Lords Sitting of 29 June 1976

Preamble
The House met at a quarter-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwell.

LORD MURRAY OF GRAVESEND
Albert James Murray, Esquire, having been created Baron Murray of Gravesend, of Gravesend in the County of Kent, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Serota and the Lord Greenwood of Rossendale.

TRANSIT OF ANIMALS ORDER: PROSECUTIONS
2.32 p.m.
Lord JANNER: 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 what steps have been taken recently to initiate prosecutions under the Transit of Animals (General) Order 1973 and what has been the results of such proceedings.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, enforcement of this order is a responsibility of the local authorities. During the current year, following incidents at Heathrow airport, four prosecutions have been undertaken by the Corporation of London, three against airlines and one against an individual; another two cases are pending. The four prosecutions referred to were successful and fines of £50, £250, £750 and £10,800 were imposed in addition to costs.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that that Answer will give considerable satisfaction—indeed, has already brought considerable satisfaction—to animal lovers throughout the country? Is he aware that they are very anxious that this kind of proceeding should be pursued as assiduously as possible, particularly in view of the fact that, on the
660
very day on which the last case was heard, 2,000 birds arrived, most of them dead on arrival?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords. In regard to those 2,000 birds, which unfortunately were found to be dead on arrival, inquiries are proceeding to ascertain the cause of death. I would rather not comment at the moment as a prosecution may be pending. In the general case, though, I am glad to say that officials of the Corporation of London have confirmed that they are most concerned to ensure that birds or animals should not be transported to Heathrow under conditions likely to cause unnecessary suffering, and that they are ready, and indeed anxious, as one would expect, to prosecute any airline, British or foreign, which contravenes the Transit of Animals (General) Order.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, as this is not the first time that we have canvassed this Question in your Lordships' House, may I ask the noble Lord to say how many, if any, of the prosecutions which have so far taken place and reached their conclusion were against foreign corporations and airlines?—because up to this moment the Government's attitude was that it was impossible to undertake such prosecutions.
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords. Of the four prosecutions to which I alluded, two were against foreign airlines. Originally, as the noble and learned Lord said, there was a misunderstanding of the legal position but, following talks between my Department and the Corporation of London, it has been decided that they can prosecute foreign airlines, and they are anxious and willing to do so whenever necessary.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: That is very gratifying news, my Lords, but does it not demonstrate the value of scepticism shown in your Lordship's House about the legal advice that is sometimes given to the Government?
Lord STRABOLGI: No, my Lords. I must get this right. First of all, the prosecuting authority is the local authority, as laid down in the Transit of Animals (General) Order. The Magistrates' Rules

661
were wrongly interpreted by the Corporation of London. Due to Questions by my noble friend and publicity in the Press, on my instructions, the Department entered into consultations with the Corporation of London and there is now a full understanding of the position.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that we are aware that the Government have been pressing very considerably on this matter and that we are grateful to them for having opposed the view expressed by another authority that these proceedings could not be taken against foreign airlines? We are most grateful for what has been done.
Lord LOVAT: My Lords, was the noble Lord referring to birds with feathers?
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, I assume that the answer is, Yes, but may I ask the noble Lord to confirm that the animals in question are destroyed ?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords; indeed, I am afraid that most of the poor creatures are dead on arrival.

NUCLEAR ACTIVITIES: SAFEGUARDS
2.37 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: 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 what response they have made to Japan's ratification of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and their proposals for the complete abolition of nuclear weapons and acceptance of the safeguards to peaceful nuclear activities required by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, we have welcomed Japan's ratification as an event of great significance which gives much support and encouragement to those who are already parties to the Treaty. Her
662
Majesty's Government play an active role in international efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament under strict and effective international control. During the negotiations on the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Her Majesty's Government stated that they would be prepared to offer an opportunity for the application of safeguards in the United Kingdom subject to exclusions for national security reasons only. I am glad to be able to inform the House that discussions on the agreement between the United Kingdom, the International Atomic Energy Agency and Euratom to implement this voluntary offer have now been concluded satisfactorily and we expect to sign the agreement in the near future.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while appreciating that Answer, may I ask the Minister whether it would not be appropriate, as Japan first suffered from the atomic holocaust, that this should he made the occasion for an initiative for nuclear disarmament? Is it not the case that France, China and the Soviet Union, among others, had declared for the total abolition of nuclear weapons, and, in view of the extension of power stations, is this not now a very urgent matter?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it is indeed an urgent matter, and practically every country that has anything to do with nuclear physics is in favour of as early as possible complete disarmament in this field. A number of very useful initiatives are now proceeding, the practicality of which will receive the full-hearted support of Her Majesty's Government, and Japan's signature of ratification of this important Treaty will itself, I hope, give a tremendous fillip to its extension to other countries which so far have not ratified the Treaty.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that complete nuclear disarmament is not a possibility until it is generally agreed that inspection in everybody's territory will be allowed?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, of course, my Lords. There can be no effective disarmament without full verification.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is it not the case that there has been a great advance recently in the principle of accepting verification on the part of the Soviet Union? And may I ask my noble friend, in relation to the latter part of his Answer, whether the Soviet Union has yet accepted the safeguards laid down by the International Atomic Energy Authority?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the Soviet Union is a party to the arrangements under the IAEA. As to the advance in the acceptability of verification, some progress has been made but, clearly, not quite enough.

ARMY WEAPONS AND AMMUNITION
2.42 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: 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 whether they can now make a Statement on the proposed new rifle and ammunition for the Army.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Yes, my Lords. As the Government announced in the Statement on the Defence Estimates, a new family of small arms and ammunition to replace the 7.62 mm self-loading rifle, the 9mm sub-machine gun and the 7.62 mm general purpose machine gun in the light role have been developed to enable Britain to compete in NATO trials for the selection of small arms ammunition on which NATO forces may standardise. The calibre of the ammunition we have developed is 4.85 mm, and the weapons comprise a self-loading rifle with an automatic fire capability and a machine gun. The weapons and their ammunition are considerably lighter than the present small arms; this will lighten the soldier's load and reduce logistic requirements without sacrificing firepower. We are confident that they will set a very high standard in the NATO tests which their competitors will find difficult to beat.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I did not gather from my noble friend's reply that
664
there had been consultation with our allies in NATO: can he answer that question? Also, if there have been consultations, what was the result? May I ask whether he is aware that in 1951 we produced what was regarded as the most efficient rifle to date and one which took consistent ammunition, but that the Americans and the Belgians rejected our request that this should become a standardised weapon for NATO at that time? How are we to take care that a similar difficulty does not arise on this occasion?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the plan is to standardise on whatever round or rounds are selected by the Conference of National Arms Directors. If our concept of a rifle and a light machine gun firing a 4-85 mm round is proved the best in the tests which are to take place in the United Kingdom and Germany from 1977 to 1979, then we are confident that that will prove that our two weapons are perhaps the most suitable for the NATO forces as a whole. However, if the Conference of National Arms Directors decides on a larger calibre—for instance, that which is standard in the French, American and other forces, 5.56 mm, which is just under three-quarters of a millimetre larger than this one—our designs can be converted to the larger calibre, thus avoiding the unhappy situation which arose over the EM2 rifle, produced in the days of my noble friend's responsibility for such matter, and which made it impossible for the EM2 to be adapted to the larger 7.62 mm calibre which was ultimately decided upon.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, these particulars are very interesting, but I still await the reply that I am anxious to obtain from my noble friend about the consultations. It is all very well to produce something, but if we merely produce it and leave it at that, it is not really of very much value.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I thought that I had answered that point. The point is that there is a group—the Conference of National Arms Directors—which is now in consultation on this basic round. The weapons that will be produced for the 1980s will be based on a standard element of ammunition; that is, a standard round. Our rifle will be able to take either the calibre that we

665
think the best or the 5.56 mm which may be thought the better.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that that is standardising the ammunition, whereas it may be that there is something to be said for standardising the rifle?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I believe that if we can agree on a standard piece of ammunition, logistics will be made much easier thereby.
Lord SWANSEA: Is the noble Lord aware that the 4.85 mm cartridge has a very much shorter effective range than the present 7.62 mm cartridge used in the NATO countries? If a cartridge of that calibre is adopted, will not the present 7.62 mm cartridge still have to be retained for machine guns in a support role?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Lord is entirely correct. The 7.62 mm cartridge will be retained for armoured vehicles. This is for the infantry weapon.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend in a position to satisfy my interest as to who this Conference of Directors is responsible to? To whom shall they report? Is it to be their respective Governments?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, at the end of the day, it will clearly be to their respective Governments.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord has quite understood my question. I am of course quite aware that unless one has the same ammunition one cannot standardise the rifle. But would it not be a good thing to standardise the rifle?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, let us hope that the tests from 1977 to 1979 in the United Kingdom and Germany will prove that the British weapon is the best. However, as long as the round is standard, we have overcome the major hurdle in harmonising our logistic problems.
Lord THOMAS: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm or deny that this is another big step forward in metrication ?
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, in order to underline the need for standardisation, would the noble Lord give us the number of different calibres of ammunition currently used by the NATO forces? Is it not true to say that, despite the desire of independent countries to standardise, the numbers are rather greater now than they were 20 years ago?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is a highly technical question, but I think that the calibres are 9 mm, 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm. We are hoping to get the number down to two.

ANIMALS: INSPECTIONS AND LICENCES
2.48 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: 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 whether they have seen the statements attributed to Professor Patricia Scott of the Royal Free Hospital Medical School and others published in the Observer colour supplement of 13th June, relating to the nature of Home Office inspections and the granting of licences under the Cruelty to Animals Act 1896, and whether they will make a Statement.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my right honourable friend is glad to have the opportunity to repudiate the inferences in the statements referring to Home Office inspections and the grant of licences. They are not attributed to Professor Scott, but to an unnamed animal technician, and I understand that Professor Scott has already informed my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby that she disclaims them.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that he is correct in saying that I have received a letter from Professor Patricia Scott, disclaiming any responsibility for the comments mentioned in the article of criticism of the administration of the

667
Act? May I further ask my noble friend whether he thinks that it is satisfactory to rely for information about what is going on in the field of animal experiments, upon disclosures in articles of this kind ? Is my noble friend aware that the Parliamentary Animal Welfare Group, which comprises Members of all Parties in both Houses, submitted a memorandum to the Home Secretary six weeks ago, asking for an interview to discuss the whole question of the functions, initiatives and powers of the Advisory Committee ? Will he kindly ask his right honourable friend to apply his mind to this problem and so spare us the problem of disclosures which have to be disclaimed and repudiated in this way?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I will do what the noble Lord asks me to do.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, is it not a fact that, although the statements may be repudiated by the professor who has been named, the really important matter is whether most of the statements in that article are true? Would Her Majesty's Government agree with me that, allowing for a certain exaggeration which is liable to take place in a newspaper article, the great majority of these statements, including the ones attributed to me, are true?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if the noble Lord is referring to inspection and issue of licences, I should say that the description of an inspection given in the Observer article is a travesty of fact. The inspectorate regularly visit places registered under the Act for the performance of experiments. In 1974—the last year for which figures are available—there were 601 such places, to which 4,284 visits of inspection were made, mostly without notice. In addition, 207 visits were made to other places in connection with the administration of the Act. So far as licences are concerned, they are not issued merely to anybody. An application for a licence must be supported by a recommendation from the president of one of a number of learned societies named in the Act and by a professor in a medical or veterinary discipline.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that I have been nearly all those things, including a
668
member of the advisory committee to the Home Office? As I have said before, allowing for a certain amount of newspaper exaggeration, a great many of those statements are entirely true. Are Her Majesty's Government further aware that when I have been called upon to countersign certificates and have refused one it has been immediately passed to another professor who has passed it, and that when as president of a college I was asked to countersign certificates and refused one it was immediately passed to the president of another college and dealt with?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I can only repeat that since the appearance of this article very careful consideration has been given to the content, and my information is that the article relating to inspection reveals a travesty of facts. I do not think that I can go beyond that.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, can my noble friend say why, even though we are halfway through 1976, the appropriate figures for 1975 are not yet available?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I wonder how many statistics for 1975 in any field are in fact available at present. It takes considerably more than just five or six months to get statistics relating to the previous year. It is not uncommon for statistics to be 18 months in arrear. I have the total number of experiments for up to not quite the end of 1975; the figure is 5,379,084. As I say, that was the figure of the total number of experiments up until not quite the end of 1975, but the final figures for that year will be available within the next few months.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, is my noble friend saying that the whole business is now efficiently computerised?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I would not know that, my Lords, but I am quite certain that there is a great deal of efficiency to be found when it comes to compiling statistics. One just cannot, in the middle of one year, expect to have statistics of certain types up to the end of the preceding year.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, is it not the case that during the currency of the last

669
Conservative Government but about two, a committee was set up to deal with this subject? is it not also the case that its full recommendations have not been carried out by the last two Labour Governments or the last two Conservative Governments? Will the noble Lord now consider whether this wonderful, efficient Administration under which we all suffer will at last bring those recommendations into effect?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am sure that if there have been four Administrations who have decided to do nothing about this matter there must be a very good reason behind it. I shall certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me where on earth he gets the idea that if Governments do not do anything there is a good reason for it?

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
2.55 p.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts will repeat a Statement on the Puerto Rico Summit Meeting. I should also like to take this opportunity to draw the attention of your Lordships to the construction in front of the Galleries. This represents the size of the commentary box, and the brass railing, proposed by the Joint Committee on Sound Broadcasting in its first report, which we shall be debating next week. The House may find it useful as a guide in considering that report.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, before we get on to the broadcasting zareba, may I ask the noble Baroness whether, in addition to the Statement on Puerto Rico, we could not be favoured with the same Statement on the Angolan trials as that with which I believe another place is being favoured?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, that matter was
670
considered through the usual channels and it was decided that this House would not wish to take that Statement.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness could reconsult the usual channels? I ask this because some of us were unaware, until we had lunch in another place, that this matter was taking place, and I think that there are noble Lords in this House who would wish to question the Government upon the Statement.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord would like to consult his own usual channel about that.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, why should the usual channels have come to a decision on an important issue of this kind? There are Members of your Lordships' House who will be prevented from listening to a Statement on this subject and perhaps offering some opinions.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Of course, my Lords, the usual channels always consider the total Business of the clay, and it is a consensus of their judgment on every occasion when this arises, whether, in the light of all the rest of the Business, to take a second Statement when we are already due to take one, and when we also have an Introduction. These arrangements normally proceed without any trouble.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, nobody has a greater admiration or affection for the usual channels than I have and I should be the last to question their judgment, but now that this matter has been raised and some of your Lordships on both sides of the House feel that this Statement ought to be made, I wonder whether on this occasion the usual channels would reconsider the matter?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, if the Front Bench speakers on both sides of the House will be available to deal with and discuss the Statement, I am always prepared to reconsider the position, especially after such flattering remarks, but it may not be possible.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, will my noble friend accept a Motion for the abolition of the usual channels?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I am about to propose a Motion for the abolition of everybody over 90!

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
8 p.m.
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.

RIVER MEDWAY (FLOOD RELIEF) BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
EDINBURGH MERCHANT COMPANY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
3 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Melchett): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Ferrers I should like to express some views from this side of the House on the Third Reading of this important Bill. We ranged very widely in our discussions on Part I of this Bill, and I should like to say what a landmark it is to see this new clause, Clause 5, providing that " aqua-culture " be deemed to be " agriculture ". This is a very significant step, because the campaign which has been pursued by my noble friend Lady Emmet of Amberley and my noble friend Lord Balerno over a
672
period of years has culminated in this new clause in the Bill; and, my Lords, it is a very important element in the battle for food in this country. Of course, it was very significant that it was only yesterday that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who made a most interesting Statement on fisheries policy, should have replied to a question put to him by my noble friend Lady Emmet on whether the fisheries policy was going to include the matters to which she referred.
My Lords, in our deliberations we considered in very great detail Part II of the Bill and the inheritance provisions, which have preoccupied much of the time; and if perhaps, from this side of the House, I were to stress one quotation, it would be that of my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel in col. 937 of the Official Report of 14th June:
"… our experience of our present practice in Scotland is leading to second thoughts. Even now, as a result of our practice, very able young farmers are being squeezed out and cannot become tenants of farms ".
That quotation really is the synthesis of our views on much of Part II of the Bill. Although it was the Government's intention to bring the inheritance provisions applicable in Scotland in 1968 into line with those in England, perhaps I might remind your Lordships most respectfully that this was not new in Scotland since the 1968 Act restored a system repealed ten years earlier.
I am very much aware that my noble friend Lord Ferrers is not present this afternoon as he has been officially representing the Opposition in the Seychelles on the occasion of their celebrations of independence, but during the earlier part of our discussions he referred to his own law, Ferrers' Law, which states that Statutes frequently have precisely the opposite effect from that which their instigators intended. The Government have embarked upon a course of action, we believe, without adequate preparation and with only superficial discussions with the industry—I think this has been acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett—and from the outset we have been worried about Clause 17, which amends Section 24(2)(g) of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948. We are still anxious about it. We still believe that this will prove to be a very good instance of the law of my noble friend Lord Ferrers,

673
and that the repercussions and consequences of this piece of legislation may be quite the opposite of those which the Ministry of Agriculture intend, and indeed the promotions of Her Majesty's Government.
My Lords, from these Benches I should like to thank all those who have assisted in our deliberations. It would be invidious to thank any individual noble Lord, but I feel I must thank especially, in his absence, my noble friend Lord Ferrers for the very prominent part he played at all stages of the Bill. Further, we have been reinforced in our discussions by many contributions from all over the House. It has been significant that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has carried the whole weight of the Bill himself, and on behalf of my noble friend, and indeed myself, I should like to thank him for his very courteous replies on many occasions, and for his very careful explanations. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, did assist him in the case of one or two Amendments, I think, but, nevertheless, the whole weight of the Bill lay with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett.
I think it would be inappropriate at this stage to make specific further comments on particular clauses. I have spoken for a sufficient length of time to mention our views about the Bill, and, as I am about to sit down, I should like to say finally that we on these Benches believe that the Government have been misguided to bring it to us.
3.4 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I was going to thank the noble Lord for his kind remarks to me in saying how I had dealt with the Amendments, but I am not sure that thanks are entirely due in view of his parting shot. The noble Lord started off with a reference to " aquaculture ", and, of course, we had a worthwhile debate on the subject when the Amendment was introduced into the Bill. He said that it was a landmark. I think it would have been very helpful if he had given us some indication of the public expenditure effects of the Amendment which he and his noble friends have pressed into the Bill; exactly what expenditure they see arising from the Amendment, how it is to be met and, indeed, what other expenditure they would
674
like to see cut to make room for this expenditure. That also would have been very helpful to myself and my colleagues in considering the Amendment further.
The noble Lord went on to talk about the family succession scheme. I certainly have never accepted at any stage of the Bill's passage that it was introduced after only superficial discussions with the industry. Quite the reverse. I said on more than one occasion that the family succession scheme was introduced into this Bill in large part because of the urgings of the industry that the scheme should be introduced quickly. That, indeed, is why the scheme, while it was not in the Bill when it was first introduced and had its Second Reading, was introduced at the Committee stage. It was precisely because of the urgings from the industry. As the noble Lord knows, the Government, and I believe the bulk of the farming industry, are firmly of the belief that the scheme will work and have the desired effect, and will be much to the good, the long-term good, of British agriculture. The stability that it will bring to the tenant farmer can only be in the long-term interests of farming and of the way in which tenant farmers look after their land.
As all noble Lords who have anything to do with farming know, farming is a long-term business. If one is looking to considerations of the health of your soil structure, this is something which may well take several generations to improve in the long run. That is why we believe it is important that tenants should not feel that at the existing tenant's death the whole family, who may all have been working on the farm for many years, are going to be asked to leave by the landlord for no good reason at all. We believe the scheme that we have introduced in the Bill will be welcomed by the farming industry—indeed, as I have said, it was at their urgings, in part, that it was introduced —and that it will be very much to the long-term benefit of agriculture. That is why we have included it in a Miscellaneous Provisions Bill and why I am glad to say that, while some undesirable changes and some fairly fundamental changes have been made to the scheme while the Bill has been in your Lordships' House, your Lordships have seen fit to leave the basic scheme in the Bill. I am sure that that has been a wise decision.

