Lords Sitting of 8 May 1975

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.

PUBLIC CORPORATIONS: CONSUMER BODIES
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government which consumer consultative bodies of those public corporations with statutory responsibility to provide certain goods and services must be consulted by the relevant industry before putting into effect any major proposals relating to main services which affect the persons for whom they are provided.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the public corporations which have a duty of prior consultation with their consumer consultative bodies on certain major matters of policy are the British Railways Board and Scottish Transport Group in respect of closures, the Post Office, the British Gas Corporation and the Electricity Boards. The Independent Broadcasting Authority is required to consult its Medical Advisory Panel on certain issues. The British Airports Authority is required to provide adequate facilities for consultation on any matter affecting the interest of users of an airport or of people in the locality.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, that is not quite what I asked. I wonder whether my noble friend can make it a little more clear, to me anyway. What I asked was: Which of those consumer consultative bodies had a right to prior consultation before any major alterations were made which affected the consumer? I think that is slightly different. Could my noble friend elucidate a little more?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, that is the Question which I have answered.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, then may I see whether my noble friend can help me a little more on the matter of air travellers? Is my noble friend aware that the British Airports Authority, which has statutory responsibility, has established airport consultative committees? Is he further aware that the Civil Aviation Authority, which, equally, has statutory responsibility, has furnished the terms of reference and has established the Airline Users' Committee, of which I am a member? Is my noble friend also aware that this means quite a lot of committees? If it should seem advantageous for airline users that one committee charged with the statutory duty of looking after airline travellers should be established, to whom should application be made?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, first of all, with regard to airports, the British Airports Authority has a statutory duty to provide adequate facilities for consultation on matters affecting the interests of users of an airport and the people in the locality. The Authority complies with that requirement by setting up airport consultative committees with broad terms of reference, limited only in so far as each committee may concern itself with that one airport.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I do not know whether it is the noble Lord or myself, but he has just repeated exactly what I told him. May I now try once more? I thought I had made it clear, but obviously I have not. Is the noble Lord aware that there are several committees? There is the committee to which I belong, which comes under the Civil Aviation Authority, which tries to look after travellers. There are the various airport consultative committees under the British Airports Authority, which also looks after air travellers. There are demarcation problems. I am asking my noble friend-and if he could address himself to this I would be grateful-if—it should be deemed advantageous for air travellers to have one committee instead of the many which would look after them, and that this committee should be charged with statutory responsibility for doing that, to whom should such an

451
application be made for the establishment of such a committee?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I think there are two answers to the question as it is now put. The first is that the airport committees have quite different functions from the airline users' committees. On the whole, the airport committees are very much concerned with the inconvenience to the people living in the locality of the airport, as distinct from the consumer. They also cover the consumer interest, but it is only part of the question. Consequently, the airport committees are usually constituted somewhat differently from the normal consumers' committee that one has with regard to the airlines. So the question as to whether there is one committee raises difficulties.
The second part of the answer is this: on 2nd May, my right honourable friend announced the names of the members of the National Consumers Council. That is less than a week ago. In the few days which have elapsed since that announcement, my right honourable friend has required that Council to examine the consumer interest in all the nationalised industries, including air travel and airports. Surely it would be wise in those circumstances to leave it until that is reviewed.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, the House is very patient, but the noble Lord will realise that we spent three years on this matter and got nowhere. I am quite aware of all that he has said. Therefore, the only course open to people who think there should be such a statutory committee, and relating to the answers he gave me on the 24th April last, would be that such an application requiring a statutory authority should be made to the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection which, I think, is what he said.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, if the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, cannot await the results of the review, and wishes to make haste, I suggest that she does exactly what she has said she will do.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, does my noble friend recall, after all this
452
time, that he mentioned the electrical supply industry? Is he aware that the chairman of the consumers consultative committee in each region is usually, if not automatically, a member of the parent Board? Does he think that a man in that position can serve two masters or two mistresses?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, that is just the kind of question that will be considered by the National Consumers Council in its review.

MORTGAGES: SPECIAL ADVANCE LOANS
3.14 p.m.
The Earl of K1NNOULL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how soon the present limit on special advance loans with building societies will be raised from £13,000 in order to cater more adequately for the present needs of the mortgage market.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the Building Societies Association has made a formal request for such an increase, and the Government are now giving careful consideration to it.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether he could confirm that the Building Societies Association has in fact been requesting that this limit be increased since 1972? Secondly, could he also confirm that the real reason for this is that there are many people who are unable to get mortgages above this limit from the building societies, and, therefore, have to move into the second mortgage market to prop up the mortgage? In many people's view, this is quite unnecessarily expensive.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I would ask the noble Earl to consider certain questions of fact which are associated with this problem. The first is that few building societies have been making special advances on a scale anything like the 10 per cent. permitted by law; in fact the latest figures show that the special advances are only 4 per cent. of the

453
total advances. Secondly, the latest figures for advances, which are for the month of February 1975, show that the average mortgage is only £6,837. Finally, would he bear in mind that, if the £13,000 limit were increased, no building society could use that increase until the beginning of the year following the date of the Order, and since most building societies—not all, but most—finish their year on 31st December, they could not operate an increase in the £13,000 until 1st January 1976?
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, surely the noble Lord would agree that if the building societies are not able to bring into force what may be decided by the Government that is a good reason for the Government making a decision in the fairly near future? May I ask the noble Lord one other question. He spoke about average mortgages. Would he agree that the average of £6,000 throughout the country does not represent certain key areas in the South-East of England, where the average must be a great deal higher?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, there are really two questions there. The first is on the date of decision. I would say that the decision will be made within a reasonable time. There is not a great need for urgency because it cannot be operated by most building societies until 1st January 1976, but in any case it will be made in good time even for those societies whose year commences earlier than that. With regard to the noble Earl's second question, so far as I am aware, the figure I have quoted for mortgages covers the whole country. I have not been advised that it covers only part of the country.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether "in good time" or "reasonable time" means that this decision which the Government are considering will be taken in weeks, months or years?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I can say it does not mean years. It may mean months, but I do not think very many.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, if this increase which might be agreed is to come into operation on 1st January 1976, is it not likely that with inflation roaring ahead at 20 per cent., and accelerating, that figure will become out of date in a
454
few months' time? Would the noble Lord consider in the discussions with the building societies whether the figure should be indexed, so that it corresponds to the value of building materials as shown by the official statistics of the Department of the Environment?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, as I have explained, there are other things to be considered than the price of houses. How far do the building societies need the special advances? At the moment they are permitted special advances up to 10 per cent.; they are only using 4 per cent. instead of the 10 per cent. permitted by law. There is not a great case for change, but I believe a change will be made.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to clarify one thing he said. Over what period was the average taken of mortgages granted? Could he further say what was the average amount of mortgages granted over the past 12 months?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I only have the one figure, and, as I said, it was for February 1975.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, would the noble Lord clarify his answer that the Government do not think there is a great case for changing existing arrangements and then saying that he believes they will be changed? Could he clarify that remark?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, there is not a great case for change, based upon the figures available from the building societies as to their use of this facility of granting 10 per cent. special advances, but there is a need for change when one has regard to house building prices as compared to 1971, when this figure was last determined. There is a case for and a case against. I believe that a decision to improve the existing figure will be made at an early date.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, in view of the know-how of the building societies obtained over many years and the average common sense prevailing, may I ask my noble friend whether there has been any approach to the Government to do anything about this inflation accounting?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I think that that is another question. As I understand it, inflation accounting is miles away from this Question.

WELFARE SERVICES AND CONFIDENTIALITY
3.21 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the rules governing the confidentiality of information gathered by probation officers and other accredited agents of statutory welfare services and whether they are generally known to members of these services.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, the Probation Rules 1965 contain provisions which limit access to probation officers' records. These rules do not touch on the circumstances in which information may be disclosed by probation officers, and it may be doubted whether this is a matter capable of detailed statutory regulations. There is, however, a general recognition in the probation and after-care service of the confidential nature of these records and of the broad circumstances in which they may properly be disclosed. Whether information should be given in a particular case must often be left to the judgment of the officer concerned after taking account of all the circumstances including his responsibility towards the client.
Where inquiries are being made concerning an alleged offence, the officer concerned would, no doubt, be advised by his or her senior officer, if necessary in the light of legal advice, as to the information which should be provided. In addition, if asked to give evidence in a case involving a criminal offence, a probation officer would be expected to conform with any directions of the court. As regards other social workers, there are no statutory rules.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, may I ask whether I am right in saying that it falls into two parts; that dealing with evidence and that dealing with other in-
456
formation? Does he agree that, where there is good reason for withholding evidence, it should be publicly known in order to avoid the embarrassment to probation officers or other workers, which I have specified in the Question, of appearing to be unwilling to co-operate with the courts?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Yes, my Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is concerned about a recent case. I think he recognises the difficulty arising with regard to the matter. The view of the Home Office is that this is essentially a matter for the probation officer and the Probation After-Care Committee concerned.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, in formulating instructions for officers in this difficult and potentially sensitive matter, is it not important that both the Judiciary and the Magistrates' Association should be kept in touch with what is being done?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Yes, my Lords, I am sure that I should not in any way differ from what the noble and learned Lord has said. The question arises from a specific case. It would not be appropriate to go into its details, and I know that the noble and learned Lord would not wish me to do so.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, may I therefore pursue the other half of the Answer about information on record? Would the noble Lord and his Department favour the release of relevant information, which may give warning of a predisposition to the non-accidental injury of children to some central corpus of information on the subject, which I think ought to be set up in the near future?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I believe that this matter is best dealt with at local level, where there is a great deal of discussion of cases of the kind to which the noble Lord refered. It is not appropriate for anything to be done centrally. It is better left to action at local level with co-ordination between all the various services concerned.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I should not wish to leave this point of centrality. Will the noble Lord look at the point more closely, bearing it in mind that families

457
in which these cases occur are often highly mobile, moving from one house to another and across local government area borders, and that something must be done to help them? This help cannot be given if they move into an area where they are not known.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, this matter has been engaging the attention of both the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Security; it will continue to do so. We are well aware of the anxieties of the House and another place over the number of unfortunate cases which have happened in recent months. Certainly the matter is constantly before us, but I am not sure that the solution proffered by the noble Lord is necessarily the right way to handle this issue.

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they intend to take (subsequent to the publication of the Report of the Joint Committee of Inquiry into the case of Linda Godfrey) to increase the protection available to children at risk of non-accidental injury.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Social Services and for the Home Department are anxious that the lessons of the tragic case of Lisa Godfrey should be widely known and are asking their professional advisers to take up with the authorities concerned the points raised in the Report. Since research into methods of identifying families where children may be at risk of non-accidential injury before such injury occurs is at an early stage, it is in practice the skill of professional workers that can best protect these children. For this reason, the Government have already taken a series of initiatives designed to increase alertness among all those concerned to the warning signs of injury and to the urgent action to be taken when suspicion is aroused.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his reply and for some of its encouraging content? Further, may I ask him whether there is any programme of Government research into predisposition to non-accidental injury to children, and what grants have been given in aid of research by non-Government agencies?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the opinion of Her Majesty's Government is that this kind of research can better be undertaken by individuals who specialise in this field, and who have a wide and deep knowledge of the problem which is now before your Lordships' House. The noble Lord will know that the Government already support both research and therapeutic work. In 1974 the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children received a grant of £112,000 over a three-year period to fund the greater part of three special units to treat families in which children have been injured, as well as meeting the salaries of a play groups officer to work with such families, and of a research officer to evaluate the effectiveness of these units.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his further reply, may I ask him to accept that all Members of this House would welcome any generosity in the direction to which he refers? Does he accept that child battering is a self-reproducing phenomenon, that the child of a battered parent is likely to be a battered child? Consequently, will he accept that what is required is a 24-hour service to inject into the cycle the affection and care which is missing from it in both generations? This in an expensive arangement and will require a demand on funds.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, that is perfectly true, but the noble Lord's suggestion as to what in many instances may cause the battering of children is only one factor. A number of others exist. These factors are at present being investigated by individual research people. If there is anything that the Government can do in financing research I am sure they will give sympathetic attention in the light of what has been happening.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord's Department has consulted the European Social Fund

459
Committee? Some funds are being allocated for combating poverty, and I know that £2½ million is available for precisely this kind of scheme. Has an application been made by the Government in this connection?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Baroness. I have no personal knowledge of this, but I shall draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to the noble Baroness's comments.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, in view of our differences on the Common Market, which of the two Secretaries of State, to which the noble Lord referred earlier—either for the Department of Health and Social Security or for the Home Office—will he consult?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl, and other noble Lords, would pay Secretaries of State the compliment of knowing, whatever their own personal views in this matter, that they can make a properly fair representation.

