Lords Sitting of 19 June 1980

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chester):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

THE WESTMINSTER MEDICAL SCHOOL
Lord SEGAL: 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 representations they have received against the closure of the Westminster Medical School, as proposed by the Flowers Report.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Baroness Young): Her Majesty's Government have received a considerable number of representations against Lord Flowers' proposal that the Westminster Medical School should be closed. However, the noble Lord will appreciate that the Flowers Report was commissioned by the University of London and its recommendations are at present being considered by the university.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Would she confirm that, after all the various protests have been made and all the reports have been received, the final word will remain with the Government, whatever decisions may have been made by other bodies?
Baroness YOUNG: Yes, my Lords. The position is that the Flowers Working Party reported to the university and that the university will have a view on medical education. The overall provision of hospital services is of course another question altogether, and the final decision will be for the Government.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Flowers
1200
Committee was assisted by the work of a body called the London Health Planning Consortium and that there were with the Flowers Committee two assessors from the Department of Health and Social Security? Do the Government accept responsibility for the information given by the department to the Flowers Committee, on whose report the suggestion to close down not only the Westminster Medical School but part of the hospital was based?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I am aware of the work of the London Health Planning Consortium, but the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, will be aware of the answer that was given in another place on this matter, in which my colleague, Sir George Young, made clear that the London Health Planning Consortium is a body consisting of representatives of the University Grants Committee, the Department of Health and Social Security, London University, the four Thames regional hospital authorities and the boards of governors of the postgraduate teaching hospitals. It is submitting evidence to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, but before he takes a decision upon this matter he himself will take the advice of the advisory committee which will be looking at the recommendations. It will therefore be some considerable time before any decisions at all are taken upon this matter.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of the strength of feeling on this matter among doctors, nurses, other health service workers, patients and, indeed, potential patients—which means almost everybody? Is the noble Baroness also aware that the message from your Lordships' House the last time we discussed this matter was: no Flowers by request? Will the noble Baroness recognise that morale in this hospital will not be restored unless Government reassurances are much more positive than those we have so far heard?
Baroness YOUNG: Yes, my Lords, the Government are aware of the strength of feeling, and I have no doubt at all that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will take note of all that has been said in your Lordships' House.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, will the noble Baroness consider this supplementary question to be relevant to the answer which she has now given; namely, that there are rumours that the London School of Tropical Medicine is in danger of losing the position that it has hitherto held not only here in Britain but all over the world for its research? Can we be assured that the wonderful work of that place and its contribution to civilisation and health in tropical areas will not be lost because of paucity of funds?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I think that the London School of Tropical Medicine is another issue. If the noble Lord will put down a Question on the subject, I shall try to answer it.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of the very close relationship between the work of Westminster Hospital and King's College, London, and that the closing of the Westminster Hospital would have very serious repercussions upon medical teaching at King's College, London?
Baroness YOUNG: Yes, my Lords, am aware of this fact.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, would not the noble Baroness agree that the present situation is highly unsatisfactory and that for the next few months energies which could be devoted to healing the sick will be diverted to public campaigning? Could not the Government, with their usual decisiveness, grant, if not a reprieve at least a 10 years' moratorium to both the hospital and the medical school to allow them to continue their valuable work unhampered by all these anxieties?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I will certainly draw my right honourable friend's attention to the remarks which have been made. As I have already indicated, the working party under Lord Flowers was established by the university and it will be reporting to the University of London.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, is my noble friend aware, particularly as she raised the point about the educational interest of the report, that the standard of training at Westminster Hospital is reflected in the very high
1202
academic results which they get? I understand that they are top of the league table for the London hospitals in the passes they get. This is undoubtedly due to the smaller groups taught by the consultants, where they get to know their staff personally and where they receive closer and better teaching because they are not in some huge concourse. Big is not always beautiful. Would my noble friend bear in mind that we made the mistake of bigness in comprehensive schools and in some hospitals up North? Please do not let us repeat it with the Westminster.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, the London Health Planning Consortium's document Towards a Balance took account of, and was concerned with, the major strategic issues relating to the future framework for acute hospital services in London. It did not look in detail at all the ways in which services and research, particularly specialised services such as the one which my noble friend has described, should be provided within that framework. The planning of these specialised services will be for the health authorities, once the strategic decisions have been taken.

BRITISH ANTARCTIC SURVEY
3.8 p.m.
Lord BUXTON of ALSA: 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, in view of the threat to this country's established position of leadership and influence in the Antarctic, whether they will reconsider the proposal to cut the budget of the British Antarctic Survey.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that the British Antarctic Survey is one of several component bodies of the Natural Environment Research Council, which receives a grant-in-aid from the Science Budget of the Department of Education and Science. I assume that his Question refers to a

1203
tentative proposal by the council to make a small reduction in the provision for the normal running costs of the British Antarctic Survey, starting in 1982–83. In 1980–81, this provision amounts to £4·4 million, or 10 per cent. of the council's grant-in-aid. No decisions about any possible reduction have been made.
The council has discretion to apportion its grant-in-aid as it sees fit, in the light of scientific criteria. I understand that, outside the normal provision for the survey, the council has made or is planning capital expenditure of £3·1 million up to 1982–83 on the renewal of ships, aircraft and bases. Such capital expenditure is designed to ensure that the survey can continue to undertake research which the council considers to be of high priority, and to contribute to the international scientific programme of the region.
Lord BUXTON of ALSA: My Lords, may I thank the noble Baroness for her reply and for outlining the current situation? However, are the Government aware that other nations, both East and West, are massively increasing their expenditure and their activities in the Antarctic and that therefore there is now a real danger that Britain will lose its traditional influence and position in the Antarctic? Is she further aware that if it is cut the amounts are so marginal, in such a marginal budget, that this could have serious results for Britain's interests in the future, which are not only scientific but also strategic and considerably political?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I think my noble friend will recognise from the Answer which I have already given him that we do realise the importance of the work of the British Antarctic Survey, not only for scientific research but in our standing in the world. We do not believe that the scale of the reductions which the council are considering will be such as seriously to weaken the United Kingdom's leading position in the Antarctic. I am sure that my noble friend would recognise that at a time of financial stringency it would be wrong to exempt totally any one sector of publicly-funded scientific research from bearing its share of the reductions.

THE INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS AND AFGHANISTAN
3.11 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: 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, in view of the continued Russian atrocities in Afghanistan, whether they will confirm that there are no representatives of the International Red Cross in that country.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I can confirm that there are now no representatives of the Red Cross in Afghanistan.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he can confirm that they have been there in the past; and can Her Majesty's Government use all their influence to persuade them to publish a full and official report of all the atrocities that have been committed there, so that the rest of the Western world may realise that these things go on? Will he also say whether it is possible to use Her Majesty's Government's influence to ask the Red Cross to go back again and continue doing the same work?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the Red Cross of course is a wholly independent international body and I do not think that the Government have any special influence with them, but I can say that there was a Red Cross delegation in Kabul until recently.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question which he may not care to answer? What I want to know is this: are we providing the Afghans with any weapons, any means of resistance against the atrocities committed by the Russian forces, or, alternatively, are we using our economic strength (such as it is) in order to prevent the Russians from obtaining technological know-how and credit in goods in various forms at prices which suit them but do not suit us? What are we doing to help in this matter? We have made our protest. Is it to end there, as in the case of Czechoslovakia?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, my noble friend the Foreign Secretary announced as far back as January a number of steps that we were taking in respect of the Soviet Union in connection with the granting of credit, the supply of technology and other matters. With regard to the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, I can say that the allegations in the Russian press of Western interference are, so far as this country is concerned, without foundation.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the International Red Cross withdrew voluntarily from Kabul or were they expelled?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am not really in a position to answer for the International Red Cross, but I can say that I understand they were confined to Kabul while they were there, and presume it was for that reason that they withdrew.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I understand very clearly that a statement was made some months ago on this question, but can the noble Lord tell us what action is now contemplated to be taken by our Government and the Governments of our European colleagues? There are children being shot in the streets, there are villagers being attacked by Soviet aircraft while they go about their ordinary everyday business. Is it not time that the Western world started to take this matter a great deal more seriously?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am not sure what further action the noble Lord has in mind, but the steps which we have taken are not without their effect, and of course we have made our views very clearly known on the question of the Olympics. I fancy that nothing would have more effect upon the Russian mind in this matter than if we were able to secure the relocation of the Olympics or to persuade the bulk of the athletes not to go.
Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether there is no power within the British Government to bring some influence to bear on other countries to get the International Red Cross to go back to Afghanistan and carry out some duties there? May I ask him
1206
whether he realises, in this connection, as I do, that in the last war the Japanese for nearly four years did not recognise the International Red Cross, and the suffering that people endured in that situation was quite appalling? It was only right at the end that the International Red Cross, under international pressure, was recognised. Can the Government not use their good influences in that direction?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I do not think we have the power, or indeed the right, to order the Red Cross to go anywhere, but of course I think it would be a good thing if they could get back into Afghanistan. I imagine that they would not wish to go back unless they could be certain that they could discharge their duties properly, which is clearly not the case at present.
Baroness HYLTON-FOSTER: My Lords, would the noble Lord like to confirm that the present delegation that was in Afghanistan, which was an International Committee of the Red Cross delegation, have been recalled to Geneva for consultations, and probably when those consultations are over those delegates will be back again in Afghanistan, doing their very difficult and sometimes rather dangerous job looking after the detainees?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the noble Baroness is a great expert in these matters and I have no doubt that what she has said is right. But I also think it is the case that the ICRC will need some co-operation, at least from the authorities in Afghanistan.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I was more than happy to defer to the noble Baroness, who is such an expert. Can the noble Lord inform the House whether one really has to take it for granted that the United Nations is powerless in this matter? Is it not somewhat inconsistent that when a small nation perpetrates something which is thought by the United Nations to be contrary to the Charter there can so easily be condemnatory resolutions, whereas in the case of a big power with a veto the United Nations seems powerless?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, that is quite right, of course. The Soviet

1207
Union is a permanent member of the Security Council and therefore has a right of veto of any mandatory action that that council might take. I think other action would require a 60 per cent. majority of the General Assembly, which is unlikely to be achieved.

RUDOLF HESS
3.18 p.m.
Baroness AIREY of ABINGDON: 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 will now press for the release of Rudolf Hess from Spandau Prison on humanitarian grounds or at least secure his transfer to the British Military Hospital in West Berlin, bearing in mind his great age and ill-health.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, for many years successive British Governments, together with the Governments of France and the United States, have favoured the immediate release of Hess on humanitarian grounds. This remains our position. Numerous appeals have been made to the Soviet authorities, but the latter refuse to agree to the release. Hess is at present not ill enough to need hospital treatment. His permanent transfer to the British Military Hospital would in any case require 4-Power agreement and I can see no prospect of the Russians agreeing to this.
Baroness AIREY of ABINGDON: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply, which is not perhaps unexpected, may I pursue this matter? May I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that when my husband was in the House of Commons he fought for over 10 years for the release of Hess? And may I also ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that my husband had an exceptional experience of the Nazi régime and evils? He also had exceptional experience of Hess, because not only did he see him—as some of your Lordships here present also did—day after day at Nuremburg, but he saw him frequently in his cell and had many conversations with him. I know that if my husband were here he
1208
would press the question again, particularly at the moment when the son of Hess is in London. Therefore, I would ask your Lordships to urge Her Majesty's Government yet again to press the Russian Government to consider releasing this very old man.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I defer to no one in my admiration of the noble Baroness's late husband in this matter, as in all others. I can say that my noble friend the Foreign Secretary wrote to the Soviet Foreign Minister in September last renewing our call for release, but so far there has been no sign of a Soviet change of heart.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, may I add my voice to the plea of the noble Baroness? I agree with every word she said. I remember it is nearly 40 years ago since I was a member of the first guard that was placed upon Rudolf Hess when he was brought into the HLI barracks in Maryhill and later into Buchanan Castle. Is it not time that this inhuman farce was ended?
Lord TREFGARNE: Yes, it is, my Lords.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, while I recognise that the Soviet Union has been completely intransigent so far, may I ask whether my noble friend is aware that Hess has for some years been serving a sentence more severe than that meted out to him—namely, solitary confinement—simply because the others in the prison have either died or been released?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, while it is true, of course, that there are no other prisoners left in Spandau Prison, it is, however, the case that Mr. Hess's conditions are not wholly unsatisfactory so far as they go; for example, he uses and enjoys the prison garden.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that those of us who were in the prosecution team at Nuremberg have for years stressed that the time had come for the release of Hess on humanitarian grounds?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am aware of that, and I wholly agree with it.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, as I have been engaged in this matter directly for some time, may I express my congratulations to the noble Baroness for raising this question and our thanks to her. Now that this matter has become a humanitarian question and has nothing to do with the older matters of war guilt and other crimes, may I ask the Minister whether this is now a case of simple persecution? If this is so, I would ask the Minister whether he would agree with my suggestion that he continues to write to the Soviet Government, since this is now a piece of pure human persecution and man's inhumanity to man, which has nothing to do with those old things. Those of us engaged in this matter would like to know from the Minister whether he will be good enough to continue to write to and talk to the Russians, who now have no case left, and who can be informed, if your Lordships' will accept my word for it, that those of us dealing with this case will go right on doing it and will not be put off by negatives of whatever kind.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I can assure your Lordships that the Government will continue to take every appropriate opportunity to press their views on the Soviets in this matter. As for why they continue to insist on his detention, I cannot answer for them. They have given various reasons. They claim, for example, that Soviet public opinion would not understand the release, which might encourage extreme Right-Wing elements.
Lord RENTON: My Lords, how much is this costing the British taxpayer?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I cannot answer that question without notice.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I support my noble friend Lady Airey and ask the Minister whether he can make the Russians realise that time is not on our side in this matter? Hess is a very old man and unless something is done fairly soon it will be too late.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right. Mr. Hess is 86 years old.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES and FOOD (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I wonder whether your Lordships might think it appropriate to move on. My noble friend will have taken the flavour of your Lordships' questions and I am quite sure that he will report them to my noble friend the Foreign Secretary. If your Lordships thought fit, perhaps we could move on to the next business.