675
Finally, may I thank the noble Lord and his noble friends for the way in which they have put up with the fact that I have done my best to answer what at times has been a series of questions from different sources on the Benches opposite to the best of my ability over here, and say that I hope that when the Bill comes back to us again from the Commons we shall be able to see the scheme much improved yet again and see it on the Statute Book as quickly as possible. I believe that many noble Lords on all sides of the House feel that if we are to have a scheme it is desirable to see it on the Statute Book as soon as we can.
On question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
3.10 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—[Lord Harris of Greenwich.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Baroness TWEEDSMUIR Of BELHEL-VIE in the Chair.]
Clause 37 [Vehicle, drivers' and operators' licences]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 42, line 17, leave out " licensed in pursuance of this Part of this Act ".
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 56. It is a drafting Amendment to make clear that an unlicensed driver does not escape the law merely because his vehicle is also unlicensed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 37, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill ?
Baroness YOUNG: We have already had an extensive debate on whether Clause 36 shall stand part of the Bill, and it is not my intention to take up the time of the Committee unnecessarily by repeating what I and my colleagues consider about the whole of Part II of the Bill. I shall be putting forward suggestions each time on the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part, because of what we regard as the extraordinary procedure that has been adopted in another place of including this entire Part of the Bill at the Committee stage, basing it on a Private Act of Parliament and not giving anyone the opportunity to make representations or to be consulted, although the interests of both the Taxi-drivers' Association and the Private Car Hire Association have been involved.
My purpose in raising these matters is to draw this to your Lordships' attention. I do not propose to speak at length on all of these clauses but I wish at the start of this Committee procedure to register once again my feelings on the subject, and to say that I believe the correct way to proceed would have been for the Home Office to bring forward a Bill on this matter on which there had been full consultation.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Let me start on a happy note by saying how much I agree with what the noble Baroness has said. That was the Government's position but, unhappily—and I, like the noble Baroness, do not propose to go over my last speech on Clause 36—the fact is that the Government were defeated in Committee in another place and the Government have accepted the majority view expressed there. I agree with the noble Baroness. My honourable friend who sought to persuade a number of members of my Party as well as a number of members of the noble Baroness's Party about the merits of the Government position on this matter, deployed some of the arguments which the noble Baroness has deployed. That was not the view of the Committee in another place and the Government feel it appropriate to accept that decision. Had this been a Government Bill there would have been thorough and protracted discussion with local interests. I do not think that this is a happy way in which to legislate.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: What an extraordinary position we are in at the moment? Here we have speakers from both sides of the Committee saying that we are about to let go through a part of a Bill which is ill-conceived and badly designed and should never have come to your Lordships' House at all. Yet both seem perfectly prepared to sit down under this extraordinarily stupid piece of legislation and let it go through—which, in itself, seems quite crazy. Speaking, as I do, for people who live in the country and who are going to be injured by this Bill unless we can do something about it, amending it very considerably as it goes through this House, I think that we are neglecting grossly our duty in not throwing out every clause. If I could get a Teller to join me I would divide the Committee.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 [Licensing of hackney carriages]:
On Question, Whether Clause 38 shall stand part of the Bill ?
3.16 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: On this clause we are talking about the licensing of hackney carriages. It was perfectly clear from the short debate we had on Clause 36 that there have been no consultations at all with the taxidrivers' associations. I should like to take this opportunity to press the noble Lord, Lord Harris, a little further about what we may expect from the Home Office following on Part II. I am glad to feel that we are both in entire agreement that this is not the correct way to legislate. Although I have deep sympathy with the point of view expressed by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, I do not feel it would be right at this stage to take out Part II of the Bill, tempting though it is to attempt such a procedure.
I understand that the principal reason for including it was pressure from the Association of District Councils. They did so because a number of authorities are promoting Private Bills which include all these clauses. Part II of this Bill is based on the Plymouth City Council Act which was based on the Act of Liverpool. Now it is going to be incorporated in toto in general legislation. If, on both sides of the Committee, we are agreed that it is
678
not correct as it is, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Harris, can say when the Home Office now intend to publish their Consultative Document on the future of taxis and private hire cars and, following on that, when they intend to legislate. I believe this to be important, because I believe it to be most unlikely that we shall get Part H into proper form considering it in this way at this stage of the proceedings on the Bill.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The position is that the Government still propose to issue a Consultative Document. That will be done fairly soon after this Bill goes on the Statute Book. Obviously, the consultations with the various interests will now take place on rather a different basis. Those will be pressed on with and, as soon as they are concluded, the Government will be in a position to prepare their own legislation. But as I indicated when we debated Clause 36, inevitably I can give no guarantee of when Parliamentary time will be made available for such a Bill. Certainly, I share the noble Baroness's point of view on this matter. I think it obviously most important to have this Consultative Document. Then there can be consultations with all the interests.
The only point on which I would perhaps take a slightly different position from the one expressed by the noble Baroness is that I think we can make this a rather better Bill than I agree it is at the moment. The fact is, as the noble Baroness has said, that this is based on a local Act. It is only fair to say that the local Act appears to have been perfectly well received by the citizens of Plymouth and, so far as I know, by those of Liverpool as well, without any grievous difficulties arising. Nevertheless, and obviously, a number of Amendments will he necessary during the Committee and Report stages. I share the view that the Consultative Document should he pressed on with ; and it is our intention to do so.
Baroness YOUNG: I am bound to say that I do not find that a very satisfactory answer. The noble Lord is right in saying that there has not been much criticism of the Plymouth Act; but that, as far as I know, became operative only in January and there has not been much time

679
to see how it works out. The whole point is that if you take a Private Act which may be suitable to the circumstances of Plymouth, and apply it to the whole of England and Wales, you are affecting all sorts of people who have had no opportunity to make representations and who may find themselves in very great difficulties. The Private Hire Car Association is a particular example.
It is disturbing that the whole of this matter has arisen as an interim proposal. I do not believe that Part II would ever have been incorporated in this Bill in another place if Members on both sides had not thought of it as very much an interim proposal, in the confident expectation that the Home Office would themselves be legislating. After all, the taxi cab legislation is based on an Act of 1847. When the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, read this the first time, she thought she had misread it. I did myself. It is unbelievable that we should be amending legislation of 1847. To say that the Home Office has no idea when this Consultation Document will come or we can legislate seems to me—
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: With great respect, I did not say that. If the noble Baroness looks at Hansard tomorrow she will see that I said nothing of the sort. I said that as soon as the Bill went on the Statute Book we would get on with this Consultative Document. Clearly, the Consultative Document, which we were planning to produce, will be a different character because the law will be different. With great respect, I do not really believe that there is a great deal between the two Front Benches or most people in the Committee in this matter. It is a non-partisan matter and I hope we will proceed on that basis.
Baroness YOUNG: We shall certainly proceed on that basis. I am not making it a partisan question at all; I am merely trying to support the interests of people who feel that they have been rather unjustly treated. I am sure we both want to put that right. I will study what the noble Lord said in Hansard, but he has not given a definite date about the Consultation Document or legislation.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Licensing of private hire vehicles]:
3.22 p.m.
Lord AIREDALE Lord AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 43, line 29, at end insert—
" Provided that an operator or proprietor of a private hire vehicle licensed under this Act shall be permitted to display on any such private hire vehicle any sign which specifies the name and telephone number of his firm or company ".
The noble Lord said: We can now pass from generalities and rivet our attention upon a matter of precise detail. Clause 39 deals with the licensing of private hire vehicles and subsection (2) empowers a district council to prohibit the display of signs on a private hire vehicle. This Amendment is in the form of a proviso which is intended to provide that in every case a private hire vehicle can at least be entitled to display a sign which shows the name of the firm and its telephone number. The reason for the necessity for such an Amendment is to meet a situation of this kind. At a large gathering, perhaps a banquet, people leave at the same time and a number might have ordered hire cars. They may be people who are not known to, and will not be recognised by, the driver of the hire car. But the customer, on the other hand, of course knows the firm from whom he has ordered the car. If the car displays the firm's sign, even though the driver may not be able to identify and recognise the customer, the customer will be able to identify the car he is looking for. There may be a number of people looking for cars. Without signs on the cars by which the customers can identify them, there is liable to be a state of chaos with people searching about, probably in the dark, trying to find their car. There will be obstruction, and so on. It would seem, therefore, most important and sensible that these cars should have signs on them by which their customers can identify them. That is the purpose of this Amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to my Amendment No. 58 which covers precisely the same point. I will withdraw my Amendment in favour of the Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, which covers the same point. His

681
Amendment is more tightly drawn and is one which, on reflection, I prefer. I do not need to repeat the argument that he has made, because he has put it very clearly.
Lord LEATHERLAND: The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has made a very persuasive case in support of his Amendment; but I wonder whether he has told the whole story and whether he has laid before us all the possibilities that might arise if his proposal were adopted. He talked about a group of friends hiring a car to go to a banquet.
Lord AIREDALE: No. Several noble Lords: No!
Lord LEATHERLAND: Let us assume that I have hired a car and have taken some of my friends to a banquet. Do I, when I roll up in the Rolls-Royce at the Mansion House or Buckingham Palace, want to see a notice across the roof of my Rolls-Royce saying: " Bloggs and Company, Car-Hirers and Funeral Directors "? If one hires a private car one wants to have the appearance of a private car. Then the noble Lord referred to the time when the banquet had finished and the chauffeurs were trying to trace the people who had hired the cars. On such formal occasions where I have been present somebody has called out, " Lord Leatherland's car ", and my car has duly appeared. Surely, at a well regulated function the hirer of the car who wanted his car to be brought and made available to him would notify the porter to that effect; the porter would then send his chain of communication into action and the car would roll up. I hardly think it is worth while destroying and undermining the dignity of the private car which we would hire by having a trade notice put either on the side of the vehicle or on its roof.
Lord AIREDALE: It all depends on there being a porter available. Some of the banquets to which I go—perhaps they are not very smart—do not always have a porter. There are two matters which the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, did not appreciate; I could not have made them clear when I was speaking. I was not talking about people who hired cars to go to banquets; I was talking about several
682
people who emerged from a banquet at the same time, and who at the same moment wanted to be met by cars which they had ordered to pick them up. The noble Lord, if he reads the proviso in this Amendment, will see that it says that the operator should be permitted to display a sign if he wants to do so. If he is going to Buckingham Palace and the customer says, " I would rather not have a vulgar sign on the car driving into the forecourt of Buckingham Palace " then the operator does not have to have the sign on the car on that particular occasion.
Lord LEATHERLAND: Would the noble Lord permit me to interrupt ?
Several noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord AIREDALE: Perhaps I might finish the sentence. I was about to finish the sentence, but as I have forgotten what I was going to say perhaps the noble Lord would care to intervene.
Lord LEATHERLAND: The noble Lord said that on driving into Buckingham Palace courtyard the driver of the car quite properly removes the sign which says: " Bloggs and Company, Car-Hirers and Funeral Directors ". But how on earth would I, the honoured guest, be able to identify the particular car which I had hired? Surely, that destroys the whole argument.
3.28 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I did not want to intervene in this fascinating dialogue between my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, but perhaps I could point out one problem that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, did not touch upon and why we have some anxiety about this Amendment. It is the obvious point that a private hire vehicle cannot stand and ply for hire. That is the central point that distinguishes a private hire car from the normal taxi. The problem about this Amendment is that there are, unhappily, some owners of private hire vehicles who sometimes try to give the impression that they are not a private hire car but a taxi. In the Metropolitan Police district it is obvious what the difference is, because a taxi has a particular shape and is clearly identifiable as a taxi. But outside London this is not very often so.

683
It is important therefore, so far as we are concerned, to make a clear distinction between a taxi on the one side, which is standing for hire and available at a moment's notice, and a private hire car where you have to make prior arrangements and cannot simply hail it in the street. Unless we are careful, some—arguably a minority—of the owners of private hire vehicles might well try to give the impression that they are not private hire vehicles, but are taxis by putting on signs of one kind or another which would make any distinction between them and a taxi very difficult to grasp for the ordinary person who is looking for a car to take him to his destination. That is why we are worried about this Amendment.
As the noble Lord will see, the clause attempts to deal with the problem by giving the district council in Clause 39 (2) the power to
"… attach to the grant of a licence under this section such conditions as they may consider reasonably necessary … requiring or prohibiting the display of signs on or from the vehicle to which the licence relates ".
There is some ill feeling from time to time between taxi drivers and the people who are running private hire vehicles, when the latter sometimes attempt to give the impression that they are taxis. That is our problem concerning this Amendment. If there is any way of getting over it I should be pleased to consider it, because I do not wish to defend every element of this Bill to the last ditch. But there is a problem here and at the moment I cannot see any way of getting over it.
Baroness YOUNG: I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and I have found from my local government experience that people can mistake private hire cars for taxis. On the other hand, what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is suggesting would be only a permissive power. I would think that the whole purpose of incorporating these 36 clauses into the Bill would be to regularise the position of private hire cars so that precisely the kind of ill-effects referred to by the noble Lord might be avoided. As the noble Lord has said he would be glad to consider this sympathetically, I wonder whether he might find it possible to put down an Amendment which would meet this point. If we look at the realistic situation, it is not the case of a person
684
going to Buckingham Palace but it is much more likely to be an elderly person going to the theatre who wants a private hire car to collect her at the end of the evening. Such a person would find it much easier to identify her car if there was a name put on the roof of the car where the driver or the local authority thought it was suitable. All that is being asked for is this permissive power, and we should appreciate it if the noble Lord, Lord Harris, could look at this again.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I am always glad to look at things. I had already looked at this and was aware of the point which would be made. I think that subsection (2) gives the local authority a power of the kind for which the noble Baroness was asking. However, I do not think that at the moment I can offer a great deal of hope that we shall be able to deal with this problem between now and Report stage but, as with all these problems, I will gladly look at it.
Lord AIREDALE: I hope that before the Report stage we shall be able to reach a compromise whereby the local authority will retain the power to control the sign on the private hire car so that it cannot easily be mistaken for a taxi sign, but, on the other hand, that the local authority shall not be permitted—as they are now—to prohibit totally any sign at all so that a car hirer has no chance of identifying his car. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 39 shall stand Part of the Bill?
Lord SANDYS: Clause 39, in our view, is unsatisfactory for a variety of different reasons concerning administration. Your Lordships will be aware that there is a proviso that the district council shall not grant such a licence unless they are satisfied concerning five particular matters relating to the vehicle. Each of these matters, in our view, is a matter of opinion. For instance, the fifth one is concerned with the fact that the vehicle shall be comfortable. Surely this is a matter of opinion. There is also the question of whether the vehicle is in a suitable mechanical condition, which is also a matter of opinion and not specifically concerned with the Ministry of Transport test. May I give your Lordships an illustration. As we understand it, in

685
Liverpool no vehicle over three years old is given a licence. We feel that is a particularly onerous condition which is placed upon private hire operators since, in a very large number of cases, vehicles of 15 and sometimes even 20 years old have a much more comfortable and suitable form of springing for the purposes for which they are intended. Very often they are much larger and more popular with clients. I believe, as does my noble friend, that this clause could well be omitted from the Bill.
The EARL of CRAN BROOK: I should like strongly to support what has been said. I shall he dealing later with the smaller parishes in some of the control districts, where the local private hire car is of vital importance to all the people who live there. Those who live in these conditions are perhaps used to rather uncomfortable cars, which may be perfectly satisfactory for the more bucolic people who use them, and yet those extremely rural areas are now run very largely by people who are elected by the former urban districts and who have no conception of what it is to live in a small village and have to rely on what can be made available there. This could do an immense amount of damage to people living in these small villages, and I hope the Government will find it possible to take this back and consider whether the clause is really necessary.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.