WHITSUN RECESS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I announce the dates of the Whitsun Recess? Subject to the progress of business, the House will rise on Thursday, 22nd May, and resume on Monday, 9th June. For the convenience of your Lordships, the House will meet at 11 o'clock on the morning of Thursday, 22nd May.
JAMES HUGH MAXWELL (NATURALISATION) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

COUNTY OF SOUTH GLAMORGAN BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, in moving this procedural Motion, I should like to express my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hood, who agreed to assist me on this Select Committee. My Lords, I beg to move.
460
Moved, That if the Select Committee to which the Bill was committed on 10th April last reports that the Bill should be allowed to proceed, the Bill with the exception of Part VIII be recommitted to a Select Committee to consider the Bill as if the Committee were a Committee on an Unopposed Bill.—[The Earl of Listowel]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PRICES BILL
3.32 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reason for disagreeing to the Lords Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reason for disagreeing to the Lords Amendments be now considered.—[Lord Jacques.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (130) as first printed by the Lords. The Commons Reason is printed in italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 1–3]
Clause 2, page 3, line 9, after (" above ") insert (" otherwise than in retail shops with a selling space of less than 250 sq. ft. ")
Clause 2, Page 3, line 15, at end insert—
(" ( ) in subsection (4) after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the following new paragraph—
"(d) the provisions of this subsection shall not apply to retail shops with a selling space of less than 250 sq. ft.";")
The Commons disagree to these Amendments for the following Reason:—
Because provisions which are designed to ensure that the benefit of subsidies reaches the consumer should apply to all shops irrespective of size.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for the following Reason:
" Because provisions which are designed to ensure that the benefit of subsidies reaches the consumer should apply to all shops irrespective of size."
I have, both on Report and in. Committee, given detailed arguments against these Amendments and I assume that the

461
House will not wish me to repeat them. I would, however, like to add something that I was not able to say at the earlier stages; that is, that we have had no representations whatever, either from small shopkeepers or from any other traders, that the provisions of this Bill give them particular difficulties. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, will not expect me to disguise from the House the dissatisfaction that is felt on this side at the out-turn of events. We are most concerned. This is to our eyes intransigent treatment of our view. It will have painful repercussions for a large number of people, most of them self-employed and many of them employing others, and where there is a run-down in that sector of the market there will of course be a reduction in employment. However, it would be wrong of me not to draw to your Lordships' attention the very thin silver lining of two sets of remarks made by the Minister in another place.
He accepted that the shops with which we are dealing,
" … are of key importance in servicing the needs of some people, particularly those living in rural communities …".
and he gave a number of undertakings, the most important of which were that only the minimum number of records, adapted as closely as possible to the existing record-keeping practices of the trade, should be required from any retailer and that in preparing Orders,
" … we shall consider most carefully the particular difficulties of the small shop-keepers."—[Official Report, Commons, 5/5/75; cols. 1160 and 1153.]
So will we in examining the results of this legislation, and we hope that opportunities will be taken, as under the 1974 Act, to use the Statutory Instrument as a means of lightening the burden on people who are at present grossly overloaded in terms both of work and of the imposition of taxation by Central Government, and whose decline we think would harm the rural community. Any record-keeping requirements, I note from a speech in the other place, will not operate retrospectively. That is the full amount of the silver lining and its depth really depends on the use of the Statutory Instrument. Beyond that, and saying that we honestly
462
and deeply regret what we think is a Governmental mistake, I can add nothing.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COAL INDUSTRY BILL
3.36 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of ENERGY (Lord Balogh): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Coal Industry Bill is modest in size but important in its effects. It is largely uncontroversial and it sterns very largely from the tripartite examination of the coal industry which the Secretary of State for Energy carried out last year in conjunction with the National Coal Board and the trade unions in the industry. It did not take my right honourable friend and the Government team very long to work out, with the chairman of the Coal Board and the leaders of the unions, what needed to be done. They produced an interim report in June 1974, only two months after the examination started. This tentatively laid down the guidelines, which were confirmed in a final report which followed in the autumn.
The examination endorsed the National Coal Board's Plan for Coal, which the Government have accepted as the broad strategy for the next 10 years. This envisaged the maintenance of the current level of deep mined capacity of about 120 million tons a year. Over the next 10 years it is estimated that more than 40 million tons of capacity will be lost due to the exhaustion of coal seams and exceptional mining difficulties at some collieries. Plan for Coal included a massive new £600 million capital investment programme to provide 42 million tons of new capacity to offset the obsolescence. The biggest of the new collieries is at Selby and this, subject to the grant of planning permission, is planned to produce 10 million tons a year-easily the biggest coal mine in the world.
This is a tremendous programme which will require determined effort from all concerned—effort of planning and management on the part of the Board, and full confidence and co-operation between them and the unions and the men they represent. The collaborative basis on which the coal industry examination was conducted should help to bring about the

463
much needed improvement in the spirit of co-operation in the industry. One immediately important problem for us is that of pneumoconiosis, and its solution would be an earnest of the Government's belief in the Social Contract. For many years the question of compensation for this terrible disease had been an unresolved problem, and decisions by the courts had paved the way to what could have developed into an extremely expensive, protracted and heart-breaking series of legal proceedings.
This is the first aspect of the coal industry with which this Bill deals. Clause 1 authorises the Government to make grants of up to £100 million towards the cost of the compensation which will fall on the Board through the new scheme in respect of existing sufferers. By any standards this is a considerable sum. If anything were needed to demonstrate this Government's belief in compassion and their concern for the industry and the men in it, then surely this must be just such a symbol, especially in that the Government, amidst all the grievous strains on the national economy which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has described so graphically on a number of recent occasions, agreed to make available so large a sum in recognition of the sacrifice of their health which the pneumoconiosis sufferers have made for the industry and the nation.
It has been suggested in another place that the scheme is not fully comprehensive—that it makes no provision for sufferers who commuted their compensation at some time in the past, and provides inadequately for the widows of men who died before 26th January 1970.
However, it must be remembered that the scheme is an industry scheme, negotiated between the NCB and the unions. The Government did not settle the detailed terms and conditions. Their role was to provide a very large sum of money towards the costs of compensating the existing sufferers, and this they are doing through instrumentality of this Bill. In other circumstances—if the pressure on the national resources had not been so overpowering—it might have been possible to provide more, so that there would have been a better chance of the Board and the unions being able to extend the scope of the scheme. But no Govern-
464
ment can ever do all they would like to do and I doubt whether any Government have ever made a better gesture than this one at a time of such severe economic and financial pressures.
The rest of the Bill is principally concerned with measures to help the Coal Board to obtain access to the coal which they have to provide to meet the basic needs of the nation. This is an absolutely essential task in view of the acute energy crisis and its impact on the balance of payments. In respect of deep mining, it contains two measures. The first concerns the Coal Board's rights to withdraw support from the surface by taking away the coal underneath. For the most part these rights stem from paragraphs 5 and 6 of Schedule 2 to the Coal Act 1938. For many years the Board considered that these paragraphs gave it all the rights it needed, and included the right to withdraw support not only from the land immediately above the coal which had been extracted but also from adjacent land which might be affected by what is known as "draw "—the in-filling. Recently doubts have been cast upon this wide interpretation of that Act, and the purpose of Clause 2 of the Bill is to remove any uncertainty about the Board's rights by giving it a new right to withdraw both lateral and vertical support. This may sound like a major innovation, but its practical effects will be absolutely minimal. As I have said, the Board has believed, until quite recently, that it had such rights, so there is no question of any great numbers of people being affected by mining subsidence who would not have been affected before. For this reason the clause, and Schedule 1 which is associated with it, largely re-enacts the existing provisions in regard to compensation for damage due to mining subsidence.
There has been considerable misunderstanding about this and representations have been made that the opportunity should have been taken to improve the compensation provisions. However, the subject of compensation is very complex and it is no simple matter to change the rules in some of the ways that have been suggested. An official Working Group has been set up to put forward new proposals and I should like to ask for a little patience in this matter. The second matter concerning deep-mined coal which the

465
Bill deals with is in connection with the retained interests which subsist in certain land formerly subject to copyhold tenure. These interests are a residual of the old manorial system—one of those quaint corners. They were not acquired by the Coal Commission under the Coal Act 1938 and the practical effect nowadays is that the Coal Board is unable to mine the coal which it owns under land subject to these retained interests, or to withdraw support from that land, without the consent of the surface owner.
In areas where the presence of mineable coal was unknown in 1938, like, especially, Selby, it would be a difficult if not impossible task to trace all the owners of the retained interests and reach agreement with them about mining the coal under their land in time for the urgently needed development of these very important coal deposits. Accordingly, Clause 3 of the Bill gives the Board the right to mine coal under land subject to these retained interests, subject to giving notice of intention to do so, and provides for the owners of the retained interests to register them and obtain compensation of this erosion of their rights. Failing agreement, the amount of the compensation is to be settled by the Lands Tribunal. Noble Lords might like to know that we shall be laying Amendments at the Committee Stage for the purpose of clearing up certain uncertainties, including a new Schedule setting out the procedure. I think that the noble Viscount wanted to have an assurance in this respect.
The next three clauses of the Bill relate to opencast mining. This has had a chequered career since it first started as long ago as 1941. But there is no doubt about the need now for opencast coal. It ought to be increased from 10 million tons to roughly 15 million tons per annum. The Coal Boards' Plan for Coal calls for opencast coal production to be increased and this target was fully endorsed by all the parties in the coal industry examination, including the unions. This will be a difficult task. The prime need for an expanded programme of opencast coal production is access to sites from which coal can be obtained. These sites are of only limited availability. They can be only where the coal is in situ and where it is prac-
466
ticable to excavate it in civil engineering and economic terms.
The Coal Board can sometimes be held up in getting possession of the sites it needs by the landowner who seeks an exorbitant price or unreasonable conditions for the use of his land. Clause 4 of the Bill is designed to meet such cases by restoring to the Board the power to make Compulsory Rights Orders which was provided in the Opencast Coal Act 1958, but lapsed after 10 years because it was not thought that opencast coal would be needed in any quantity after 1968. We had at that point very cheap oil. Again, your Lordships should not imagine that this is intended to presage an enormous incursion by the NCB upon the rights of private landowners. It will be its invariable practice to continue to do all it can to gain access to the land it needs by negotiation and agreement. When these powers were in existence between 1958 and 1968 they needed to be invoked in only a handful of cases, and in most of these it proved possible in the event to reach agreement before the compulsory process was completed. I fully expect that this will continue to be the case.
But there are two very important safeguards for the individual. A Compulsory Rights Order cannot take effect until it has been confirmed by the Secretary of State, and before an Order is confirmed it has to go through a process similar to that for a compulsory purchase order under the Town and Country Planning Acts, with provisions for a public inquiry and so on. Secondly, it should be remembered that Compulsory Rights Orders are concerned only with getting access to the land—a matter solely between the Coal Board and the landowner. They do not affect the requirement to secure authorisation from the Secretary of State to work the land in question for opencast coal.
One feature to which I would draw particular attention is the imposition of conditions on methods of working and restoration. Great efforts are made to minimise the inconvenience to the locality: screening of the working by banks of earth, suppression of dust and noise, limitation of hours of operation, specification of times when blasting may be allowed, and so on. In all these and

467
other ways every effort is made to minimise disturbance; and when all the work is over the site is landscaped. I should mention that Clause 4 also extends the maximum life of a Compulsory Rights Order to 20 years. Formerly it was 10. This is intended to meet the quite exceptional case of a very large site.
Clause 5 of the Bill and Schedule 3 introduce a revised procedure for the temporary suspension of public rights of way over footpaths and bridleways across opencast sites. Clause 6 provides additional compensation to assist farmers to accustom themselves once again to their land when they regain possession of it after a Compulsory Rights Order has been in operation. They will have been getting full compensation for rental and loss of profits while the Coal Board has been occupying their land. This new provision is in addition to that, and it recognises the fact that, when a farmer comes back to his land, it may have different characteristics which will take time for him to get used to before he can farm it for the best results. The remainder of the Bill is concerned with procedure and consequential matters which are not in dispute. It is with confidence that I now recommend it to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Balogh.)
3.52 p.m.
Viscount LONG: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, for answering one or two of my questions already. May I also congratulate him on getting his bust into the Royal Academy this year. That is quite an achievement for your Lordships' House. My Lords, we on this side acknowledge the importance of this Bill, and welcome it. In many ways, it makes very generous financial provision for compensation and we would not wish to delay it, other than to investigate certain points in the Bill that are slightly weak. Before I go any further I would say that I believe it is essential at this moment that the coal industry should be encouraged and helped as much as possible. The fact that we have discovered oil does not mean for a moment that we must let up on this very valuable mineral, coal. We shall need it for many years to come; we shall need the men and the technology and the brains to go along
468
with it. So it is important to encourage and inspire all those who cut the coal and those who administer the industry which is so vital to the country.
Dealing first with Clause 1 concerning the pneumoconiosis compensation scheme, the Government are providing (I understand through the workings of the National Coal Board and the unions) a substantial grant. As your Lordships will see, the grant is not to exceed £100 million and there are 39,000 people suffering from this disease, so, in these inflationary times, is £100 million really enough? I should like to mention two points about this grant. There are two groups of people who will not be covered at all by this compensation—widows whose husbands have died before 26th January 1976, and those whose husbands die after that date. So this grant, which has been so generously given, differentiates between two groups of people who will feel slightly bitter if they know that some of their friends in the street where they live will be benefiting slightly more than themselves. It could be a little dangerous in that respect. In the administration of the National Coal Board, records are destroyed five years after a death, which means that there is no way of finding out who died before January 1970. There are also approximately 8,000 to 10,000 pneumoconiotics who commuted their rights before 1948. This grant which the Government have given so generously misses out these two groups.
I should have also liked to see one other item brought into this clause; that is, a more generous offer for research to combat this terrible disease. How we can discover how to destroy dust in a mine remains to be seen. I can think of two ways; first, spraying water continually at high pressure, but then men would be walking in water so I do not think that would succeed; secondly, which is a very uncomfortable solution, men can wear respirators. My experience of wearing a respirator in a paint spraying shop in a hot summer—and mines get up to a very high temperature—was very uncomfortable. It would be a good idea if a certain amount of money could be allocated to research to try to find a way of combat-ding this disease of the lungs. The principle is the same as when we were fighting tuberculosis. I well remember that in my