LIMITATION BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Limitation Acts 1939 to 1980. I beg to move that the said Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

STEEL RUNDOWN: RE-EMPLOYMENT MEASURES
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Trenchard will be repeating a Statement that is to be made in another place on remedial measures for areas affected by the steel rundown.

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
3.26 p.m.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Aberdare.)
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, before we give this Bill a Second Reading there are two matters arising under it to which I think I should draw your Lordships' attention. I shall be as brief as I can, and in the course of my remarks I will seek to explain the Instruction which stands in my name on the Order Paper. In that case I shall be able, with your Lordships' permission, to move the Instruction at the appropriate time formally.

1211
The purpose of this Bill is to authorise London Transport to proceed with Stage 3 of the Jubilee Underground line. The most important work included in this stage is a railway some 9 kilometres in length running from a point near Fen-church Street Station under the river, under certain parts of the London Boroughs of Southwark and Greenwich and back under the river into the London Borough of Newham. It so happens that the proposed line of the railway runs directly, or very nearly directly, under two churches in the diocese of Southwark—I am glad to see the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark is in his place. One of these is the Church of the Holy Trinity, Southwark, which is situated in the old Surrey Docks area, and the other is the Church of St. Andrew, Greenwich, which is situated in north Greenwich. Both these churches are near the river, and, as your Lordships will appreciate, when buildings are near the river, particularly old buildings, the effects of any disturbance of their foundations might be especially serious.
When the Church authorities learned about this they recalled that they have a special duty to the community as a whole to preserve and protect the structure of all churches, and they therefore decided it was necessary—and I am sure they were right so to decide—to take professional advice as to how their duty could best be ensured. They consulted civil engineers; they consulted surveyors; and, of course, they consulted lawyers. In the light of the advice they received they have had discussions with London Transport, and in the result have obtained an undertaking which is broadly satisfactory to them.
However, there remain two points on which they could not get satisfaction. The first relates to the cost of obtaining this advice. They sought to recoup a part of this cost from London Transport, but London Transport were quite firm that they could not pay that. Indeed, it has been a regular practice that when anybody is affected by a Private Bill introduced by any corporation or any body that introduces a Private Bill the cost of the professional advice which is taken cannot be claimed from the promoters. It is true that, under an old Act, if they had petitioned against the Bill there would
1212
have been a possibility (but a very narrow possibility) of obtaining compensation; I am advised that in those cases compensation has been allowed only very rarely and only when the petitioner could show that he had been unreasonably or vexatiously treated; and I do not think anybody is suggesting that in the present case.
With the advice which the objectors had they felt it would not be reasonable to ask for an Instruction on this issue to go to the Committee, and therefore they are only anxious that the idea should be ventilated so that your Lordships know what this difficulty is. It seems very hard that a body which is a charity, like the Church of England, and which has not got large funds to disburse on these occasional expenses that arise in such cases, should have no recourse. I am told that the expenses amount to nearly £10,000. The works which London Transport are promoting here will cost, at today's prices, over £200 million. It seems a little hard that a charitable body like the Church cannot recover its expenses. But there it is, and the Church authorities are not pursuing this any further.
Now I come to the second point. This is a rather more difficult one. I will explain it as best I can. I hope that noble Lords with legal training, especially the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, will forgive me if I only express this very much in laymen's terms. As I understand it, the position is that where a railway tunnel, even a deep tunnel like a tube, is constructed under any piece of land the possibility of subsequent development on that land is likely to be restricted because clearly the foundations of any building on the land would have to take account of the risk of endangering the tunnel. This will restrict the size of any building that could be put on the land. It is also true that when development is possible some extra cost might be involved in giving adequate protection to the tunnel. London Transport have accepted the principle that in such cases the landowner may claim compensation for the loss of development value. But of course the churches stand on consecrated ground on which there is no possibility of development, so no compensation is payable because there can he no diminution in a development value that does not exist.

1213
Here we come to the special point of Saint Andrew's at Greenwich. This church is, in fact, not now in regular use and is due before long to be made formally redundant. At that stage the Church authorities will take the proper legal steps to remove the effects of consecreation so that the land will be available for development. But these procedures take time, and what the Church authorities seek is to ensure that if within a reasonable time these procedures are completed and development is proposed the Church authorities may be able to obtain the compensation which any other landowner could claim in a similar case.
The Instruction is drawn to cover both churches because I am told it is not expected that London Transport will be starting work on Stage 3 for some years, and no one can say whether by the time they do the position of Holy Trinity might be the same as that of Saint Andrew's. In conclusion, may I remind your Lordships that you are not being asked to take a view on the merits of the case that I have outlined very inadequately. That will be for the Committee to whom the Bill is committed if your Lordships accept the Instruction which I shall be moving once the Second Reading has been given. In the meantime, I warmly support the Second Reading of this Bill.
3.35 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: My Lords, I rise to support the speech which has just been made by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, especially as regards the Instruction which he is moving. My concern and interest in this matter is not because it is in my diocese, because in fact this work is to be done in the Diocese of Southwark and is the responsibility of my reverend brother. This Bill is a sequel to the London Transport Act 1970–71, and in that the London Diocese was actively concerned and had to face the same problems as are facing the Southwark Diocese by this Private Bill at present. Therefore I want to underline the two points which the noble Lord has made so eloquently and so clearly.
The first is this question of the expense to which the Diocese of Southwark is inevitably committed by the fact that this authority wishes to drive this tunnel
1214
underneath some of its property. It has not asked for this to be done. It has had no responsibility; and yet it has a very clear responsibility for ensuring that its fabric is properly secured. It is in the position of a public trustee. Very often churches are of great interest, historically and aesthetically, and therefore it is very important that the Church should make absolutely sure that its property is safeguarded by this work. Therefore the Diocese of Southwark has had to employ not only parliamentary agents, but also very expert engineers and surveyors and so on, in order to negotiate and to examine very carefully all the issues that are involved. It seems unjust that for no asking of its own the Diocese of Southwark should be subjected to this very considerable expense in order to protect what is in a sense a public property.
I understand, too, as the noble Lord has said, that the 1865 Act would make it impossible for an Instruction to be given to the promoters that they had got to meet these costs. I hope that this will he examined, for I presume that the circumstances which prevail at the present time are very different from those which were envisaged in 1865, and I hope that the Committee will look very carefully at this position in which the Church, as indeed any other interested body, might well be placed, of having to incur very heavy costs in order to ensure that their interests are properly preserved and protected.
The other matter which the noble Lord, Lord Simon, has mentioned concerns this extremely difficult and remote business of the law affecting consecrated buildings. When a church is consecrated the bishop consecrates it and sets it apart from all common and profane use for ever. Certain legal entanglements are concerned with this act of consecration. Therefore technically one can never de-consecrate a consecrated building, because it has been consecrated for ever. The only thing one can do is to release the building or the land from the legal consequences of consecration. Obviously, this is what will have to be done when possibly one of these churches is declared redundant.
As the noble Lord has pointed out, the process whereby one can release land from the legal consequences of consecration can be prolonged and complicated. It can be done under the appropriate clause

1215
of the pastoral Measure. But it means that if all the interested bodies have to be consulted and given opportunity of objection and so on, the process can take a period of years. Obviously this affects the value of the building and the site on which it stands, because a consecrated building has very little commercial value as it can be used only for the purposes for which it was consecrated. But if it has been released from the legal consequences of consecration then, of course, it can attract the commercial value of the site and of its development.
Therefore, this Instruction asks that if it is necessary for one or both of these churches to be declared redundant and therefore freed from the complications of consecration, time should be given so that the diocese may claim the proper compensation, if necessary, for a building which then can attract the commercial value of its site. Therefore I hope that this Instruction will be carried so that the Committee may consider these very important issues.
The Lord Bishop of SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and to the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London for raising this matter. As an interested party, it would be inappropriate for me to add to what they have said, except to mention that one of those churches was on the agenda paper of my first staff meeting 21 years ago. It would be nice to think that before I resigned my bishopric later this year the matter was settled. Therefore I hope that your Lordships will support what has been said by the noble Viscount and the right reverend Prelate.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, so far as the Instruction on the Order Paper is concerned, the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, has clearly explained its purpose and I do not think I need say any more, other than that there is no procedural reason why, if your Lordships are so minded, you should not accept this Instruction to the Committee. The Bill is not opposed and therefore will go to the Unopposed Bill Committee. I should think that on this occasion it would be appropriate for me to make use of the fairly new procedures under which
1216
I am able to invite two of the Panel of Deputy Chairmen to sit with me, and we would consider this Instruction—if it is passed—and in due course we would report back to the House.
The question of the expenses incurred by the Southwark Diocesan Church authorities is very much more difficult. It has been clearly explained to the House this afternoon by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and by the two right reverend Prelates. However, I am afraid I cannot offer them very much more than sympathy with the considerable expense to which they have had to go to safeguard their position. I am afraid it is inevitable, under the existing Private Bill procedures, that this sort of thing occurs. The petitioners against a Private Bill often have to go to very considerable expense, and although in this instance it has not got as far as going to a petition, certainly the Church authorities have been involved in a good deal of very heavy expense.
As the noble Viscount explained, in the case of a petition, costs can be awarded, but only in exceptional circumstances. They can be awarded under the Parliamentary Costs Act 1865 to petitioners against a Bill where in the unanimous opinion of the Committee they have been
"unreasonably or vexatiously subjected to expense in defending their rights".
I do not think that anyone would suggest that London Transport has either been unreasonable or vexatious in this particular instance.
The right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London, did somewhat suggest that the Committee might take a look at this matter. However, I am afraid that there are serious objections to the Committee's interfering with the question of costs in this way. The proceedings, in fact, took place outside Parliament, and as a result of Standing Order 124 unless the House were to pass a special Motion enabling the Committee to hear evidence other than that tendered by the parties appearing before it, no evidence as to costs incurred could be heard. But I am afraid that even if the Committee were disposed to ask for and obtain such authority to hear the evidence, in reaching their decision on whether or not to award costs they would undoubtedly feel bound by the provisions of the Act to which I have referred. It would clearly be wrong

1217
if parties who have obtained undertakings from promoters, but who have not petitioned, should be placed in a more favourable position than petitioners who succeed before a Committee.
So, I very much regret to say that there is not much the Committee can do about the question of the financial burden that has fallen on the church authorities in Southwark. But if your Lordships pass the Instruction, it will be very carefully gone into by the relevant Committee. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I beg formally to move the Instruction standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is committed that they should not allow Part II (Works) unless they are satisfied that the provisions for compensation payable to the Southwark Diocesan Church authorities are reasonable as to the acquisition of land consecrated to church purposes, particularly in ensuring that compensation awarded takes into account any removal of the legal effects of consecration which is secured under the appropriate statutory procedures within a period of four years after service of notice to treat, and in permitting claims for compensation to be deferred pending the carrying out of those procedures.—(Viscount Simon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT AND CO-OPERATION BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Re-commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Re-commitment be discharged—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STATUTE LAW REVISION (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the situation is the same as regards this Bill. I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that in this case also the Order of Re-commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Re-commitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SEA FISH INDUSTRY BILL
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or even to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Lyell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TRANSPORT BILL
3.48 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Bellwin.)
On Question, Bill read 3a with the amendments.
Clause 15 [Exemption from duty to cooperate in trial areas]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 1:
Leave out Clause 15 and insert the following new clause:
"Relaxation in trial areas of operators' duties to co-operate and exchange information
(.—(1) Subject to subsection (3) the duties of public passenger transport operators under the provisions mentioned in subsection (2), being duties to co-operate with and afford information to one another, shall not apply in relation to a service so far as it is provided within a trial area.
(2) The provisions referred to in subsection (1) are—

(a) section 24(2) and (3) of the Transport Act 1968 (services in passenger transport areas);

(b) section 1(1)(c) of the Transport Act 1978 (services in England and Wales outside passenger transport areas); and

(c) section 151(1)(b) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (services in Scotland outside passenger transport areas).

(3) Subsection (1) shall not affect the duties of public passenger transport operators to co-operate with or afford information to—

(a) a Passenger Transport Executive;

(b) a county council; or

(c) a regional or islands council,

for the purpose of the discharge by any such Executive or council of its function of coordinating passenger transport services.
(4) In this section "public passenger transport operators" means persons providing public passenger transport services within the meaning of section 1(2) of the Transport Act 1978.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1. The new clause which I accepted at Report stage and which now appears as Clause 15 in the Bill was found by my advisers to be imprecise in a number of respects. The clause which I now put forward as a replacement, while not attempting in any way to change the substance of the existing clause, clarifies a number of points which I shall explain for the benefit of the House.
First, the clause makes it clear that under existing legislation operators have several duties—not just a single duty—to cooperate and exchange information. Secondly, subsection (1) of the new clause links the duty to co-operate with the provision of a service in a trial area. That essential connecting factor is missing from the Bill at present. Subsection (3) of the new clause recognises the dual function)of county councils and local transport executives, which can be both operators and transport planning authorities, and makes it clear that the clause does not affect the duties of public passenger transport operators to co-operate
1220
with or afford information to such bodies when they are acting in their roles of coordinators of passenger transport services.
Subsection (4) of the new clause defines "public passenger transport operators" in order to avoid any possible doubt that "public" refers to the fact that the transport is available to the public, and not to public ownership. I therefore commend this clarified, and I hope useful, version of the clause to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Power to prohibit driving of unfit public service vehicles]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4:
Page 17, leave out lines 18 to 20 and insert—
("( ) If the person to whom written notice of a prohibition is given under subsection (3) as being the person in charge of the vehicle at the time of the inspection is not—

(a) the operator of the vehicle; or

(b) if there is no operator at that time, the owner of the vehicle,

the officer or examiner shall as soon as practicable take steps to bring the contents of the notice to the attention of the said operator or owner.").
Clause 22 [Conditions attached to licences]:
Page 21, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) It is hereby declared that the conditions attached under subsection (1) to a PSV operator's licence granted by the traffic commissioners for any area do not affect the use by the holder of the licence of a vehicle—

(a) under a PSV operator's licence granted to him by the traffic commissioners for another area; or

(b) in circumstances such that another person falls to be treated as the operator of the vehicle (for example, by virtue of regulations under section 44(2)(a)).").