PUERTO RICO SUMMIT MEETING
3.38 p.m.
Lord GORON WYROBE RTS: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
" With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the two-day meeting of the Heads of Government of seven of the world's largest industrial democracies at Puerto Rico. The Meeting was held at the
686
invitation and under the Chairmanship of the President of the United States and I was accompanied by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. The text of the Joint Declaration issued at the end has been placed in the Library of the House."
" This meeting was similar in nature to that held at Rambouillet last November and its purpose was to take stock of developments on the world economic scene since then. As at Rambouillet our intention was not to reach decisions or to establish policies. We do that at the national level or, as appropriate, in the European Community and in other organisations of which we are members. Our aim was rather to establish trends, to clarify objectives and to identify future problems.
" Our discussion ranged over the most important aspects of the international economic, monetary and trading scene. We also considered East/West relations in this context, looking forward to a steady growth in East/West trade on a sound commercial basis in order to ensure that these economic ties enhance our general relationship with the Soviet Union and its partners.
" And finally we had a long and constructive exchange about the role that the industrialised democracies must play in helping the developing countries to achieve their rightful hopes and aspirations.
" This was a substantial agenda for a two-day meeting. The fact that we managed to cover it illustrates one of the features of this kind of meeting. The numbers attending are small and compact. Discussions are business-like and to the point. We do not make speeches at each other. We talk frankly but also as briefly as we can, and a lot of ground is covered.
" This was, on the whole, a confident meeting. There has been a marked change since Rambouillet, and economic recovery is well under way in the world. Some of the other major industrial Powers are emerging faster from recession than we, and their growing strength will give further impetus to us. But there was also understanding of what seemed to me to

687
be three significant elements in the industrialised world's present move out of recession. First, growth rates are still modest. Secondly, at this stage of the economic cycle, inflation is worryingly high; and thirdly, unemployment is still much too high—higher than at the same stage in previous cycles. Different countries are choosing different ways of dealing with these problems. Each of us has a different economic history and historical memories, which are reflected in our priorities. But we have common objectives—sustained expansion, lower unemployment and progress towards eliminating the problem of inflation. There was a general recognition of the crucial role that the social partners have to play, and appreciation of the success that we in Britain are having in overcoming inflation through this new social partnership. The best hope for a satisfactory outcome in the years ahead, for reducing inflation and unemployment, lies in a policy of maximum co-operation between Government, trade unions and employers, coupled with fiscal and monetary policies that will encourage the investment and increased production that are essential to ensure that we sustain the present recovery.
" The spirit of Puerto Rico can be summed up in two words: co-operation and interdependence. Economically, we depend upon each other more than ever before. And there is growing recognition of the need to co-operate in our policies and actions so that our interdependence can be used to benefit both developed and developing nations. That was what we sought to express last year at Rambouillet. At Puerto Rico we were able both to note good progress made already and to look with confidence to further progress ".
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
3.43 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord the Deputy Leader of the House for repeating this Statement, but I confess that I find it very difficult to make any constructive observations upon it. It is very difficult to quarrel with the statement that growth rates are modest, that inflation is
688
worryingly high, that unemployment is still too high, that different countries are choosing different ways of dealing with different problems and, of course, that each of us has a different history. Also, I am very glad that the seven leaders of the countries agreed that we depend upon each other now more than ever before.
I think the kindest thing I can say about this Statement is that it is a good idea that seven world leaders should meet together and exchange views. I think the second kindest thing I can say is that if reports are true about what was said at the Conference, then what was said to United Kingdom Ministers about our economic policy does not differ very much from what is said from these Benches to noble Lords in this House.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for repeating the Statement made in another place. I am glad that the Government have found the meeting of value, because in the Press comment some doubts had been cast on its usefulness. It was not, as the Statement makes clear, a meeting for decisions but was, as I understand it, more an occasion for an exchange of views. But I wonder whether it is a good idea to have a Summit meeting at which four of the EEC countries are represented but not the other five. Would it not be better to co-ordinate our economic policies among ourselves and then be represented by one EEC delegation ?
I should like, if I may, to put three brief questions. First, I understand that differences were expressed as to the desirable rate of growth to be sought by the industrialised countries, and I wonder whether these were resolved. Secondly, was any pressure brought to bear upon the United Kingdom to reduce public expenditure further? Thirdly, was the subject of a common fund for commodities, as approved at the UNCTAD Conference in Nairobi, discussed; and, if so, was there any consensus as to how that subject should be approached in the future?
3.45 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am most grateful to both noble Lords for their contributions. As usual, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, brims over with kindness and I will certainly

689
convey his kind feelings to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. This was not, of course, a decisionary meeting, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, rightly said. It was a stocktaking meeting of the major industrial countries of the world, including Japan, and we were delighted to see, this time, Canada. So it was expected not that there would be new departures as a result of these exchanges of views and ideas, but that there would be confirmation of the very valuable consensus of purpose achieved in Rambouillet, and that was abundantly forthcoming.
As to the specific points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, certainly there is a variation of view as to what is a desirable rate of growth. One doubts whether a rate of growth applicable to the whole industrial world can ever be agreed. It will naturally vary, at least to some extent, from one country to another. It is our view that, while inflation certainly must be fought determinedly, we must not lose sight of the fact that unemployment presents both political as well as economic dangers to democracy. Therefore, we take the view that the greatest possible growth compatible with the defeat of inflation must be purposefully sought.
I am having difficulty in reading my notes on the noble Lord's second point, so I will pass to the third which was about the common fund which was discussed so helpfully at UNCTAD in Nairobi. Indeed, UNCTAD was discussed very usefully at this Conference, and I have no doubt that the common fund was further explored as a possible help towards a solution of the North/South imbalance. I will deal with the noble Lord's second point later.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, may I inquire whether the world is eventually to have some kind of procés-verbal of these weighty deliberations? While expressing due gratitude for the reading of the Statement, I must confess that I am completely at a loss to discover the intellectual processes which resulted in these (shall I say ?) banalities.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend will join me and others in the House in welcoming the initiative of the American President in seeking to hold this important Conference.
690
If at first sight the reports do not reveal new decisions or departures, I am sure that on reflection it will be found to have been, on the American initiative, a very useful contribution to the co-operation of the major industrial democracies of the world.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, the Statement said that individual countries would be pursuing their own policies in order to face their own problems. Is not the important point that in facing their problems and dealing with them individual countries should not take action which damages the interests and impedes the progress of other countries ? Was this fact recognised at the Summit meeting and, if so, may we take it that the processes and procedures of the OECD and the Common Market will be employed in order to see that that is done ?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think there are two points there. Certainly while the industrial countries must necessarily for the foreseeable future follow national policies, nevertheless increasingly—this Conference and others seek to emphasise this—they must relate their national policies more and more to international needs. Secondly, while the Community—and I think perhaps this was the second point made by the noble Lord, Lord Banks—was not separately represented at this Conference, nevertheless my right honourable friend, the Foreign Secretary, and indeed the Foreign Secretaries of other European industrial democracies represented at this Conference, will today be making reports to the Community as to what happened at Puerto Rico, so that the Community is brought into full knowledge and, indeed, co-operation with the spirit and content of these talks.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: Yes, my Lords, but being brought into full knowledge is not really what we Europeans intended, which was to ensure that Europe would be one of the major Powers in the world and would have its own view. I do not understand how my noble friend's answer carries us forward to what we intended to do (a) when we applied for membership before the Conservatives and (b) when we held the Referendum upon it. It seems to me that then we wished to be a European Power with a European view. That

691
must be different from simply saying, "We will tell other European Powers what our view is".
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I take my noble friend's point. It is important to realise that this was a Conference of industrial Powers, convened at the initiative of our American friends, in order to exchange views as separate industrial Powers on these questions. No doubt in another forum and for another purpose consideration would certainly be given, as consideration has been given in the past, to the Community's being represented as a whole. Of course, my noble friend is very active in promoting this process as rapidly as possible, and many support him. Others feel that in this case it is best to hasten slowly. Not everybody in the Community—and I do not mean this country—is always in favour of the Community acting as a unit.
Lord BOOTHBY: But, my Lords, would the noble Lord agree that in itself this Statement does nothing to strengthen the political power of the European Community?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I do not think it was so intended. It was a Conference on economic matters that was convened by a number of industrial countries. However, in response to my noble friend Lord Hankey I added that today in Luxembourg the Foreign Secretaries of the European countries concerned will be informing the Community as a whole of what happened at the Conference; and that, I think, is a useful thing to do from the point of view of the cohesion of the Community.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, as one who has had some experience of this kind of gathering may I say that, while it is very easy to look for precision and disappointing not to find it, none the less I find that if a conference of this kind does not go wrong, certainly it adds to the mutual wisdom of those very important people who take part. One expression is used in this Statement which I hope the Government will continue to use; namely, the expression " largest industrial countries ". So much prejudice and emotion is created by the constant use of the words " rich and poor " that surely it is better to take emotion out of the situation by
692
using a term that is perfectly applicable, does not mislead anybody and does not arouse emotion.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, certainly I agree with the first part of my noble friend's statement, and I give him full assurance on the second.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, may I insert myself again just to say that that was exactly the advice I used to get from my noble friend Lord Gore-Booth when he was running my office—that if we have done no harm it must be good; whereas we should try to do good and run the risk of doing some harm.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVI ES of HASTOE: My Lords, we have spent quite a long time on this Statement. As the House knows, we have another Statement to come. Perhaps the House will now wish to take the second Statement.

ANGOLA: MERCENARIES
3.55 p.m.
Lord GORON WY-ROBERTS: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement being made in another place on Angola. The Statement is as follows:
" Mr. Speaker, I will with permission make a statement on mercenaries in Angola. As the House will have read in today's Press, three of the 10 British subjects tried by the Angolan People's Revolutionary Tribunal in Luanda have been sentenced to death. They are Costas Georgiou, Andrew MacKenzie, John Barker. Two of the other British subjects on trial have been sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment, three others to 24 years' and two to 16 years'.
" The sentences were relayed immediately to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in Puerto Rico. He promptly sent a personal message to Dr. Agostinho Neto, Presiof the People's Republic of Angola. seeking clemency on behalf of the British subjects who have been sentenced to death.
" Our immediate concern is for the three men facing sentence of death.

693
This does not, of course, preclude subsequent representations on behalf of those sentenced to imprisonment.
" I am sure that honourable Members on both sides of the House will agree that while the lives of British subjects are at stake it would not be helpful for me to say more."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
Lord HAELSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, first of all may I express my gratitude to the Government for having given us the benefit of this important Statement. I think that even in a busy day's business the lives and liberties of our fellow subjects ought to take precedence over other matters and detain us for a moment or two of Parliamentary time.
I will bear very carefully in mind the last sentence of the Statement. Speaking personally, I am quite sure that I am not alone in saying that the Prime Minister has taken the only possible course open to him regarding the three named persons in the Statement. Since, however, the Statement says that what the Prime Minister has done does not preclude subsequent representations on behalf of those sentenced to imprisonment, and since, therefore, there will be time for reflection about the nature of those representations, will the noble Lord bear this in mind and convey it to his colleagues elsewhere.
There is a clear distinction—is there not?—in both law and international practice between the trial of persons who are guilty inside a national and sovereign territory of actions which would constitute crime by any civilised code—such as murder, rape, or theft—and the trial of persons who have been guilty of joining the armed forces of a particular faction which has happened to lose a civil war. Is it not a fact that whereas the first is undoubtedly an appropriate matter for criminal proceedings before a properly constituted tribunal, however much one may deplore the actions of those who recruited mercenaries in this country (and speaking for myself I do) or however much one may consider such persons who allowed themselves to be recruited as misguided and the whole episode as one of which one cannot be proud, the mere taking part under arms in international
694
battles is not recognised by international law as a crime? Therefore, is it not possible to bring to bear on those who are responsible for the affairs of this independent country the view that some of the sentences, and perhaps all of them, were much harsher in point of time than would generally be considered appropriate, even if the matter were to be considered a crime by international law ? Bearing in mind the difficulty under which I know he suffers, and under which we all suffer at this critical time in the lives and liberties of our fellow subjects, I hope the noble Lord will bear those thoughts in mind in a sympathetic fashion.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. I do not wish to do anything more today than to associate my noble friends with the appeal which has been made by the Prime Minister.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think it will be more convenient if I refer to the two sets of remarks from the two Front Benches. I certainly respond to the tone and the content of what the noble and learned Lord has just said, and I shall of course see to it that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, and indeed the Prime Minister, are advised at once of what he has just told the House. It is not for me to offer any kind of opinion as to the points of law, national and international, which he has advanced and on which he is so much more expert than any of us.
As to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, I am sure what he has said will be echoed by his Party, and indeed by the whole House; that is, that at this juncture the best we can do is to stand behind the appeal which has already been sent to Angola on behalf of the three men who are under sentence of death, without prejudice, of course, at a later stage when there is more time to do what we can for the others who have been very severely punished, whatever the legal sanction for such punishment.
Lord BRADWELL: My Lords, in view of what has happened and may happen in Angola, may I ask my noble friend whether Her Majesty's Government are taking any steps to dissuade those who

695
are now being recruited by emissaries of the illegal régime in Rhodesia from going there to fight as mercenaries ? As he will know, they include men who have served with the British Army in Northern Ireland and are now out of the Army.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, as my noble friend will know, we are looking at the whole question of mercenaries and we have asked the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, to look into this. He will shortly be reporting. I think we can usefully wait for his pronouncement on what is the exact position and what we ought to do in all cases where mercenary activity is involved.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
4.4. p.m.
House again in Committee.
On Question, Whether Clause 39 shall stand part of the Bill ?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: am sure the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, will welcome the fact that I do not propose to go into the question once again of how these clauses came to be in the Bill. All would say to him is that the issue, as far as this clause is concerned, is surely this: whether we are going to be offered the possibility of any form of licensing control for private hire vehicles. The local authority is not obliged to exercise its powers under this Bill; it has to be done by resolution of the council. So to some extent that is an answer to the noble Lord. There is a democratic safeguard and, if it is felt to be wholly inappropriate, it can be argued out in the council chamber. I think most of us who have had experience of local government would leave it to the elected representatives of the people to decide whether or not the circumstances of a particular local authority area are appropriate to introduce this group of powers.
The only other point I wish to make to the noble Lord is that the powers he refers to do not seem to me to be at all inappropriate if we are to have any form of licensing control over private hire vehicles. The question of whether or not a vehicle is safe seems to me self-
696
evidently to be a matter on which it is desirable to have some clarification. If it is not safe, it can endanger the lives of people who use that particular vehicle, and if it is involved on a day-to-day basis—I had better not say " plying for hire " because clearly that is what it cannot do, but available for hire—in such situations it is not at all inappropriate to have powers of this kind. But there is one important qualification; that is, that in subsection (7) it is made clear that any person who is aggrieved by the refusal of the district council to grant a vehicle licence can appeal to a magistrates' court, and if the local authority behaves unreasonably it seems that is the way to deal with the problem.
Lord SANDYS: The question of safety was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and in my brief remarks I mentioned that the Ministry of Transport test for all vehicles which are over three years old will apply anyway, so that under other legislation the question of safety is catered for. The noble Lord raised the general issue, but I think we felt that, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, Clause 39 could be withdrawn and looked at again.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: With great respect I do not think we could agree to that. This is wholly fundamental to this group of powers. If we do not have any form of licensing control over private hire vehicles, that is clearly a major issue of principle, and although I do not want to keep on making the same point I must make it clear to the noble Lord that his honourable friends in another place wanted the power. They voted for these powers. Now we are being told that it is unreasonable to have them and I think that consistency over a period of a few weeks is not an unreasonable request to make.
This seems to me to be a clear issue for the Committee. If it is felt right—and I think it has been generally agreed by the noble Baroness, Lady Young—that we should proceed to discuss Part II of the Bill, licensing control of private hire vehicles is absolutely fundamental to this Part of the Bill. Without it a great deal of this Part of the Bill would fall to pieces.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: Again I am bound to express my disappointment.

697
The noble Lord opposite has not attempted to justify this, other than by saying that if you are going to regulate private hire vehicles you must be able to regulate almost everything in them, down to the colour or the type of tyre which they use. Of course we must protect the public against unsafe vehicles, but that is already done through the Ministry of Transport test. If a vehicle passes the test for any one of us to drive ourselves, it is presumably safe and it is not going to damage the people in the street because the steering is likely to go wrong. That is important, and quite clearly one has to be certain about it. But this is really extending the power of interference with the life of people in the community to such an extent that I think it is becoming intolerable. I hope the noble Lord will think again in order to see whether we can circumscribe these powers in some way so that the position becomes reasonable.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Transfer of hackney carriages and private hire vehicles]:
On Question, Whether Clause 40 shall stand part of the Bill ?
4.10 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: The whole question of foreign earnings in this sphere appears to be very important. I should like to raise it on this Amendment, because I think it has been insufficiently—
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Are we not speaking on the Question, That Clause 40 shall stand part ?
Lord SANDYS: Yes, we are. On Second Reading I think the subject was referred to, but it would be appropriate to raise this matter in one of these general topics on the Question, Whether Clause 40 shall stand part? The attitude of foreign visitors to this country and our own internal attitude towards private hire may differ widely. T know from personal experience that in a very large number of cases our foreign visitors may have made itineraries which they wish to change, vary and alter to suit circumstances, and it would be very much for their convenience if they were not obliged to be restricted
698
by the very large number of regulations with which this section of the Bill is concerned.
Foreign visitors frequently may wish to arrange for a substantial sum of money to be placed towards private hire in the course of their visit to this country, and surely we should make it possible for them to do so. Should they wish to go from one district to another, to change drivers, to ensure that they can pick up friends, to visit another part of the country, to extend the length of their journey for a considerable distance (far beyond what people normally hire vehicles for in this country) it should be possible for them to do all of them. I believe that a very rich source of income from foreign earnings might be obtained through the private hire industry in this country. I hope that the Tourist Board and other bodies will recognise the potential of this valuable source of foreign exchange.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Provisions as to proprietors]:
On Question, Whether Clause 41 shall stand part of the Bill ?
4.13 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: This clause is concerned with the inspection of private hire vehicles. My own view about this section of Part II of the Bill is that, in general, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that there is a case for licensing, but I think the case needs to be carefully considered. Although many people have made representations to the effect that the licensing is not necessary, I can see the force of the argument for it. Opinion is divided about this.
Nevertheless, as I understand this clause, while a private hire vehicle must be inspected, the licensing authority may not inspect on more than four occasions during the year. I wonder whether that is a sensible way of conducting these inspections. I understand that in Plymouth there is only one inspection a year in any event; and that in Liverpool, where the Act has been in operation for some time, originally they had a maximum of five inspections a year, but in fact they never get around to conducting more than one a year. Here, up to four inspections a year is suggested.