469
younger days it was fought in every hospital and community centre. Money was subscribed and eventually the disease was overcome, and we have little tuberculosis in the country today. Perhaps the noble Lord could give us some indication as to whether the National Coal Board give a loan for research into this disease.
I come now to Clause 2, which I think needs to be examined more thoroughly. One or two points should be carefully studied in the Committee stage. Clause 2 deals with the right of the National Coal Board to withdraw support from land so far as is required for the working of any coal instead of the rights available under paragraphs 5 and 6 of Schedule 2 to the Coal Act 1938. This clause involves several different people, such as farmers and industrialists, and the compensation provided for needs to be looked at. I mention industrialists, because they may have a factory or a company within the vicinity of a mine, and at the moment they are particularly worried as to how the new Bill is going to work.
Under subsection (2), the National Coal Board is now required to give three months' notice of withdrawal. Also, subsection (4) states that,
" Where damage to any land arises from the exercise of the right to withdraw support conferred on the Board by this section … ".
compensation shall be made payable to those people. I feel about subsections (1) and (4) of Clause 2, in particular, that they threaten to extend the expropriatory powers of the National Coal Board by, as I see it, removing rights which have always been implicitly respected by the Robens Agreement and by previous legislation. If lateral support is allowed to be withdrawn by the National Coal Board, for instance, from land adjacent to coal mining, there cannot be any certainty that the affected parties would receive any more than the minimum compensation.
Your Lordships will realise that conversations on this point could take time and, today, people probably cannot afford the money to shore up their houses or to repair them while waiting for the National Coal Board or the tribunal to which I think I heard the noble Lord. Lord Balogh, say these matters would be referred, to reach its decision. As a result, people will be living in broken-
470
down houses, cattle will be sheltering in broken farmsteads and industrialists will have machinery standing idle.
My Lords, that brings me to the matter of consequential compensation. It is one thing to have one's building standing idle but it is another when one cannot afford even to store one's furniture and cannot do anything about one's machinery standing idle. There is nothing in the Bill that I can see about compensation for that type of damage. A whole factory floor with 30 or 40 people working on it could be held up because of this wait for the decision of a tribunal. Those people might lose their jobs or the factory might have to close down and go elsewhere.
I should, therefore, like to ask the noble Lord a further question on this point. As I said, at the Committee stage, I should like to go into the meaning of one or two of the words used and, in particular, into the meaning of the words, "proper compensation ". That still worries me. May I ask whether the National Coal Board will continue to abide by the Robens Agreement which, as I understand it, was a verbal rather than a written agreement? It seemed to work between individuals—the National Coal Board and those who had a problem. Or is it the case that the National Coal Board wilt hide behind the new Bill and will totally ignore the Robens Agreement? I know that that is the worry of people who had very good relations with the National Coal Board through the Robens Agreement. I should like to feel that the Board would continue the Agreement and the other legislative powers which it had before and would not use the Bill to make it more difficult to apply for compensation.
The noble Lord, Lord Balogh, mentioned the Selby mine, which is now to be the largest coal mine in the world. I did not hear him say that they were to lower the mine from 9 ft. above sea level to 6 ft. That is only 3 ft., but I feel that an enormous amount of damage may be done to the drainage of the area in the movement of this mine. That area could overspill into other farmsteads and I feel that the inquiry regarding Selby should take that point into account. I do not know whether the inquiry is complete. Is it completely agreed? Is it safe for

471
those who farm and for the homes surrounding the mine and will it continue to be so? If not, there will be enormous compensation to be paid, which I am sure the National Coal Board will not want once the mine is in operation.
My Lords, I come to a point regarding the advertising of the withdrawal of working from a coal site. I see that, in the clause, the National Coal Board is required to advertise in the Gazette and local newspapers. However, I believe that there are those who work in coal mining areas and those who live there who do not feel that this will be strong enough. They are asking for heavier advertising media to be used. How is one to get over that? I am not at all certain. The only possibility is television, but, other than the Press and the London Gazette, I do not see that television is a possibility. I should have thought that that ought to be looked at in the light of the fact that many people do not buy or read newspapers.
I come to a further point which is not in the Bill. I am interested in it because a Bill is likely to come before your Lordships' House from another place regarding what is called" land registry ". It is, if I understand it rightly, to deal in one of its parts with tied cottages. I noticed with surprise that the National Coal Board owns over 87,000 tied cottages, and I really wanted to jog the Government's memory on this point. What would the National Coal Board do if its tied cottages were taken away? I do not suggest that the noble Lord should answer me now. All I want to do is to raise the point that it is a possibility and, equally, I should like the National Coal Board to realise that it could have this done to it. The same applies to the Electricity Council and other bodies. However, as I say, that is not in the Bill and I shall not challenge that point at this stage. If the Bill comes to this House, we shall challenge the matter of tied houses.
My Lords, as I said, the Bill sets out fairly generous terms of compensation. It provides for a 10-year programme as to what coal will be brought in and, as I heard the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, say, it sets out the reorganisation and modernisation of the machinery to be used in the mines. We on this side all welcome
472
these provisions. However, we should like to know how many mines will need to be closed in order to modernise those other mines. Has that been taken into account at this stage? I feel that I have said enough, except to indicate that I shall wish to raise one or two points at Committee stage. I and my noble friends welcome the Bill and we do not want to delay it unless we can possibly help it.
4.10 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, we, too, would like to welcome this Bill on two main counts. The first is that it deals with the health of one of our vital industries. More and more it is important at the present time, when we have a great number of economic and industrial problems, that we concentrate on, cultivate and strengthen, the rather simple technologies of our basic self-support, agriculture, conservation of fisheries and coal mining, as opposed to North Sea oil. These basic things could be strengthened and kept healthy. None of us knows in what kind of a world we are going to be in in 10 or 15 years' time, and I think to concentrate on the essentials is a very good thing. Part of a healthy industry is the health of the people concerned in that industry.
My Lords, the second reason why we support and welcome this Bill is the generous nature of the grants which are dealt with in Clause 1 of the Bill. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Long, we are slightly worried about the sections of people who suffer; the widows and people who commuted their rights earlier, and who have been ignored in this legislation. I do not think that the answer that this is merely something arrived at between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers, is, in itself, a complete answer. One of the troubles is that, as so often happens in these cases, there are certain classes of people who are not directly represented by either body. When I see big business and big unions getting together I always want to look into the corners to see what has been neglected and who is being squeezed out.
While I would not accuse the National Coal Board or the National Union of Mineworkers for one second of being unsympathetic to the problem of these other people, it is true that they are not

473
directly represented by either of these two bodies. We recognise that no Bill can do everything and that, in fact, the grants are very generous and are a considerable advance on the situation in which we find ourselves. We therefore welcome that, in addition to welcoming the Bill as a whole. I end by giving notice that I shall be raising one minor point on the Committee stage; and this is the situation with regard to the closure of footpaths which comes up (I think I am right in saying) in Schedule 3 to the Bill. Although it is an advance on the powers given to parish and community councils about objecting to the closure of footpaths, they are still at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the Coal Board as opposed to their rights under other legislation such as a highways Bill. This matter was raised in another place in Committee, but only in Standing Committee and was not dealt with by the full House. Since your Lordships in this House have a certain knowledge, expertise and great interest in this kind of matter, I propose to raise it at Committee stage. With that one reservation and warning shot across the Government bows, we welcome this Bill heartily.
4.15 p.m.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I should like to give a wholehearted welcome to this Bill, and in the first place would refer particularly to the provisions which are made with regard to grants for pneumoconiosis. This is one of the most important things that I think can be done; for everyone who has any contact with the mining industry knows that there have been, and still are, many such cases. But while they are doing something which is right and proper and adequately generous, I would remind Her Majesty's Government that they are still doing very little with regard to the incidence of lung disease in other industrial occupations. It surely is right and proper that attention should be paid to this as well. While heartily applauding what they are doing with regard to the coal industry, I would suggest that Her Majesty's Government should pay attention to lung diseases produced in other industries.
With regard to the remainder of the Bill, this is in my opinion a Bill of very great importance because the coal industry is a great industry, and from the
474
point of view of the supply of energy it will become of increasing importance. We in this country are now the biggest producers of coal in Europe, and our production of coal is going to matter a very great deal to the future of the European energy industries. It is therefore vital that we should do what is set out in the Bill. Recently, the Chairman of the National Coal Board stated that every year they are now discovering another 500 million tons of exploitable coal in this country. That is to say that four times our annual consumption of coal is now being discovered as being exploitable in the future. Therefore the steps that we take today in order to ensure that this exploitation is properly carried out will be vital for the energy supplies of this country and for the whole of Western Europe. Consequently, this Bill is doing something which is absolutely vital for our own future. Without this sort of provision for the future we shall find that our resources of fuel for producing energy and other purposes will dwindle. Therefore this is quite important.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, made reference, rightly, to rights of way. I think that this is something to which close attention should be paid because although, obviously, if one takes over a whole area it may be necessary to close rights of way, nevertheless it may be that those rights of way are quite vital to the ordinary functioning of life in the communities concerned. Consequently, it really is important that if a right of way is closed it should be realised that some alternative should be supplied. It is not good enough to say, "You cannot go through this right of way. You must go across a certain track and you must go 20 miles further round." This is all right if you do it for a period of one or two years while some development is taking place; but this is a closure of rights of way which may last for 20 to 30 years; in other words, it is lasting for a generation and not just for one or two years. I am sure that it is in the experience of all of us that what is surrendered for a period of months or for one or two years tends often to be surrendered forever. We have cases now where there is still a struggle going on to recover what was surrendered temporarily during the last war. It is really important when any right of way is given up for

475
some purpose which is highly desirable in the national interest that some guarantee should be given, and also that some alternative should be supplied to those people who are living in that area who, after all, are making the sacrifice for all of us. It is not right that we, sitting here, should ask individuals to sacrifice for the benefit of all of us when we are sacrificing nothing in the process. While completely welcoming this Bill and regarding it as a highly desirable Bill, I hope that the Government will be prepared to pay attention to certain details.
4.21 p.m.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, this has been a very satisfactory debate, and I hope I shall be able to answer in a satisfactory manner the questions which the noble Viscount, Lord Long, put. First, I should like to thank him and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for the generous spirit in which their speeches were made. We are agreed on the necessity of encouraging the coal industry as much as possible. As your Lordships know, we are doing our utmost to increase coal production and modernise the mines. We are fully aware, of course, of the fact that so long as coal can be produced economically it is an enormous addition to our assets; in the potential export of oil, for instance, which can perhaps be used abroad in a more flexible manner than our coal exports.
The Government have a very extended research programme on pneumoconiosis. There are many noble Lords who have had direct working experience of coal mines. That none of them has spoken against the Bill is a sign that the Government, if not living absolutely up to the maximum possible expectations, have at least not done too badly. Let me first give your Lordships the figures for pneumoconiosis. In 1950, we had 4,000 new cases; in 1960 there were still 3,000 new cases a year; in 1974, the figure had fallen to 500. I think we can all congratulate those researchers, managers and miners who are in charge of these matters on a very splendid achievement. I hope all sides of your Lordships' House will agree that this is a really good effort.
Regarding compensation for pneumoconiosis, this scheme is not something additional to the two existing forms of
476
compensation, but is an alternative because there are so many cases and they present legal difficulties which are completely different from cases in other industries. We are doing our utmost to reduce the incidence of the other lung diseases due to industrial conditions, but this scheme had to be set up because there are 39,000 cases and, obviously, the judicial process would have been impossible and would have distorted the whole situation, causing extreme anguish and disappointment in certain cases. Therefore, my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones can rest assured that in other industries, where there are smaller numbers of cases, there are already adequate ways of getting compensation. The Government are keeping this matter well in mind and we shall be looking at it continuously.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord before he leaves the subject of pneumoconiosis? He has told us that the figures are declining year by year. Do the Government anticipate that this decline will continue and that the disease is virtually being mastered? If so, could the noble Lord give us some idea of how this is being achieved?
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I cannot possibly answer this question at short notice. If the noble Lord will put down a Question, I will certainly endeavour to give as full an Answer, either by way of writing or verbally, as possible. With improvements in machinery, we can obviously still hope for a further reduction. But if the noble Lords wants a more positive, detailed answer I shall be only too glad to furnish it.
The noble Viscount, Lord Long, raised the question of National Coal Board houses. The National Coal Board owns about 90,000 houses; it is one of the great landlords. Its policy is to dispose of them, giving priority of course to ex-members of the industry. There is no question of the property owned by the Coal Board being treated in any way as tied cottages, or of retired or redundant employees or their widows being evicted from their homes by the Board. This is a fixed policy and I can assure the noble Viscount that it will remain so. I can also assure the noble Viscount that the Robens' agreement, which related to the Board

