Lords, I want briefly to acknowledge what the noble Lord has done. This is obviously a case where politics is the art of compromise, a compromise I am happy to accept. I would apologise to him that my attention was momentarily diverted when he moved the previous Amendment. Although it does not go quite as far as I hoped, or even as the noble Lord claims. I am grateful, none the less.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 27. 28 and 29.

Amendments moved— Page 71, line 39, leave out ("sixty days") and insert ("twelve weeks") Page 72, line 2, leave out ("sixty days") and insert ("twelve weeks") Page 73, line 3, leave out ("sixty days") and insert ("twelve weeks").—(Lord Shepherd.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, this series of related Amendments are tabled to meet a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, in Committee. The point at issue raised by the noble Lord's Amendment was that where under paragraph 9 of Schedule 5 a holder of a licence had discontinued making parking spaces available to the public for a period of not less than two years, the local authority's power to revoke the licence should only be exercisable immediately after the expiry of that period—that they should not, in other words, be able to come in at a later stage when the provision of normal parking has been resumed, and hold the earlier failure against the operator. The Government accept that this is a valid point, not only in relation to the provisions of paragraph 9, but also in relation to the provisions of paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 (1) where, again, as the Bill is at present drafted a similar situation could in theory arise. The effect of the Amendments is to provide that in each case the notice of revocation is of no effect unless it is served within three months of the end of the relevant period. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 74, line 5, at end insert ("then, subject to paragraph 12A of this Schedule")

Page 74, line 12, after ("licence") insert ("then, subject to paragraph 12A of this Schedule")

Page 74, line 20, leave out from ("satisfied") to first ("the") in line 21 and insert ("at any time that for a period of not less than two years beginning with that date")

Page 74, line 24, after ("place") insert ("then, subject to paragraph 12A of this Schedule")

Page 74, line 29, at end insert ("subject to paragraph 12A of this Schedule")

Page 74, line 30, leave out from ("if") to ("begun") in line 31 and insert ("there has been a period of not less than three years since that date without that development being")

Page 74, line 33, leave out from ("if") to ("completed") in line 34 and insert ("there has been a period of not less than seven years since that date without that development being")

Page 74, line 35, leave out ("at the expiration of the period of") and insert ("for a period of not less than")

Page 74, line 47, at end insert— ("12A. Where notice under paragraph 9, 10, 11 or 12 (1) of this Schedule is given after the expiration of the relevant period referred to in the paragraph in question the notice shall be of no effect if it is given more than three months after the expiration of that period,").—(Lord Shepherd.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 39 and 40. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, on Committee stage raised the question of surface sites and I had to indicate to the noble Lord that we could not accept his Amendment. In considering the debate, however, it appeared to the Government, on looking at the provisions of paragraph 19, that there was perhaps one case not covered: that of the situation where no actual work on the development had started but a contract had been let. The Amendments are designed to meet this position and to correct what would otherwise have been an anomaly in terms of related legislation. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 39 and 40.

Amendments moved— Page 77, line 34, after ("(iii)") insert ("either") Page 77, line 37, after ("out") insert ("or a contract (other than a lease) has been entered into with a person carrying on a business consisting wholly or mainly of the execution of building operations or of building operations and engineering operations whereby that person has undertaken to erect in the course of that business at the said premises a building or structure as a place for the provision of parking spaces for motor vehicles.").—(Lord Shepherd.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

7.0 p.m.

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 41 and 42. The purpose of these Amendments is to meet, although in alternative form, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham. He sought to secure than the period within which an operator was able to lodge a claim for compensation under paragraph 21 of Schedule 5 should be extended from six to twelve months. I made it clear that the compensation provisions were closely akin to provisions in the Town and Country Planning Acts; that this analogy was in the Government's view right, and that the Amendment should thus be resisted. In the light of Lord Chesham's arguments, we have looked at the position again. The Amendment now tabled goes a long way to meet it, and does so within the framework of town and country planning legislation. It provides that if within the sixmonths period a claimant makes an application to the Minister for an extension of time the Minister may, if he thinks fit, grant it. This gives the Minister discretion to allow for particular circumstances without giving an overall extension of the period. The Amendment follows a broadly similar provision in Regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1969. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 78, line 36, leave out ("six months of") and insert ("the period of six months or such longer period as may be allowed under sub-paragraph (1A) of this paragraph beginning with').