699
I appreciate that this is a permissive power, but one needs to be realistic. At a time of economic stringency, I do not see many local authorities inspecting hire vehicles four times a year, and I wonder whether it would not be more sensible to say once a year. After all, there are all sorts of other restrictions, about cases of accidents, and so on, all of which I am quite happy with. But I think it is a mistake to make the provisions of this Part unduly restrictive.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: We do not have a passionate view on this question. The noble Baroness is quite right. It is important and, if I might for a moment take issue with the noble Lord who spoke a few moments ago on this matter, it is appropriate that I should reply now.
One has to accept that a private hire vehicle will be used far more heavily than many private motorists would use their cars; that is obvious. By the very nature of the business, the vehicle will be heavily used. The fact that it is available for hire on a regular basis and that it is licensed, in my view puts on the local authority a clear responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is properly tested. I think there is a clear distinction between that sort of test and the normal Ministry of Transport test.
This clause, like so much of the rest of this section of the Bill, is, as the Committee will be aware, based on the Plymouth Corporation Act. What happened in Standing Committee is, basically, that all the Amendments arose from the Plymouth Corporation Act which proposed a maximum of four inspections a year. The comparable provision in the Liverpool Corporation Act 1972 laid down a maximum of five inspections a year. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, says, quite rightly, it is a matter for the common sense of the local authority.
I would not wish to argue that in all circumstances it would be right to have inspections five times or four times a year; one would hope that the local authority would use common sense in this matter. But I repeat that the Government do not have strong feelings on this matter. I think we should be rather uneasy about having a maximum of one inspection a year, but certainly we would consider
700
any representations we may receive on this point.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Licensing of drivers of private hire vehicles]:
On Question, Whether Clause 42 shall stand part of the Bill ?
4.17 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: This clause, too, concerns the licensing of drivers ; and again, my questions arise not so much because here I am against the principal of licensing, but because of the way that this clause is going to work out. Clearly, in the case of a taxi, each driver is licensed because he is plying for hire in the street. One quite sees that not only must he have a clean driving licence, but he must also be licensed by the local authority. But we do have a distinction between taxi drivers and the private hire car. The private hire car is not plying for hire. People engage a private hire car by ringing up a firm, which then engages one of its drivers. Very strong representations have been made to me that what is really needed is to license the operators of private hire companies rather than to license each individual driver, because it will be the responsibility of the operator to see that his drivers arc of suitable character, and so on, to be responsible for driving the cars. This will confer the right degree of responsibility. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, would care to look at this point.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Yes. Would it be for the convenience both of the Committee and of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, if we discussed this particular issue in a group of Amendments relating to Clause 44 which I believe deal with this particular issue?
Baroness YOUNG: Yes, of course. Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 [Appeals in respect of drivers' licences]:
On Question, Whether Clause 43 shall stand part of the Bill ?
Lord SANDYS: Clause 43 also hangs together with Clause 44 and the Amendments attaching thereto. I would draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, to Amendment No. 63A, which we have set down. I think that it would probably be for the convenience of the Committee if we had a general debate over this whole area.
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Drivers' licences for hackney carriages and private hire vehicles]:
4.20 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 46, line 15, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 59, 60 and 61 cover the same point that I made on the Question, Whether Clause 42 should stand part? Clause 44 is concerned with licences for the drivers of hackney carriages and private hire vehicles. What I should like to find out from the Government is whether they have considered licensing the operators of private hire firms, who would then be responsible for the drivers rather than insisting that the local authority license not only the operators but every single driver of every single vehicle. I beg to move Amendment No. 59.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: This is an important question and I will respond to it with some precision. The Government's view is that it would be right to have a licence for the driver and that licensing the operator would not be adequate. The position is that the driver, even more than the proprietor or the operator, should be the person, in our view, who should be subject to licensing control by the local authority. I understand this is a view which is strongly supported by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, and, I am sure, by many of the other local authority associations. The fact of the matter is that it is, of course, the driver who in most cases comes into personal contact with the public and not the operator.
I think there is a real problem here. If a local authority decided that it wished to introduce this group of powers in the area of its authority, it would be wrong if it then discovered that it had the rather
702
anomolous situation—and I think it would be an anomolous situation—of saying that it is right to license a taxi driver but wrong to license the driver of a private hire vehicle. It would find itself confronted with the situation where it could not withhold a licence from the driver of a private hire vehicle even if it regarded him as a wholly inappropriate person to have such a licence, either on the grounds of his driving record or for some other reason. I know the strength of feeling of the local authority associations so far as the power to license a taxi driver is concerned; they are, I know, very concerned about this, and I have had a substantial amount of correspondence with Members of another place who have been putting to me the strength of feeling of local authorities on this matter.
The noble Baroness and those who take this view might, I suppose, argue that there is a clear distinction between the driver of a taxi and the driver of a private hire vehicle, in that one plies for hire and the other does not. But with respect I do not think that that is a totally satisfactory answer. The fact is that both of them are available for hire by members of the public: both of them will be licensed by the local authority; in one case the driver will be licensed and in the other case he will not. I do not quite see why there should be a distinction of this character. After all, in a situation where one wants a taxi to come to one's house and finds that one cannot come, one then 'phones the proprietor of a private hire business to get a private hire vehicle rather than a taxi, simply because a taxi is not available.
In a situation of that sort it seems to me anomalous, to put it no higher, to say that in one case the local authority would have power to license the driver and in the other not, given the circumstances of the hiring which I have described. As I have indicated already, I do not want to defend every conceivable aspect of Part II of the Bill; indeed, I have already indicated quite the contrary. But on this particular point I think there is a real difficulty about discriminating in favour of the driver of the private hire vehicle against the taxi driver, saying that one should have a licence and the other should not. I think it is an important question, and I hope that on reflection the noble Baroness may agree.
Baroness YOUNG: I thank the noble Lord for that very full explanation, and, of course, I appreciate that he is trying to be as helpful as possible over Part II of the Bill. I think the whole of the argument hinges on whether or not one regards taxis and private hire cars as being one and the same. Of course, one can argue, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, argued, that if you ring up for a taxi and cannot get one, you ring up for a private hire car, and what is the difference? On the other hand, you could argue, as he did on a previous Amendment, that a private hire car cannot have its name on it because it would be mistaken for a taxi, and therefore there is a difference.
I do not think one can argue both ways. The fact is that whereas you can ring up for a taxi, you can also hail a taxi in the street. You can ring up for a private hire car, but you cannot, or should not, hail it in the street. Therefore, there is a difference on the question of licensing. If the noble Lord is not prepared to consider the question of licensing the operator—and I gather he does not have much leeway on this question—he might consider the question of a provisional licence.
I believe that one of the difficulties is that a private hire operator who needs another driver goes to the job centre—I think that is the correct term; I hope my terminology is right—and there is a suitable man who has a clean driving licence. The proprietor wishes to employ him, and he goes to the local authority, who say, " We are very sorry, our tester is on holiday ". I am told that up to two months can elapse—and this has been the case in Liverpool—before a driver can he tested. There should be a prima facie case for assuming that the person is suitable, if his driving licence is in order, he has no convictions pending and nothing is known about him to his detriment, and the insurance company is prepared to insure him. Could he not be given a provisional licence? I wonder whether the noble Lord would be prepared to consider that before the next stage of the Bill.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I will gladly look at the point. I should have to move with some caution in this matter; I would not want to commit myself on a point as important as this. Clearly, it is desirable that local authorities
704
should act with some speed in this matter, not only for the driver of a private hire car but also for the driver of a taxi; in fact the same argument could apply. I will look at the point. I would prefer to reserve any view on this matter until I have had some time for further reflection on it.
Baroness YOUNG: I am grateful for that. We on this side will also reflect on it, and it may be that we shall come forward with an Amendment at the next stage. We will consider the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 47, line 1, leave out ("authority") and insert (" council ").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this drafting Amendment to make it clear that the police station at which a taxi or private hire car driver is required to produce his licence must be within the area of the district council and not the police authority.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 45 [Issue of drivers' badges.]:
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 47, line 5, leave out from (" licence") to first (" a") in line 6.
The noble Baroness said: This is a question of drivers' badges—whether or not a driver should be obliged at all times to have a badge on him, even when he is a driver of a private hire vehicle. Once again, I think there is a distinction between the two, the taxi driver and the private hire car driver. I should like to ask the noble Lord to consider whether this is unnecessary in all cases of private hire vehicles. I beg to move.
Lord AIREDALE: I should like to support this Amendment and to speak on the question as to whether Clause 45 is necessary at all; that is, whether the drivers of private hire vehicles as distinct from taxi drivers should need to have to wear badges at all. After all, the circumstances are different in the two cases. If you hail a taxi you and the taxi driver engage in a short joint venture together,

705
and that is the end of your association. Supposing there is a dispute about the fare at the end of the journey, and that the taxi driver is offensive, admittedly there is the number of his taxi which you may be able to take and identify him by. But supposing you walk away down the street and he pursues you, arguing and being offensive—I am not suggesting that taxi drivers behave in this way very often, but the occasion does arise—then your only means of identifying him is by his arm badge. I imagine that is the justification for the taxi drivers' arm badge.
However, the case of the private hire vehicle driver is quite different. You must not hail him in the street; you do not engage him directly at all. You ring up or get in touch with his proprietor, and the proprietor has to make a note of the contract and the journey, and he allocates the driver. If, at the end of the journey or at any stage, you have a row with the driver and you want to identify him and he refuses to make his identity known to you, your remedy is to go back to the operator from whom you hired the vehicle, and the operator must know who that driver was, and in that way the identity can be established. It seems to me that in that case, as distinct from the taxi driver case, there is no need for the driver to carry a badge upon his arm. If that is not necessary, then do not let us legislate for the necessity of something which really is not necessary.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I am certainly not in favour of legislating when it is not necessary. I think that the fundamental question, which I endeavoured to suggest to the Committee a few moments ago, is whether there is licensing for drivers, and I sought to point out why, in the Government's view, it was appropriate to have licensing. I think that is the fundamental question. The point which the noble Lord has just made is that he makes a distinction which, in many cases, I am not sure is quite as realistic as he imagines it to be. After all, you can have a firm that has a number of taxi cabs in exactly the same way that you can have a firm that owns a number of private hire vehicles. Presumably in both cases you can complain to the proprietor, as well as to the local authority if you wish to do so, about the behaviour of a particular driver.
706
The noble Baroness, as ever puts her case with moderation, and I will gladly look at the point. I think that the fundamental question is the one I have sought to point out to the Committee, as to whether we have some form of licensing control for drivers, and why it should be right to require a taxi driver to display his badge and not a private hire vehicle. Nevertheless, the noble Baroness has put her point, and I shall certainly consider it.
Baroness YOUNG: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. In order to be constructive about this it might he possible to amend this clause to make it refer exclusively to taxi drivers and those driving for private hire vehicles who are in fact driving taxis. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 45 shall stand part of the Bill ?
Baroness YOUNG: I think we have had a very full discussion on Clause 45, and as the noble Lord said that he will look at the point I raised I shall not pursue this.
Clause 45 agreed to. Clause 46 agreed to.
4.35 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 63A:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause:
Restriction on powers of District Council to
refuse a licence.
The District Council shall not refuse to grant an operator, proprietor or driver a licence solely for the purpose of restricting the number of drivers or vehicles licensed.
The noble Lord said: We are concerned here with the question of the restriction of the powers of a district council to refuse a licence. We have accepted in Clause 46(4):
" Any applicant aggrieved by the refusal of a district council to grant an operator's licence under this section, or by any conditions attached to the grant of such a licence, may appeal to a magistrates' court ".
There is an interesting distinction here between Clause 46(4) and Clause 43 where it says that,
" Any person aggrieved…may appeal to a magistrates' court "
over the grant of a driver's licence. In one case it is the applicant, in one case " any person ", and in the interpretation clause there is no specific identification of who that should be. Of course it could be the applicant's mother-in-law who could apply to the magistrates' court with views in regard to the refusal of the district council.
It seems there are two points at issue here. One is the refusal of the district council to grant an operator, or proprietor, or driver a licence on personal grounds, grounds of ineligibility due to factors which concern his ability to drive; and the second point which arises out of Amendment No. 63A is the question of the numbers of drivers of vehicles being licensed in a district. This is really a restrictive consideration placed for commercial or other reasons. We do not know in these circumstances whether or not a district is refusing to grant an operator a licence for commercial reasons. We believe, therefore, that there should be a prohibition here, and this is what Amendment No. 63A attempts to provide. I beg to move.
Lord AIREDALE: I should like to support this Amendment, too. There is a distinction to be drawn. In the case of taxi drivers I suppose there is an ingrained, well established principle that only a certain number of taxis are licensed in a particular area. I do not know this for certain, but I believe it to be so. I imagine the reason is that questions of obstructing the traffic could arise if you had innumerable numbers of taxi licence holders, some of whom would only turn out when there were dense crowds requiring taxi services and you would get problems of obstruction of the streets and so on. But it would be a new departure if the same restriction by numbers of private hire operators were to be operated by district councils, and the question arises as to whether a district council is well placed to gauge the number of private hire vehicles that a particular district can accommodate. After all, district councils are not empowered to restrict the number of shoe shops in a particular area. If they were, I very much doubt whether there would be nearly as many shoe shops in Oxford Street as there are. Presumably they all make a living.
708
If a potential private hire vehicle operator thinks that he can make a living by running his one car, which is a good suitable car, as a private hire car, then who are the district council to say, " We, in our wisdom, have decided that the market is saturated in this district and that you will not succeed if you are licensed to use your car as a private hire car "? I simply do not believe that this would be a proper method of approach by a district council in deciding whether to issue a licence, and I trust that it will be accepted that sheer numbers will not be the criterion in any case whether or not a district council issues a licence.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: There is some ambiguity about the drafting of the proposed new clause. It is not clear in terms of its drafting whether it is intended to be limited to private hire vehicles, as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, suggested, or whether it would also extend to hackney carriages. If it was intended to include the latter, it would be contrary—not that I regard this as the most deadly thing that can be said about this suggestion—to the intentions of the Legislature in 1847 when it passed the Town Police Clauses Act. Though that is clearly a forward-looking piece of legislation, it is not the last word that can be said on this matter, but the situation up to now has been that the local authority has had power, as Lord Airedale said, to limit numbers in terms of taxis and it would be a fairly significant move if we decided not to give them that degree of power. It is certainly one of the matters which, to anticipate a question which the noble Baroness might ask, may well arise during the discussion of the Consultative Document.
The purpose of the proposed new clause is apparently to prevent, as I have indicated, the district council from refusing to grant licences, and I think its intention is to deal exclusively with the question of private hire cars. I assume that that is what the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, is suggesting. At least as regards drivers' licences for private hire vehicles, it is doubtful, I am informed, if Clause 42 permits refusal to issue a driver's licence on any grounds other than those stated in the proviso to Clause 42(1) and, so as far as they are concerned, the proposed new

709
clause is not needed. For the same reason, it is not needed to deal with the question of operators' licences.
So far as private hire vehicles are concerned, I gather from the nod of assent from Lord Sandys that that is what he is after from the point of view of the proposed new clause and we come back to this question—and it is inevitable that we shall hear more of this argument: does one impose a control for taxis and say that it is wholly inappropriate, unfair and unreasonable to have the same control for private hire vehicles ? That is the issue which we are really discussing. I should like to think about this. I should not like to give any commitment because one must try to maintain some degree of fairness and balance in this matter as between the operators on both sides. I will with pleasure think about the matter before the next stage of the Bill, but I would not at this stage wish to give any undertaking that we would be able to move away from this, and of course if, on reflection, the noble Lord is dissatisfied, he can himself return to the matter on Report.
Lord AIREDALE: While the noble Lord is having those thoughts, perhaps he could consider the case which the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, mentioned earlier of the country private hire vehicle, the man in the village with his private hire car who may be a smallholder and only a part-time private car operator who may drive those village people only a few times a week. To restrict his licence on the ground that the maximum number has been reached would be monstrous.
Lord SANDYS: We are much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for his reaction to the Amendment, though I must mention my surprise at hearing that one of his principal points was the question of Section 46 of the 1847 Act which appeared to militate against the Amendment. That caused some mirth on these Benches. We should be much obliged to the noble Lord if he would, without committing himself overmuch in this regard, take this point away and reconsider it. Meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 47 [Operators of private hire vehicles]:
On Question, Whether Clause 47 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness YOUNG: In this clause we have spelled out the detail about the terms of the contract between the operator of a private hire company and the people who accept his bookings and drive the car. I draw attention to it because it reinforces the arguments I used at an earlier stage about the licensing of an operator rather than of a driver, and it certainly reinforces the point about a provisional licence because clearly if all the detailed points of this clause are to be adhered to—and I see no reason why they should not be—the operator will be responsible for everything that happens and therefore he has a very real responsibility. It is not just a nominal responsibility; he has a responsibility for the driver, for the safety of the passengers and so on and it therefore gives added force to the arguments which I adduced earlier.
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Power to require applicants to submit information.]:
On Question, Whether Clause 48 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.47 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: This clause indicates that a district council may require an applicant for a licence to submit a great deal of information. It is perfectly clear that the district council is asking for a certain amount of information that the applicant should in any event give on applying for a driving licence. I suppose it could be argued that he is perjuring himself in not completing the form correctly—if he has some of the disabilities which one is not supposed to have, yet at the same time has a driving licences—but, on the other hand, in accepting that argument, one is immediately suggesting that there is no point in having the form for a driving licence. I wonder whether, at a time when local authorities are being asked to economise it is sensible to do what appears to me to be duplicating what the driving licence form does.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The noble Baroness has raised an interesting point. She will appreciate that I am speaking completely off the cuff when I say that it occurs to me that Iam about to renew my own driving licence and I am desperately trying to remember what sort of information I have to give to the licensing authority. To the best of my recollection, one has to give certain assurances—for example, so far as one's eyesight is concerned—but how precise the detail is on other questions of health I am not so certain. However, I think it right that, so far as Clause 48 is concerned—because we are talking here not only about the applicants for drivers' licences for private hire cars but about taxis also—there should he some additional assurance given that they are in a reasonable state of health, because a private driver is responsible for his own welfare and that of his family who may be in the car. If we are to have licensing control, it is only reasonable that the local authority should satisfy itself that a person who gets a licence to go into business to run his car—somebody who, on a day-to-day basis, is in business—should be in such a state of health as to guarantee the safety of the people in that vehicle. Certainly, I shall look at the point as it has been raised, but my first impression is that it is proper for local authorities to have powers of this sort, though I entirely share the view of the noble Baroness as regards the need not to impose new burdens upon local authorities at a time like this.
Baroness YOUNG: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Again, I speak from memory. It is some time since I completed a form for my driving licence and perhaps I should have a look at the licence to see whether it is about to expire, but I am quite certain that one is asked questions about epilepsy and other such diseases, and, clearly, about eyesight. One question which I have not noticed is the age of the driver, which I should have thought might be relevant. However, I am anxious that we should not duplicate work. My recollection of the driving licence form is that it is fairly strict. After all, it is not simply a question of oneself and one's family: one may damage somebody else, and that is the point of having a very strict driving test.
Lord AIREDALE: I should like to draw attention to the words at the end of subsection (1),
" whether conditions should be attached to any such licence".
We have been contrasting the driving licences that we ourselves obtain with those required under this provision. Of course, no conditions are attached to our licences except as regards the types of vehicle which we may drive. But I wonder what sort of conditions might be imposed upon the holders of the type of licence which we are discussing in this clause? I do not suppose that the noble Lord can, off the cuff, quote a series of conditions, but it would be interesting, before we reach the end of the Bill, to know what sort of conditions may be imposed.
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 [Return of identification plate or disc on revocation or expiry of licence, etc.]:
On Question, Whether Clause 49 shall stand part of the Bill ?
Lord SANDYS: The clause refers to the return of identification plate or disc on revocation or expiry of licence. There is one small point upon which I should like to comment. Your Lordships may be aware that certain of these plates or licences exist. They are really collectors' items, having been issued under Section 38 of the Act of 1847. It may be that, in the world of vintage vehicles, some person or persons may have rather an interesting collection of discs of this sort. In some cases, they may be handsome or artistic in design. If the clause is accepted, it is highly unlikely that they would be demanded by a local authority or, indeed, that they would be traceable; but it seems a pity to place a further burden on local authorities to ensure that all discs are returned after a certain date. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that he did not wish to place burdens on local authorities. Perhaps he can give consideration to this matter, because certain of these discs have a high antiquity value.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Of course; I shall gladly look at this point.
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Qualifications for drivers of hackney carriages]:
On Question, Whether Clause 50 shall stand part of the Bill ?
Baroness YOUNG: Clearly, this simply brings up to date the Act of 1847 for the drivers of hackney carriages. What concerns the Private Hire Vehicle Association as regards clauses such as this is that, whereas it is quite right that there should be stringent conditions on the taxi driver, in the case of the private hirer not only are similar stringent conditions applied, but also very stringent conditions are applied to the operator, who is held to be personally responsible. There is therefore, as it were, a double check upon the private hirer which there is not upon the taxi driver. That appears—although I am sure that it is not so intended—almost to apply a double standard. I am not against Clause 50 in any sense. It is right that there should be very high standards for taxi drivers because they are responsible, but it sometimes appears hard that the private hire people should have higher standards demanded of them.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The noble Baroness has raised a point to which I cannot pretend that I have the answer, but I shall gladly look into it.
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [Suspension and revocation of drivers' licences]:
4.56 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG had given Notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 64:
Page 51, line 10, leave out (" or section 42 of this Act, as the case may be ").
The noble Baroness said: This is a consequential Amendment which would have followed upon earlier Amendments which I withdrew.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Stands for hackney carriages]:
On Question, Whether Clause 54 shall stand part of the Bill ?
Baroness YOUNG: The clause deals with the question of stands for hackney carriages. It is common practice for there to be certain places where taxis may stand on public highways. I am not in any way against that, and I think that it would be very difficult to press for a similar provision for private hire vehicles, although I know that many members of the Private Hire Vehicle Association would say that they ought to have similar provisions. I raise the point because, once again, the whole of the thinking behind Part II of the Bill is that private hire vehicles are to be treated similarly to taxis. The same conditions are applied to the drivers and stringent conditions are applied to the operators; yet there are two major respects in which private hire vehicles are not treated the same. One is that they have no right to ply for hire, and the other is that they have no place to stand on the public highway in order to pick up.
These are two very real disadvantages. In this case, I believe that they could well he a disadvantage to the consumer as well. I am quite tempted to press for something, at any rate in the rural areas about which my noble friend Lord Cranbrook is so concerned, because, with the breakdown of the very poor public bus service in so many country areas, a private hire car is the only means for many people to get out of the village in which they live. I feel that it is an important distinction to make that the private hire vehicles have not the same advantages as taxis and I hope that, when the noble Lord is considering the points which have been made—and I am sure that he will do so—he will bear in mind that, here again, private hire vehicles do not get the benefits which taxis do, yet the same kind of conditions are being applied to them all the time.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: Before the noble Lord, Lord Harris, replies, I should like to ask him to take into consideration the point that my noble friend has just made. What is worrying about practically the whole of this Part of the Bill concerns what I may call the rural district councils, which contain what was formerly an urban district which, very properly and rightly, wishes to extend the power over private hire vehicles which it has over hackney carriages in its area. When the powers of the 1847 Act are extended over the whole district, the effect