477
agreeing not to work certain areas of coal, will continue unchanged.
The noble Viscount raised two detailed questions on subsidence. One related to Selby and the other to the industry as a whole. I can assure the noble Viscount that extensive consultation has been held with the Board, the National Farmers' Union and other local interests. This has been one of the most important issues raised at the public inquiry which is still going on, and I am quite sure that the utmost care will be taken so that any problems which may arise on a site will cause no trouble. So far as lateral support is concerned, perhaps I did not explain myself adequately. The Coal Board have already withdrawn lateral support in many cases, thinking that paragraphs 5 and 6 of Schedule 2 to the Coal Act 1938 covered lateral subsidence. This is not a new problem at all; this is something which, in practice, has been solved adequately, and there is no reason to suppose that this situation will not continue in the future. If the noble Viscount has some specific questions and suggestions, of course we can debate them and dispose of them in the Committee stage.
Clause 2(4) reads as follows:
" (4) Subject to the provisions of Schedule 1 to this Act, where damage to any land arises from the exercise of the right to withdraw support conferred on the Board by this section, the Board shall either—

(a) pay proper compensation for the damage, or

(b) with the consent (which shall not be unreasonably withheld) of the person who would otherwise be entitled to the payment of compensation for the damage, make good the damage to the reasonable satisfaction of that person and without expense to him;

and the obligation imposed on the Board by this subsection shall extend to damage to buildings and works on that lard, whenever constructed."
I should have thought that, in practice, there had been no challenge at all of the compensation provisions, and no legal case has arisen out of them. So it would seem that the Board have always acted in a reasonable way. Provision is also made in the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957 for damages to be paid for death and serious or permanent disablement. The subject is a complex one and is under study, as I said, by an inter-Departmental Committee, which will
478
report to the Minister. The Minister will then, in the normal way, announce his findings and introduce legislation if necessary. In Committee we shall be introducing a new Schedule on the procedure for the abolition of copyholders' rights.
I think that those who have been responsible for the passage of the Bill so far can really be satisfied with it. The greatest efforts are being made, and will continue to be made, co-operatively by management, unions, the Mines Inspectorate, equipment manufacturers and research institutes. These combined with stricter controls underground, which have been instituted by both sides of this House, are improving conditions, and we have been able to achieve very good results. The Bill also deals in a practical and reasonable way with some of the procedural and other obstacles which stand in the way of our securing the coal we so desperately need at this time. The coal industry—and here I echo what the noble Viscount said—has a vital contribution to make towards the future of this country, and part of this contribution will come from opencast mining. While facing up to the need to expand opencast mining from 10 million to 15 million tons a year, I hope that Members of your Lordships' House will agree with me that we have shown proper care and consideration for local communities and for the environment in this Bill.
This Bill is part of the overall approach by Her Majesty's Government to the securing of a more efficient, more productive and happier industry. The action taken so far by Her Majesty's Government has created better morale in the industry, has stepped up recruitment to the necessary levels, and has increased production to the point where record output is already being achieved in certain areas. The Coal Industry Bill is a significant part of the overall plan, and I hope that your Lordships will receive it favourably.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, might I ask him whether he would answer the point made by my noble friend regarding the people who have been left out of the Bill with regard to compensation for pneumoconiosis. This is a very important matter, and although

479
I find it rather difficult, if I may say so, to hear all that the noble Lord says, I do not think he dealt with that point at all. For a very long time I have had a keen personal interest in the mining industry and in pneumoconiosis, and I should like to know whether the noble Lord is going to get his Government to find the money to compensate those people who have been left out of the Bill. I should be most grateful if he could now tell me whether he is going to make those representations because, if not, I shall certainly, where I can, support my noble friends in the Amendments they may decide to put down. But I hope they will not have to do so, because it is most important, now that this new decision about the disease has been taken, that we should know that everybody will derive advantage from it.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I am always prepared to answer the questions of the noble Baroness. I hope I said that this Bill enshrines an agreement between the Coal Board and the trade unions of the industry. In a democratic society, it has to be the people in the industry who decide on the priorities to be given regarding the sum of money which is available. It was not the Government who decided how the money should be allocated.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, but I do not have the same ideas as the National Coal Board. I may have my own ideas; and it certainly will be a matter of money. If £100 million is going to be found, there is really no reason why the noble Lord should not emphasise to the National Coal Board that your Lordships' House wishes more to be done for these people who have been left out of the Bill. This is a free country and we have a right to say that—I certainly want to say it—so perhaps the noble Lord will take the matter to the National Coal Board, who do not always do what I want or indeed what the people inside the industry want. Many arguments have to take place; sometimes the National Coal Board wins and
480
sometimes they do not. I believe the National Coal Board ought to do something for these people, and I should be grateful if the noble Lord would be kind enough to convey these views to the Board so that they know that at least some of us are not entirely satisfied with the decision they have taken. I should be grateful to the noble Lord if he could confirm that representations will be duly made.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that her words, whether spoken in another place or here, are always taken into acount. Certainly the attention of the Coal Board and of the trade unions will be drawn to what she has said; but, as I said in my speech, there is a priority scheme. If the money had been allocated authoritatively by the Government, I am sure we would have been accused of Stalinist tendencies.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: No; good gracious!
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, sometimes we are accused of them in any case.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I recall in the past, when I was a Minister concerned with industrial injuries, that we had arguments about the correct diagnostic criteria. The years passed, as the noble Lord will know, and nothing was done. I am astonished to learn that the number of new cases has dropped to 500. Could he say whether there has been any change in diagnostic criteria?
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot answer that question. If my noble friend wishes to put it down, I shall certainly give an answer, or I will write to her, if she wishes me to do so.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: I thank the noble Lord.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

REFERENDUM BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

ROYAL ASSENT
4.40 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975,

Oil Taxation Act 1975,

Reservoirs Act 1975,

House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975,

Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975,

Ministers of the Crown Act 1975,

Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975,

Housing Rents and Subsidies (Scotland) Act 1975,

Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1975,

Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975,

Malta Republic Act 1975,

Prices Act 1975,

Referendum Act 1975,

Queen's Road Brighton Burial Ground Act 1975,

Standard and Chartered Bank Act 1975,

Ocean Transport and Trading (Delivery Warrants) Act 1975,

Commonwealth Portland Cement Company, Limited Act 1975.

RAILWAYS (TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS) BILL [H.L.]
4.41 p.m.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. Before I say anything further may I acknowledge how grateful I am to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for having given me the opportunity of knowing what is the Government's attitude towards this Bill. I cannot confess that I am not disappointed it was not a more favourable one, but I am hoping that during the course of the debate she may be a
482
little more drawn towards it. This Bill is a very necessary one, necessary in particular for one section of the community: those who live in rural districts, remote villages perhaps, without much means of transport. Not everybody drives a car even in these days. Some have not the money; others are perhaps becoming too old. Therefore, some means of public transport is absolutely vital for such people. In the debate on railways which we had a short time ago I pointed out that the railway is in fact by far the most economic and efficient method of transport so far as use of energy is concerned. But there are other considerations. Of course, buses have been supplied as an alternative, but buses are a poor substitute for trains. For one thing, they cannot keep to a strict timetable owing to traffic conditions. Also if one is waiting for them one generally has to do so beside the open road. That is pleasant in summer, but if it is blowing a blizzard it is not quite so pleasant.
I understand that one of the Government's main objections is on the ground of the use of land. In connection with that I would quote one paragraph from a statement made by the Department of the Environment apropos of disused railway lines. It says:
" The closure of railway lines provides an opportunity which is unlikely to recur for considerable possible linear use of the land such as roads, footpaths and bridleways. This does not mean that a linear use is necessarily the right one and other uses such as agriculture will also need to be considered. What is important is that proper consideration is given to what is the best use in the public interest, whether on a linear or a non-linear basis."
Personally, I think it quite likely that many of the local councils will turn out to be those who wish to operate the local railway lines. So far as linear use of the land is concerned, the roads would have to be very narrow indeed. In the case of a double track railway there will be at the most only a two-lane road, and when it approaches a tunnel or a deep cutting it may become even less. So from the point of view of roads the contention is not very practicable. In any event, road transport is becoming more and more doubtful with the increasing price of fuel and also the much greater accident rate. One must remember that very strongly. Railways are about a hundred times safer than the roads.

483
When I first mentioned this Bill to one Member of your Lordships' House he said: "Oh, yes, I suppose you're making way for the steam enthusiasts." That was not my idea at all. But even if they do come in to some extent, which perhaps they will, what then? Look at the Bluebell Railway, for instance, which carries hundreds of people every day. These railways are an immense draw. I do not think there is any harm at all in letting the enthusiasts operate these branch lines if they wish to. However, what I had in mind for the vast majority of these lines is, possibly, a single diesel car or a diesel car with a trailer. In that case of course they could be run as light railways.
To look at the matter from the financial point of view, I feel that the British Railways Board must realise that if they do not want to operate a line they should not ask for exorbitant prices from those who do. Apropos of that, I would quote just one or two instances where they have done so. This is a quotation from the Western Morning News:
" During last month it was announced that the annual rental for operating trains into Taunton station had been increased from £6,000 to £13,000 and the charge for altering signalling equipment at Norton Fitzwarren raised from £6,000 to £12,700."
One expects prices to rise of course every year—every month, these days—but not quite to that extent. In any case, if a body does not want to do something itself it should not, by exorbitant charges, try to prevent other people from doing it. That surely is a dog in the manger attitude, of which I do not think the British Railways Board should be guilty. That is why Clauses 3 and 4 have been inserted in the Bill. I seem to have mislaid for the moment details of another case I might have quoted. It was very similar to the previous one and again concerned an enormous increase in charges.
This Bill as it stands is not complete. It was rather hastily drafted, I admit. There is one bad gap in that there is nothing to give an assurance that those who are taking over these branch lines for operation have the necessary expertise and knowledge of railway working. If your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading, I intend to put that matter right at Committee stage. To go through
484
the clauses of the Bill, Clause 1 provides for the two methods of transfer, either by outright sale of the line or by lease. Different conditions apply to each method—different responsibilities for upkeep and so on. Clause 2 provides for applications where the line is still running but where the closure of the line has been announced. As I have said, Clauses 3 and 4 provide for an independent Commission to assess the amount which should be paid to the Railways Board. Clause 4 deals with the matters they shall consider when they are assessing that price. Clause 5 deals with the eligibility of the applicant for a grant under Section 56 of the Transport Act 1968.
During the passage of the Children Bill I was very much warned by the remarks of the noble and learned Lord. Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who spoke of the horrors of legislation by reference. Therefore, I think it is best to read to your Lordships Section 56 of the Transport Act 1968. Subsection (1) says:
" Subject to subsections (3) and (4) of this section, the Minister may with the approval of the Treasury make grants upon such terms and conditions as the Minister thinks fit to any person towards expenditure appearing to the Minister to be of a capital nature or to be incurred by that person for the purpose of the provision, improvement or development of facilities for public passenger transport in Great Britain."
Subsection (2) says:
"Subject to subsections (3) and (4) of this section, any local authority, or any two or more local authorities acting jointly, may make payments, upon such terms and conditions as they think fit, to any other person towards expenditure appearing to the authority or authorities in question to be of a capital nature or to be incurred by that other person for the purpose of the provision, improvement or development of any facilities for public passenger transport if it appears to the authority or each of the authorities in question that those facilities are or will be of benefit to the area of that authority."
Those last words are very important, because benefit to the people who are living in the area is what we are dealing with in this Bill.
I feel that the provision of an efficient form of transport to, maybe, the nearest market town will be of far more benefit than providing a narrow road, or a footpath, or a bridle path. And if I may dare say so in front of many noble Lords who are interested in farming, I cannot believe that a railway line is likely to be