Clause 23 [Revocation, suspension, etc. of licences.]:
Page 22, line 23, after ("owned") insert ("or operated").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 9, 10, 11 and 12. When the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, moved his amendment to what was Clause 17 on Report, I said that the points he had made were sufficiently

1221
interesting for me to be able to promise that we would look again at the phraseology of this particular provision. We have done so, and for good measure we have also looked at that of other clauses where a similar point, which I know has worried the Confederation of British Road Passenger Transport, has arisen.
The point is that bus and coach operators frequently hire vehicles from each other for very short periods, either as a part of their normal mutual assistance when, for instance, there is a breakdown, or to enable an occasional large contract to be fulfilled by someone whose own fleet of vehicles is insufficient. Often, of course, the vehicle will be hired with the driver and then, under the Bill, the person for whom the driver works will remain the operator. But not infrequently the person who hires the vehicle will provide the driver, and, under the Bill as it now stands, he would become its operator and would have to put his disc on it. The CPT has pointed out that this is unrealistic, that the hirer-out will remain responsible for the maintenance of the vehicle and that it will count against the maximum number of vehicles permitted to him under Clause 21.
These amendments are designed to meet this point, and will ensure that vehicles hired in such circumstances will remain the responsibility of their regular operator and will not count against the maximum number of vehicles allowed to the person who hires them in.
The regulations made under Clause 44 will define the type of hiring arrangements that are covered by the new provision. It will be only temporary hiring, not more permanent leasing arrangements, and it will be only hirings between two operators' licence-holders. There will be no loophole here which unauthorised people could exploit.
The amendment to Clause 18 ensures that the prohibition on the vehicle is brought to the attention of the operator—that is, the person whose disc is on the vehicle, or, if there is no operator (for instance, if the vehicle is not in use at the time and has no disc on it), then to its owner. The amendment to Clause 22 puts beyond doubt that a vehicle hired under these arrangements will not count
1222
against the maximum number of vehicles permitted to the hirer-in. The amendment to Clause 23 makes possible a prohibition notice on a vehicle operated by, as well as owned by, a licence-holder.
Then there are grounds for disciplinary action by the traffic commissioners. I should emphasise that such a notice does not necessarily mean that the commissioners will take action; it is only grounds for their considering it. If the Bill said only "owners", there might be a loophole whereby the person really responsible in the case of a hired vehicle—the one whose disc is on it—avoided the possibility of action against him. It is necessary to retain "owner" as well as "operator" because a vehicle may have no operator at the time it is subject to a prohibition—it may be off the road and have no disc on it. With that explanation, I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord the Minister for carrying out the undertaking which he gave at the Report stage which led me to withdraw the amendments in the names of myself and my noble friends, and to say how much we welcome the amendments now before the House.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 32: [Fare-paying passengers on school buses]:
3.55 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 29, line 37, leave out from ("say") to ("sections") in line 38.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, a new clause setting out the additional provisions in relation to school buses was introduced by the Government at the Committee stage. This clause provides that a school bus, when used to provide free school transport, may also carry fare-paying passengers and, in addition, when not being used for school transport, a school bus may be used to provide a local bus service—that is, a normal stage carriage bus service. This latter provision could be during a school day when the bus is not being used to convey school-children, at weekends or during school holidays.
As drafted, the clause removes various safety provisions from both these additional services, and, in order that noble Lords can see the compromise which we seek to make in the amendment, I ought to detail these safety provisions. The provisions which are to be excluded are powers and facilities for inspection of passenger transport vehicles; the need for a school bus as a public service vehicle to have a certificate of initial fitness; the power of a certifying officer or PSV examiner to prohibit driving of an unfit public service vehicle; and the necessity to have a public service vehicle operator's licence. Also to be excluded is the provision of Section 144 of the 1960 Act which makes it necessary for the driver of a PSV to have a PSV driver's licence.
At the Committee stage noble Lords could do no more than speak on the general principle, and your Lordships will recall that the new clause as a whole was approved by a majority of 10 votes. The Report stage provided an opportunity to replace the safety provisions, so that the five points to which I have referred—which I would emphasise apply to every other public ser vice vehicle—would apply to a school bid s when used in accordance with the proposal in the new clause.
The Minister stated that because of facilities that were available to local education authorities, he was not at all deterred by these safety qualifications, but he generously added that perhaps, with the exclusion of the drivers' licensing area into which he would wish to go further, he would like to take the matter away and discuss it with his colleagues. In view of that statement, I accordingly withdrew the amendment in my name and that of my friends in the hope that the Government would find it possible to bring forward an amendment to deal solely with the necessity for there to be a PSV driver's licence in these two cases. It is with very deep regret that I note from the Marshalled List that the Government have not seen fit to table such an amendment. Therefore, I have no alternative but to place before the House Amendments Nos. 5 and 6, for I think I explained that I was speaking to Amendment No. 6 as well as to Amendment No. 5.
I must stress that, reluctantly, these amendments do not refer to four of the
1224
safety provisions: rather, only when a school bus is used as proposed in the Bill shall there be a necessity for the driver to have a PSV driver's licence. Perhaps I should explain the purpose of the two amendments. Amendment No. 5 seeks to ensure that this provision shall apply when a school bus is used to convey fare-paying passengers as well as providing free school transport, and also when used to provide a normal local bus service. I see no reason whatever why this provision should not apply in both cases because the vehicle will be conveying passengers. But some noble Lords may take the view, as expressed by the Minister, that school buses have been on the road for some time and that we can therefore dispense with some of these safety provisions.
For that reason Amendment No. 6 has been tabled as a fall-back. Amendment No. 6 deals solely with the position of a school bus when it is used to provide a local bus service, and I emphasise to your Lordships "a local bus service". Whatever may be the argumentsconcerning the need for a public service vehicle driver's licence when a bus is used in connection with free school transport, surely there can be no justification whatever for accepting the view that, because it is a school bus, we can, when it is running as a full local stage bus service, dispense with the safety provision that there should be a PSV driver's licence for the driver. That would be the only public service vehicle classification in the whole country where we would be dispensing with the need to have a PSV driver's licence. I would submit in proposing the second amendment that that would be completely illogical and would make a mockery of the PSV drivers' licence provisions.
Even if your Lordships feel that we should not proceed with Amendment No. 5, which I still believe is logical, at least in the case of Amendment No. 6 there should be a general view expressed by your Lordships that a bus, whether it is a local education authority vehicle or an ordinary bus, must comply with the requirement that there should be a driver with a PSV driver's licence. I therefore wish to move both Amendment No. 5 and Amendment No. 6.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him why does he not insist on a PSV licence for the

1225
children? Why is it safe for an ordinary driver to drive the children, but not for him to drive fare-paying passengers?
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, at the Report stage I indicated that I was sorry that over the years this has not been insisted upon. If you carry Amendment No. 5, then of course this would apply when the vehicle, in addition to being used for school children, is used for fare-paying passengers. It is in the hands of your Lordships whether you wish to carry Amendment No. 5, because that would deal with the situation in Amendment No. 6 as well.
4.2 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I sympathise strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, when he emphasises the aspect of safety. This matter was discussed before. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, indicated that Lord Underhill had moved his amendment with vigour, and I understood therefore that there was going to be some communication between the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in this matter. Therefore, for the position of clarification for myself as concerned with these Benches, may I ask whether there was any letter, or explanation, on this important matter of safety which was passed to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, by the department of which the Minister is in charge? If so, I feel that a copy should have come to us.
I have checked on this occasion, and my noble friend Lord Simon has not received a copy. I was reproved at Report stage that perhaps a copy of a letter had gone to my noble friend Lord Simon on another matter, but it had not been sent. These Benches have been totally short-circuited by the Minister over these matters.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I should like to add a note to that. At one time I represented a mountainous area, in some places above 1,000 feet contour, and with country places. One must bear in mind that a school bus—or a post office van is now being used in some of the remote villages in some areas—may be used where they have country lanes with bends and hedgerows and not wide open roads. At harvest time there is the hazard of
1226
much agricultural machinery on the roads, plus the huge milk wagons that now go through the country areas of Britain. They all have to be contended with. In those places a driver is driving more than just himself now because he is taking on school children, and in other cases taking on the public. Therefore, having made my point clearly enough without expanding on it, I support my noble friend who has moved this amendment.
Lord DIGBY: My Lords, I hope that the Government will not accept this amendment. We must remember that it is dealing with the employees of a public authority who know their duty to people. They have a good record for their safety. If this extra burden is put on, it is another expense for local authorities. There is the cost of special training, and possibly putting employees' jobs in jeopardy. I would ask your Lordships not to support this amendment where we have a good record of safety on school buses.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, may I come in again?
Several noble Lords: No!
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: Of course, it is Third Reading.
4.5 p.m.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, since we are discussing the two amendments, I should like to speak to both. In the first instance, while I have every sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in Amendment No. 5, he has acknowledged that were it to be passed it would be undoing a situation that has applied perfectly correctly and happily, although it may be regrettable, over a number of years.
So far as the second amendment is concerned, this is where the difference lies. There are essentially two differences. The first is the additional degree of responsibility that may be carried. Here I must disagree with my noble friend who has just spoken, in that while a local authority employee may have a very good record, it is in one field of operation only, and it is a somewhat limited field with a number of self-imposed disciplines applying within the vehicle. That makes a lot of difference.

1227
So far as the cost is concerned, the cost of training for, and attaining, a PSV licence is quite small as compared with that of a heavy goods vehicle driver, where it can run into some hundreds of pounds. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will explain to us exactly what kind of licence the driver of an education bus, performing the functions he would be allowed to perform within the Bill as it now stands, would need to have. It is of a very low order, my Lords. So we have on the one hand the new situation that a local education authority or local authority driver has to face; one which he has not faced before, and one which I suggest he may not be competent to discharge.
The second point—and I believe that this is perhaps the more important point—is why, because he is engaged by a local authority in the narrow field of school transport, should a driver be exempt from the qualifications which his commercial counterpart has to have when engaged in the same job? This seems to me absolutely wrong. Were my noble friend to accept Lord Underhill's second amendment, it would not undermine the principle of the Bill—that of enlarging the scope in transport—nor would it impose any additional qualification on people already doing the prescribed job.
What it would do, of course, is to impose upon the drivers exactly the same qualifications when they are engaged in the same line of duty. This cannot be argued to be restrictive or as undermining the main principles of the Bill. At this stage my sympathy is with the mover in Amendment No. 6 and not with Amendment No. 5. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend is able to put up rather more cogent arguments than we have heard in the previous two stages, Report and Committee, that may make me change my view on this matter.
Viscount RIDLEY: My Lords, I hope I might be able to support my noble friend Lord Digby. County councils feel strongly that this is a quite unnecessary provision. They are very responsible people. They do not allow people to drive buses without great care being taken to see that the buses are properly maintained, and so forth. I am quite certain that this would be an unnecessary bureaucratic control. As my
1228
noble friend has said, the safety record of school buses is a good deal better than that of the public at large.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, I should like strongly to support my noble friend's amendment. It may well be that school buses have been operated safely for a long time, and I do not doubt that their drivers are very careful. But there has only to be one serious accident, and then it will appear that the public authorities have allowed the drivers of school buses to put children at risk by requiring lower qualifications for their drivers than they do for the general public; that they are risking the lives of children in a way that they would not risk the lives of the general public. That is how it will appear if there should be a serious accident, and one day—who knows?—however long and well they may have driven in the past, that risk remains.
4.10 p.m.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the view expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Digby and Lord Ridley. Local education authorities in this country are highly responsible bodies and have records of decades of completely safe service in this respect, and nobody ever thought to question the reliability of this service until it arose on the technical point of using these buses outside the school service if a local authority thought it suitable to do so. I believe it would be wrong to think in terms of requiring PSV licences for all school education buses.
Regarding Amendment No. 6, here is an existing service which plies most days of the year, carrying children to school five days a week, and when those buses have done that they have not much else to do until in the afternoon when they collect the children again. It is possible in some counties, depending on how the education service is organised, that those buses could be used in some rural areas to put on a service here and there in marginal circumstances where there would not otherwise be a service, and clearly that is the thought behind the Bill. It is a practical measure. Everybody knows that these buses stand doing nothing for most of the day, whereas they could be put to work for a few marginal services which would be tremendously valuable to rural populations.