715
will be felt in the smallest of parishes. If the noble Lord can think of some way of restricting this effect to those parishes where there are hackney carriages and where it is necessary to make up the streets in allowing for them, all my objections to these provisions would immediately be met.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: May I deal first with the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. We shall have the opportunity of going into the rural aspects of the Bill on a later Amendment and I should like to reserve my comments until then. I intend no discourtesy, as I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, will appreciate.
The noble Baroness is of course quite right in saying that there is some degree of discrimination against the owner or driver of the private hire vehicle, in that he cannot wait on a hackney carriage stand of the kind provided for in Clause 54. That is obviously true. He cannot ply for hire. That is also true. There is one other major distinction between them; namely, there is a fairly rigid price control so far as the taxidriver is concerned which has to be set on the other side of the argument, as I am sure the noble Baroness will recognise. Here there is a degree of control over the pricing policy of the man who is driving a taxi, which does not apply to the person who is making available his private hire car. In many cases it is a matter of individual negotiation, and sometimes, in a rural area of the kind which has been referred to, there is a monopoly position so far as one particular proprietor is concerned.
I recognise that there is validity in the core of the argument of the noble Baroness. We are moving towards a situation where there will be more similarity of control as between the drivers of one type of vehicle and the drivers of the other type, whereas rather different conditions are applied to them. I recognise the validity of that argument. I have pointed out previously, and I do so again now, that it is not obligatory on any local authority to use the powers in this clause. It is a matter for debate in the council chambers of the local authorities as to whether or not those authorities implement this clause. In the more rural parts of the country they may well decide not to implement it. But that is a matter for the local
716
authority; they are the elected representatives of the local community, and I should have thought that it is right for them to take that decision, subject to taking into account the interests of the local taxi trade and the local group of private hire operators.
Baroness YOUNG: I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Of course I am not against Clause 54, as I hope I have made quite clear. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has rightly drawn attention to the point that there is a limit to the amount a taxidriver can charge, whereas, so far as I know, no limit is insisted upon as to what a private hire vehicle operator may charge. It is what the market may bear and what he thinks to be appropriate. I take that point and I hope that he, too, will consider it in relation to Amendment No. 63A which he has kindly said he will look at. If the market is to operate, it must operate consistently, and I believe that this is another point which needs to be looked at very carefully.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clause 55 [Prohibition of other vehicles on hackney carriage stands]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendments Nos. 65 and 66:
Page 53, line 21, after (" be ") insert (" prescribed or ").
line 22, leave out (" sections 54 and 55 ") and insert (" section 54 ").
The noble Lord said: These are both drafting Amendments. Under Section 54 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967, road signs may be " prescribed " or may be " authorised " by the Secretary of State, and the first Amendment inserts the necessary mention of the alternative " prescribed ". Mention of Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 is not necessary in this context and the second Amendment deletes the reference. I beg to move these two Amendments together.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 56 [Fixing of fares for hackney carriages]:
On Question, Whether Clause 56 shall stand part of the Bill?
5.4 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: The prohibition on other vehicles using hackney carriage stands deserves further investigation. We believe that circumstances are not always as straightforward as one might suppose, and the clause as drafted admits of further investigation. There may be a clash of interest here. That clash may occur at particular places, such as stations managed by British Rail where there are opportunities for private hire—and they work very well indeed—or there may be a lack of a certain opportunity. It would be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, could explain in a small measure what Clause 55 is intended to do. I assume that it goes with his previous Amendment in regard to road signs under the 1967 Act.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I thought that we had considered Clause 55 and that we were now on to Clause 56, which deals with the fixing of fares for hackney carriages.
Lord SANDYS: I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. My remarks relate to the previous clause. We were running somewhat fast in Committee.
Clauses 56 and 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Hackney carriages used for private hire]:
On Question, Whether Clause 58 shall stand part of the Bill ?
Baroness YOUNG: Am Ito understand from this that in the fixing of fares when a taxi is used as a private hire car a taxi-driver must maintain the charges that he would maintain as a taxidriver and that there cannot be a contractual arrangement, as in the case of a private hire firm? I hope that that is the correct interpretation of the position, and I ask for confirmation of that point.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I prefer not to give an off-the-cuff answer to that question. I have a clear view of what I think this means, but I should like to be reassured before I give the answer.
Clauses 58 to 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [Fees for vehicle and operators' licences]
5.8 p.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 56, line 7, at end insert (" one half of ").
The noble Earl said: This Amendment has nothing to do with anything urban or rural. For a very long period I was a member of a local authority. I first joined a borough council in London in 1927. I know how enjoyable it is trying to run a good service and how tempting it is to spend rather too much money on it. Here we have power being given to local authorities to make an absolutely magnificent service of hackney carriages and private hire vehicles, and yet not be in any way responsible for it to the ratepayers. Of course I realise that giving someone a licence to own, provide, or drive any one of these vehicles is giving someone a licence to earn his living in that way. But by and large the total cost is, in the end, paid for by the public whom those people serve, and, regardless of whether they pay part of it as ratepayers or part of it as users, it is the public who pay in the end.
Possibly, my Amendment as drafted is too drastic, but I hope that the noble Lord might consider this point and devise some way better than the one I have devised of making the local authorities in some way responsible to the ratepayers for this service; otherwise I can see great danger of it being made unnecessarily expensive and costly to the general public. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I am afraid we are in the position that we disagree with the proposition of the noble Earl. I do not know whether he would also wish to discuss his other Amendments; whether he wishes to take them together or separately. I am in his hands.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: They are separate. This one has nothing to do with them.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Then let me address myself to the noble Earl's first Amendment, which is to the effect that the amount which can be recovered by the council should be limited

719
to not more than one half of the costs incurred in inspections, the provision of taxi ranks, administration, control and supervision. I think I should make it plain that it is the clear view of the Government that, as far as possible, a local authority should seek to recover the whole of the costs incurred by it in the provision of services such as licensing and trading. Where fees for licences are charged, this recovery may be effected by setting the fees at such a level as to recoup the local authority's cost; and the recently published report of the Layfield Committee notes that there is a case for regular review of licence fees to ensure that these cover the full costs of administration. After all, licence fees will be a cost factor to be taken into account by an operator when setting the rate for the hire of a vehicle, and by a taxi owner in any representations which he may make to a district council when making an application for an increase in the rate of fares. Licence fees will therefore be passed on to the customer who uses the vehicle; and, as licence fees increase, so fares will tend to increase to reflect this.
I put it to the Committee that it really is inappropriate to consider subsidisation—because that is in fact what is being proposed by the noble Earl—by the community in favour of people who are engaged in business and who wish to have a licence from the local authority so that they can carry on that business. There are many pressures on local authorities at the moment, as the noble Baroness has pointed out, and, as to the idea that one would say, " One will not allow you to charge what would in fact be the economic price for the licensing system ", it does not appear to me that this is the time when we can afford a policy of that kind. I think the local authority should have the right to pass on the whole cost of the licensing system, and I just do not believe that, at a time like this, subsidisation is any answer.
Lord SANDYS: I feel my noble friend Lord Cranbrook will be very dismayed at what the Government have had to say about this, because the essential point is this. What fees are going to be recovered for the granting of a licence? As we discussed a little earlier, it is surely a matter of opinion whether a vehicle should be inspected and duly licensed
720
four or five times during the year. In our view that would be wholly unnecessary, because we believe that the number of inspections necessary in a situation of this sort would probably be two at the outside. The Government have recommended that four is highly desirable, and one can understand that, if there is a large number of inspections, possibly the licensing fee will be greater; but from these Benches we have contended that this should not be necessary. A thorough inspection carried out by a licensed inspector twice during a year is, in our view, probably a sufficient protection for the public.
What my noble friend has suggested is indeed a degree of subsidy, but, nevertheless, the person who is going to pay in the end is the consumer. It is going to be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher charges. If we can reach agreement on a number of inspections which is agreeable to the trade generally and satisfactory to the Ministry, this would be a far more acceptable way of approaching this subject.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: I entirely agree with what the noble Lord has said. I do not want to see this subsidised, but what I do want is that the public should know what is being spent and should have some chance to control it. I do not think that this sort of cost will be looked at by the district auditor, and if some provision of that nature could be made so that the district auditor, or even the internal auditor, could make some comments on anything which has been done grossly extravagantly, I would be perfectly satisfied. Perhaps the noble Lord could have a look at that between now and a later stage to see whether there could be devised some method of control over what my noble friend has said could be looked upon as being unnecessary expenditure.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Without giving any guarantee, I shall certainly look into the point which the noble Earl makes, but I do not want to impose on local authorities more complicated accounting procedures which will simply have the effect of being an additional burden on a local authority. I think it is quite right, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has said, that if a local authority were to carry out and were to insist on carrying out a wholly unreasonable

721
number of inspections, clearly the cost of licensing would escalate at a most perturbing rate, and I have in fact already guaranteed to look at that point. If I may say so to the noble Earl, I think this is a factor of some importance. As I have said, I will look into it and, of course, I will consider what the noble Earl has just said.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.17 p.m.
Lord AIREDALE Lord AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 56, line 23, leave out ("twenty-five pounds") and insert ("ten pounds").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps we could discuss Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 together because they are so very closely related. This is an Amendment to a paragraph in subsection (2), which prescribes the maximum fees chargeable; but it is very useful to have subsection (1), which states precisely that upon what the revenue from the fees is able to be spent. The three heads of expenditure are stated there in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). Paragraphs (a) and (c), I think, can fairly be said to be common to both the taxis and the private hire vehicles paragraph (b),
"the reasonable cost of providing hackney carriage stands,"
of course applies exclusively to the taxis, as we know so well, having just discussed Clause 54.
The noble Lord just now frowned upon subsidisation. I was so pleased to hear this. I am sure the last thing the noble Lord wants is for private hire vehicle operators to be subsidising taxi operators in the provision of hackney carriage stands. I should have thought that there was an absolutely manifest case here for a lower maximum fee for the private hire vehicle, and for the private hire vehicle operator, than applies in the case of a taxi, simply because the private people do not get all the services upon which the vehicle licence fees are expendable. Bear in mind, furthermore, that the operator's licence under paragraph (c) of subsection (2) applies only to the private hire vehicle and not to the taxi,
722
so that the private hire operator has to have two different licences. This surely makes out a good case for a lower maximum fee in the case of the private hire operator than in the case of the taxi operator.
I am not inextricably wedded to £10; I plucked that figure out of the air. The point I am making is that, in justice, there ought surely to be a differentiation here and that, whatever are to be the fees under paragraphs (b) and (c), there should be a lower maximum than under paragraph (a). I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The effect of the noble Lord's Amendments—and I am reassured to hear that it is not intended—is that he would be introducing subsidisation on the day that this Bill went on to the Statute Book if the figure of £10 were to be written in rather than £25, because I am informed that it costs the local authorities a great deal more than £20 at this moment. Although I am buoyant about this country's economic prospects and about the fact that we are beginning to cut back the level of inflation, it would be a little unrealistic to assume that there was going to be no inflation over the next year or two. Therefore if the figure of £10 were to be introduced immediately, one would be introducing immediately subsidisation. That is why the maximum figure of £ 25 has been written in.
To take one example, one particular district has informed us that the real cost of their existing licensing arrangement is £17; whereas the noble Lord's Amendment—and, as he said, he plucked the figure out of the air—would mean a subsidy of £7 a licence, which I am sure he would not wish to press. It is very difficult to work out what is a realistic figure in a situation of this sort. It seems to me, with respect, that £25 is not unreasonable.
On the second point; namely, the particular issue of hackney carriage stands—and I did not realise that he was likely to move into that area as far as this particular Amendment is concerned—I will look into it.
Baroness YOUNG: Before the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, speaks again, I might say that I am not clear that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, really answered

723
his point. I think that he would agree, as I do, that there should not be a subsidy to the general operation, but the particular subsidy that he talked about is not a general subsidy but the fact that the private hire vehicles are not getting the same service and are not getting—as in subsection (1)(b)—the reasonable cost of providing hackney carriage stands.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I am sorry that I did not make myself clear. I said that I did not realise that that point was in the noble Lord's mind. Now that I do, I will look into it.
Baroness YOUNG: I am grateful for that because, looking at subsection (2), the fact is that there will have to be a licence for the private hire vehicle plus a licence for the operator; so that it is going to be £50for him, with fewer services.
Lord AIREDALE: I am glad that I did not nail my colours to the £10inextricably. I am glad to hear the matter is going to be looked at. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 56, line 28, at end insert—
(" Provided that, where a controlled district includes any parish or community with less than seven hundred local government electors, the fees chargeable—:
(i) for the grant of a vehicle licence in respect of a private hire vehicle housed in and owned by an operator living in such a parish; and
(ii) for the grant of an operator's licence to any such operator;
shall not exceed one twenty-fifth of any fees charged under paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection 2 above.").
The noble Earl said: This is a small point affecting a small number of people, but it is a number of people who have been very much affected by the recent reform of local government because up to the time when the new districts came in they were living in villages which were part of rural districts and most of the members of the council would know the problems of small parishes. But now they are much larger districts which, as I implied just now, are never likely to have hackney carriages in them. They are districts in
724
which the greater proportion of the population are now urban people who do not really have the background to enable them to understand the difficulties of a rural parish.
Before I put down these Amendments I consulted the Association of Local Councils in London. I consulted similar associations in my own part of the world ; they agree with my contentions and support me. The consultation document on transport pointed out that the number of private cars in rural areas had increased very considerably and merely by reason of that fact those people who did not own their own private cars were infinitely worse off than they had been before. Hospitals and everything of that nature have been centralised so that everything is further away.
When we come to discuss the consultation document—and I do not want to weary your Lordships by discussing now something that we should discuss much later—we shall have to meet the difficulties of rural areas and small villages with no bus, and never likely to have one, because they cannot support the necessary amount of traffic. They are some distance from the bus route and from the nearest railway. In these days as the number of men employed in agriculture grows fewer, if people are to continue living in the villages a great many of them must commute to work. Those small villages have patients of perhaps two or even three doctors' partnerships in two or three neighbouring towns and with two or three surgeries to get to.
Even if a small (in quantity of visits) bus service is subsidised, it cannot take the young men in the village away to work ; it cannot take the other people who have to go to the doctor's surgery or make visits of that nature. And when we come to look at that, although the Consultative Document only refers to the subsidisation of bus services and possibly of train services—although they suggest the abolition of the train services and their substitution by bus services—I think it inevitable that we shall be forced into looking upon the village private hire car as being an essential means of transport for the small rural villages.
Ex hypothesi, a small village does not provide sufficient clientele to make it a highly profitable occupation to run a

725
village private hire car. A great many villages do not have them. In those that do—and I am fortunate enough to live in one of them, which I find particularly useful since some of the infirmities of old age make me rely on my wife to drive me about and she does not like doing it too often—most village taxis, as we usually call them, are subsidised in some way or the driver is subsidised in some way. He may be an old-age pensioner or he may have run the village garage or something like that ; but although it does not lose money, he must arrange it to go to the appropriate doctor's surgery at the appropriate times. To some extent, it is a social service run by an individual who has probably lived in the village all his life.
I believe that we are going to have to subsidise that in some way. I think it would be disastrous to add anything to the expenditure whether it is by the inspections to which we have already referred or, certainly, by adding to the cost of licences. We may have to come down to subsidising the insurance policies, which are becoming increasingly heavy when a man has to insure against his paying passengers. I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to accept the spirit of this Amendment—I would not guarantee its drafting—so that we can not only keep our existing little private cars in the existing villages, but encourage them in others. I beg to move.
Lord SANDYS: I should like to support this Amendment most strongly. Only a week ago the House were discussing a Motion on the needs of the elderly, and transport—especially rural transport, to which the Amendment refers—was discussed as part of the total problem of the needs of the aged. I do not believe that is the only aspect of this particular problem. The question of isolation of rural areas affects all age groups. It has been the policy of the National Association of Local Councils to stress this fact for certainly the past decade. The policy of the National Association has been to seek the reinforcement of other forms of local transport. They have sought to find some acceptance in Government circles of the proposal of the post bus which has met this need to some extent in other countries, but it is rare indeed
726
that local authorities have taken up this particular form of local transport.
So we return to the question of the local private hire service and the invaluable service it provides for the local community. One can imagine circumstances where older people—possibly those who either have never owned a motor car or have reached an age where they have been deprived of a driving licence—are not able to be picked up by friends and neighbours because they live a considerable distance away. Therefore they lead a life of almost Medieval isolation. Without a local private hire service they would be isolated. My noble friend has brought forward a real case. There is a second point on medical grounds which is once again reinforcement of what my noble friend has said. This should be stressed because the prescription service—to which he did not specifically refer—is a matter of great interest. to the National Health Service.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: May I also support my noble friend's Amendment. One of the most disastrous things which occurred on the reorganisation of local government was not something which was intended—that the town should get to know the country and the country should get to know the town ; the tendency has been for the town to swamp the country, and for the country to be forgotten except for a nice weekend out in this beautiful weather. I trust that the Government will bear in mind that there are many people who live in deep rural areas who live there all the year round. We are not referring to these people being there in good weather, but in the depths of winter when the question of transport may become vital. I appeal to the Government to give the greatest thought to what my noble friend has said because certainly in the areas that I know well it has become a very difficult problem with what is becoming an ageing population, due to the young people leaving for the town centres for whatever work may be available.
5.34 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Let me begin by saying that I very much agree with one part of what the noble Earl said : there has been a clear development of difficult transport problems in some rural areas because of the cut-back in public transport arrangements, and so