Page 78, line 48, at end insert— ("(1A) If within the period of six months preferred to in sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph any such person as is referred to in that sub-paragraph has made an application to the Minister for that purpose and has given notice to the local authority of the making of that application, the Minister may, if he thinks fit in the circumstances of the case, direct that the said sub-paragraph (1) shall apply in relation to the decision in question as if for the reference in that sub-paragraph to six months there were substituted a reference to such longer period as the Minister thinks fit.").—(Lord Shepherd)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 44 and I would speak also to No. 47. The purpose of these Amendments is to meet a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, in the Committee stage. He pointed out that as the Bill was drafted the provisions of Part V of Schedule 5 dealing with permitted unlicensed operation pending appeal did not cover the case of an operator who had appealed to the High Court on a point of law under paragraph 17 (2) of the Schedule. This applies both in the case of an existing operator when an area becomes subject to control and to the case of an operator who holds a limited period licence and applies for a further licence. These Amendments rectify the position. They do so by providing in each case a reference to the local authority's decision becoming finally effective under the procedure in Part III of the Schedule. This form of words sweeps up the possibility of an appeal to the High Court on a point of law. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 81, line 2, leave out from ("thereafter") to end of line 4 and insert ("until either the local authority's decision becomes finally effective under the procedure provided for by the said Part III or the licence is granted").—(Lord Shepherd.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, I have already spoken to the remaining Amendments, Nos. 45 to 48. With the agreement of the House perhaps we can take them en bloc. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 81, line 4, at end insert— ("24A. Where in pursuance of the application referred to in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 24 of this Schedule the person referred to in that paragraph is granted a licence, he shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (10) of the said section 36 by reason of contravening or failing to comply with any of the terms and conditions specified in the licence under subsection (4; (b) and (c) of that section—

1. (a) at any time before the expiration of the time for giving notice of appeal under Part III of this Schedule from the decision of the local authority as to those terms and conditions; or
2. (b) if such a notice of appeal is duly given, at any time thereafter until either the local authority's decision becomes finally effective under the procedure provided for by the said Part III or (he terms and conditions specified as aforesaid in the licence are varied as a result of that procedure.")

Page 81, line 13, after ("expiry)") insert ("(i)")

Page 81, line 25, leave out from ("thereafter") to end of line 27 and insert ("until either the local authority's decision becomes finally effective under the procedure provided for by the said Part III or a new licence is granted").

Page 81, line 27, at end insert— ("(ii) where he is granted a new licence in pursuance of the application aforesaid, he shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (10) of the said section 36 by reason of contravening or failing to comply with any of the terms and conditions specified in that new licence under subsection (4) (b) and (c) of that section—

1. (a) at any time before the expiration of the time for giving notice of appeal under Part III of this Schedule from the decisions of the local authority as to those terms and condition; or
2. (b) if such a notice of appeal is duly given, at any time thereafter until either the local authority's decision becomes finally effective under the procedure provided for by the said Part III or the terms and conditions specified as aforesaid in the new licence are varied as a result of that procedure.").—(Lord Shepherd.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14):

Lord SHEPHERD

I beg to move that this Bill be now read a Third time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3^a.—(Lord Shepherd.)

On Question, Bill read 3^a, with the Amendments.

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, in moving that this Bill do now pass I would only wish to thank the noble Lords, Lord Nugent of Guildford and Lord Chesham, who have, at least from their side of the House, borne the weight of this Committee. I should like to express grateful thanks for the manner in which they have conducted their business. We have dealt with a large number of Amendments in, in my view, a relatively short time, particularly taking into account the technical nature not only of the Bill but also of the Amendments. I thank both noble Lords and also the House for the way in which this Bill has been expedited.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Shepherd.)

Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD

My Lords, may I briefly respond to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and thank him for the patient and expert manner in which he has dealt with the many technicalities, and the many Amendments which were moved, both in Committee and on Report, and also for the successful way in which he deputised for his noble friend Lord Winterbottom, whom I hope is now recovering. Had his back had to stand this Bill as well he would truly have been in trouble. We are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for all the trouble that he has taken.

Lord CHESHAM

My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. It might have been thought from certain exchanges this evening that I had not received considerate treatment, so far as my Amendments were concerned; but I should like once more to express appreciation of the way that many of my points have been met, although, naturally, perhaps not to the fullest extent that one might have wished, and some not at all. But I appreciate what has been done on this Bill, and I wish that I could say "Hullo" to the regulations that are liable to transpire as enthusiastically as we shall say "Goodbye" to the Bill.

On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.