1229
I do not see the cogency of the point raised by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth in this context. The drivers of these vehicles are trusted men, who have been picked and trained by local education authorities because they are reliable, and therefore they could be trusted to carry out the kind of service I have indicated. If that developed to the point where those school buses were plying in a big way, so to speak, for hire, carrying passengers, so that the general nature of their activity changed, then the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, would have increasing cogency. But seen in the practical context that these school buses could be used to give a valuable service in rural areas—in a marginal sort of way, perhaps making one or two journeys a day—that is something we should not miss if it could be done under the Bill. I therefore hope my noble friend will resist Amendment No. 6—I am sure he will resist No. 5—because we should lose something which could be very helpful in the countryside.
4.5 p.m.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, I had intended to speak after the Minister's reply but I feel that I must make a few points, and I do not propose to weary your Lordships or add to the general principle which was so cogently expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. What my noble friends have said against the amendment has not convinced me. As for training these people, which matter was raised by my noble friend Lord Digby, let us first consider the case of the existing driver. Presumably he would not have any training; after all, he has been driving these buses. He would simply go along for his test, and if he did not pass, then he should not be driving in the first place. For new drivers, I cannot see why there should be one system for one set of drivers and another for a second set. I suppose, regrettably, that Amendment No. 5 we shall have to let go, but I feel we shall have to put Amendment No. 6 to the test, unless the Minister can give some assurance, even at this late hour, or can be persuaded to accept it.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, I hope my noble friend will resist the amendment because although there is undoubted logic in the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, on the rather dry
1230
and narrow ground of consistency, it should be borne in mind that life is not consistent. My main objection lies in the fact that one of the great qualities of the Bill is that it is fundamentally a de-regularising measure, whereas this is a regularising or re-regularising amendment which flies in the face of the spirit of the Bill.
Lord BELLWIN: I resist both Amendments Nos. 5 and 6, my Lords, but first I would say in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, that I am most concerned at his concern at not having received copies of communications. While the communications regarding these amendments have not been in written form, I have been in communication verbally in trying to be helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in the technicalities of the matter, because we have an obligation to do that and we will always try to do it. When, however, he makes the point of other communications not having been copied, I undertake to look very thoroughly, after this discussion, into all such points to ensure that in future neither he nor any other noble Lord will ever again be able to say to me that I have not sent copies of communications that should have been sent. I gladly undertake to do that.
I am as much concerned about safety as anyone, and if I had any real fears here I should have to go along with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. It is true of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger said, that a situation could arise involving an accident. There has not been one up to now (one might say "Blessed for that", and I would agree) and regardless of whatever we might do, whether we had any regime for licensing, that would not mean there would never be an accident. However, I wish to assure noble Lords that I have reconsidered the matter most carefully, as I said I would, because I took very seriously the vigour with which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill made the point, and my ministerial colleagues took it equally seriously. We have looked at all that was said on Report on this subject, and on balance I have concluded that it would be wrong to subject the drivers of school buses belonging to local education authorities to public service vehicle driver licensing when they are carrying fare-paying passengers.

1231
As was said by my noble friends Lord Digby and Lord Ridley, who have great experience in these matters—and I am grateful for their comments—it would lead to further problems for local authorities. I will not major on the cost argument because where you have safety, cost must be secondary, and as one who has pursued cost value as much as almost anyone in local government, I have always tried to put safety above it, and I shall continue to do so; noble Lords will hear me make this point on other Bills to come before the House. Even so, there is always a sensible approach to take, and I must say that while local authorities have problems at this time about which we all know, in my thinking I am not allowing the cost aspect to be overriding.
Local education authorities are responsible elected bodies and since the war they have been able to run school buses and have never been subject to public service vehicle licensing and its adjuncts. It has been for them to decide what type of vehicle to use and what qualifications to require of their drivers. As has been pointed out, over all those years I am unaware of any accident or injury to pupils being carried in such vehicles, and certainly of none which could be blamed on the lack of qualifications of the driver. I say that, fully hoping that I shall never be taken to task on the point; but, as the noble Baroness said, such a thing could happen. I consider that local education authorities are responsible bodies and are to be trusted in this matter.
All else apart, as my noble friend Lord Hawke said, what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is proposing is in fact illogical. He wants the drivers of these vehicles to have PSV drivers' licences when fare-paying passengers are carried, but when the vehicle is carrying pupils free of charge to and from school there would be no such requirement. Surely the noble Lord is not suggesting that schoolchildren need less in the way of skill or care on the part of their driver than do adults. I appreciate that what the noble Lord is doing is searching for a compromise, but I respectfully suggest that what he is proposing is an illogicality.
Having said all that, I hasten to add, in all fairness, that the present law is itself illogical. While a special driving
1232
licence, following usually a special test, is required of people driving large passenger vehicles in certain circumstances, the ordinary Part III driving licence allows its holder to drive the same vehicle and even to carry a load of passengers, provided that the vehicle is not being used for hire or reward. At this stage may I point out to my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth that the kind of licence in question is the ordinary Part III driving licence. Many buses used by firms to carry their workers around, as well as privately-owned vehicles, can be driven by people with no special qualification. There is an anomaly here, and it is something which we should, and indeed shall, be looking at, though there may be no simple solution, since many people—such as fitters, for instance—have to drive buses in the course of their work.
It may be some comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, if I say that we intend to look at the whole area of large passenger vehicle driver licensing, but this is not a matter that can be dealt with in this Bill at this time. Therefore I hope that in the light of the reservations that I have expressed, we can take a balanced view of this matter, and in the circumstances, if the noble Lord does not feel able to withdraw the amendment, I fear that I shall have to continue to resist it.
4.22 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, naturally, I am most disappointed at the attitude expressed by the Minister on behalf of the Government. I fully accept that the noble Lord is as concerned as any other noble Lord with safety. However, I should like to deal with one or two other points that have been made in the debate before turning to the Minister's reply. A number of noble Lords have stressed that we are dealing with public authorities which know their duties. Are not PTEs public authorities? Who would ever suggest that a PTE could put a bus on the road without having to meet the requirements regarding a public service vehicle driver's licence simply because it happened to be a public authority? The National Bus Company, in a way, is a public authority. The Scottish Transport Group is a public authority. Yet it is suggested that this is the one case in which, because the bodies concerned happen to be local authorities, the requirement—

1233
which is firmly written into the Act, as noble Lords will be aware—can be dispensed with.
I am pleased to note the support of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. The point he made is quite valid. The drivers are being given additional responsibilities. They will no longer drive for a limited purpose or for restricted hours. They will be driving in a full local bus service. I hope that noble Lords will bear in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said. The amendment is in no way widening the qualifications laid down in regard to any other PSV—in no way at all. We ask merely that what is laid down in the 1960 Act should continue to apply in this particular circumstance.
Speaking about Amendment No. 6, surely if a local education authority wishes to extend its province to running a bus service (which is what it is to be allowed to do) it must be prepared to fall into line and meet the same requirements as must anyone else who wants to run a local bus service. The Bill is proposing relaxation with regard to licensing of new operators who want to run bus services. No one would suggest that a new operator, simply because he is a new operator, should not have to comply with all the requirements regarding PSVs. I earlier indicated to your Lordships that we have already surrendered four of the safety provisions which would apply to any new operators of a local bus service. The only new operator which will be outside the regulations will be the local education authority. I defy any noble Lord to say that that is logical or justifiable in any way.
I must make reply to a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, since we are not opposing the principle of the scheme, which is that buses should be used in this way. That principle was agreed at the Committee stage; so we are not arguing about it. All we are saying is that if this is to be the wish of Parliament, then qualifications relating to PSV drivers must apply in this case.
As I have said, I fully accept that the noble Lord the Minister is as much concerned with safety provisions as I and any other of your Lordships are. He asked
1234
us to look at the matter with a balanced and sensible approach. I suggest that Amendment No. 6 in particular tries to look at the matter with a balanced and sensible approach. A local education authority might wish to extend into a new field. It could run a full bus service throughout the two months of the summer holiday. To say that in such a case there is no need to comply with the PSV driving licence requirement is, I believe, absolutely illogical.
I appreciate that the Minister put forward a point about the present illogicality regarding school transport. Personally I regret that situation, but I cannot deal with it in this amendment. If the Government are to put forward a consolidation Bill, perhaps they will look at the point, but I do not know when there is to be a review or when further legislation is to be placed before this House and another place. In the meantime, once the Bill receives Royal Assent, local education authorities will be able to run a full bus service whenever they are not engaged in transporting children to school. I am prepared to compromise with your Lordships because I can see that there are difficulties in regard to accepting Amendment No. 5 on the grounds that it is concerned with only a slight extension of the present situation regarding school buses.
I should like to see that proposal apply, and perhaps there is illogicality in my not pressing it, but obviously the House is not disposed to support Amendment No. 5. However, with regard to Amendment No. 6, I believe that on grounds of safety, and bearing in mind the question of logicality, to exempt only these particular buses in the whole of the country cannot be justified, no matter how well the Minister may have presented what is really a very difficult and very bad case. Therefore I hope that the House will support Amendment No. 6. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 5.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 29, line 37, leave out from ("say") to end of line 41 and insert ("sections 16, 17, 18 and 19(1) of this Act, shall not apply to a school bus belonging to a local education authority in the course of its use by the authority in accord-

1235
ance with this subsection; and section 144 of the 1960 Act (public service vehicle drivers' licences) shall apply to a school bus belonging to a local education authority in the course of its use by the authority in accordance with paragraph (b) of this subsection").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6, and in so
doing I must ask your Lordships to divide on this very important issue.
4.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 86; Not-Contents, 98.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Galpern, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Ampthill, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Amulree, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Porritt, L.

Ardwick, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Richardson, L.

Avebury, L.

Grey, E.

Rochester, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hale, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Balogh, L.

Hampton, L.

Seear, B.

Banks, L.

Hayter, L.

Segal, L.

Barrington, V.

Henderson, L.

Shinwell, L.

Bernstein, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Simon, V.

Beswick, L.

Jacques, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Birk, B.

Janner, L.

Stamp, L.

Blyton, L.

Jeger, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Bowden, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Stone, L.

Brockway, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Leonard, L.

Strauss, L.

Byers, L.

Listowel, E.

Swinfen, L.

Collison, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Teviot, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Underhill, L.

David, B.

Longford, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L

Davies of Penryhs, L.

McCarthy, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Denington, B.

Mishcon, L.

Whaddon, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

White, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Northfield, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Fortescue, E.

Peart, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Gaitskell, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Hylton-Foster, B.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Digby, L.

Ilchester, E.

Alport, L.

Dormer, L.

Inglewood, L.

Avon, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Kimberley, E.

Bellwin, L.

Dundee, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Belstead, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Berkeley, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Long, V.

Bessborough, E.

Elton, L.

Lovat, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Luke, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Faithfull, B.

Lyell, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Falkland, V.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Ferrier, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Caccia, L.

Forbes, L.

Mancroft, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Mansfield, E.

Clancarty, E.

Glenkinglas, L.

Marley, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Gowrie, E.

Martonmere, L.

Clwyd, L.

Gridley, L.

Morris, L.

Cockfield, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Newall, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Halsbury, E.

Norfolk, D.

Craigavon, V.

Hankey, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Crathorne, L.

Hanworth, V.

Onslow, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Harvington, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Davidson, V.

Hawke, L.

Penrhyn,L.

De Freyne, L.

Henley, L.

Piercy, L.

De La Warr, E.

Hunt, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Soames, L. (L. Pesident.)

Trefgarne, L.

Redmayne, L.

Somers, L.

Trenchard, V

Reigate, L.

Spens, L.

Ullswater, V.

Ridley, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Vickers, B.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Vivian, L.

Selkirk, E.

Strathspey, L.

Young, B.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

STEEL RUNDOWN: RE-EMPLOYMENT MEASURES
4.37 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords, if it is convenient to the House, I will now repeat a Statement made in the other place this afternoon by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry on the remedial measures for areas affected by the steel rundown. The Statement reads:
"On 11th December 1979 and 17th January of this year, the British Steel Corporation announced proposals for a large reduction in manned capacity at Llanwern, Port Talbot, Consett and Scunthorpe.
"The Government has made it clear that it would act to alleviate the economic and social consequences of the substantial and concentrated job losses involved. Now that the prospects have been discussed with the unions more details of the prospective job losses are available and the Government has taken the following decisions:—
"(a). Subject to the necessary approval of the European Commission we propose to make the Port Talbot Travel to Work Area a special development area, and the Scunthorpe Travel to Work Area and the whole of the Newport Travel to Work Area, and the Cwmbran Employment Office Area, development areas. Firms in these areas will then be eligible for the full range of regional incentives including regional development grants and regional selective assistance under section 7 of the Industry Act 1972. Consett is, of course, already an SDA and the reductions in the coverage of the assisted areas which I announced last July should increase the relative attractiveness of Derwentside. The necessary Orders will be laid following
1238
receipt of the EEC Commission's approval. I am mindful of the need to complete this process before 1st August. The Government is aware of possible further redundancies in these and neighbouring areas—particularly Swansea—consequent upon the rundown at these steelworks or through related closures and will continue to keep a careful watch on the situation relative to the rest of the United Kingdom.
"The Government will make available any additional resources which may be needed for increased entitlement to regional development grants. The Government also plan the following expenditure measures which will be found from within the programme allocations for which my right honourable friends and I are responsible:

"(b). Factory Building and Site Development: The Secretary of State for Wales has already announced a two-year programme of land acquisition, derelict land clearance, site development and factory building in those areas in South Wales affected by the rundown. For Consett and Scunthorpe, the Government will provide £19 million at 1980 public expenditure survey prices to enable the English Industrial Estates Corporation to increase building over the next 5 years—about two-thirds to Consett and one-third to Scunthorpe.