727
on. I fully recognise that the private hire vehicle does in many cases fulfil a most useful public service. I accept that right away. I take the point which the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, made, where he developed a similar argument. The difficulty is that we have to consider the effect of what the noble Earl is suggesting.
I do not want to waste time on drafting points. I recognise straight away that it is very difficult to draft an Amendment to a Bill correctly first time. Therefore, I will not argue, as I could, that the Amendment is defective. The question to which it is right to address ourselves is whether the Amendment is right in principle. The difficulty about the Amendment is its arbitrary character. It says that if there are fewer than 700 local government electors, there will be—let us put the matter bluntly—an element of subsidisation. First of all, I am not clear why the figure of 700 is used. I do not want to make a debating point but, nevertheless, it is obviously an arbitrary figure. Apart from that, we are talking about a parish in a controlled district. If this Amendment were carried there would be a different level of licence fee in the rest of the district to the level of fee obtaining in this particular village because it has fewer than 700 inhabitants.
One possible consequence—which I am sure is unintended—is that a substantial number of owners of licensed vehicles might decide the most sensible and profitable action would be to garage their vehicles in any parish of fewer than 700 people. Therefore the amount of subsidisation would escalate at a fairly remarkable rate. Apart from that, it is very difficult to argue that there should be one level of fee in an area of more than 700 inhabitants and a totally different level of fee in an area of fewer than 700 inhabitants. It would he arbitrary; it would be generally recognised by many to be unfair. I do not in any way underestimate real problems in many rural areas. I in no way dissent from what the noble Earl has said on that. But I suggest this is not the right way of dealing with this particular problem.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: Of course, the figure of 700 local government electors is purely arbitrary. I used that because it meant a population of round
728
about 1,000 which I believe is the relationship between the one and the other. There is a Census only every ten years and a new registry of electors every year. I do not think the noble Lord attaches much importance to that argument. The cut-off comes at that size of population and that is about right. I know my own district fairly well; once you get up to the village of about 1,000 the smaller buses tend to run at a profit and the service is much more frequent. A few such villages have the doctor's surgery there and a number of shops. That means that nobody has to make a visit very often outside the village to buy something. At some point, whether you call it a 1,000 or 2,000 population, this break comes where the necessity for a private hire car becomes less important and, moreover, the population becomes large enough for there to be quite a considerable call upon it and for it to be profitable without any subsidy. Therefore I do not think the point made by the noble Lord has a great deal of weight.
I considered the point made by the noble Lord as to whether it was possible that people might find it profitable to go into a small village and put their car there and operate from there; but, just by reason of the fact that these places are likely to be isolated, I doubt very much whether it would pay a person to put in his private hire car—or two or three cars—in a small village so far from a centre of population to which he probably has to go to earn his living. The difference is not going to be very great. If you suggest £25 and it is only £24, I would have thought that the coming and going to centres of population to pick up passengers and people who have hired you would probably far outweigh that. We could get round that quite easily by saying it should be confined to the owner and operator of one car.
As to the other points made by the noble Lord, I do not think any of them are insuperable and I should like an assurance from him that he will look at this again. It is a real problem, in rural parishes, as other speakers have said. I am convinced that we shall have to come to something like this for rural parishes in the end and it would be a mistake not to do it now, because after all this is typical of the rather half-baked way in which this part of the Bill has been brought forward without any great consideration being given to it.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: Before my noble friend withdraws his Amendment, if that is his intention, may I just say to the noble Lord who is replying for the Government that I do not think he has a true picture of the type of existence which these people in small rural districts have to lead. These are the people for whom my noble friend is trying to provide a service. I should be very happy for this Amendment to go through, certainly as regards the principle of it, as I cannot see that you can offer a suggestion that someone should park taxis because it is cheaper to do so, when the reason for producing this Amendment is that at the moment it is so far away that there are no taxis. It is one of the situations where people in these small communities—apart from the arbitrary figures—really need a service of this kind; and people arc not going to come and use it for profit in bigger places. I trust that the Government will think again about this.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: If I may take just that point and what the noble Earl has just said, I think it is wrong to assume that every parish of fewer than 700 people is a long way from any urban area. That is not true, although of course many are. But we are talking here about legislation which is going on to the Statute Book and will apply equally to the parish in a controlled district which is a substantial difference from an urban area and to another parish which might be very close indeed to an area of significant urban population. I must come back to the fact that it is unrealistic to deal with problems in rural areas by having two different levels of licence fee; one for an area of more than 700 inhabitants and the other for an area of below 700.
I fully recognise the strength of conviction of the noble Earl and I also recognise the problem, but I do not believe this is the way to deal with it. Although I will, of course, consider what the noble Earl has said, I would not wish to be other than honest with the Committee. There are real problems involved here and I am not optimistic about the chances of resolving them before the Report stage, because I believe this proposition is wrong in principle.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: I wonder whether the noble Lord has thought of what would happen in a district in which
730
there was a seaside town which had implemented the 1847 Act, because there were hackney carriages there and a sufficient population and number of visitors to make them essential. Under the last Local Government Act that seaside town, let us say, is thrown in with a rural area which never has had and never is likely to have hackney carriages. Unless, for some reason or other, the new district chooses to extend its powers under the 1847 Act, you would have exactly the same position as the noble Lord now says is entirely wrong. You would have the new Act applying to the urban district in which the 1847 Act applies. Unless, for the rather specious reason which the noble Lord himself gave about a matter at an earlier stage of our debate—just for the sake of having " a tidy-up business "—it was not extended (and I would hope that sensible district councils would not extend it) you would have the whole of the rural area, which has been hitherto outside that town where the 1847 Act applied, not having to get licences at all; and you would have licences in the town to which the 1847 Act applies.
I think that if the noble Lord or his advisers would scratch their heads a little more they could bring forward an Amendment to my Amendment which would make it tidy, discreet and entirely proper to deal with this problem. We know this problem exists and that it has to be resolved, and the sooner the better. I am quite prepared to withdraw my Amendment now but shall certainly put it down for the Report stage. I hope that perhaps the noble Lord will have reconsidered it and tried to tidy it up. I will put it down as soon as I can so that the noble Lord may move Amendments to it if necessary. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.48 p.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 70A:
Page 56, line 31, leave out (" at least one local newspaper ") and insert (" all of the local newspapers ").
The noble Earl said: This is to meet the difficult situation which can arise in these new and rather large rural areas which are all within one district, where quite a

731
number of people take a London paper and perhaps just the local rag which comes out once a week. I am not sure whether the major paper which circulates in the area will meet all conditions that are required. I realise that in some towns where there are a lot of very small papers, if everybody takes the major one this is quite ridiculous; but again I think we must try to meet this rather difficult situation where you have the Little Plumpton Gazette and the Little Piddleton Gazette coming out one on Wednesday and one on Saturday. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The one thing which is absolutely certain is that the noble Earl will be a very popular man among the advertising managers of local newspapers. Unhappily, I am not able to be quite as forthcoming as I am sure they would want me to be on this matter. There are two problems. First, it is a common feature of many pieces of legislation to require publication in a local newspaper, and it is very difficult to treat taxis and private hire cars differently. Secondly, it is sometimes very difficult to know what constitutes " all of the local newspapers ". If I may give one example, the Bristol Evening Post has a circulation area covering a very substantial part of the South-West of England, but that newspaper would be the first to agree that its circulation in some areas is very small indeed. If there had to be an advertisement in all of the local newspapers, that one would obviously profit greatly.
But that is not the central objection. There is a degree of imprecision in the language, and there will also be substantial additional cost for a local authority. Finally, it is only right that I should make this point. The people mainly concerned with any proposal of this kind will be well aware of it, and they will not have to wait for the circulation of a newspaper which carries an advertisement before they are put on warning as to what is proposed. It is right that there should be a statutory requirement, but as I have tried to indicate the form of words chosen by the noble Earl is rather difficult to accept.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: I am afraid that I must come straight back and say that
732
I believe my noble friend is absolutely right. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has no idea of the situations which exist in these rural areas. I live in a rural area which has a county newspaper, three town newspapers and an evening newspaper, all of which are local and most people will read one of those. But one of them has a very small circulation and if you want to conceal something, which has been known to happen, you put the advertisement in that one. If you want something to be known about, then you put the advertisement in the one with the large circulation. The approach to this matter is quite wrong, because it is the citizen's right to know. I think my noble friend has an extremely good point here, and all the local newspapers which circulate in an affected area should carry an advertisement.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will think about this point a little more. One always argues from the particular to the general, but it so happens that in the area in which I live there are two fairly large local papers, one based on Norwich and the other based on Ipswich, and some people take in one while other people take in the other. There are also a number of very small local newspapers, which are the only local ones that many people take. It is probably true that in a large number of cases something will get around on the grapevine, but if advertising in the Press means anything it ought to mean something like I have proposed. I do not know whether the noble Lord or the Home Office would define the Norwich paper or the Ipswich paper as the one which ought to be advertised in in my district. Perhaps the noble Lord could look into this matter a little more, because country districts are very different from large metropolitan areas and their difficulties must be met.
Baroness YOUNG: Before the noble Lord, Lord Harris, replies, may I give him one other reason for reconsidering this matter ? He will know that Clause 61 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill is based entirely on the Plymouth City Council Act, and is an exact replica of Section 28 of that Act. This is one of the difficulties which one gets into when one tries to make applicable to the whole country something which is applicable to Plymouth.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: This is the last time that I shall say this to the noble Baroness. I give her that guarantee. I am sure that that was one of the many arguments which my honourable friend deployed in the Standing Committee before he was outvoted by the noble Baroness's friends. The point is that the Bill states that there should he an advertisement " in at least one local newspaper " ; in other words, it is discretionary. Of course, there is always a risk that a local authority will try to publish an advertisement in a newspaper which has virtually no circulation, but we have to accept the fact that, broadly speaking, local authorities are made up of responsible and reasonable people who do not behave in that fashion. Furthermore, I suspect that the language of this clause is similar to that in many other pieces of legislation dealing with matters very different from the control of taxis and private hire vehicles. I will look at the point again with pleasure, but I doubt very seriously whether " all of the local newspapers " makes a great deal of sense, given the fact that it creates a great deal of imprecision.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.57 p.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 70B:
Page 56, line 32, after (" out ") insert—
(" the total expenditure incurred in carrying out each of the functions defined under subsection (1)(a), (b) and (c) of this section and the total amount received in fees for each type of licence specified in subsection (2)(a), (b) and (c) of this section.").
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is intended to prevent purely arbitrary action on the part of a local authority, which could charge on its licensing costs a considerable number of overheads, without the unfortunate people whose licensing costs are being increased having any knowledge of the reason. We hope that inflation will be so well controlled that this will happen very rarely—after all, it would hardly have happened at all between 1920 and 1930—and changes are necessary only in periods when there is inflation of the currency or of the desires of a local authority. As I said, it ought not to happen very often if an organisation is run well, and if costs are going up there
734
are many ways of cutting down. As the noble Baroness suggested, the number of licences might be reduced. But I think that the people who will have the cost of their licences increased are entitled to have this information, and this seemed to me the only way of making it known. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The proposal here is that in the body of the advertisement which is published " in at least one local newspaper " there should be a statement from a local authority of its receipts and expenses; in other words, it would have to justify in an advertisement a decision to change the level of its fees. I am not totally convinced that this is the right way of dealing with this problem. So far as I am aware, there is no suggestion in relation to any other group of fees charged by local authorities that they should, as it were, publish an abstract of accounts. If the electors take the view that an authority is behaving in an arbitrary fashion, they can of course examine the accounts; and a matter can be raised with the district auditor if it is felt that a local authority is behaving wholly unreasonably. But once we move into this area of justifying decisions in advertisement columns, I am not sure where we end. Will it be suggested—and I suppose it could be—that if there is a change in the rents of council houses a local authority should publish a detailed abstract of its housing revenue account?
One could go right the way through a large number of services provided by a local authority and say that there had to be some form of justification in the advertising columns of newspapers. I do not think that this is right. If a local authority wants to vary its fees it can do so only by resolution and, quite apart from the advertisement, there has to be debate in the council chamber. There are ways in which local authorities can be made to justify their decisions but I do not think that the way to deal with them is in the advertising columns of newspapers. The way in which you make people justify a decision is in democratic debate. That is the best guarantee of fairness by a particular local authority, not a statement in the advertising columns of a newspaper. I am not sure that this would be of enormous benefit to people who had any doubts about it.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: When I referred to the Amendment whose number I cannot read without putting on my other spectacles, but the noble Lord knows which one it is, he said then that this matter would not be subject to audit by the district auditor. If all these things were subject to the audit of the district auditor, we would see them in the accounts of local authorities and any ratepayer could demand this information at any moment. If this matter is to be outside the accounts of local authorities so that ratepayers will not have the right to demand an explanation—and since it is not going to fall on the rates they will not have that right—it does not seem to me to be right that a person who wants to appeal against it, and machinery for appealing against it is included here, should not have the power to do so.
I should be perfectly satisfied if the noble Lord could tell me that there will be an Amendment to give owners, drivers and the like the right as individuals to demand this information. Then the position would be perfectly satisfactory. This provision ought to be included in the Bill. The only alternative is to publish the reasons, but people have been given no real reasons. They can say that this is too expensive but they have no means of establishing that it is too expensive. Perhaps the noble Lord will think a little more about this Amendment, for I cannot believe that he has thought out the full implications. It is no good giving the right to appeal to people if they do not know the reasons on which they can base an appeal.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I hesitate about using any form of words which implies that I am likely to take a different view at Report stage from the one I take now. I do not believe that a requirement of this kind is reasonable. It will impose an additional marginal cost on local authorities which I do not believe is justified, nor do I believe that using the advertising columns of newspapers to justify an increase in licence fees is reasonable. As I have indicated, there is a provision whereby any local government elector can inspect the accounts of a local authority and question its auditors. That power is conferred by Section 159 of the Local Government Act 1972. That is the way in which one can try to establish
736
whether a local authority is behaving wholly unreasonably and, as I understand it, that is the only situation we are talking about. There is some degree of assurance given to a private citizen if he believes that a local authority is behaving in that manner, but I do not believe that an abstract of accounts in the advertising columns of a newspaper is the way to deal with this problem.
The EARL of CRANBROOK The EARL of CRANBROOK I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, but in doing so I must tell the noble Lord that I shall put down another Amendment because I believe that justice must be done.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 61 shall stand part of the Bill ?
Baroness YOUNG: It may well be that my noble friend Lord Cranbrook has not worded his Amendments in quite the appropriate way, but he is making a very real point that I hope the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will look at. I appreciate that the Minister cannot give a guarantee that he will accept the noble Earl's Amendment or even guarantee to bring back an Amendment on Report. Nevertheless, the point that the noble Earl is making is that in many instances country areas have not been subject to the working of the 1847 Act, that by this Bill they will now find themselves subject to that Act and to restrictions on private hire vehicles, and that in the case of private hire vehicles what is a very real alternative form of transport will suddenly have been put into a legal straitjacket which it did not wear before. Naturally enough, people living in the country are fearful that in a very real sense they will be worse off.
We shall return to this point on Clause 66. However, there is a real danger that we could be making life more difficult for people living in the country, just at a time when everybody is trying to get more flexible forms of transport. If the noble Lord could reconsider any of the matters in that light, I think it would be very helpful.
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clause 62 [Taximeters]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 57, line 13, leave out (" without lawful excuse ").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 71, and at the same time I wish to speak to Amendment No. 72. These are drafting Amendments to put the words, " without lawful excuse " in their right place in the clause.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 57, line 14, after (" taximeter ") insert (" without lawful excuse ").
On Question, Amendment agreed to. Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 63 [Offence due to fault of other person]:
6.8 p.m.
Lord AIREDALE Lord AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 57, line 17, after (" an ") insert (" alleged ")
The noble Lord said: Clause 73 provides that if an offence by one person is due to the fault of another person, then that other person may be charged with and convicted of that offence. But the clause also says:
…whether proceedings are taken against the first-mentioned person or not ".
The question arises: if proceedings are not taken against A, where do you find the oracle that tells you, if proceedings were taken against A, whether or not they would be successful and get the answer right every time? If you can find the oracle you can dispense altogether with prosecutions and just consult the oracle. However, because of the different skills of prosecutors and one thing and another the only way in which you can find out whether an offence has been committed is to prosecute and see what is the verdict. If you are not going to prosecute—and in some cases this clause envisages that you are not—then the most you can say is " an alleged offence by any person ". That is what this Amendment does. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The position on this Amendment is that the clause at present follows the usual form of clauses relating to offences due to the fault of another person which are normally cast in terms of offences rather than alleged offences. The examples are numerous: the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, Section 23, the Medicines Act 1968, the Fire Precautions Act 1971, the Fair Trading Act 1973, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and the Control of Pollution Act 1974, Section 87(2). The position is that a person is charged with committing an offence; he is not charged with committing an alleged offence, and that in fact is the reason why the language of this clause is exactly the same as the language of similar clauses in other Bills.
Lord AIREDALE: The point I am making is that he is not charged at all; he is alleged to have committed an offence. I congratulate the Minister on his prodigious industry. Again we are going to have this lamentable Parliamentary situation in which, having got it wrong over and over again we are going to get it wrong another time, instead of, for once, getting it right and continuing to get it right from now on. This is a battle that has been lost in the past and I am not going to retrieve the situation, but it is a nonsense all the same. However, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 63 agreed to.
Clauses 64 and 65 agreed to.
Clause 66 [Saving for certain vehicles]:
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 58, line 12, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Baroness said: I hope it will not be necessary for me to speak at any length on this Amendment because the Government will come forward with Amendments to this clause. It is not at all satisfactory as it stands. This Amendment to leave out subsection (1) has been tabled because subsection (1) means in effect that a private hire vehicle cannot come into a controlled area unless it is carrying passengers. Clearly it cannot have been the intention of the Government to prevent operators who operate all over the country from being able to move about from one place to another.