485
of much use to agriculture; either it will be in deep cuttings, or on high embankments, or running through a tunnel.
Clause 6 deals with the provisions for running the line as a light railway. This is rather interesting. I had great difficulty in finding the legal definition of a light railway, but I have it here. Contrary to what one might expect, it has nothing whatsover to do with gauge. It is not necessarily a narrow gauge railway. The legal definition is this:
" A normal railway is subject under special or general Acts to all the important and detailed statutory provisions designed to secure the safe construction, operation and maintenance of a railway intended for the unrestricted carriage of passengers and freight. These provisions were, and are, expensive to apply. A light railway, however, is one for which many of these requirements are waived, provided certain limitations are imposed in the interests of safety—that is, limits on the frequency of trains, on axle weight and speed. Therefore, the cost of running the line can be kept down without risk to the public."
That is the kind of thing that I envisage—a light railway and a diesel car, with perhaps a trailer, running four or five times a day in each direction, which would provide all the transport that the local community would need but which would still be run as a light railway.
Section 28 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1868, which this Bill will repeal, is a section which lays down that the axle weight shall be 8 tons and that the speed shall not exceed 20 m.p.h. I hardly feel that that is suitable for present-day conditions. A diesel car can do a great deal more than 20 m.p.h. As to the axle weight, that, as your Lordships will see, will be left to the Minister to decide. As your Lordships know, the axle weight is the weight which is borne by any one pair of wheels.
The question is whether this Bill will be of any benefit to the public as a whole. I think that it will. It will enable the public to reach out-of-the-way places, and it will enable the people who live in those out-of-the-way places to reach the more populated ones. Therefore, it will be of mutual benefit. I hope I have said enough to prove that after, perhaps, some improvements at Committee stage, this will be a worthwhile Bill. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Somers.)
4.59 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, this Bill is the product of the passionate and faithful interest of the noble Lord, Lord Somers, in railways, which springs, as he has said again this afternoon, from his desire to see more intensive, and particularly rural railway services in this country. I fully understand his interest which led to a wide-ranging debate at the end of last year to which I also had the privilege to reply.
Since I have "dived into ", if I may use the expression, the railway scene, I have been fascinated to find that it is still such a male-dominated interest. As we move towards a change in the roles of men and women, and girls play with railways and boys play with dolls, it may be that there will be a bigger female interest in these debates. It is still, I think, too much of a masculine preserve. I should like to see the day—and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Greene of Harrow Weald, whom I am delighted to see will speak in this debate, will comment on it—when there are women engine drivers. There are still no women engine drivers, and I imagine the usual retort will be given as to why not—that they have not applied. But equality of opportunity, and opportunities for training are necessary in this sphere.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will allow me to interrupt her, this is not intended to be a game. I can assure her that this is a really serious matter of transport.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I wish the noble Lord, Lord Somers, would let me continue. This is not a game. It is perfectly true that this is something which is of mutual interest. I am completely serious when I say that both men and women should be interested in things which, up to now, have been considered the preserve of one or the other.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, would the noble Baroness allow me—
Baroness BIRK: No, my Lords, not just at the moment, because I really think I must get on to the noble Lord's Bill.

487
However, I will give way a little later on. As the noble Lord, Lord Somers, was kind enough to say, I personally explained to him why, although I welcome his ideas, I cannot offer a similar welcome to his Bill. I am grateful to him for referring to that in such a felicitous manner. The Bill contains practical defects, and would give rise to major changes in Government policy on land use which the Government cannot possibly accept. The purpose of the noble Lord's Bill, if I may reiterate it, is to enable organisations and private individuals to take over and operate branch lines on which the Railways Board are no longer operating services. However, in essentials, the Bill adds nothing to existing legislation, and in many respects would detract from present arrangements.
My Lords, there are already adequate statutory powers to enable private individuals to acquire and operate branch lines if they can reach agreement with the Board on the financial basis of the transfer, and provided they can satisfy the Department that they are competent to assume responsibility for maintaining and operating the railway to the standards demanded by public safety. I discussed this the other day with a member of the Board of British Rail and he confirmed that the Board are always willing to dispose of their surplus assets to amenity groups and other potential private operators. I hope that the noble Lord will take it from that alone that I am approaching this matter with a very serious concern. They also co-operate with existing private operators, for example, by printing details of services in British Rail timetables.
In addition, the present arrangements have the advantage that objections from the public to the reopening or continued use of a branch line can be heard and considered. This Bill has no such provisions. Moreover, although the Bill may make it easier for private individuals to acquire the line, it does nothing to make it more simple for them to operate railway services, for which they must still obtain a Light Railway Order.
For the benefit of the House, I will deal first with the objections of principle to the Bill, and then with some of the
488
practical difficulties. The major policy issue involved, as I think was recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, concerns land use. I think that the quotation by the noble Lord, when he referred to the Department of the Environment, supports what I am about to say; that our country is small, but our population is large enough to make it imperative that land is used in the best possible manner. This means that a wide range of options must be considered before deciding what is the best use for an unused piece of land. While I appreciate the high value attached by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, to the continued use of land for railways, I must emphasise that no proposal to close a railway would ever be accepted without a full investigation of hardship caused to the travelling public. Railways are not closed just on a whim. The transport difficulties and problems of the country referred to by the noble Lord are well understood. In the Government's view, where British Rail are authorised to dispose of railway land, its use for purposes other than railways must be considered.
My Lords, to ensure that this is done there are standing arrangements under which British Rail offer surplus land to the relevant local authority. We believe that only the local authorities, with their intimate knowledge of the needs of their area and their direct responsibility to those who elected them, can decide whether it should be retained for use as a railway or put to some other use. I would point out that over the past five years, the Railways Board have reopened 12 stations for passenger use. In every case, the reopening has been agreed by the Board following a local initiative, and the costs of reopening have been borne locally, mainly by the county councils. Noble Lords may have seen reports of the two most recent reopenings which took place on the 5th May, one at Magdalen Road, Norfolk, and the other at Ruskington, Lincolnshire.
My Lords, Clause 1 of this Bill completely overrides the local authorities, since it would ensure that a person or organisation wishing to operate a railway service on a line no longer required by the Board could purchase the line, regardless of the possibility of better use being made of the line. Indeed, there is no provision in the Bill for objections by

489
interested people, such as local authorities, to the purchase or leasing of the line from British Rail. Prospective railway operators under this Bill would have an absolute right to the land whether or not British Rail wishes to sell, and whether or not others wish to buy. What would happen if more than one organisation wanted to buy the same line?
Further, the Bill contains no provision to ensure that prospective operators would have the necessary financial backing and the expertise to run a successful and safe railway service. The expense involved in running a railway is enormous, and since British Rail are not in the habit of closing down profitable services, the financial resources for maintaining the track and signalling are not likely to be forthcoming from the revenue of the services run on the line. On this point it has been said—the noble Lord himself has said it on this occasion and in the previous debate—that many railway societies run branch lines as a profit. This is true, but they achieve this in the main by running seasonal rather than regular services, and by using voluntary labour. These lines are run largely for pleasure, and people are prepared to pay a higher price than they would pay in a normal travelling, fare-taking situation.
The provisions in Clause 4 of the Bill for the valuation of a branch line are not entirely clear to me. The Commission appointed under Clause 2 to set the purchase price of the line would be obliged to take account of the traffic the branch line would contribute to British Rail services. The contribution made by branch lines to revenue on main lines is notoriously difficult to estimate because it vacillates to some degree, and depends on so many varying factors. I do not think it would be practicable to attempt this as part of the valuation process. Furthermore, this revenue would be lost to British Rail should the new owner of the branch line for any reason prove unable to operate the railway services, or discontinue them.
Therefore, it seems that the valuation provisions of the Bill would result in British Rail getting a low price for their land. In effect, British Rail would be required under this Bill to subsidise a private operator. We must be clear about this, because it means in effect that the taxpayer would be subsidising the private
490
operator, and those who use his services. The provisional estimate of the Railways Board of the grant they need this year to support passenger services is £340 million. This is somethting that we must remember in the light of what the noble Lord said about such prices, as he put it, being asked for by the Board. We are attempting to cut public expenditure, not to increase it. The Government could not possibly agree to a provision which, by putting extra financial pressure on British Rail, might increase the grant requirement in future years.
My Lords, Clause 7 gives the Secretary of State powers to make regulations governing the safety and the efficiency of the transferred railway service. This is unnecessary. The Secretary of State is already able to impose conditions relating to safety and operating methods under the Light Railway Order procedure. These conditions are imposed on the advice of the Railway Inspectorate and are monitored by them. However, the clause introduces a new principle which I believe to be dangerous. Safety regulations imposed by the Secretary of State under this Bill could be annulled by either House of Parliament. In the Government's view, it would be quite wrong if the expert and independent judgment of the Railway Inspectorate could be set aside in this way. Though your Lordships' House has its distinguished railway experts—and some of them are speaking in the debate today—I am sure they will agree that our collective experience does not qualify us to undertake this responsibility.
1 have dealt with some of the important issues raised by this Bill. I should now like to mention some practical points. First, under present law authority to operate a railway service must be granted either by a Private Bill, or by a Light Railway Order made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. This Bill does not enable these procedures to be bypassed. Therefore, were it enacted, those people to whom branch lines were transferred under the Bill would still not have authority to operate railway services, and indeed there might be compelling reasons for not granting such authority. For example, they might lack the technical competence to run a railway. Therefore, the purpose of the Bill would be defeated.

491
Clause 1(1)(b) of this Bill allows the Board the option of leasing the railway line to the prospective operator rather than selling it outright. On the face of it, this sounds quite an attractive proposition. But if the option were taken up British Rail would be compelled to retain responsibility for the track, signalling, bridges, level crossings and tunnels. It is hard to see why the Board should ever wish to exercise this option which would force them to maintain expensive equipment, when the assets concerned were unlikely ever to bring them much—if any—financial benefit, and it would be contrary to public policy for the Board to behave in this manner. Even if the Board did wish to lease the line on this basis, the division of responsibilities between the branch line operator and British Rail would be very difficult for both parties.
Clause 5 adds nothing to existing legislation. It specifies factors to be taken into account by the Minister in reaching decisions on applications for grants for capital projects under Section 56 of the Transport Act 1968 to which the noble Lord drew attention. In the first place, these grants are now paid only in Scotland, in England and Wales they have been subsumed in the new Transport Supplementary Grant. In the second place, any Minister would take account of the factors specified in this clause when taking decisions on grant applications. Clause 6 of the Bill is, I am afraid, also unnecessary. The Minister's power to impose speed limits when granting a light railway order already exists under Section 9(4) of the Light Railways Act 1896. The repeal of Section 28 of the Regulation of Railways Act of 1868 is also of little or no consequence in this context. This section restricts the weight and speed of trains on light railways, but under later legislation this restriction can he waived at the Secretary of State's discretion.
To sum up, this Bill effectively sacrifices all other possible uses of land to railway operation, which would, in the Govment's view, be quite wrong. It appears to do this in ways that may well cause British Rail to lose money. The Bill does nothing to bypass the admittedly rather cumbersome method by which authority to run a railway is secured. But the Government are currently looking at ways
492
of granting this authority more easily. Lastly, the Bill, by giving private operators the right to acquire disused lines, could stop land being put to a use of greater value to the community, and it is this which I believe to be the major objection to the Bill.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, for giving us the opportunity for a debate on the railways, and for what I am sure will be a most interesting debate. I hope that from what I have said I have made it quite clear that I cannot offer the noble Lord Government support for his Bill, nor can I offer him any encouragement that his attempts to amend the Bill will achieve any greater acceptability. The differences between us on the major points of principle are so great that the Bill could not possibly be amended to make it acceptable to the Government. I think it only fair to make this quite clear, and I decided to speak early in the debate so that the noble Lord knows exactly what is the situation. I hope he will think seriously during the course of the debate about the grave disadvantages of his Bill, and, although I appreciate the amount of time and work that must have gone into it, I hope that at the end of the debate he will seek leave to withdraw it.
5.16 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Somers, is something of a railway enthusiast and from time to time from both Front Benches I have been pleased to welcome his contribution to, and his support for, the railways of this country, but I find it absolutely impossible to support him on his Bill today. My noble friend's examination of this Bill, and her exposition of what is contained in it leave very little to be said by those who, like myself, have spent a lifetime in railways. I would tell my noble friend that I did not play with them; I worked on them and therefore her challenge about "playing with dolls" certainly does not affect me.
The noble Lord, Lord Somers, said that his Bill has substantial financial implications, and one of my main objections to the Bill stems from its financial implications. From the very outset of railway nationalisation Parliament has laid a financial duty, first on the Transport Commission and subsequently on the