(c). Derelict Land Clearance: Derelict Land Clearance grants of up to £10 million will be available in the 3 to 4 years beginning in 1981–82 for approved reclamation schemes at Consett and, to the limited extent there relevant, Scunthorpe, within the framework of the new system of local authority capital expenditure controls that will operate from April 1981.

"(d). Manpower Measures: The Government recently announced a new scheme to provide assistance towards the cost of in-plant training, and this scheme will be of particular value to these areas suffering from steel redundancies.

"The Manpower Services Commission, in addition to its normal placing and training services, will be introducing certain new measures for steel rundown areas:

(i) Work assessment/reorientation courses. Courses on job finding and retraining possibilities will be expanded.

(ii) Small business training. Courses on how to start businesses will be expanded.

(iii) Apprentices. Assistance will be provided through industrial training boards to help firms who take on first or second year craft apprentices made redundant by the steel industry.

(iv) Youth Opportunities Programme: special attention will be given to the needs of these areas.

(v) The Government is also considering the scope for extra assistance for unemployed people in these areas who move home to take up a job in another area."

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.43 p.m.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement which was made in another place. Is the noble Viscount aware that as one looks through this long Statement one cannot find any new jobs in the areas affected by the steel closures? The Statement purports to be a remedial one to produce palliatives for the problems which the Government themselves have created. It does not pretend to get down to the root of the matter, which is the rapid decline of the manufacturing and steel industries of this country, a decline which has now reached crisis level. Of course, special development areas and development areas are a very good proposition. We used them for many years. But they are quite useless unless there are ample industrial investments, with orders to accompany them, which will enable firms to expand into the new areas which have been named in this Statement. We all know that industrial investment is falling and one cannot understand how the Government think that they can induce non-expanding industries to move into such areas.
1240
There is a great contradiction in all this. Last year the Government cut down on the areas covered by special development area and development area designations on the grounds that they were too wide. Now, the Government, as they succeed in spreading misery, are increasing the number of these areas. One recalls that a huge investment was made not many years ago in the Anchor project in Scunthorpe; and in Llanwern the same thing applied. I would ask the noble Viscount—and he has told us on many occasions that this country is noncompetitive—how the Government expect to reach a position where we are competitive with overseas industries when we are running down huge plants like Scunthorpe and Llanwern to something like 50 per cent. capacity. It is completely and utterly impossible to achieve.
What is it that we are doing with the steel industry? Are we giving up any hope of expanding, when the present world recession is over, into the export markets that we once had? Are we even trying to produce sufficient capacity to meet the needs of our own manufacturing industries when once again they can hope to get to full employment and so on?—because, as things are now, I defy contradiction in asserting that the capacity that we shall have left will not suffice for our own manufacturing industry. What is it we are trying to do? Are we saying that we will rely permanently upon imports of cheap, dumped steel? Are we saying that there will be a continuation of the erosion of the manufacturing industries about which we have complained so often?
I should like to ask the noble Viscount what is meant by the words in the Statement:
"The Government is aware of possible further redundancies in these and neighbouring areas—particularly Scunthorpe … and will continue to keep a careful watch on the situation relative to the rest of the United Kingdom".
Will the noble Viscount say precisely what that means? We all know that "keeping a watch" is one of the problems we have been encountering for a long time. We have been asking for action and not for people to keep a watch on the situation.
A little later, on page 3 of the Statement, we read:
"The Manpower Services Commission, in addition to its normal placing and training services, will be introducing certain new measures for steel rundown areas".

1241
May I ask whether the Manpower Services Commission are going to receive any more finance from the Government to do that? Present tendencies have been to minimise the amount which the Manpower Services Commission have been able to expend on this kind of thing.
A little later, the noble Viscount said on the question of apprentices:
"Assistance will be provided through industrial training boards to help firms who take on first or second year craft apprentices".
Is the noble Viscount aware that the Engineering Training Board is now suffering a pretty substantial cut in its allocation? Yet now we see this. It is a most unsatisfactory kind of Statement. It does not begin to deal with anything tangible in the awful economic problems that we face. It is a mere palliative and the words mean precious little to anybody.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, we on these Benches should like to join in thanking the noble Viscount for repeating this Statement. We accept that there is need for a radical restructuring of the British steel industry. I do not suppose that the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, will thank me for saying so; but we think that the process now would be a lot less painful if the previous Administration had grasped the nettle earlier at the time when Sir Monty Finniston was chairman of the Corporation.
We welcome the remedial measures as far as they go and particularly the fact that Port Talbot is being made a special development area. We are glad to hear of the assistance to be given towards the costs of in-plant training and of the various measures to be introduced by the Manpower Services Commission under the Youth Opportunities Programme in facilitating the movement to other areas of unemployed people, in giving training in job-finding, in starting small businesses, in enabling craft apprenticeships to continue and so on. But, like the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, I am not clear whether these new services are capable of being financed from within the resources already available to the Manpower Services Commission or whether additional money will be made available to Sir Richard O'Brien and his colleagues for this purpose. Perhaps the noble
1242
Viscount will be able to give information on that point both to the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, and to me.
We have been told that more details of prospective job losses are now available, but no reference is made to these in quantitative terms in the Statement. May we be told how far, in determining the pace of rundown and the overall amounts of financial assistance available, account is being taken of the desirability of doing this on the basis of so-called natural wastage, voluntary early retirement, and so on? In particular, can we be given any estimate of the extent to which there will be enforced redundancies?
We have noted that Consett, which of course has been so dependent—as the noble Viscount well knows—on steel for its livelihood, is to be granted, as I worked it out, from between £12 million and £13 million for factory building and site development. The Statement makes no mention of Shotton. Of course there is still a first-class workforce available there going back to the days of John Summers. In that particular case, is there any information that the Minister is able to give us concerning the possibility of that workforce being employed under different ownership?
4.52 p.m.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, for saving me the trouble of reintroducing reality into the discussion on the Statement. Indeed, I echo his comment that if the previous Administration had shown more willpower in achieving the targets they themselves set for British Steel in the years in which they set them, we should perhaps have ceased at an earlier date to lose the share of market in British Steel. The further reality is of course that no serious commentator on the present situation is suggesting that currently the British Steel programme—which is no secret to the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton—based on a demand of 15 million tonnes a year is an under-estimate in the short term at least. Furthermore the capacity—and the noble Lord, Lord Lee, cannot have it both ways—that is being retained within the plan of the British Steel Corporation which produces the redundancies that I am speaking about, keeps plant capable of a very considerable expansion above

1243
that 15 million tonnes. All this has been announced previously and discussed many times.
Turning to the regional policy aspects, there has been no contradiction in terms of Government policy. We announced the criteria for the new regional policy and we are now applying it. We took the opportunity on taking office of getting the SDAs, DAs and IAs on a new basis, and getting them registered correctly within those grades. We undertook to review the changes in the national economy and in the regional economy, and to keep the gradings up to date from time to time. The position in Wales, outside these two main closures, was not so had as in many other areas of the country. That is why they were either of a lower grade already or were scheduled for downgrading on 1st August. My right honourable friend's Statement takes into account the future redundancies that will come about, and grades these areas objectively according to the grades that they will or should fit into in accordance with that policy. So there is no contradiction at all.
The noble Lord is right about keeping watch in relation particularly to Swansea and in relation to possible further redundancies. We keep watch. The regional policy is one of keeping watch and of reviewing from time to time; but in this particular case what the Statement means is that it is always very hard to judge in assessing prospective redundancies exactly what the effects will be in which particular travel-to-work area, and what knock-on effects—which have been raised in this House before—will actually take place. We have been pressed to anticipate redundancies and to change the gradings in order to do the most we possibly can for these areas well before the redundancies occur. One can only do that on an estimate; and since we have done it on an estimate, we shall of course keep watch on the situation as it actually develops.
As far as the Manpower Services Commission measures are concerned, not only will all the normal services of the Manpower Services Commission be applied but under each of the headings that I have given, special measures applying to steel remedial areas or special increases or augmentations will be applied and the MSC will be enabled to perform those extra duties in the steel remedial areas.
1244
I do not think that the Shotton area is touched by this Statement at all. It has been touched by previous Statements which I will look up for the noble Lord and let him know about them. There is a big factory programme and an MSC programme going on in the area. As far as the question of the negotiations about which there have been press comment and other statements is concerned, I think that is a separate issue. I have no further news to add to that today.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, with respect, I asked regarding the Manpower Services Commission whether they were going to be given any extra financial help in order to assist them to do that which the Statement says, and whether with the run-down which is taking place the amount of money that the Engineering Apprentices' Board, for instance, is getting will be increased.
As regards the question of what we did not do, which the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and the noble Viscount mentioned, the great criticism that we had was that we were spending far and away too much money on special development areas. This was given as the reason why the Government were running them down. The noble Viscount has not answered my statement that the Government are undoubtedly changing course and increasing the number of development areas in being.
Viscount TRENCHARD: I thought I had made clear—and the Statement makes clear—that the resources will be found from the general departmental allocations which I mentioned. So far as the Manpower Services Commission is concerned, I made the Statement very deliberately, very clearly that it is going to be enabled to carry out augmented or additional services—more than it would otherwise be able to do. To go into the detail on all Government department's budgets over a prolonged period is not to answer the noble Lord's question but to mislead him. There is no question but that the headings of the items mentioned cover additional or augmented services of the Manpower Services Commission.
On SDAs the noble Lord is just not correct. Yes, we said there was a possibility and a need for major economy

1245
in the regional programme. That has taken place and these alterations to it are alterations upwards of a certain order in the total effect on cost; but the changes we made did not mean paying less money to special development areas. We maintained the grant at 22 per cent. for special development areas. We altered the development area grant a bit. The policy was designed to give maximum help in the areas of greatest need and not to spread it all over the country extending it to many areas which had no greater need than the average of the country.
Viscount RIDLEY: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend could perhaps clarify one point in his Statement. He said that £10 million was available for the clearance of derelict land on Consett and somewhere else. Is this money additional to what is now planned to be spent on derelict land clearance in England and Wales or is it at the expense of this programme that the £10 million will have to be found?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, the funding of the derelict land clearance is even more complicated than that of the schemes of the Department of Employment and the Manpower Services Commission, and I suspect that my noble friend in fact knows rather more about the proposed plans for the allocating of capital expenditure to local authorities. But perhaps I can help him by saying, first, that the local authorities concerned should be able to make use of the £10 million grant that is to be made available. It comes under Block 5 expenditure. These expenditure plans are, I know, still under consultation with local authority associations but the Government's objective is quite clear as regards this measure: that is that they wish, and believe they will be able, to make possible land clearance schemes to that value which otherwise would not be made possible.
5.3 p.m.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount whether he will inform the House as to the precise reasons why it becomes necessary to obtain the permission of the European Commission for these measures to take effect? If there are such reasons they should be enshrined in an article in the Treaty, or in a directive or a regulation.
1246
The House would be greatly obliged, I am sure, to know why in these circumstances the EEC Commission should be interested at all. I do not know whether the Government intend these to go before the Competition Directorate, but if the noble Viscount is considering approaching that particular directorate for permission, may I ask the House's indulgence in reminding him that that is not always the most prompt directorate-general to deal with matters of this kind?
May I also ask the noble Viscount, in regard to the decision reached at the Brussels Conference of Foreign Ministers recently, on which some doubt was recently cast by the meeting of Fishery Ministers, whether the aim that he has suggested this afternoon to be incorporated in regulations will preclude the Government from making representations to the Community under the provisions of the Brussels agreement for further and more extensive aid from Europe for these areas, as a means of contributing in part to the deficit which this country bears in regard to its contribution to the European Economic Community?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord is Article 93(iii) of the Treaty of Rome, which has bound him and his colleagues in previous Administrations as it now binds me. The House may remember that, when we put our new alterations of the regional policy to the House, there was under this article the necessity to clear these measures with the EEC and to give them adequate notice. There is nothing new here; he and his predecessors did it; I have to do it and I anticipate no problems.
In relation to in any way prejudicing monies that we shall get from Europe generally for regional policy, and particularly for steel remedial areas—and I described those in some detail on 13th February at column 164—no, there will be no adverse effect and there will be no adverse effect whatsoever on the negotiations which are now starting in relation to the deal over the British contribution and the extra monies that may be available following that. The needs of these areas are indeed regarded as a very high priority by the Government, who, bearing in mind the statements of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales involving the expenditure

1247
of some £48 million, have now deployed some very considerable resources, in advance of the redundancies taking place, to do everything we can within the circumstances both financially and, much more importantly, psychologically, in training for possible new employment. We have done everything we can to soften and indeed to replace the cutbacks which are necessary, since we have to face realities in the steel, and in the British Steel, situation.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, when the noble Viscount says he has done everything he can do in South Wales regarding these matters, does he include in that giving men who want to work space where they can work at low rents? In the area of South Wales which I know so well, the difficulty quite frequently arises that men who have been made redundant, sometimes with large sums of money, want to work but they cannot find the necessary space in which to carry on their constructive activities.
Viscount TRENCHARD: Yes, my Lords. One of the measures that I announced is indeed giving them extra training in conducting their own businesses if they have a skill of any kind. Factory space of every size is being considered and planned, and of course BSC (Industry) Limited, which is that part of British Steel which deals with attracting new and often smaller enterprises into converted or new facilities, is also spending money in this direction.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that assistance from Europe comes from two directions? I am not quite clear from what he said whether this is so. First, there is general assistance towards development in areas suffering from high unemployment and in need of development, and, secondly, from the Steel Directive, which allows for assistance, if I remember aright, in cases of redundancies and the general run-down of the industry. In that case, if I remember correctly, it is mandatory to report and to get the confirmation—I will not say permission, but at any rate confirmation—of the Commission to the proposals that are made. Is that what he meant by referring to the permission of the EEC?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I think that my noble friend has the
1248
position clear. I think the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, was asking me why I had to get EEC permission for the package at all in relation to the regrading of assisted areas; and that is where the article in the treaty comes in.
Yes, my noble friend is quite right. There are two main sources of aid. One is the Commission and the other is the ECSC budget, which has been very heavily used in the case of Shotton.