739
During the Second Reading debate the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, gave many examples of how this would work. As I understand it, if, for example, as I live in Oxford and I am arriving at Heathrow, I ask a private hire vehicle from Oxford to collect me, this would be illegal under the Bill. Indeed, I understand that a case is now pending in Liverpool in which a private hire vehicle came into Liverpool to pick someone up and the firm has now been charged with an offence because the car came from outside Liverpool to pick up a passenger inside Liverpool. I am quite certain that it cannot be the intention of the Government to make it impossible for private hire organisations such as Godfrey Davis, Hertz, Daimler Hire, and so on, whose organisations require free passage throughout the country, to be unable to operate. I hope it is not necessary for me to say anything more at this stage because we shall have further debates on this clause. This is a very important matter of principle which I hope the Government will look at. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: As the noble Baroness has rightly said, the difficulties arising from the mobility of private hire cars were clearly stated in the debate which we had on 21st June, and not least by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I think the noble Baroness would probably agree, and I hope also the noble Lord, that it is by no means clear that the Amendments they have tabled would satisfactorily resolve this particular problem, which is a real problem. We are looking into this matter urgently and intend to bring forward hopefully acceptable Amendments at the Report stage so that we may deal with this problem.
Lord SANDYS: I am delighted to hear that the noble Lord recognises it is a real problem. I mentioned the question of foreign earnings during the debate on, Whether Clause 40 shall stand part of the Bill ? This is a very strong case where we should make the situation flexible for overseas visitors. I do not wish to labour the point and we are willing to accept the situation.
Baroness YOUNG: With the assurance given by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I bee leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord AIREDALE Lord AIREDALE had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 74A:
Page 58, line 13 after (" district") insert (" or taking them outside a controlled district ").
The noble Lord said: If I thought I would get a similar answer to this Amendment if I moved it, I would not move it.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: With such an appeal coming at this time of the evening from the noble Lord it is irresistible to give him the answer that he wants, which is that although it would be impossible for me to predict a guarantee of total satisfaction all round we are going to address our minds to this particular group of issues, not least the one raised by the noble Lord during our last debate, and it may well be that he will be at least moderately satisfied by the Government Amendments which we intend to table for the Report stage.
Lord AIREDALE: The only person who ever gave total satisfaction all round was Jeeves.
On Question, Whether Clause 66 shall stand part of the Bill
Baroness YOUNG: I recognise that the noble Lord is going to look at the problem contained in the first subsection of this clause and when he is doing so I think he might recognise not only the problem from the point of view of the consumer wanting to get about but also the difficulty of the private hire operator operating on the border of a district. Once again, this will be particularly hard on people living in rural areas because that is where people may want to ring up a private hire firm. Because they may live in a rural area on the edge of the town, they will find that they cannot hire the car. These are further considerations which I hope the noble Lord will take into account.
Clause 66 agreed to.
Clauses 67 to 70 agreed to.
Clause 71 [Interpretation of Part II]:
6.18 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 59, line 28, at end insert (" or an authorised vehicle examiner approved by a district council ").
The noble Baroness said: I tabled this Amendment to increase the numbers of people who could in fact licence a vehicle. I drew attention to this difficulty before and I hope if this Amendment is not correctly drafted the noble Lord will look at the point. He will see that it will enable the " authorised officer " to mean not only the officer of the district council authorised in writing by the council for the purposes of this Part of the Act but also a vehicle examiner approved by the district council. With that short explanation I hope the noble Lord will consider the matter. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I appreciate the point which the noble Baroness has in mind. I am not sure that her Amendment exactly meets the problem, but I hope that at Report stage I shall be able to bring forward an Amendment which will deal with this particular difficulty.
0Baroness YOUNG: I thank the noble Lord, and with that assurance I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 71 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Enactments repealed]:
6.20 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPART-MENT of the ENVIRON MENT (Baroness Birk)The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPART-MENT of the ENVIRON MENT (Baroness Birk) moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 66, line 26, at end insert—
(" 1949 c. 55.
The Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949.
Section9.")
The noble Baroness said: .I think this is quite a simple and uncontroversial Amendment. It seeks to repeal Section 9 of the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949 in so far as it applies to England and Wales. Section 9 of the 1949 Act gives district councils powers to acquire information about the ownership of premises for the purpose of performing their
742
functions under Part I of the Act, which deals with the control of rats and mice. These powers are no longer needed as they will be superseded by Clause 15. Section 9 will remain in force so far as Scotland is concerned, as Clause 74(3) makes it clear that the Bill extends only to England and Wales. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether this shall be the second Schedule to the Bill?
Lord HENLEY: I want to raise a point on Schedule 2 which deals with enactments repealed. There are two enactments repealed to which I want to speak; they are the Physical Training and Recreation Act 1937 and the Local Government Act 1972. I want to be sure that the Government are not leaving areas in the new 'Bill which are full of doubt so far as what a local authority may do under Clause 18.
If I may remind your Lordships, Clause 18 is that clause which enables local authorities to support, or to encourage other bodies to support, recreational facilities. When Clause 18 was called in another place, a series of Amendments were moved both in Standing Committee B and at Third Reading and, indeed, I think before that, to try to clarify the position. I understand that the position under the old Acts was fairly clear, and it should have been quite possible for any local authority to know exactly what it could and what it could not support. But as the Bill is now drafted, with these two earlier enactments repealed, there seems to be a grey area as to exactly what is " recreational " and what is " educational ".
If your Lordships turn to the Local Government Act 1972, the section that is repealed in Section 144(1)(b). That old Act stated that a local authority may
" provide, … facilities for recreation, conferences, trade fairs and exhibitions or improve …any existing facilities for those purposes ".
The word " recreation " is now cut out. It seems to me that if we repeal the word "recreation ", it leaves the powers mainly biased towards business, even though the words could he taken individually as having a much more general application.
If your Lordships turn to the other enactment which is repealed, that is, the Physical Training and Recreation

743
Act 1972, it might well be said that it is perfectly reasonable to repeal it because it is in need of modernisation and deals with more modern and different forms of recreation. Similar powers to its Section 4(1) exist under Section 53(1) of the Education Act 1944. But those powers can only be used with the consent of the Secretary of State for Education and Science, and the local education authority has no discretion to act on them for even the smallest item.
The Government's answer given in another place more than once was that in the area which is in part recreational and in part educational, the powers required can be collected from the other education Acts and similar provisions. But from reading what was said in another place, and from hearing the discussions between honourable and right honourable Members, I have the impression that the Government themselves are not entirely happy that local authorities, under the new Bill, would know exactly what their powers were, and that there was a promise—not in terms, but at least a suggestion—that the Government would look at this again to see whether they could not clarify it. I wonder whether anything further has happened since the debates took place in another place on this rather difficult but small area? I wonder whether the noble Baroness could give me any answer to this point.
I am sorry I did not raise the point under Clause 18, which might well have been a more appropriate occasion. As I was unable to be present at the earlier Committee stage, I have raised the matter under the Schedules.
Baroness BIRK: Clause 18, to which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was referring, is drafted in order to give local authorities exactly the same powers as they had under the powers which are repealed. This was the purpose of Clause 18. If the noble Lord reads Section 1, again, he will see that this does cover the matter, and the word " recreational ".
So far as Section 144 is concerned, the repeal of the word " recreation " there is consequential on Clause 18. Therefore, this subsection enables local authorities to
" provide, or encourage any other person or body to provide, facilities for recreation, conferences,
744
trade fairs and exhibitions or improve, or encourage any other person or body to improve, any other existing facilities for those purposes ".
Now that local authorities will have general powers to provide recreational facilities under Clause 18, the power under Section 144(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972 will no longer be necessary. The power to encourage any other person or body to provide facilities for recreation will also be repealed, but this need not stop local authorities from trying to persuade others to provide such facilities. I should have thought that that really was quite clear now, and I hope the noble Lord is satisfied with that reply.
Lord SANDYS: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in this regard, because he has raised an issue which raised with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, on Clause 18, the issue dealing with the extent of the repeals of Sections 4 and 5 of the Physical Training and Recreation Act 1937. I will not go over the Amendments which I sought to bring forward to your Lordships and subsequently withdrew, having notified the noble Baroness that I should be bringing forward further Amendments on Report on this subject.
May I say to your Lordships and to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that there is a problem here on which we are not wholly satisfied, that the Local Government Act 1972 entirely satisfies. I feel it is inappropriate to go into detail at this moment, but the noble Lord has raised a point which we hope to cover on Report.
Lord HENLEY: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for her reply, and particularly so since I was unable to give her earlier notice of it. I suppose from her reply that the Government are satisfied that there is no area of imprecision here, and I am glad to know it. But there are a number of bodies—to quote one, the Youth Hostels Association—which are very worried as to whether the areas where in the past they have been granted help towards facilities, may be circumscribed by lack of understanding on the part of local authorities. So I hope that in any circular that the Government may put out under the new Act, they will indicate that the very widest interpretation should be put upon the powers of the local authorities in this regard.
Baroness BIRK: I said in the discussions on Clause 18 that we would be issuing a circular for guidance on that clause on recreational powers. I cannot at the moment see any reason why it should not be made quite clear that there is no doubt about this.
I think I should add, and I forgot to mention it when replying originally to the noble Lord, that we have also checked that the powers concerning education in the Physical Training and Recreation Act 1937, which are not included in Clause 18, are available in the Education Act. We decided that if they were included in Clause 18 there would then be an overlap. Therefore, both the education and the recreation sides are covered. If the noble Lord would like me to do so, I will certainly write to him and set this all out, so that he will have it clearly before him if he wants it to be shown and circulated to other people.
Lord HENLEY: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness.
Lord SANDYS: Before we pass from Schedule 2, which of course covers all enactments repealed, perhaps I should from these Benches say what a pity it is that the whole of the Act of 1847 is not struck from the Statute Book.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
On Question, Whether the Title shall be the Title of the Bill ?
Baroness YOUNG: Before we pass the Long Title of the Bill, I have been in extensive correspondence with both the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and I am bound to say I am still not satisfied that the Long Title is correct. I do not intend, certainly at this hour of the evening, to go into the question in great detail. The fact remains that the Long Title of the Bill refers only to taxis; it is only covered by Private Acts, not by Public Acts at all, and on taking legal advice I am told that the Long Title ought to be amended.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, but, if I may say so with the greatest possible spirit of friendliness, perhaps the Long Title of the Bill is not what I would have selected for this purpose.
746
The fact is that this is a matter which was tested in Committee in another place, when the Chair took the view that the Amendments which were tabled then were within the Long Title of the Bill ; otherwise they would, of course, have been ruled out of order. That view is also the view of the Government's legal advisers. Although, of course, I will consider the matter again—the noble Baroness has been kind enough to write to me again on the matter—the fact is that we believe that this matter is covered by the Long Title of the Bill.
Baroness YOUNG: I will, of course, accept the noble Lord's assurance that he will look at this again, but I hope that when he does and when he replies to my letter he will let me know which Public Acts cover the point about private hire vehicles.
On Question, Title agreed to.
House resumed : Bill reported with the Amendments.

NEW TOWNS (AMENDMENT) BILL
6.34 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg to move that the New Towns (Amendment) Bill be now read a second time. Perhaps at the outset I should declare an interest. I had the honour to be a member of the Peterborough Development Corporation, which city, as noble Lords might know, is being developed as a partnership new town. This means that there is, from the beginning, a very clear involvement by the local authority in a number of aspects of the town's development. I can assure your Lordships that it was an interesting and satisfying experience which I saw as an extension of what I might call my local government career. I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will forgive me if I say that perhaps in this one respect I am one up on her, but I look forward to our discussions because I must also recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is one, if not one and a half, up on me because of her experience as a Government Minister and as a spokesman from both the Front Benches in this House, in addition to her long and distinguished career in local government. She also has my sympathy in having to carry on with this

747
Bill tonight, having borne the heat and burden of the day in the previous three or four hours.
With your Lordships' great sense of history, I think we would not be exaggerating if we look upon this Bill before us as an important historic step in the evolution of planning legislation in this country. But it is historic in more senses than one. The New Towns Act of 1946 and the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947 are monuments to the memory of a former Member of both Houses of Parliament. There are many Members of your Lordships' House who will recall the contributions which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made to the debates in this House. It is both fascinating and perhaps remarkable that some 30 years later his son, my right honourable friend, the Minister for Planning and Local Government, Mr. John Silkin, should have the opportunity to continue his father's great work in legislating in a similar field. Noble Lords will know that the Bill before us today was piloted through another place by him.
My Lords, if I have read correctly the debates on this Bill in another place, I do not think there is any very great difference of principle between us today. The Bill for the transfer of new town housing assets to local authorities is indeed a return to one of the principles of the original 1946 Act. Development corporations would be set up to do a particular job of work over a finite period of time; then, when that job was done, they would be wound-up. There was never any doubt that the houses provided for rent would pass into the ownership of local authorities.
There was what I might politely call a hiccough in that philosophy when the Party opposite created the Commission for the New Towns. We, on this side of the House, at the time did not welcome it. But perhaps our attitude can be said to have mellowed, because, as my right honourable friend explained in another place, we now see a significant ongoing role for the Commission in the management of the industrial and commercial assets which have been and are being created in our new towns. What we have to recognise now is that the taxpayer has made a massive investment in the new communities we have created. It is
748
necessary, therefore, to devise some way in which the return on that investment can be shared between all concerned with the development of the new town. But that, my Lords, will be the next step in the evolutionary process.
What we are concerned with today is perhaps the first real attempt to normalise our new towns. Housing has long been a statutory responsibility of our district councils. It is sensible that, in meeting that responsibility to provide for the housing needs of the people of the whole district, the ownership of houses in the public sector which are required for rent should, so far as is shown to be necessary—and this will differ from place to place—rest with the democratically controlled local authority. That authority will, of course, want to take decisions as to the management of the rented housing stock, and that management role will not exclude the opportunity to diversify tenure either by the encouragement of housing associations and tenants co-operatives or by some sales of houses to sitting tenants.
My Lords, let me turn now to the detailed provisions of the Bill. It is essentially an enabling measure, depending in large part on the co-operation and agreement of the parties concerned locally. Each new town has its own particular pace of development and its own peculiar characteristics. The transfer legislation must, therefore, be sufficiently flexible to deal with a number of differing situations over quite a lengthy period of years—perhaps up until the 1990s.
Clause 1 provides that transfer schemes may be made and defines the related assets which may be transferred along with the rented housing. These associated assets including garaging, play spaces and other small areas of amenity open space, local shops and undeveloped " infill " sites for housing. However, the definitions, as noble Lords will have noticed, are drafted in broad enabling terms so as to allow detailed decisions on the associated assets to be taken locally by the new town corporations and the district council in accordance with the individual circumstances of the new town.
Clause 2 sets out the circumstances and procedures for consultations about the possibility of transfer in the case of any particular town. Once 15 years have

749
passed from the designation of a new town, if the Secretary of State does not himself initiate consultations, then either the new town corporation or the district council concerned locally may themselves do so. And if after such consultations the Secretary of State decides not to direct the preparation of a transfer scheme, then Clause 8 of the Bill ensures that the situation is kept under regular review. Either of the authorities concerned locally may at three yearly intervals request renewed consultations to take place.
Clause 2 provides for other conditions than the 15-year one when consultations may be initiated about the possibility of transfer. However the 15-year point would normally be at about the time when we envisage the parties concerned beginning to think about transfer. The 15-year point would enable consultations to begin in the Commission for the New Towns and the first generation towns. Consultations about transfer before the 15-year condition is satisfied can only be initiated by the Secretary of State and then only after consultation with the new town corporation of the town concerned.
Clause 3 deals with the contents of the transfer schemes which the Secretary of State may, if satisfactory consultations have been concluded, direct the corporation and council to make. The schemes must give the details of the dwellings and of other property to be transferred, of the arrangements made for the retention of tenancy nomination rights by the new town corporation, of the financial arrangements between the parties to the scheme and last, but by no means least, information about the arrangements for staff.
My Lords, transfer schemes will usually contain a provision for the management by the district council of some of the corporation dwellings which are not being transferred by the scheme. This is an important provision because in most cases the new town corporations will be left with a small residual housebuilding programme to complete after the actual transfer. By using the interim device of management arrangements, cross-subsidisation of rents across the whole rented housing stock can be ensured; without such arrangements the corporation would have to charge very high rents for their new houses since they would no longer be able to " cushion " them with
750
those of the older housing transferred to the district council.
We have provided under Clause 4 for the county councils to be informed about the contents of transfer schemes because they may have an interest in some of the housing related assets which arc eligible for transfer. I may say that the introduction of this provision at the Report stage in another place was welcomed by the Party opposite whose own Amendment in the Standing Committee to achieve a similar purpose was withdrawn after discussion.
Clause 5 sets out the procedure to he followed in preparing, submitting and approving transfer schemes, and Clause 6 ensures that once a scheme is approved by the Secretary of State and comes into operation the scheme itself is sufficient to give the district council good title to the property being transferred. Individual conveyancing of the property is not, therefore, required. Clause 6 also specifies the procedures and circumstances for varying schemes and defines the extent of the district council's powers over property which it manages but does not own. The usual arrangements for public deposit of the relevant parts of schemes are also made under this clause.
I have already mentioned that transfer schemes will include details of tenancy nomination rights to be retained by corporations. Clause 7 specifies the period over which they are to be secured. Transitional nomination rights are essential if the satisfactory completion of the development of the new towns is not to be jeopardised. It is important, for example, to ensure that the key workers needed by firms in new towns can be housed; that the needs of " exporting " local authorities and, increasingly of the disadvantaged, continue to be taken into account. Our intention is, therefore, that active development corporations should exercise tenancy nomination rights until they are wound up, and thereafter the Commission for the New Towns should be able to exercise them for a period of up to five years.
One of the most important aspects of the transfer of housing is the financial basis to be adopted. It has been generally agreed that the appropriate terms are outstanding loan debt as proposed by the Government, and the rather complex

751
Clause 9 provides for this as well as for the payment of Exchequer housing subsidies to the district council instead of to the new town corporation after transfer. Here I should mention that we are considering proposals which have been put to us which might simplify the arrangements for payments by the district council under Clause 9(2), and if these are adopted the Government may wish to propose Amendments to Clause 9 in Committee. There is also provision, in Clause 10, for my right honourable friend, with the consent of the Treasury, to pay a transitional grant to district councils where he considers that the transfer would impose a financial burden which could otherwise only be met by excessive increases in rents or rates.
The Government have accepted from the outset that it is important that the occupiers of houses and other properties affected should be kept informed both at the time of preparation of a scheme and when it is approved. The Bill has been strengthened in this respect since its introduction in another place, again as a result of arguments put forward by the Party opposite, to provide for public advertisement of the existence of a transfer scheme.
My Lords, I said earlier that the Bill is an enabling measure depending in large part on the co-operation and agreement of the parties concerned locally. We must have faith that the necessary good will and co-operation will be forthcoming, but, of course, there may be disputes and Clause 12 provides the Secretary of State with the necessary power to resolve them.
We attach the greatest importance to safeguarding the interests of staff involved in the transfer process. This is why Clause 14 of the Bill establishes the New Towns Staff Commission. Indeed, as noble Lords may know, an Advisory Committee has already been appointed under the chairmanship of Sir Richard Hayward. My noble friend Lady Fisher and Mr. Philip Vine are the other members. The Advisory Committee will be established as the New Towns Staff Commission if this Bill is given the Royal Assent. The Staff Commission's role will be to advise the Secretary of State on the arrangements and regulations needed for the protection of staff—on, for example, such matters
752
as staff recruitment procedures during the transfer period.
We are considering strengthening the provisions of the staff protection clauses still further by bringing forward an Amendment in Committee to enable the Secretary of State to issue directions to the parties preparing a transfer scheme requiring them to implement the advice given by the New Towns Staff Commission, although we have still to settle the precise details. Staff protection regulations will be made under Clause 13 of the Bill which also provides for compensation regulations to be made under Section 24 of the Superannuation Act 1972. Compensation rules will be based on the tried and tested principles which are now accepted practice for public sector reorganisations. Noble Lords may be familiar with the " Crombie Code " for compensation. It is this code which will be followed for staff to be compensated as a result of housing transfers.
It is not enough to pay lip service to the importance of safeguarding the interests of the staff involved in the transfer process. Actions will speak louder than words and, although some redundancies may be inevitable, we will expect the parties to a scheme, perhaps working through some kind of joint committee, to ensure that the problems of individuals are minimised and are handled with great care. As my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said in another place, our objective must be to restrict redundancies in development corporations to the minimum, and in this local government generally could have a part to play in addition to the more detailed provisions which will operate between parties to a transfer scheme.
Clause 15 permits an increase in the maximum number of members which my honourable friend may appoint to the boards of development corporations. At present the maximum is seven, excluding the chairman and deputy chairman. We seek to increase this figure from seven to 11. There is no doubt that our horizons have greatly widened since the 1946 Act set the limit on the number of members. Then, we were thinking of new towns with population targets of up to 60,000, but in our second and third generation towns we are planning for ultimate populations way beyond even the