493
Railways Board, to break even. The Transport Act of 1962 repeated the formula:
" Each of the Boards shall so conduct their business as to secure that their revenue is not less than sufficient for making provision for the meeting of charges properly chargeable to revenue, taking one year with another ".
Then we—Parliament, Government—have hedged the railways about with instructions and prohibitions which add to the difficulty of achieving that end, and this Bill seems to me to be another attempt to persuade Parliament to add an instruction to the Railways Board which may well have the effect of forcing the Board to dispose of certain of its assets below what might be their market value.
What does this Bill tell the Board it must do with a branch line after going through all the procedures laid down by the Transport Act of 1962 and that of 1968, and the Minister has said that the Board may close the line? There is a testing period to be gone through before finally the Minister says "Yes, you may close the line ". Almost invariably—and I am bound to say this to the noble Lord, Lord Somers—the railways have tried all the things possible to attempt to ensure that the line could be kept as a viable entity: the running of diesel engines, the running of diesel cars, and so on. All these almost invariably have been tried before, finally and reluctantly—and I stress the word "reluctantly"—the Board decides that it has to go through the procedure to close that branch line.
What would happen under the Bill when the Board is finally permitted by the Minister to close the line? Instead of being permitted to sell its property to the highest bidder, after giving the offer of the first refusal to the appropriate local authority, it shall, under the terms of Clause 1 of the Bill, sell or lease the property to an individual or organisation who, or which, desires to establish the service on the line.
The price to be paid for the sale or lease of the property will, in the event of a failure to reach agreement by the parties, be fixed by a Commission, and, on any appeal by any of the parties, by the Minister of Transport. In those circumstances the price is bound to be related to what the Commission or the Minister thinks would be its value for the purpose
494
of trying to re-establish a service which the Railways Board has been permitted to cease, after having gone through all the statutory procedures and trying all it knows to make it an economic part of its system. That would, having regard to its obligatory sale or letting in mind, under the terms of this Bill, be a very low price indeed. That is inevitable. If the local authority wished to purchase the property for a road or other purposes, or any developer for housing or factory development, the Board would have its hands tied by the terms of this Bill. I am sure that the House would not wish that to be imposed upon the Railways Board in addition to the things I have already said are imposed on it by Statute and Ministerial decrees.
My Lords, the second objection to the the Bill that I have on financial grounds stems from Clause 2. As I understand the present position, it is that when the Railways Board decides that the time has come to close a branch line there is a procedure to be observed, for which provision is made in Section 56 of the Transport Act 1962 as amended by Section 54 of the Transport Act 1968. That is a very lengthy, time-consuming process before the Minister, if he finally agrees, consents to the closure. Once that consent has been given, it is clearly in the Board's interests to close that part of the system as soon as it can, for the obvious reason that it does not want to go on wasting the Board's money, wasting the taxpayers' money—because that is what it amounts to—by running something which clearly everybody who has examined it, the consultative committees, et cetera, have said is not a viable part of the railway system of the country.
Clause 2 of the Bill will give prospective purchasers two months within which to send a notification of their interest to the Minister and the Chairman of the Board. On the receipt of such a notification the Board would, under subsection (2) be under an obligation to continue to operate the existing service for a further six months. As I see it, such a notification would cause the Board to continue in the loss consequent on the operation of an uneconomic branch line for anything up to eight months; that is, for the two month period during which the prospective purchasers can make up their minds about sending notification,

495
plus six months under subsecton (2) of this clause. The question immediately arises in my mind, who is going to reimburse the Board for the continued loss it will sustain by running as a service something which the Minister has agreed should be closed? I can see nothing in the Bill which suggests that the Board is going to be reimbursed for the loss which will continue on that branch line—certainly nothing respecting compensation to be paid to the Board by the prospective purchasers for that loss consequent upon the continuing of the uneconomic service.
My Lords, another objection I have to the provisions of Clause 2 is that nothing is said about the examination of the bona fides of the person, or persons, notifying the Board of their interest, so that a branch line may be kept functioning at a loss by people who have neither the intention, nor the financial standing, to enable them to purchase or to lease the line. I believe this is important. It clearly is a serious omission in a Bill of this sort.
Mention has been made—and I accept this—of the private operators who have made a success of the lines that they have operated. I think what has to be said about that is that such operators have been mostly selling trips rather than necessarily contributing to regular travel facilities. This is something different; selling trips to holidaymakers in highly specialised conditions. The trips are in so many cases taken by railway enthusiasts, and at the height of the holiday season. As my noble friend has said, much of the work is done by volunteers because of the exceptional conditions operating on that bit of line. I have nothing against that, but it must be noted that these railways have been obtained by the operators, and are worked, under the existing Acts of Parliament.
We do not need a new Act in order to permit them to do just that; they are doing it under the existing Acts of Parliament, the Act of 1962, the Act of 1968, and so on. All the operators did was to reach agreement with the Railways Board, and also satisfy the Department that they were competent to assume responsibility for the safety and maintenance of the system they proposed to operate. My
496
Lords, it is not, as I conceive it. and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Somers, here, for the Board to sit on any of its assets in a dog in the manger fashion saying, "If we cannot operate this stretch of line with due regard to our obligation to break even, no one else shall have it ". But the Board must be permitted to behave within the bounds of sound commercial practice. They must have this in mind quite clearly.
I am also far from happy about Clause 7, which might be construed, as my noble friend said, as a clause to permit the Minister to make provisions for standards of safety lower than those already imposed upon British Railways, whose safety record, I am proud to say, will stand up to the closest examination. I think we are all proud of our railway system, certainly in that connection. Despite what recently happened at Moorgate, the safety conditions, taken over the years, are such that the railways come out as a shining example of safety in transport as against road. As I understand it, the present system, which allows for the exercise of the independent judgment of the Railway Inspectorate, is both accepted and generally admired. I, who have had the pleasure before now of sitting on some of the inquiries that look into such accidents as do take place, have been delighted with the care and attention devoted by that Inspectorate to the job which they have to do when, unfortunately, some accident occurs—so rarely, thank Heaven!
Finally, my Lords, I think it is pointless to clutter up the legislative machine with Bills that just have not an earthly chance of becoming Acts of Parliament. Perhaps this does not matter so much in this House, for the moment that is, but I believe we shall be under considerable pressure by the time this Bill, if given a Second Reading, could reach the further stages. Altogether I am bound to say that this Bill is not of a quality which your Lordships should be asked to pass. I really think that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, having given his ideas an airing, would be well advised to withdraw his Motion for the Second Reading, and then perhaps with his advisers give further thought to the whole matter in the light of this debate today, and in the light particularly of the objections of the Department, as voiced by my noble friend Lady Birk.
5.30 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, having heard so much from the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Champion, of the facts of the case, there is little left for me to mention. What came out clearly from the introduction of the Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, was the genuine concern that he felt for the welfare of the people in what he called "out of the way places ". He saw this as a Bill to try to help this group. I was puzzled at one stage when I thought that the noble Baroness was about to report the British Railways Board, the trade unions and the railways generally to the Sex Discrimination Board. However, I was glad to see that we were able to sail clear of those choppy waters. Also, for one moment I thought that the noble Lord, Lords Somers, was campaigning for the anti-road, lobby in the debate. However, that, too, was safetly put aside.
This side of the House—the Conservative Party in particular—have in general always been inclined to welcome enterprise and initiative. We believe that people who show enterprise and initiative have helped to make this country great and will go on doing so. It does not matter whether they are amenity groups, individuals or local authorities. In essence we are considering what are afterthoughts on this problem. The railway pattern of lines, as we have established, is likely to be substantially the same for many years to come. Already British Railways have cut out most of their uneconomic lines, with the exception of those which have been retained for the social and economic necessities of certain parts of the country.
Having said that the broad picture will be the same, there may still be the odd lines here or there which will find themselves condemned to extinction. The noble Lord, Lord Somers, would through the Bill give a right, subject to certain conditions, for any new body to continue to operate these railway services. Although it may sound attractive at first sight to let enthusiasts or amenity groups—or those doing it for the clear good of moving people in an area—have this right, I must sound a note of caution. As the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said, when we were in Office we introduced a code of practice into these matters which should
498
not be lightly cast aside. When Ministers have confirmed, as the noble Baroness explained, closure orders, it was and still is customary for the local planning authority to be given the problem about what to do about derelict lines and buildings, and to consider and make recommendations in the general interest of the area and the people in it.
In certain cases, planning authorities occasionally recommend that certain bodies should be allowed to operate railway lines. We had such a case in North Yorkshire. In other cases the authorities might decide that some other use was made more appropriate, perhaps was more appropriate, perhaps some form of new access road or a new by-pass. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Somers, it is always easier to add a strip to an existing road or railway than to start completely fresh somewhere else. Although the location may not be all that wide, it is still a nucleus on which to build. There can also be provided footpaths and bridle paths and there are other kinds of permutation which can be thought of for disused railway lines, even in certain built-up areas which can be used as natural areas for flora and fauna. Many people would regard such planning as excellent for many of our overdeveloped areas.
I also think that where local authorities might wish to take over the running of railways themselves, with the consent of their planning authorities, they should be entitled as of right to have priority to purchase over other bodies. Under this Bill, that would not be the case. Under recent legislation we have placed greater responsibilities on local authorities over transport measures generally. New councils have greatly increased responsibiliites for introducing safety measures. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Champion, would be averse to local authorities, if they saw fit, exercising their power in this way. I do not think it would necessarily clash with the railway inspectorate's safety measures. Having spoken generally of the principles involved, feeling chiefly that the local authorities should have their planning say first, I hope that I have presented a reasonable and common-sense view of the problems. I have purposely not involved myself in the technical details. If the discussion should reach the Committee stage,

499
we can discuss these matters more fully later.
5.37 p.m.
Lord GREENE of HARROW WEALD: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Somers, as a long-lost friend. In many years I have opposed railway closures. I do not desire to see any of them closed. When I saw this Bill, my natural instinct was to race to their defence. But I do not think that this is the right way to deal with this serious problem. The situation facing the railways in this country today is the responsibility of successive Governments who have not been so generous with the railways of Great Britain as have Continental Governments with their railways. Over a number of years we have had a reduction in the route-mileage of railways from about 17,000 miles to 11,000 miles. The impression I had for a long time, was that that would continue to be the position on British Railways.
I am not trying to be facetious, but if the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, wants to be an engine driver or a guard, I have not the slightest doubt that the railways will become viable straight away! The Bill states,
" offer the said branch line for sale to the said individual or organisation …"
It raises the questions: who, what for and where? In the light of those circumstances, one cannot leave the matter so open. Even if one were able to do it in that way, what would happen if an organisation or an individual took over a line and it failed? It might well be that they had taken the land and the assets of the railways, but when they eventually failed they would find themselves with an asset whose worth was out of all proportion to what they had paid. I accept what the noble Lord has said that in most cases the sale of railways in the past—for example, the Dart and Bluebell Lines—was connected with an enthusiasm for steam, which does not arise now because the railways are either all diesel or all electric.
One of the difficulties about an electrified line is in providing a section to be run by somebody else. If a line is closed because there are no passengers, the necessary rolling stock is removed. What is left are the passenger stations, the per-
500
manent way, but no rolling stock. Then it has to be decided what rolling stock is required for the people likely to travel on the railway. Another difficulty in the railway industry at the moment is in trying to find people who want to enter the industry in order to take other people to work early in the mornings and bring them home late at night. Are we going to get a body of enthusiasts or individuals who will depend on people coming in, certainly in some cases, to give their services free? If one considers the Dart Line, the Bluebell Line or the Blaenau-Ffestioniog Line, there are many people who work for those lines for absolutely nothing at all and out of pure enthusiasm. But they are running their railways at times when people are there for enjoyment, and not out of necessity such as for getting to and from work or because people do not have motor cars.
There is an organisation called "Transport 2000" which tries to do something to keep the railways running in order to provide adequate services. It is not so easy to run a railway as some people think, particularly when one must get people in an industry organised to turn out at certain times of the day to provide a service to the passengers, and, if what the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has in mind is to give a service to the general public, then I do not believe this is the way to go about it. Probably, if one made representations to Dick March, he might sell the lot straight away, but that is not the issue either.
Which lines are being closed down? I do not know where they are, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Somers, will tell us the answer, because I have heard of only two in dispute; one is the Kyle of Lochalsh, but I do not know where the other is. While I would support anybody who was trying to keep the railways open, which I have had a great interest in doing, I do not think this is the right way to go about it. I suggest to my very good friend the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that this is not the way around the problem, and we should not attempt to put this responsibility or stricture on a nationalised industry or on any other industry. When one wants to abandon a certain part of an industry, one is subject to somebody coming along and making a case for keeping it open, but under this measure the only reply in connection