TRANSPORT BILL
5.10 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Third Reading resumed.
Clause 33 [Use of certain vehicles by educational and other bodies]:
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 31, line 4, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the light of the decision on the last amendment, I shall not detain your Lordships very long on this one. But I feel sure that the noble Lord the Minister will take careful note of the substantial body of opinion that there is in this House on the question of safety and the PSV driver's licence. This amendment deals with precisely the same point, but as regards vehicles that may be used by charitable and educational bodies.
My purpose in coming to the Dispatch Box is merely to set out our reasons for this amendment, because we in no way want it to be thought that we wish to hinder the application of the scheme to charitable and educational bodies. We hope that it will be a success and the principle has been agreed by your Lordships. But our point in submitting the amendment is that, while we may see wisdom in relaxing some of the safety provisions, because these vehicles will be used only occasionally in a very limited way, the provisions permit vehicles called "large passenger-carrying vehicles"; and they are defined in the clause as vehicles which can carry more than 16 passengers. There is no maximum.
Therefore, it is possible for a charitable body to have given to it, or to purchase,

1249
a double-decker bus which is capable of carrying 60, 70 or 80 passengers. This could be put on the road without the requirement of the necessary PSV driver's licence, and the driver of such a vehicle would have far greater responsibilities than are provided for in the Minibus Act, because it would be a vehicle carrying more than 16 passengers with no limit on the numbers of passengers conveyed.
While we in no way want to inhibit the success of this scheme, we must think not only of the persons who are being conveyed, but of all other road users and the general public. Therefore, while I have no desire to detain the House, I should like the noble Lord the Minister to indicate that, in any review that may be undertaken of the provisions covering drivers of PSV vehicles and large passenger-carrying vehicles, this point will be considered. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, of course, I will take careful note not only of what was said on the previous amendment, but of what the noble Lord has now said. But on this amendment, in so far as the cases are not on all fours, the case against requiring PSV driver licences for people driving these vehicles is stronger. First, they will often be volunteers driving the vehicles only intermittently, and their willingness to undertake the task would be reduced if the trouble and expense of PSV driver licensing were required.
Secondly, the Minibus Act itself enables regulations to be made governing the conditions to be fulfilled by drivers, and under these regulations the holders of provisional licences are excluded. This regulation-making power could be a more flexible way of restricting the driving of these vehicles—if it turned out to be necessary, as I do not think it will— than requiring PSV drivers' licences. I repeat, again, that we have taken careful note. We are well aware of the concern that exists and will treat it accordingly.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, the very fact that these may be volunteers makes the position even more serious. While we do not want to deter people from volunteering, we must be very careful, because these are large vehicles which will be travelling in busy streets.
1250
Therefore, I am not thinking only of the man who is volunteering; I am thinking of the public at large.
I am pleased to hear from the Minister that the regulations will be flexible and that it is possible for them to be adjusted, but I would make this one point: One of my noble friends referred on the previous amendment to the possibility of an accident. There have been some unfortunate and tragic accidents affecting PSV vehicles over the past couple of years, and I am certain the Minister will agree with me that we would not want to be faced with a serious accident just because we want to help a charitable scheme and a volunteer takes out a double-decker bus. But in the light of what the Minister has said, and what the House decided on the previous amendment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 [Reduction of minimum age for drivers of public service vehicles]:
5.15 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 34, line 38, leave out ("any service") and insert ("a national transport operation").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I accepted at Report stage the amendment of the noble Lord opposite, I made it clear that a further amendment would be needed at Third Reading. The minium age of 21 years for drivers, imposed by EEC Regulation 543/69, applies on international operations to vehicles of more than nine seats overall, and on national operations to vehicles of more than 15 seats overall. So it is only for national operations that we are able to set a lower minimum age for vehicles of 15 seats or less. The amendment makes this clear and brings the clause into line with EEC law. My Lords, I beg to move.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, when I read this amendment, I wondered what was meant by a "national transport operation". I understand from what the noble Lord has said that this is distinguishing from an international transport operation. But it is a rather curious phrase. Is it defined anywhere?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, to be helpful, the point which came up last time was that a journey could begin here and it would be national, in the sense that it was within this country. But it could then proceed on to the Continent, when it would become international. It is in that sense that I used the words "national" and "international". One is within the confines of the United Kingdom, and the other is within the EEC area.
Clause 44 [Interpretation of Part I]:
5.17 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 38, line 43, leave out ("subsection (2)") and insert ("subsections (2) and (2A)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 39, line 32, after (" (a)") insert—
("regulations may make provision as to the person who is to be regarded as the operator of a vehicle which is made available by one holder of a PSV operator's licence to another under a hiring arrangement; and
(aa) where regulations under paragraph (a) do not apply,")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I also spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 39 line 37 leave out from ("work)") to (" the ") in line 38, and insert—
("(2A) For the purposes of this Part").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment, too, with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 39, line 41, leave out ("the purposes of paragraph (b)") and insert ("those purposes").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, again I spoke to this with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
Clause 52 [Payments by Minister in respect of B.R. and N.F.C. pension schemes]:
5.18 p.m.
Lord MISHCON Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 45, line 35, after ("54(1)") insert ("or section 54(7)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a paving amendment so, with your Lordships' leave, I would ask to take with it Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 24. Your Lordships will accordingly, to your relief, hear only one speech from me, I hope, in regard to these amendments. It is possibly appropriate that, in the language of your Lordships' House, I call it a paving amendment, in the sense that your Lordships have been along this road with me on previous occasions and have shown your usual courtesy and patience.
If I may briefly summarise the position, this relates to the history of the Britsh Railways pension scheme and the Government's dealings with the pensioners and the trustees of that fund. We heard at earlier stages of the Bill how, prior to 1974, this fund, if I may be excused the expression, was raided in order that its monies could be used for the transport industry itself. Its funds were indeed used, both prior to nationalisation and afterwards, at low interest rates—it was an investment that normally would not be suitable for investment trustees—for the support of the railway industry. So in 1974, as your Lordships will recollect, the decision was made, in fairness, that what was a severely unfunded pension scheme should be funded by the Government committing themselves, having made an assessment of the unfunded proportion, to put in a capital sum in order to ensure that the pension fund was properly capitalised. That was an expensive proposition. It meant, up till this year, a sum of £578 million being expended and a governmental and national liability of some £1·4 billion over the next seven years.
The Government have decided, understandably, that this is a position not to be faced in our present economic plight and that the sensible thing to do is to find, by actuarial assessment at this stage, what is the proportion of the unfunded capital structure of the pension fund and then, by fixing that proportion, to pay that amount of the year-by-year commitment of the pension fund.
I cannot emphasise enough that it is not a political quarrel but a point of principle, in two directions, which guides this amendment and the amendments which were previously before your Lordships. I cannot overemphasise the fact that it was the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, who, from the Conservative Benches, put down an amendment that, very briefly, with your Lordships' leave, I shall talk about in a moment. The purpose of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, and the purpose of the amendment which I ventured, with some of my noble friends, also to put down, was to say this to the House: can anybody, with any confidence whatsoever, make an actuarial assessment upon which anybody can rely over the next 20 years as to the due proportion that should be borne by Governments and by the pension fund? It is a calculation that has to take into acount rates of inflation over the next 20 years and investment rates over the next 20 years.
Possibly your Lordships will not wish to take it from me but will wish, instead, to hear the objective view of the Economist. I am looking at an issue of January of this year from which I quote:
"The snag is that the inherited liabilities, the bulk of which run for around 20 years, could be worth anything between £1 billion and £2 billion, depending on the actuarial assumptions. The relative contributions of Government and railmen hinge on the valuation which will be made by the end of 1981, and there is no provision for a review if the sums prove wrong. The one safe assumption is that the valuation will be moonshine, since it involves forecasting pay and price inflation for the next 20 years".
I will put before your Lordships only one other quotation:
"On the sums involved, it would he easy to run up a deficit of, say, £100 million to £200 million —very embarrassing for British Rail".
There is another side to this coin: what will the British taxpayer think of your Lordships' deliberations on this
1254
provision in the Bill if you do not take the trouble to safeguard the taxpayer and the forecast now made by the actuary happens to be very much for the benefit of the British Rail pension fund and very much against the Government coffers that are involved? We have heard that amounts of £250 million and more can be involved. What criticism will fall upon your Lordships in exercising your powers of revision of this part of the Bill, which your Lordships always do so well, if you say that for all time, regardless of the benefits in millions that may be gratuitously passed to this pension fund, the taxpayer is unable to get any part of it back and if no provision whatsoever is made for a review!
I come back to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, with which he dealt so ably, as one would expect, at the Committee stage, but the burden of which, at the Report stage, fell at very short notice upon the noble Lord, Lord Morris. I think your Lordships were full of appreciation for the way in which he shouldered that burden, having had only a short period of time in which to prepare his case to put before the House. The basis of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon—I have stolen from it, I say quite frankly, for the purpose of the amendment which I am now putting before your Lordships—was this: do not have a review unless five years have passed since the last review, unless both parties consent; but if both parties or either party feels that a review is necessary then a review should be carried out; the Minister should consider the situation and make a decision as to what, then, is the proper proportion that ought to be borne.
I put down an amendment, which your Lordships kindly considered, that called for two fixed reviews, in order, as I hoped, to deal with a governmental objection that they did not want to walk into an open-ended commitment for the future. The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, withdrew his amendment after certain assurances had been given by the noble Lord the Minister. They were merely verbal assurances: that one would hope that a Government would never let down a nationalised industry and that a nationalised industry's commitments were sacrosanct and implied governmental credit. That, as your Lordships well know, is no legislative commit-

1255
ment. It depends upon the interpretation of words used in a debate henceforth and it could so easily be negated by the Treasury in future years. This is a very serious matter for British Rail. We all know the parlous state of its finances. Where is this money to come from unless, if there is a deficit, it is thrown completely unfairly—and contrary, incidentally, one would have thought, to EEC commitments —on to the cost of travel, which means an increase in fares. That is a totally unfair situation.
The amendment which I ventured to put before the House failed by three votes. I now come before your Lordships again, trying to find in your Lordships' House three neutral faces that might be turned in my direction and therefore to put an injustice right, be it an injustice to the pensioner or the taxpayer of future years. This is what I have done. In my amendment, which I hope will commend itself to your Lordships, I have taken from the amendment which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, the point that a review will not be necessary and will not be called for unless one party serves notice on the other.
In my amendment I have saved this Government from any commitment whatsoever. It has a clear 10 years ahead of it without any alteration being made to the formula it wants, without any possibility (unless of course it be mutually agreed) of a review having to be held, because my amendment says that no review shall take place until 10 years have passed.
I emphasised before that it was not a political amendment at all. Your Lordships will appreciate that these reviews will fall into the democratic situation of the future which none of us can foretell, whether it be a Labour Government, whether it be a Conservative Government or whether, in answer to the dreams of certain people, it be a centre Government of some kind. In those circumstances your Lordships will appreciate—and I repeat it—there will be no commitment to a review unless the situation has so materially altered that one party serves notice upon the other. There will be no repetition of a review in an unseemly fashion. Five years have to elapse.
Lastly, may I make this point. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of
1256
Guildford, but he will forgive me if I have wrongly ascribed to him these remarks, and in any event they were very helpful remarks; or it may have been the noble Lord, Lord Renton; but I know that from the Benches opposite the remark was made that possibly the formula that I had in my amendment which dealt with an actuary having to make certain assumptions, created some complexity. I have borrowed again from the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon; no longer has an actuary got to come into this review. The Minister himself, after proper consultations, can hold the review, and the result of his review will form part of the subject matter of an order which will come before Parliament in order that the negative procedure may be adopted.
I conclude by saying this. This is the last time in your Lordships' House that justice can be done, not only to the pension fund but to a future set of taxpayers. This is the last occasion on which your Lordships can insert into this Bill a review procedure. I only ask your Lordships to consider this before I resume my seat: I ask you not to be influenced by any suggestion made in the past by the noble Lord the Minister, who has always dealt with the points that I have made with the utmost fairness but on this particular matter above all I do not feel that his answer is a proper or a just one.
The Government say, "under the 1974 Act when a capital payment was going to be made, it was going to be made on a once-for-all assumption. Why should we differ from it on a year-by-year basis?" The answer to that is very simple: it is that if a capital payment of the substantial amounts that I have mentioned to your Lordships had been made, the pension fund trustees would have been able to do what all investment fund trustees do, what all settlement trustees do—namely, to invest those funds sensibly in order to safeguard the future and deal with varying interest rates and other such matters. They cannot do that with a "pay-as-you-go" system year by year, because the amount that conies in immediately has to go out to the pensioners concerned. My Lords, it is with some confidence, and again with a plea that there should be no question of loyalty except to principle and to the future commitments of both pension fund trustees and the citizens of