753
revised targets for the first generation towns. Milton Keynes, for example, is planning towards an ultimate target of 250,000 population, Telford to 220,000 and Central Lancashire New Town to 400,000. The changing scale of new town development in itself should lead us to look critically at provisions dating from 1946.
The Government take the view that in a few cases the present limitation frustrates a sensible balance between the need for a variety of professional expertise and the need to increase the number of members who are also elected members of local authorities. In looking at the choice of the new maximum of 11 members excluding the chairman and deputy chairman, we might particularly bear in mind the Central Lancashire New Town; not only the ultimate size of the new town but also the fact that there are four local authorities vitally concerned with its successful development. There are three district councils which, as the local planning and housing authorities and the providers of a number of environmental services, clearly need to be associated with the work of the corporation. But, as in all new towns, the role of the county council, particularly having regard to the distribution of local government functions under the Local Government Act 1972, is also important. It is an interesting fact that, even with the present membership limits, my right honourable friend has increased the numbers of elected members of county councils serving on development corporation boards by 50 per cent. since he became responsible for these appointments in March 1974.
My Lords, I am sure that we will have an interesting and constructive debate on this Bill. As I said earlier, I do not think that there is any difference between us on the principle of transfer of new town housing assets. There was a clear difference of view between the Government and the Opposition in another place as to whether the orderly transfer of houses by means of a very detailed transfer scheme should be interrupted by the exercise of a statutory right for tenants of new town rented dwellings to buy their houses. But my right honourable friend explained in another place that he will be meeting the new town chairmen on 12th July to consider how the decision whether to sell rented housing in certain new towns
754
should be reached in accordance with, and with proper regard for, certain social conditions which will vary from town to town. I am sure that in this House we will have regard to the endorsement of the Government's views in another place and will recognise the importance of involving the democratically elected local authority in decisions relating to the sale of rented dwellings, particularly in those towns which are substantially completed and where transfer is imminent. My Lords, I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be read 2a.—(Baroness Stedman.)
6.55 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I wish at the outset to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for introducing the Bill and for so clearly explaining its purpose. It is, as she said, not a particularly long Bill but it is very important. I am delighted that she personally should be moving it because she has had experience in a new town, and I am grateful for her kind remarks about myself. Indeed, I would not quarrel with any of the main provisions of the Bill, nor indeed with its main purpose, namely, the transfer of the stock of housing and related assets from new town development corporations and from the Commission for New Towns to the appropriate district councils.
These proposals are based on the Consultation Document of 1975. As there are 23 new towns in England and Wales, we are today discussing not only places where a great number of people live and work, but places which have come to play an important role in the life of our country. I particularly welcome the general principle, as I have always been a firm believer in local democracy which works through the representative institutions of local government. Although I am aware that local government has not an altogether unblemished record in housing matters, nevertheless, like democracy itself, it is better than any of the alternatives. It is, I believe, right that all tenants in new towns should have the same right of access to a local councillor who represents them. I believe that the chances of confusion in the minds of the public are lessened if there is only one authority responsible for housing and one which is therefore intelligible to the public. Furthermore, if

755
people are dissatisfied with their council, they know that they can choose another one at the time of an election.
That said, there are a number of general points that I wish to make about the Bill. The first concerns the future of new town development. It is easy to appreciate the reasons behind new towns—the need to rehouse at the end of the war large numbers of people, the need to find places for new industry and to find the key workers to work in those industries. I am one who sees new towns as a very interesting development in the whole history of cities and urban development in the country today. However, at the same time it is reasonable to question whether the reasons that made us embark on new towns are as valid today as they were originally, for surely the problem of major towns today is the decline of the city population, and one need only look at London to see what is happening in the inner boroughs, and look at the long delay on the development of, for example, the docklands area, to see that perhaps there is a lesson here for us all.
The noble Baroness referred to the huge development in Central Lancashire, and I wonder whether its projected size is., in fact, too large. Is not the real problem of Lancashire the decline of the big cities of Manchester and Liverpool, and would not the money which is to be spent on the new towns perhaps be better spent revitalising those old towns? These are questions which need to be asked at a time of great demographic changes, the startling decline in the birthrate and the great increase in the numbers of elderly persons.
I turn to more detailed matters. The Bill proposes that all housing should be transferred to local authorities and I was very pleased to hear the noble Baroness say that the Government have considered more flexible arrangements than simply transferring all the houses to a local authority and that they are prepared to consider both housing associations and tenants associations. It is, after all, not so long ago since we in this House had a major debate on the family, and one of the most important points to emerge was the need to help young families and grandparents keep together.
It seemed to me that, in the course of these transfer arrangements, it might be
756
possible to bring in housing associations particularly interested in the elderly and so help to keep families together and in a positive way to promote family life, for there are very many difficulties confronting young couples with children in new towns where there are relatively few older people. There is therefore every argument for enabling grandparents to be near at hand. I fully appreciate that transferring all the housing stock to the local authority may indeed help this situation, for I believe it to be true that there have been cases where the development corporation has had a surplus of houses on its waiting list while the local authority has had a long waiting list and has had to build houses. A rationalisation of the management of the two groups of houses ought not only to help young couples on the waiting list but enable the local authority to help the extended family remain together. Nevertheless, I hope that my positive suggestion on what I believe to be the very important issue of the right balance of the population in new towns will be considered.
That brings me to my main point about which we on this side of the House feel very strongly; namely, the right of tenants in new towns to own their own houses. I was very pleased to hear what the noble Baroness had to say on this matter because we have been round this course many times before. I was glad to detect a softening of the Government's attitude to this matter. It was the Conservative Government, in their new town circular in 1970, which gave new town development corporations powers to offer for sale virtually all rented homes at 20 per cent. below current market value and with vacant possession. As a result, a great many houses were ere sold—2,700 in 1971, 15,500 in 1972 and 7,200 in 1973. But, in September 1974, the noble Baroness's right honourable friend, Mr. Silkin, banned the sale of such houses by development corporations. However, I believe that he has now said that he will reconsider that decision and I was very pleased to hear from the noble Baroness that a meeting is to be held on this matter in July. lf, in the course of the meeting, either she or her right honourable friend should need further argument as to why they should consider making it possible for all new town rented houses to be sold to the sitting tenant, I refer her to the

757
report in today's Times of a report from the Southwark Community Development Project. No doubt she has seen it, but it seems worth quoting part of it. It says:
" Although most council tenants would like to own their own homes, few are interested in buying a typical council flat ".
Of course, that does not apply to new towns, but the article goes on to say that it has frequently been pointed out that, while new houses with gardens on suburban estates or in new towns are wanted by buyers, it is difficult to attract ready buyers for flats in inner city areas.
" The main reason for preferring home ownership was found to be a desire for a house with a garden. Other reasons given were, in order: a wider choice of where to live; control of one's own home without tenancy conditions, absolute security of tenure, the likely increase in the value of the property; and, finally, income tax relief on mortgage interest ".
I believe that no one could have put the case for owning one's home better and it seems to me that, coming from this development project in Southwark, it may encourage the Government to take the plunge and allow all tenants to buy their own house if they wish. I believe that, in a democracy it is the job of the Government to enable people to do the kind of things they would like to do, provided that they are not breaking the law or seriously affecting other people.
I hope, too, that consideration will be given to the sale of shops, where practicable. I recognise that, in many instances, a shop will have a flat above it and that the owner of the shop may not live in the flat. Nevertheless, I believe that, where it is practicable, it would be desirable to sell the shop and also pubs and other small assets of this nature to the owners.
Turning to the matter of finance, I realise that this is a complicated field in which the interests of the taxpayer as well as those of the ratepayer must be considered and that, in trying to do so, there are really two conflicting interests. Nevertheless, I believe that local authorities are right to ask whether they will be worse off financially under this Bill. Some authorities—notably those which will have transferred to them the houses from the four New Town commissions—will inherit houses built cheaply and at a low interest rate. Other authorities will
758
not be so fortunate for they will have transferred to them recently built houses which are more expensive and which carry a much higher rate of interest. As the whole object of a new town has been to build houses far more rapidly than any local authority could do, they have frequently incurred an enormous burden of debt. It would be wrong that that situation should be transferred to the ratepayers and the fact is that the rate burden might be considerably more than a district council would expect to make as a contribution to housing from the rates.
I should like to conclude with two smaller points. The first is to say how very glad I was that at Report stage in another place the Government accepted my honourable friend's Amendment on consultation with county councils and other interested bodies. I am sure that this will make the transfer arrangements work more smoothly because, clearly, there are a number of interlocked problems on infrastructure and matters like education and the social services which will need to be considered. I am sure that this will benefit everybody.
On the other hand, I was disappointed that the Government were not prepared to accept my right honourable friend's Amendment on Clause 15. It seems strange, at any rate to me, that, at a time when the responsibilities of development corporations are being diminished, the numbers on the board should be increased. I realise that this is only a permissive power and that there is no need for there to be 11 members of the board. Nevertheless, it is a rather expensive 11. I looked up the salaries which these positions carry and, at a time when we are trying to cut down on Government expenditure, I should have thought that this would be difficult to justify. In the case of the new town being developed in Central Lancashire, I believe that the point about local authority representation could be met within nine rather than 11 members. This is a relatively small point, but I find it difficult to justify to the public increasing the numbers nominated to boards at a time when the responsibilities are being diminished. I hope that I have said enought to indicate that we on this side of the House fully support the principle behind the Bill but that we believe that there are a number of matters to which we shall want to return at a later stage because,

759
although we support the principle, we feel that there is room for improvement.
7.8 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I shall make a brief intervention at this stage for I have found that Ministers prefer to have some idea of Amendments that may be moved at a later stage of a Bill. I shall not discuss the principle of the new towns though I have had the pleasure, as have many of your Lordships, of working in them. However, I am chairman of a small sub-committee of the Snowden Working Party on the integration into society of the disabled. I should like particularly to say that I shall be moving an Amendment in relation to housing for the disabled.
This is a sector which the Government had under their direct control as regards the new towns. It is sad that they have fallen badly behind in the provisions for the disabled. In Hansard of 14th April, col. 575, the Minister gave the figures for housing proposals, for starts and completions by the end of 1975, of new towns and local authorities. On 24th May, he gave the new town figures separately, and, of 1,177 completions of wheelchair housing up to the end of 1975, by local authorities and new towns, only 53 had taken place in new towns—12 in Basildon, 33 in Stevenage and 8 in Washington. One wonders whether this is the price paid for relying on a Departmental directive rather than Parliamentary legislation.
My purpose in moving the Amendment will be to make it clear that the requirement for new towns to provide sufficient accommodation for disabled groups is at least as good as in the case of local authorities. The Amendment will deal with the two types of special housing. These types have been spelt out many times as a concept of the wheelchair housing and the mobility housing. These have all been explained in many occasional papers, and so I need not go over them now. The distinction is important, and the Department includes it in its request for annual returns from local authorities; so it has accepted the distinction. I hope that the Amendment will require the Secretary of State to consult various local authorities and determine the proportions of housing for disabled people.
760
I hope that the Secretary of State will give an annual report to Parliament of the proposals, the starts and the completions. The past requirement to find employment before obtaining a house in a new town—which, happily, has now disappeared—has discriminated against disabled people. Indeed, it is always much more difficult for disabled individuals, or families with disabled members, to move from one place to another. They need more support in everything that is involved in moving into a new town.
We are also to suggest that the Secretary of State be required to list the number of dwellings that are proposed, started and completed each year for disabled persons. It has been suggested that I should do this by reference to another Act; but I always feel that to be a bad method of legislation, and so I shall now turn my attention to some way in which I can latch this new clause on to the Bill. While its terms do not immediately commend themselves to me, I feel certain that whatever I say the Government will respond by saying that it is a badly drafted clause; so I might as well put one down and hope for the best.
7.12 p.m.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, I should like very briefly to support what my noble friend Baroness Young said about the Bill this evening. My main concern is that these new towns should contain a complete cross-section of society; a cross-section in age group as well as in everything else. I am delighted to hear that housing associations and tenants' associations will be welcome. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has just spoken about one section of our society, the disabled. There are many others who need housing but cannot afford it, and it might well not come within the prerogative of the local authority to provide housing for certain sections of the community. Therefore I am delighted to learn that housing associations w ill play a part in the new towns and in their development.
My second reason for this brief intervention is concerned with the family. I cannot emphasise enough the fact that in every new town there should be the three-tier family who should own their own house, or at least be able to do so. Again, I am delighted to hear from the Government that they will be willing to

761
let people of any age group buy their own houses. In several suburban areas the problem has been that families have been split up, and now the third tier—in other words, the older generation—is left behind in suburbia and the younger people are moving out to the new towns. So there is a complete lack of family togetherness, and people are separated from one another far more than they should be.
I am very pleased to hear that at all levels the local authorities will be able to let people buy their own homes. We all know that the majority of those who are concerned in this matter are the younger people. Some of us in this House, when we were young, wanted to move to a place where we could work, settle down, bring up our families and own our own homes; and that should be the hope of all the people in the new towns. I hope that the Government will, through the Bill, encourage people to own their own homes.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, this has been a very short discussion but a very interesting one, and I welcome the points which have been raised. I shall do my best to deal with those which concern the philosophy and the principles of the Bill, and I shall deal in so far as I can with those concerned with individual towns. Other points have been made which perhaps are more appropriate for dealing with in more detail at Committee stage, and with your Lordships' agreement I shall not go into those points in any detail now. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Phillips for the notice she has given of her Amendment, and I suggest to her that we might meet between now and the Committee stage and perhaps between us we can overcome the drafting problems which we seem to have in this House from time to time, and so make sure that her point can be included within the terms of the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, made several very cogent points on the question of the Central Lancashire town, which is the town which is only just beginning. In terms of this Bill we are talking in terms of towns nearing completion and which are almost ready for being handed over to the local authorities. The Central Lancashire town is a completely
762
new one and one which we are having to look at. I must confess that this is the new town which gave us the most cause for suggesting that we should have the increased number of board members. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that I and my fellow Ministers, serving the whole gamut of local government, are extremely conscious of the cost restrictions these days and the stringencies which are being urged on local authorities. I am quite sure that my right honourable friend will not be making appointments to all the boards up to the total number, if the number is agreed at 11. But I am sure that he will use his very wide fund of common sense to see that where it is necessary to have adequate local representation on the boards, the numbers will be increased where they can be contained within the same number, or slightly less than the proposed number. I am quite sure that we shall have no problems about that.
The problems of Central Lancashire arise particularly because it covers such a wide area and so many authorities. But I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that in the Department we are extremely cost conscious, and we shall certainly not be appointing merely for the sake of appointing.
The point was also raised about the flow of migrants from London to the new and expanding towns. The flow from London into the new and the expanding towns is less than 10 per cent. of the total out-migration in London. 1 must confess that that figure rather staggered me when it was given to me. The interim report on the strategic plan for the South-East shows that the manufacturing firms which have moved out of London accounted for only 27 per cent. of the total decline in the manufacturing employment in London between 1966 and 1974. This included only 7 per cent. who went to the London overspill towns. The largest single component in the loss of manufacturing employment was the closure of firms which did not open up anywhere else. We arc very conscious of the problems which we could leave behind within cities such as London where the numbers are being taken out.
On the question of the sales of rented houses, I should like to deal first with the sales to sitting tenants of rented houses

763
in new towns, which has already been lengthily and somewhat exhaustively discussed during each stage of the passage of the Bill in another place. My right honourable friend has made it clear on several occasions that the Government are not against the concept of increased owner occupation. We accept that it is the very natural desire of many people to own their own homes, and the sale of rented housing to new town corporation tenants may bring that desire within the reach of a substantial group of people who could not afford to buy otherwise. But the first priority in public sector housing must be the needs of those who cannot afford to buy, and it was because those needs were clearly not being met that the ban on sales of rented housing in new towns was imposed in 1974.
As I mentioned earlier, the position is now improved, and my right honourable friend has already announced that it is possible to contemplate a selective resumption of sales in towns where it can be shown that the average waiting period for rented housing is no longer than, say, three months; and, as I said, my right honourable friend is to meet the chairmen of the nevi' towns on the 12th July to discuss this and other current issues. We have made it clear that the resumption in any new town will depend on the supply and demand position in relation to rented housing, and it is the criteria and conditions for such sales which my right honourable friend will be discussing with new towns chairmen at the forthcoming meeting.
The Party opposite have suggested, though not necessarily tonight, that this Bill might be used to establish a statutory right for new town tenants to buy their houses. I should like to make it quite clear, my Lords, that we could not contemplate such a provision. In the first place, a statutory right to buy does not allow for a distinction between towns according to the rented housing situation. Secondly, in the situation where housing is to he transferred to the district council, it could pre-empt the decision of that council as to whether or not it wishes to sell. Thirdly, a statutory provision could be far too rigid because without further statutory provision it would not be possible for sales to be stopped if the rented
764
housing situation deteriorated, or if there proved to be a particular need for more emphasis on rented housing in a particular town. The Government are convinced that the best way to deal with this subject is, as my right honourable friend intends, pragmatically, town by town, according to the balance of supply and demand. The new towns chairmen are clearly in an ideal position to advise us on the particular circumstances of their individual towns, and the next step must therefore be to hold the discussions which are now timed for the 12th July. I ask noble Lords to accept that this is the correct course of action, rather than to attempt to give a blanket statutory right to all new town tenants everywhere to purchase the houses which they rent.
The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, raised the question of the needs of the disabled. This House always shows —very rightly, in my view—a very real concern about the needs and problems of the disabled, and I share the noble Baroness's desire to ensure that adequate provision is made in the new towns for them. So, while this is somewhat outside the scope of the present Bill, which is concerned with the transfer of housing from new town corporations to local authorities, I think it would be worth while to spend a few minutes on the role of the new towns as we see it in relation to the needs of, particularly, those who are physically handicapped.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, I wonder whether I could interrupt the noble Baroness. It was the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, who is on that particular committee, who raised this question. I had various other organisations in mind, but I left her to deal with the disabled. It was she who made the point, not me.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg the noble Baroness's pardon. The Government recognised in their Consultation Paper on new towns in England and Wales, which they issued in December 1974, that the existing priorities for housing in new towns, with a very high degree of emphasis on employment within the new town, might prevent our new towns from making the maximum contribution to alleviating the conditions in

765
the inner city areas, and that paper proposed that new towns serving the cities should in the future provide a proportion of their houses for the disabled, for the single-parent families, for the older relatives of people already there and so on. Following this general approach, and in line with my right honourable friend's drive on housing for the disabled, the development corporations have already been advised that all new building schemes should contain adequate provision for the physically handicapped; and new tenancy allocation guidelines for the London new towns have placed handicapped people from London among the groups to be given the highest priority for housing. A special annex to the paper deals specifically with the housing needs of the disabled, and within the Department we are now proceeding on similar guidelines for the other new towns in England.
There have been suggestions that a statutory duty might be imposed on the new towns on the same lines as that imposed on local authorities, perhaps by using the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. I can understand the reasons behind these suggestions which are coming up, but my right honourable friend has very wide powers in relation to the activities of development corporations—powers which are certainly wide enough to ensure that adequate housing and other provisions (and it is not just a question of housing for these less fortunate people) are made for those who are handicapped. We are aware of the problem and we are taking steps to meet it. What is more, we are going to be monitoring the outcome in each of our new towns, and I am sure that by this means we can secure our objective without resorting to unnecessary statutory provisions.
We have had a most interesting debate tonight, and I am grateful to those who have taken part in it. I have always been very proud of my association with one of the new towns; and our new towns, in the way we have created them, have attracted very wide international interest and admiration. The way in which we turn our new towns into normal towns will no doubt also be attracting interest, and I hope, as I am sure do all Members
766
of this House, that at the end of the day the way in which we do it will also attract admiration.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SCOTTISH AMICABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with Amendments.
BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL
Examiners Certificate that no further Standing Order is applicable: Ordered to lie on the Table.
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and referred to the Examiners.