501
with the cost would have to be, "I cannot do that. I must pass it over, subject to arbitration." In my view, that is not the right way of going about it and, while I have great sympathy with the points of view which the noble Lord, Lord Somers, expressed, I suggest that this is not a Bill which should be passed by this House.
5.43 p.m.
Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate but it seemed to me that somebody from the Back-Benches on this side of the House should comment on the Bill. I was for 10 years the Member of Parliament for Swindon, and during that time I had 12,000 railway workers as constituents. Then for 18 years I was the Member of Parliament for St. Marylebone and had the headquarters of British Railways in my constituency, so I have had some experience and knowledge of the operations of the railways.
I have to declare an interest in that I and my family run the miniature railway from Ravenglass up the Eskdale Valley for seven and a quarter miles. In a few days' time we celebrate our centenary. It was certificated to run for the carrying of iron ore, but the railway inspector who took a look at that line was not at all satisfied that it was properly built for the carrying of passengers, and it was not until a year later that it got the necessary certificate to carry passengers. We carry about 300,000 tourists a year, so we are quite a busy little line. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Greene, said about the running of a service and the operating of a railway at times when it is convenient to everybody. It so happens that our first train down goes in the morning at 7.30, but we have on occasions to pick up boys from the Outward Bound School at an earlier time, at 6.30. I recall an occasion when a train went down at 6.30 a.m., arrived at a level-crossing at which it had to blow its whistle, which it did, and apparently a woman in a nearby house got up and made her husband his usual morning cup of tea thinking it was 7.30, only to find it was 6.30, and got a good "raspberry" for doing it.
I feel that there is really no need at all for this Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, on behalf of the Government,
502
gave a full description in great detail, clause by clause, of the reasons why this Bill should not be given a Second Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, from his great experience of the operating of railways, gave a careful, thorough and again detailed statement of the reasons why this Bill should not have a Second Reading. I will not repeat what they said because I agree wholeheartedly with all of it, except to remark that from my dealings—and I have had considerable experience of dealing with the Railway Property Disposal Board about the disposal of railway property, and I have had certain interests in acquiring branch lines that were closed and put up for sale—I can tell your Lordships that they really fall over backwards to delay a sale and try to help potential purchasers. I confirm what the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Champion, said about how reasonable they are in the prices they ask, but of course one must consider the taxpayer. After all, this Board are the guardians of public money, and they cannot give public money away just like that. Nevertheless, they are always fair and reasonable in what they try to do.
The fact is that full gauge branch line operating, even with a great deal of voluntary help, is not a viable operation. It was not viable before the inflation acceleration, and to try to start a new line today is quite out of the question. About two years ago in the Railway Magazine there was an interesting article which divided the railways into three groups: miniature, light railway—not as defined by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, but of a gauge less than full gauge—and full gauge. The article showed that, with one exception, all the privately-owned railways in the United Kingdom were not viable commercial operations. They were all losing money.
Any surplus was nothing like enough to make the necessary track replacements when the rails wore out or sleepers needed renewing. But above everything, the great big engines and rolling stock which were got at break-up or nominal value must, in due course, be replaced and that, of course, is an extremely expensive business. It is, therefore, not true to say that they are run at a profit, because they are not. The one exception mentioned was the one which we own and run. We were

503
supposed to have a rating which indicated that we made a profit, though on appeal, by employing a railway expert, we were able conclusively to show that far from a profit there was a £30,000 deficiency on this little railway. We are able to keep going because of camping coaches, cafés, shops, car parks, and similar accessories, so to speak, which bring in extra money which keep the railway operation going. Without them a profit can not be made.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, I am interested to hear that my noble friend has managed to get a railway working at a profit. May I ask him if, as an old age pensioner, I pay £4·60, I may travel at half price on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays?
Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL: My Lords, not on our railway! In my view there is little possibility of any branch line being opened in future, if it is to operate over ten miles or less, unless it is operating as a miniature. The main reason is that the capital costs of running a railway are so much less for a miniature than for a full gauge railway.
All over the country, the British Rail Property Disposal Board have been holding up sales to the public disadvantage because they have been leaning over backwards to help people. Some of the improvements that ought to be taking place have been held up. I know of one example in the Barnstaple area, in a manufacturing and industrial area, where the road ought to be widened; there is terrible congestion there. But that improvement has been held up for several years simple because of the possibility that a preservation society may raise the money to run a branch line there. Some people put up a few thousand pounds, but it is all finished with and I am afraid that they have lost their money.
My Lords, what is wanted—if, indeed, anything is wanted—is a Bill to speed up the work of the Disposal Board, not to delay it. From my personal experience, I believe that there is no need for the Bill. The Board are doing a good job and should be encouraged to get on with their work as fast as possible. They should not be hindered and delayed, as I fear the Bill would do. I hope that the noble
504
Lord, having heard all the arguments that have been put forward, will consider withdrawing the Bill. I thank him for giving us an opportunity to talk on this fascinating subject. Perhaps we may hope that, somehow or another, these privately operated railways—which give an enormous amount of pleasure to quite a lot of people—will, by hook or by crook, be able to continue for many a long year.
5.53 p.m.
The Marquess of AILSA: My Lords, I feel that I should stand up in support of the noble Lord, Lord Somers, for I believe that a Bill on the lines suggested is needed. I have an interest in the subject in that I am interested in a full gauge railway branch line of British Rail in Scotland and have, for my sins, had the honour of being a general manager of a railway under conditions virtually laid down by British Rail but not, fortunately, on the mainland of the United Kingdom. So I know the problems. Some of them were named by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and some by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Champion. That was the opposition that I faced when I took over the railway to which I refer. I overcame it for some years, and the proof of my point is that, after I gave up the running of the railway, it still continues to run because the Government of the country in question said that it must not close. It had closed before I got there.
I gather that the reason why the Bill is not welcome is, first of all, that there is a possible misuse of land. I accept that there is a possibility of misuse, but I believe that the cases in which this happens are minimal. I know of many other areas where railways have been closed and the lines lifted and the land stays there. It has been thrown in with the adjoining farm. I have some, but it never again becomes incorporated with the adjoining land. I have land which I have not been allowed to develop and the use of which has now been held up for fifteen years. At that time it was to be used as a road. I am still not allowed to develop it. It may be used as a road, but there is no plan to make it so, and nobody can tell me when it will be used as a road. Possibly, my son, if he is fortunate enough to succeed me, and if he is lucky, will see it used as a road. While I accept that

505
there are occasions when land use comes into the picture—and I believe that the noble Lord mentioned a case outside Barnstaple which may be very pertinent—all too often this is not the case, and we find these—I hate to say "scars" because I am a railway lover—tracks which are still there. They can be seen to this day because they were never reincorporated when the line was taken up.
People have brought up the question of difficulty of operation, and the noble Lord who preceded me mentioned the cost. I know from personal experience the fantastic cost involved in running a railway; but it can be done and, if there are people who are willing to undertake it and who are fully aware of what it entails, I do not think that they should be discouraged. They should be given an opportunity at least to place their proposals before a responsible body, be it the Board or the Minister, and to say what they intend for the line. They should be allowed to say why they think it can continue and can play a part in the life of the country. That is why we should not allow ourselves to become bound up in the statutory powers which we all know of and which tend to be killing rather than life-giving. Quite often, we want things to go on which, with all due respect to the Board of British Rail—and it does very well and I have a great deal of time for it—a small unit can do better than a large one. If that small unit can show that, with all its complexities and difficulties—and I know those difficulties and have faced them—the thing can be done and it can win, it should be allowed to go ahead.
I think we should give the noble Lord, Lord Somers, a hearing and should welcome the Bill. The noble Lord mentioned dealing with the prices asked by British Rail. I believe that there should be a consideration of this sort put into it because British Rail, naturally and rightly—and I do not argue against it—has to get the best bargain for what it has. Most of what it has is scrap. As the noble Lord, Lord Greene said, the rolling stock will not be there. British Rail will have taken it away. There will be the track, the sleepers and the track-bed. The track and the sleepers are scrap and can command a scrap price;
506
but there will also be the cost of lifting them, which may take up all that British Rail would have got for the sale. If the track and sleepers could be left in situ and somebody could use them and get a reasonable return, so much the better. Before condemning the Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has brought forward, as I rather gathered from every speaker I have heard was the intention, I believe that some encouragement should be given to it. I welcome the Bill.
5.58 p.m.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, until the noble Marquess, Lord Ailsa, spoke, I did not think that a single word would be said in favour of the Bill. I see that there are grounds for criticism, but I confess that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, made me feel that my diction must be exceedingly bad because she did not hear several of the things that I said. For instance, she complained that there was no provision for ensuring adequate expertise in the organisation taking over the branch lines. I had already said that I intended to introduce a clause at Committee stage to deal with that point.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, when I wound up I said that the Amendments which the noble Lord wished to put down at Committee stage did not answer the major objection to the Bill; that it would still make it unacceptable to the Government. I specifically said that.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, to whom, naturally, I always listen with great respect when railways are under discussion, was, I am sorry to say, wholeheartedly against the Bill. He talked about British Rail's disposal of assets below their value, but who can say what is their value when they are not being used and when they are lying there as disused tracks? For instance, if one has an old suit which one never wears and which is rapidly deteriorating in quality, one does not expect a great price for it. On the other hand—
Lord CHAMPION: My Lords, the noble Lord asked, who is to decide what the value of the assets would be. In his Bill the Commission will decide the value

507
of the assets. Surely the point he is now making has no validity at all.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, that is just what the Bill provides for. I thought the noble Lord was complaining that the assets would be below value. I am merely saying what is their value, when they are being completely unused by anybody? However, though this Bill certainly has its imperfections as it stands, I am very glad that I have had one supporter in the noble Marquess, and I must tell him that I am extremely grateful to him. Although I think it possible that your Lordships will not want to pass the Bill, I should like to test the opinion of the House.
On Question. Motion for Second Reading negatived.

PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES (ARREST OF OFFENDERS) BILL [H.L.]
6.2 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a small, but I think important measure, designed to help the police, bus workers and the travelling public. It gives the police the power to arrest a person who is in breach of the regulations governing the conduct of passengers on buses and coaches, if that person withholds his name and address, or if he fails to satisfy the police officer that he has given his name and address correctly. We are all aware of the increase in hooliganism and vandalism in recent years—at football matches, on trains, in dance halls and at pop concerts. Buses and coaches have been especially vulnerable to this development. In 1974, in the Metropolitan Police district alone, the police were summoned to no fewer than 849 incidents on London Transport buses. But this figure undoubtedly underestimates the extent of the problem. Many more incidents were undoubtedly dealt with by the bus crews without the police being informed.
The most serious form of this hooliganism has been the increasing number of attacks on drivers and conductors, particularly in London but also in some of
508
the other conurbations. Some of these attacks have been exceedingly vicious. The House will recall that in one of them at the beginning of this year, a London bus conductor. Mr. Ronald Jones, died. The case is still sub judice, and therefore it would not be appropriate for me to say anything about it. But, following the one-day protest strike of London Transport staff which followed this tragic incident, Mr. Kenneth Robinson, the Chairman of London Transport, and Mr. Jack Jones, the General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union, and other union leaders, came to see my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Minister for Transport to discuss the situation, and to make representations to them. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary made it clear that the Government were determined to support the staff of London Transport and other bus operators in this situation. This Bill is the direct outcome of that meeting.
I should now like to explain the present position. The police already have power to arrest those assaulting bus crews and passengers. They do not, however, have the power to arrest those committing offences against the regulations governing the conduct of passengers on public service vehicles. These regulations—which form Part III of the Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1936, as amended—cover such matters as the use of obscene or offensive language, standing on the upper deck, damaging the vehicle, spitting, refusing to pay one's fare and causing injury or discomfort to any person. The maximum penalty on summary conviction for contravening, or failing to comply with, these regulations is a fine of £100.
My Lords, proceedings for a breach of these regulations is at present by way of summons. This means that when an incident occurs and the police are called to the scene they ask the offender for his name and address. If he refuses to give it, or on subsequent inquiry it proves that the name and address given are false, he may be able to escape prosecution. This Bill seeks to close that loophole.
My Lords, it is the Government's view that it is right in principle that offences of the kind dealt with in the regulations

509
should continue to be prosecuted by summons, whenever possible. Your Lordships will note that this Bill gives a power of arrest only where there has been a failure on the part of the offender to give his correct name and address. The Government take the view that it is neither necessary nor desirable to confer a wider power. If a passenger is willing and able to give and prove his name and address to the police officer on the spot, there is no point in arresting him and taking him to a police station. The power of arrest granted by the Bill will be a power in reserve, to be used only where the offender's lack of co-operation excludes the possibility of bringing him to court by way of summons.
As the House will see, the application of the Bill is restricted to England and Wales, because under Scottish law the police already have a general power of arrest which is exercisable in the circumstances set out in the Bill. This Bill is not, of course, a complete remedy for the problem of misconduct and violence on buses. But it is evidence of the Government's determination to take all appropriate measures to deal with that problem. We believe that the Bill will add significantly to the powers of the police and will help to ensure that those who misbehave on public transport do not escape prosecution. We believe that it will have the effect of discouraging hooligans and vandals, and so diminish the number of assaults and other incidents in which bus crews and other innocent passengers suffer. Accordingly, I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
6.7 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, this is a modest but, nevertheless, welcome measure which will assist the police in dealing with hooligans who commit offences on buses. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said, the police already have powers to arrest any passenger who commits an assault, not only on the crew but, indeed, on other passengers. I understand that previously offences falling short of an assault—such as the use of offensive language, or some forms of vandalism—could be evaded, so far as detection and subsequent trial were concerned, by refusal on the part
510
of the offender to give his or her name and address.
My Lords, the need for this Bill is perhaps an illustration of the attitude of some members of the public towards those whose job, after all, is to help fulfil their needs. I do not suppose that this Bill in itself will act as much of a deterrent, except that it will assist the police in the detection and clearing up of such offences. It seems to me that, as in so many areas of criminal behaviour; the real deterrent for these people is the certainty of detection and thereafter conviction. Therefore perhaps I could take this opportunity of welcoming some of the other measures recently taken in this field, such as the provision of two-way radios and klaxons. I understand that in some cases police officers in plain clothes are now encouraged—or even required—to travel on certain routes at certain times.
Another matter which is just as important as measures to apprehend these offenders is the attitude of the courts. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will say that questions of sentencing are nothing to do with him or, indeed, with the Home Office, and if anybody is concerned with this matter it is the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack—or perhaps I should say who normally sits on the Woolsack. But another complicating factor which I appreciate is that, as I understand the situation, the majority of these offences take place not when the public houses close, but when the schools close in the middle of the afternoon.
Although I am not aware of the figures, one can assume that the average age of offenders in this category must be fairly young, so that the courts are restricted in what they can do when they are eventually apprehended and brought before them. Nevertheless, I venture to hope that magistrates should be encouraged—to put it no higher—to use the powers of sentencing which they presently have in suitable cases where exemplary punishment may he called for. All too often one reads of these frightening and terrible scenes which take place on public transport, and at the end of the day the malefactors, as such they are, are either let off to find what one can only describe as a nominal or derisory sum.