1257
this country who are taxpayers, that I ask for your Lordships' support for this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, may I briefly, but I hope cogently, support the purposes and objectives of this amendment which has been moved so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I emphasise, as he has done, that this is not a political amendment. When this matter came up at the Committee stage I had prepared a very good speech, but the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, spoke so eloquently in relation to his amendment and told us about the interest of his family in relation to these pensioners and in the railway business, that my speech was lost to posterity, because I did not think it was worth while wasting your Lordships' time with it. Unfortunately on Friday 6th June I was unable to be present here, for which I have previously apologised to the House; therefore I missed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Morris.
I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—if he can spare me just a moment from discussing these matters with the most distinguished noble and learned Lord—I repeat, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on the scope of these amendments, because it seems to me, as he has said, that he has extracted from the various amendments moved at the Committee and Report stages the essential matters which make these amendments more appropriate to be supported by your Lordships. I can only conclude by saying that here is an occasion for your Lordships to enable justice to be done by inserting, in the way that has been skilfully drafted in the amendment, a review procedure on this important matter.
5.40 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, may I begin by saying yet again that I, too, would like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, certainly for his great eloquence on this subject and also for the very fair way in which he has presented the case as he sees it. We have had now a number of debates on this particular issue and it is rather remarkable to me that what is such a complex matter has become, I would like to think, as familiar
1258
to other Members of your Lordships' House as it has to me. Certainly when I first looked at it it was very daunting indeed, and while I even now would not claim that it is altogether straightforward, at least I think that those who have listened to the three or four debates that have taken place should have a fair working knowledge of what it is all about. I think that is the key to it.
What is the object of the exercise? What is this all about? Is it not, surely, to ensure that those pensioners who are entitled to pensions which shortcomings in the past did not sufficiently make provision to cover do receive those pensions which they are entitled to have? That really is what this is all about, and we are talking about the different ways of arriving at that point. That is why, when my noble friend Lord Selsdon, who presented such an excellent case, further presented on his behalf equally excellently by my noble friend Lord Morris, at the end of the day felt able to withdraw his amendment, it was partly at least because of his satisfaction with the assurances which I was able to give.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, says, not unfairly, "Yes, but at best that is an assurance given by a Minister in good faith"; he was kind enough to say, "But in future who knows?". Nevertheless, this is what the issue is about, and, if I may, I would like, not at too great length, to come back to this matter of what we might call guarantees.
The subject has been extensively debated, as indeed it was in another place. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, we divided and it was a narrow result on that occasion. But as this matter is so important, and as the implications are so important, for the pensioners certainly but also for the relationship between Government and nationalised industries—it is as broad as that—I think it right that I should go over some at least of the ground yet again. I said at an earlier stage, and I say again now, that it is my firm belief that the Bill does not put members and pensioners of railway pension schemes at risk.
Let me also say once again that the Bill does not affect the entitlement of members and pensioners; nor does it reduce or remove the underlying obligations of the Railways Board and of the

1259
pensions scheme to secure that pensions are paid. I expect there is no difference between us as to that. But the Bill is concerned with one aspect of the financial relationship between the Government and the British Railways Board. It is concerned with the mechanics of that relationship. It is concerned with the means by which support is being provided to enable the board to discharge the obligations which have come to be known as the historic pensions obligations.
The Bill is not intended to disturb the overall financial settlement between the board and the Government. That settlement was laid down in the 1974 Act, which was concerned with all aspects of the Board's finances. Still less is the Bill intended to disturb the general relationship between the Government and the nationalised industries. There is really nothing new is this. In saying what I have said in the past I have been trying to put into words what has been the position for many years. Furthermore, it has certainly been the position under successive Governments.
I have not been trying to formulats any new doctrine or to extend any new commitment. Confidence is something that builds up over time. It was by referring to the existing position that I was able to say that railway pensioners can be confident that the board will be able to honour their legal obligations.
So I come to the point of the gurantee. What does it mean when I say that this by implication is a guarantee? I have tried to explain that an express guarantee in the form of writing it into the Bill would only raise doubts where none exist at present. The only reason for giving such guarantee would be if there were any risk that the board will default on their obligations. I make no apology for repeating that there is no realistic prospect that the board will default on their obligations, whether to their pensioners or to their other creditors.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is a learned lawyer and he will be familiar with the maxim expressio unius, exclusio alterius—which, roughly translated, means that by specifying one thing other things are excluded. If I were to give the express undertaking that the noble Lord has been
1260
seeking in another context—and I am coming back to the point of the guarantee —I would not be giving any additional reassurance to railway pensioners. Yet I would be causing concern to all other people who depend on nationalised industries or who do business with them.
As I complete what I have to say I would like to come back briefly to that point again, because I feel it is the nub of what we are talking about. The substance of the amendments is that the historic pensions obligations of the board should be transferred to the Government. But the pensions concerned are railway pensions and are the responsibility of the British Railways Board. Some of the obligations are of very long standing. In quantitative terms, however, the obligations are dominated by comparatively recent obligations incurred in the early 1970s. Indeed, the magnitude of the obligations is not fixed. At the margin the board's liability is affected by current management decisions of the board. It is, I would suggest, entirely right that responsibility for the obligations should remain with the board.
These amendments raise the whole question of the relationship between the Government and the nationalised industries. It has been the policy of successive Governments to maintain an arm's length relationship. The industries are not part of the Government. Within the limits laid down by the law they may manage their own affairs. They have their own assets, rights and liabilities. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said the magnitude of the liabilities might vary. Indeed, so they might. But then so would the Minister's payments. The Minister is meeting a proportion, not a fixed sum. The board's pensions obligations and all their other obligations remained with the board. What they received from the Government was a defined measure of support to enable them to meet those obligations.
If we were to proceed on the lines of the amendment the implications would be wide. It would bring into question the whole relationship between the Government and all the nationalised industries, and all the nationalised industries' pension schemes. What we are trying to do is to preserve the existing settlement and the existing relationship, which is one in which those concerned have confidence.

1261
One final word on the question of a specific guarantee. I do understand this concern, and this was the thrust of the argument of my noble friend Lord Seisdon. I, too, am concerned that railway pensioners should receive the pensions to which they are entitled. But I do not see that such a guarantee would add to their entitlement or give them any protection which they do not now have. Indeed, it could have some unacceptable side effects. The real issue is whether the Railways Board will meet their obligations, all their obligations. We cannot go round saying that it is more likely that some obligations will be honoured than others. What I am being asked to say is that the Government stand behind some nationalised industry obligations but by implication not necessarily behind others. That would destroy the whole basis on which people deal with nationalised industries, a basis which has been accepted for many years now by successive Governments.
I really do believe that in the present context a specific guarantee would be the wrong way to proceed. I do not know what more I can add to this debate, which we are having yet again, beyond what I have said in the past. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is so persuasive. Yet I have to say that the matter is one of great importance, the sums of money concerned are so great, but more important is the likelihood or otherwise of the pensioners receiving that to which they are entitled. I am absolutely satisfied that nothing in the Bill will prevent that from happening and that nothing in the amendments would be more likely to make that happen. In these circumstances, I must, once more, resist the amendment.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, I expect that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will be saying a few words before we proceed. The noble Lord referred to me in his speech thinking that he had borrowed some of my words, but I am afraid he had not done so. I have not previously taken part in the debates on this Bill. However, as I am on my feet I should like to say that I support the Minister's stand in principle. I was responsible for setting up the pension fund for the water industry. I inherited certain provisions from some sectors of the water industry and I then put them all together
1262
to create a pension structure for the whole industry. Therefore, I am very conscious of the principles involved in operating these pensions.
Inevitably, in terms of nowadays, the pension contributions from the employees, added to what we inherited from the past, are not sufficient to meet the index-linked pensions of the day in the nationalised industries. Therefore, there must be an actuarial valuation every year or two by the consultant actuary to advise what the employers' contribution should be increased to in order to maintain the fund at a size which will meet the liabilities as they grow in future. That, of course, is the situation in every nationalised industry.
As I understand it, my noble friend is saying that he does not wish in any way to undermine that general principle which must apply to all nationalised industries. He sees the 1974 settlement between the Government and the railways as something on its own which is now to be discharged finally, but there cannot be any continuing implicaton for the future which would in any way indicate some sort of Government guarantee, even to some extent. I entirely agree with that. I think that it would abe objectionable from the point of view of all the others.
5.53 p.m.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister gave a very learned classical quotation, and in answer I have been trying to think of the equivalent Latin for the phrase, "If you have a strong case you should be able to demolish in two sentences a long speech". I have not found the Latin for that, but if I find it later I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I quote it to your Lordships.
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for having said that he uttered sentences which were very helpful to me, but which he did not utter at all. Those sentences were, in fact, uttered and I am sure that it must have been the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who uttered them. However, both the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, speak with such clarity and charm that it is very easy to mix the two of them up. The one point

1263
that was made by both of them was that this might set a precedent for the relationship with other nationalised industry pension funds. That, in a sentence, was the whole point. My Lords, it would not.
There is no other pension fund—and I challenge the noble Lord the Minister to mention one, if there is one—that has the circumstances of the railway pension fund. No other nationalised pension fund was raided; no other nationalised pension fund has its capital—required for pensions for employees who had given long years of service to the railway industry—used for the purpose of the industry itself. Pre-nationalisation and post-nationalisation, no other nationalised pension fund had that history. No wonder it has been called in this debate—and indeed in the Bill—an historic pension fund. Indeed, this is a part of the history of pension funds which is not repeated anywhere else, and it is a matter of solitary, historical past in regard to these pension funds. That is why in 1974 very special arrangements were made for the funding of this by the capital payments to which reference has been made.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, if the noble Lord will give way for a moment,
perhaps I may remind him of the Post Office fund which has huge deficits.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister, because again he returns to a theme which, if I may say so, does not help his case. I have not talked in terms of other pension funds being in surplus or in deficit. I have said that there is no other pension fund of a nationalised industry whose monies were used for the purpose of the industry itself instead of being properly invested. As I understand it, the Post Office unfortunately ran into deficit for totally different reasons. That is why the commitment was made by the Government; that is why your Lordships have a special burden upon your consciences tonight—I say that without any hesitation at all; that is why the review in this case creates no precedent and is no different from the view that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, felt ought to be taken in regard to all other nationalised pension funds. And that is why I ask your Lordships to support the amendment.
5.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 13) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 53; Not-Contents, 82.

CONTENTS

Amulree, L.

Hale, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Ardwick, L.

Hampton, L.

Balogh, L.

Hooson L.

Sainsbury, L.

Banks, L.

Houghton of Sowerby L.

Seear, B.

Bernstein, L.

Jacques, L.

Segal, L.

Beswick, L.

Janner, L.

Simon, V.

Blyton, L.

Jeger, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Boothby, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stone, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Leonard, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Collison, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

David, B.

Underhill, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Vivian, L.

De Freyne, L.

McCarthy, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Morris, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Galpern, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Whaddon, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Peart, L.

White, B.

Gosford, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Bessborough, E.

Colwyn, L.

Alport, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Crathorne, L.

Ampthill, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Avon, E.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B

Davidson, V.

Bellwin, L.

Caccia, L

De La Warr. E.

Belstead, L.

Chelwood, L.

Denham, L.

Berkeley, B.

Cockfield, L.

Derwent, L.

Digby, L.

Killearn, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Dormer, L.

Kimberley, E.

Onslow, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Dundee, E.

Kintore, E.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Redmayne, L.

Elton, L.

Long, V.

Reigate, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Ridley, V.

Faithfull, B.

Luke, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Ferrers, E.

Lyell, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ferrier, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Forbes, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mancroft, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Glenkinglas, L.

Mansfield, E.

Strathspey, L.

Gowrie, E.

Marley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Gray, L.

Martonmere, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hanworth, V.

Merrivale, L.

Trenchard, V.

Hawke, L

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L

Ullswater, V.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Newall, L.

Vickers, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Norfolk, D.

Young, B.

Inglewood, L.

Northchurch, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

6.3 p.m.
Clause 53 [Meaning of "the relevant pension obligations"]:
Lord MISHCON Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 47, line 5, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, after the Report stage of this Bill, correspondence passed between the noble Minister and myself, and I trust for the peace and tranquillity of the House that copies of it reached the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. In the correspondence that passed I told the noble Minister of my sincere belief that the members of the scheme mentioned in this amendment have been caught between a whole series of technicalities, the root of which lies in the extraordinary financial structure of the scheme ever since its inception under a statutory instrument in 1954.
It will be recalled that the scheme was notionally funded; that is, everyone pretended that there was a fund even though it was not really there. In other words, it was rather like the story of the clothes of the fabled monarch. However, I was able to point out in my letter a method by which the increases in question could have been allowed for under the 1974 Act. In reply the noble Minister said:
"I fear I cannot accept that it was the intention of all concerned in 1974 that the increases should be paid automatically in future. It seems clear that the notional increases allowed for in the valuation were the actuary's contingency reserve and that he was adjourning (without commitment) the question of whether benefits should be
1266
improved until the next valuation when the matter would be reconsidered afresh".
Unfortunately, that is a complete misunderstanding of the position. The facts of the matter are that the 1974 valuation threw up a considerable surplus, and before the final valuation report was prepared there was consultation with the Government Actuary's department about whether the surplus should be distributed all at once, as it could have been, or whether part should be held back in order to provide future increases. The view was taken, and all were agreed at the time, that the proper course was to distribute only part of the surplus immediately, thus providing a pension increase of 28p per week, and that the rest should be held back with the deliberate intention of providing future increases.
The idea was that as the scheme provided pensions of fixed monetary amounts, it was the younger members who would suffer most in future on account of inflation. Therefore, they—the younger members—should be the members who should benefit most from the increases, which were 4 per cent. for every year of membership after 1974. This meant that a younger member with 25 years to serve would have his pension increased by 100 per cent. by the time he came to retire, whereas a member who was close to retirement would get a much smaller increase. Thus in no sense were the increases intended as a "contingency reserve", as the Minister has stated.
In his letter the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, went on to put forward an argument why he could not accept that the funding debt created under the 1974