511
My Lords, I intended to ask the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, what enactment applies to Scotland, since this Bill does not extend there, but I do not think it is very fair of me to do so and I shall not. I would merely say for the Record that these offences in Glasgow have been just as bad as in any other city in Great Britain and I am very pleased that the police in Scotland already have these powers. It is, perhaps, one more case where Scottish law is already in advance of that South of the Border. With these few words I welcome this Bill.
6.11 p.m.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, having spent six years as a PSV driver and conductor, I felt I could not let this little Bill go through without saying a few words and joining the last two speakers in giving it a welcome. Its provisions do not go very far but this Bill, which is long overdue, is at least a start. Like a great deal of legislation, no action is taken until a tragedy has taken place. I should like to outline a few situations where trouble occurs. The first and main one is with people who quibble about paying the proper fare and an argument ensues. For some reason or other, there has always been great resentment on the part of many people, especially when there has been a sharp increase. The person who suffers the brunt of their complaints is the conductor or driver, who has nothing whatever to do with the fares except that it is part of his or her job to collect them. I can well remember the vitriol and abuse that was bestowed on me on a certain occasion, especially when I found someone who overrode and was made to pay again. Happily, I did not suffer any physical violence, although there were times when I thought I was near to it.
When people refuse to pay or do not have the money, one is supposed to issue a ticket, take their name and address and then produce witnesses with their addresses—all of which is a rather cumbersome procedure. I do not suppose there is any other course and I suppose it is necessary. Schoolchildren, whom my noble friend has just mentioned, are indeed natural offenders and one might expect them to be so. One has of course to watch them like a hawk, especially those with passes which they try to pass around to other people who do not have
512
them. It is very difficult to prove an offence, unless they transfer a pass to one of another sex. Then one can ask a boy, "Is your name Maisie?" and then you have got him, but it is rather difficult to prove.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, mentioned people who have had a drink. Again, this is a rather unpleasant aspect. The conductor feels after a long and wearisome day that if a person can afford to go out and get drunk he can afford to pay his fare to get home. This can be particularly troublesome in tourist areas, where people are rightly described as the salt of the earth and are absolutely lovely, but only when they are sober. It would be a very sad thing indeed if the day ever came when all late-night buses had to be discontinued, as I believe they have been in some places. The majority of persons conduct themselves in an orderly fashion. Traditionally, people have felt that a lighted bus going down a dark street is a safe place, where they can travel unmolested. Unfortunately, this is becoming rather less so. This Bill will at least give the bus operative an assurance that, if he or she has trouble, the police will have powers to be more effective and thus arrest the offender on the spot if he fails to give an address.
There is one question which I should like to ask the Minister. I do not know whether it is possible, by amending this Bill, to make it mandatory for people to produce some identification when giving their address. I know this is difficult and might be unpleasant, but it is easy for a person to say that he is John Smith of somewhere, and you really cannot prove it unless he produces something. In this country we do not have identification cards, and we do not all have driving licences, but people usually have a letter or a photograph or something which they can produce. If that provision can be put into the Bill, it will be a very good thing.
I understand that, where possible, the police are assisting the busmen. I spoke on the telephone to Mr. Young, the bus secretary of the London Transport Section, of the Transport and General Workers' Union. He said there was great co-operation with the police, where possible. I would also ask the Minister whether he can impress upon bus

513
operators all over the country the need for bus inspectors to be on late duty. I do not say very often, but on some occasions they are slightly early home birds and do not always cover the late duties. But their very presence on the bus, the figure in the uniform and the peaked cap, can help to allay trouble on some occasions.
There is also the other side of the coin; that is, the approach of the driver and the conductor towards the public. There are some situations beyond anyone's control where, however pleasant and tactful a conductor has been, he suffers assault. But there are others where trouble can be avoided. I well remember making an unfortunate remark that could well have been left unsaid and I had to retract very quickly, and that could possibly be said of all of us. This is most easily done. I understand that London Transport have instituted seminars on the human approach, and I hope this move can be extended all over the country. A documentary film could be made showing situations which could or could not have been avoided. I understand that both the Confederation of British Road Transport and the Transport and General Workers' Union—whose Secretary has rightly taken a personal interest in this matter—give this Bill their blessing. The only suggestion that was made was to allow for the use of hazard lights when pulling on to stops. Finally, I hope that when this Bill passes into law the maximum publicity will be given, which might at least deter some people from being an infernal nuisance.
6.16 p.m.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, I did not intend to intervene in this debate, but I should be grateful if the Minister would clear one point. I warmly welcome the Bill, having known some of my former constituents who were badly assaulted on late night buses. The Minister explained that this Bill refers to buses and coaches. Could he tell us whether the powers which we are seeking in this Bill for buses and coaches are already available in respect of tube trains and railway trains?
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to follow up the point made by my noble friend. I particularly wel-
514
come the Bill. I travel from here on the No. 11 bus at night and meet some very strange characters, though I have never personally seen anybody assaulted. I should like to know whether this, or some other legislation, will cover the other kind of public transport upon which assaults also occur—namely, taxis. There have been some unfortunate incidents of both robbery and assault and I gather they are on the increase.
6.19 p.m.
The Duke of ATHOLL: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, I should very much like to support the final point made by my noble friend Lord Teviot, in relation to publicity. It is most important that the provisions of this small Bill when it becomes law, as I, like everyone else, hope it will, should be given the maximum publicity. What worries me, as this Bill does not apply to Scotland, is that those who misbehave themselves on buses in Scotland may think that they are safe in so doing. I hope at the same time as the Home Office organises the publicity for this Bill when it becomes an Act, the Scottish Office will make it perfectly clear that the provisions contained in this Bill already apply to Scotland, and that we will not have an increase in the amount of trouble that we have had in one or two Scottish cities in the past few years.
6.20 p.m.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, may I briefly say a word or two from the magistrates' side? We certainly welcome this Bill. As I am sure the noble Lord knows, we would welcome anything that would help the police apprehend offenders of any age. This particular Bill, as the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, indicated, will help the police apprehend and bring to justice—whatever one might think of that word in the present context of the Children and Young Persons Act—schoolchildren hooligans. These are the young people that we find in our area on the periphery of London are the main offenders not only in evading fares but in assaults on bus conductors. I have had—I will not say "many"—quite a number of children brought before my court when they have collectively assaulted a bus conductor.
I hope that this Bill will be brought into being quite soon. I should like to suggest to the Minister that the schools

515
should be made aware of the new provisions in this Bill because, as other noble Lords have said, the more publicity we can give to it, the more we can tell the potential offenders of the amount of fines they might have to pay if they are brought to court, and perhaps the more we can protect the public and also make the young children aware of what they might face if they infringe the law.
6.22 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I have a number of points to answer. I will do my best to cover all of them. I am grateful to the noble Earl and to everybody else who has, without exception, welcomed the Bill. I will now endeavour to deal with the points of detail. The noble Earl, and the noble Duke who has just resumed his seat, asked about the position in Scotland. The noble Earl was kind enough to say that he did not expect me to answer today. I have good news for him. I can give him the answer. At the moment offences of this sort committed in Scotland are covered by Scottish Common Law. That is the situation, I am advised, so far as Scotland is concerned.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, asked about the situation as far as tube trains and other trains are concerned. These are already covered by the Transport Act, and in London by other regulations. Therefore there is no need to take any action as far as they are concerned. My noble friend Lady Phillips asked about the situation of taxis. I fear they are not covered by any other Statute or by this Bill. They are not public service vehicles as defined by the 1960 Road Traffic Act. Assaults, which is the point she raised, are covered already as far as assaults on buses are concerned. We are dealing here with a situation affecting a breach of regulations falling short of assault. That is the mischief that we hope to deal with in this Bill.
The noble Earl raised a number of other points. He said first (and on this point I agree with him totally) that the best deterrent to offences of this sort, and crime generally, is the likelihood of detection and thereafter conviction. He raised the question as far as the position of the courts is concerned, and he pro-
516
phesied that if he raised this point and asked what was the Government's attitude, I would reply that this was not a matter for Ministers, and certainly not Home Office Ministers. He made that prophecy, and once again he is wholly right. That is my answer. It is not a matter for the Home Secretary to make a series of pronouncements on what the penalties for particular offences should be. That is a matter for the Judiciary. From time to time I know that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, when speaking to gatherings of magistrates, gives his view about the pattern of crime at that time facing our society. I know that on previous occasions within the last year my noble and learned friend has spoken on this particular subject to magistrates. Therefore, replying on his behalf on this occasion, I can say that he is well aware of this, and has done what a number of noble Lords have asked for in this debate.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I may say I am proposing to do this tomorrow in speaking to a gathering of magistrates.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, in that case noble Lords will be even more gratified. The noble Earl also asked about klaxons and whether these should not be used. In fact, London Transport are pressing ahead with the introduction of a system of the intermittent sounding of a horn and the flashing of lights to give warning of assault, or some other serious development, on a particular bus. That is going on at the moment. In addition to this situation in London, in a number of provincial cities there are already arrangements for the installation of two-way radios in buses. This exists in Glasgow, in Leicester, in Preston, in Merseyside and in West Yorkshire. Not all the buses have two-way radios; but in areas where there have been incidents the local bus companies decided to bring these types of vehicle into service on those routes. In Leicester, this has led to quite a substantial number of people appearing in court for committing offences in the general area covered in the debate today. This has been a useful development and has deterred others from committing similar offences.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, are the two-way radios between

517
the conductor and the driver or between the police and the driver?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My understanding would be that the communication is from the bus to the depot. I assume that is the way in which a message would be passed to give warning of whether the conductor was being assaulted or something of that sort was taking place.
The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, who has substantial experience in this matter, spoke about people who argued about the fare. This was one of the problems confronting us last year. Many of these violent episodes began in London as a result of a person or a group of youths refusing to pay their fares. The problem which confronted the bus crews was that at that stage a policeman could demand an address, and he might not secure the co-operation of the perseon concerned. Under this Bill that problem will be dealt with. If a person refused to pay his fare (and this is often the preliminary to an act of violence) and the conductor then insisted on the man paying, the bus can be driven to a police station, or a policeman can step on to the bus and require the person declining to pay his fare to produce evidence of identity; and if the policeman is not satisfied, he can make an arrest. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, asked on this question of identification whether something could not be written into the Bill specifying the sort of evidence required for the policeman to be satisfied that a person was who he said he was. This problem is not a particularly serious one. It is covered by a good deal of other legislation. The police will have to be satisfied, as in other matters, of the identity of a person. If they are not so satisfied, then they would have the power to arrest.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether the practice of giving false addresses is very common; because if so it seems to leave an awful loop-hole. I cannot think of any way to get round it. Is it a serious practice?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, on a number of occasions I understand there have been serious problems with this type of offence in London, and that is why we are asking this House
518
and another place to give the police these powers whereby they will require clear evidence of identification, and they will have to be so satisfied. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, raised the question of the degree of co-operation between the police and bus authorities. Since October of last year there has been an arrangement in London whereby a police liaison officer has been with each bus garage in the London Transport area. He has been an officer of the rank of inspector. This has improved the degree of police/London Transport co-operation but, nevertheless, as a result of what has happened since October, it did not go far enough. That is why we are recommending that we proceed with this Bill today.
My Lords, I believe I have answered most, if not all, of the questions asked by noble Lords. I should like to conclude by thanking the House once again for giving this Bill, modest though it is, but nevertheless effective in my view, such a warm welcome, and I hope it will soon be on the Statute Book.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FRIENDS' PROVIDENT LIFE OFFICES BILL
Reported with Amendments.