1267
Act could have allowed for the increases now in question. However, I am advised that the technical basis of that argument is at best questionable, and I would remind the House that the Minister himself at an early stage—and I am quoting from Hansard of 19th May at column 691—stated that the question of whether the increases:
"would have qualified for support under the 1974 Act … is a hypothetical question to which … there is no answer."
I ended my letter by asking how the failure to pay the increases could ever be explained to members of the scheme. Lord Bellwin's reply was eloquent in its silence on this question.
It seems to me that in the unusual circumstances of this particular scheme, with its unique financial structure, the abandonment of the funding principle is creating injustice. If the scheme had been funded the increases could almost certainly have been paid, whereas under the Bill the money will certainly not come from the Government, and I am advised that the board has no spare resources to increase historic pensions. There are 5,000 contributing members of this scheme, all of whom could look forward to only a small pension of around £1.50 to £2 a week. I repeat those figures: £1.50 to £2 a week. If the amendment is passed it would enable the pensions of those who have retired very recently to be increased by about 30 pence per week, and there could be similar increases at five-yearly intervals in future.
The capital cost of the concession would be less, I am advised, than £4 million. It is a small sum in relation to the enormous amounts covered by this Bill. Indeed, this capital cost would be spread over a number of years, so that the annual outlay would not exceed £400,000. I hope that the House, in justice—I almost said in mercy—will agree to make a concession in the exceptional circumstances of this case, and that my amendment will be accepted.
6.12 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I did indeed speak at some length to these amendments when we considered them in Committee and again when we debated them on Report. I will try not to go over
1268
too much of the ground again today. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, he was kind enough to write to me about the amendments, and he explained why he considered that the proposed increases could have been funded under the 1974 Act. If I understand him aright, he is saying that a special actuarial basis could have been used to value the male wages grades scheme. Taking the rules of the scheme as they stood at 31st December 1974—that is, ignoring the increases which we are now debating, and using this special basis—the same result would have been achieved as if the rules had been changed before 31st December, 1974 and the scheme then valued in the normal way.
My Lords, I cannot see that any such device would have been permissible under the 1974 Act. That Act expressly provided that funding debt could not be prescribed in relation to increases in obligations attributable to amendments made to pension schemes after 1974. The method of valuation which the noble Lord has proposed would appear to be in direct conflict with the clearly expressed intention of Parliament. If it had been put to the department in the negotiations on the 1974 Act, I cannot imagine that it would have been acceptable.
The noble Lord has drawn attention to what he described at Report stage as the extraordinary financial arrangements for this scheme. They are certainly unique. However, in the present context, this cuts both ways. It is true that there is no fund and thus no investment profits. It is also true that the board pay no contributions, though in the actuarial valuations they are assumed to pay notional contributions equal to those paid by the members. If there had been a fund, and if the board had paid contributions, no support would have been provided under the 1974 Act, or under the Bill, in respect of those contributions. In effect, because of the peculiar arrangements in this scheme, the board are receiving support in respect of current service liabilities.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has referred to the letter which I wrote to him earlier this week. I am sorry if I have misrepresented the position of the scheme. However, I can say that these increases were not accepted in the discussions during 1974 on the obligations that were to be

1269
supported. Numerous rule changes were proposed and effected in 1974 in connection with the funding arrangements under the 1974 Act. There were even changes to the male wages scheme. The increases referred to in the amendments were not among those discussed and agreed. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, reminded me that I used the word "hypothetical". However, may I say that that was before I had had the benefit of the noble Lord's explanation of how the increases could have been paid. Having now had that, I cannot accept that explanation.
This is a difficult area. I said originally, when we first discussed this in Committee, that of course the kind of pensions and figures to which the noble Lord referred are, goodness knows! little enough in themselves, and I accept that. One has to be sympathetic as to that, and I certainly am. But the fact is that the purpose of this Bill is, it has to be said—regretfully, if one likes—not to put right anomalies in railway pension schemes. Therefore,
while feeling very much as one might do, I have to advise that I cannot ask the House to accept the amendment.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, it is somewhat of a pity when a Minister has to express sympathy with pensioners of this kind and not be able to come forward with support of an amendment which would have cost so little in this Bill. There is no need for me to reply to the noble Minister's comments because I had thought that these would be the comments and I tried to deal with them both in the speech I made today and the speeches I made on previous occasions. I feel I owe it to the pensioners, and that this House does also, to divide.
6.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 14) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 45; Not-Contents, 86.

CONTENTS

Amulree, L

Hale, L.

Peart, L.

Ardwick, L

Hampton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Balogh, L

Hooson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Blyton, L

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Seear, B.

Boothby, L

Irving of Dartford, L.

Shinwell, L.

Boston of Faversham, L

Jacques, L.

Simon, V.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L

Janner, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Collison, L

Jeger, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

David, B [Teller ]

Kaldor, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Leek, L

Leonard, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Penrhys, L

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Underhill, L.

Galpern, L

McCarthy, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L

Mishcon, L.

Whaddon, L.

Gosford, E

Noel-Baker, L.

White, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Digby, L.

Harvington, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Henley, L.

Alport, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Ampthill, L.

Dundee, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Avon, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Killearn, L.

Bellwin, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Kimberley, E.

Belstead, L.

Elton, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Bessborough, E.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Kintore, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Energlyn, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Faithfull, B.

Long, V.

Brooke of Ystradfellte,

Falkland, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Caccia, L.

Ferrers, E.

Luke, L.

Chelwood, L.

Ferrier, L.

Lyell, L.

Cockfield, L.

Forbes, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Crathorne, L.

Fortescue, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Mancroft, L.

Davidson, V.

Gowrie, E.

Marley, L.

De Freyne, L.

Gray, L.

Merrivale, L.

De La Warr, E.

Gridley, L.

Morris, L.

Denham, L.

Halsbury, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L [Teller.]

Derwent, L.

Hanworth, V.

Newall, L.

Reigate, L.

Strathspey, L.

Norfolk, D.

Ridley, V.

Swinfen, L.

Northchurch, B.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Teviot, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Spens, L.

Trumpington, B.

Penrhyn, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Ullswater, V.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Vickers, B.

Redmayne, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

[Amendments Nos. 15 to 17 not moved.]
Clause 54 [Unfunded proportion of relevant pension obligations]:
6.27 p.m.
Lord MISHCON Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 49, line 6, at end insert—
(" ( ) Before confirming or varying the said determination the Minister shall consult the persons administering the pension scheme concerned about the proportion he proposes to specify in the said order in respect of the scheme, and in the event of those persons giving notice in writing to the Minister within two months that they object to the said proportion, the Minister shall appoint an independent actuary, to be nominated by the president for the time being of the Institute of Actuaries, to report before the end of the second financial year on the proportion which would be appropriate and the Minister shall thereupon by order confirm or vary the proportion so as to give effect to the said report.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope to have your Lordships' support, largely because of the brevity of my speech but substantially because of what I have to say. I shall not take the House through the review procedure again; that, obviously your Lordships have decided upon. When the Government Actuary reaches his decision in regard to this matter, at the moment he does it unilaterally, and that is hardly a just way to do it. In December 1977 a letter was written from the Department of Transport to the British Railways Board which made it absolutely clear that there should be a basis of valuation and that that should be agreed freely by all the parties. I will read the paragraph in question and I will then say to your Lordships that this is calling for arbitration if the parties do not agree, which is obviously only fair, and then I shall take my seat, hoping for the support of the House. The passage is from the letter to which I referred, of 7th December 1977:
1272
"The Government's policy on this issue remains as it was in 1974. It intends to make a final Funding Order in 1979 such that the value of all the Funding Orders taken together is sufficient to eliminate the historic deficiencies in the pension funds as revealed by the grand revaluation. It further intends that the basis for that valuation will be freely agreed by all the parties involved—the Government, the Board, and the funds—on the basis of the actuarial advice available to them".
Now, of course, we are not to have the capital funding, but the proportion is being dealt with on a year-by-year basis purely and simply on the basis of the actuarial advice given to the Government. All I ask for is the spirit of that 1977 letter to be carried through so that, if the parties do not agree, there shall be arbitration. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I spoke in reply to this amendment in Committee a month ago, and there is not a great deal that I can add to what I said on that occasion. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has again referred to the letter that was written from the Department of Transport in December 1977. In Committee I explained the circumstances in which that letter was written, as did my learned friend the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee in another place. I can only repeat that far too much weight is being placed on that letter, and not enough regard is being had to its context. The Railways Act 1974 placed the legal responsibility for determining the amount of funding debt to be created under that Act on the Minister, and it cannot have been the intention in 1977 that that responsibility should in effect be discharged by some other person.
The main issue raised by this amendment is the issue of responsibility, or accountability, if one prefers to call it that. The legal position under the Bill is, with one exception, the same as the legal position under the Act. The Minister is to determine the unfunded proportions, as he was to have determined the funding debts. The one change is that we have now written into the Bill a formal requirement for

1273
consultation before the unfunded proportions are determined. We have undertaken that we shall be seeking to reach agreement, but of course we cannot undertake that agreement will be reached, any more than we can abdicate from the position of responsibility for taking the decision.
Substantial sums of the taxpayer's money are at stake. There is no dispute about that. The decision should be taken by someone who is accountable to Parliament and the public. Thus, it is right that the Minister should take the decision, since no arbitrator could in any real sense be accountable in the way that the Minister is accountable.
I have repeatedly made clear that we shall be seeking a solution which is fair as between the taxpayer, on the one hand, and the board and the pension funds on the other. That is in our view the Minister's responsibility, and not something that could be passed to an arbitrator.
I do not wish to be the brick wall to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred. Nevertheless, in view of the circumstances that I have mentioned, I have to resist the amendment.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I shall be brief. Since the noble Minister has been quoting maxims to me, I should like to quote to him a maxim that is sacrosanct in this House: No one shall be a judge in his own cause. The Minister is obviously a party to this matter. Should there be a difference between the Minister and those responsible for the pension funds, it will be just, and will be seen to be just, if there is an arbitrator.
6.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 18) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 38; Not-Contents, 73.

CONTENTS

Amulree, L.

Gosford, E.

Peart, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hale, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Balogh, L.

Hooson, L.

Seear, B.

Blyton, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Simon, V.

Boothby, L.

Jeger, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stone, L.

Collison, L.

Leonard, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

David, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Underhill, L.

Galpern, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

White, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Gowrie, E.

Newall, L.

Alport, L.

Gray, L.

Norfolk, D.

Ampthill, L.

Gridley, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Avon, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Orr-Ewing, L.

Bellwin, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Belstead, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Bessborough, E.

Harvington, L.

Redmayne, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Henley, L.

Reigate, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Ridley, V.

Chelwood, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sandford, L.

Crathorne, L.

Killearn, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kimberley, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Davidson, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Soames, L. (L. President.)

De La Warr, E.

Kintore, E.

Spens, L.

Denham, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Digby, L.

Long, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Dundee, E.

Lyell, L.

Strathspey, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Swinfen, L.

Elton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Teviot, L.

Falkland, V.

Marley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Ferrers, E.

Merrivale, L.

Vickers, B.

Ferrier, L.

Morris, L.

Vivian, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Westbury, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

[Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.]
Clause 56 [Reduction of payments in respect of certain supplementation schemes]:
6.41 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 50, line 26, leave out ("they were").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it would be convenient, I feel, to take this amendment, No. 21, and Amendment No. 23 together.
These are essentially technical amendments. They are prompted by the phrase "payable under a pension scheme", which occurs in a good many places in the Bill. Does this phrase mean "now payable", so that the phrase relates only to pensions which have already come into payment? Or does it also cover pensions which are prospectively payable to employees who have not yet retired? In most places, the correct interpretation is clear from the context. However, there are two places in Clause 56 where some clarification is desirable.
The amendment to Clause 56(6) makes clear that the Actuary is to take into account not only pensions currently payable but also those that have not yet come into payment, provided always that the pensions concerned are pensions which stand to be increased under the supplementation scheme. This has always been the intention behind the clause. The amendment to Clause 56(3) is a drafting amendment. It brings the treatment of the phrase "payable under a pension scheme" into line with the treatment of the phrase elsewhere in Part III of the Bill. I am conscious that we have been making rather heavy weather with the drafting of this clause. I hope we now have it right. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MISHCON Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 50, line 27, leave out ("85") and insert ("80").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at an earlier stage, and in correspondence and
1276
discussions with the Minister since the Report stage, I have endeavoured to submit that the surplus clawback provision in the present Bill could reduce the ability of the older pension schemes to improve the position of their members out of surplus. I pleaded for some concessions to help remove a deep feeling of injustice, and that the Government should show some sensitivity, especially because the people affected included widows, orphans and very elderly people, whom it seemed so unfair to penalise.
By this amendment, the Government have been given an opportunity to make a modest gesture by reducing the clawback from 85 per cent. to 80 per cent. Something tells me that, beneath that apparently frigid exterior that the Minister has shown to me throughout this Bill—I know not willingly, but as a result of the duty he feels he owes—there beats a sympathetic heart. I hope that, because of that, and in this instance at least, I may not have pleaded in vain. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: After that, my Lords, what can I say? I am in fact very pleased that the noble Lord has tabled an amendment which, for once, I can accept. I do not wish to detract from what I have just said, but I hasten to say —and I know the noble Lord will forgive my saying it—that my acceptance is limited to his amendment and perhaps not necessarily to all the arguments which were employed previously in support of this matter. I hope I am not spoiling it by saying that, but I think I have to say it. I could go on and refer to my brief, but I feel there is not much point in it. We are glad to make the gesture. It could be argued that it is little enough; on the other hand, I think the points I made in the past were absolutely valid. Yet we accept this, and I am glad so to do.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, it would be most ungracious of me not to say "Thank you".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 51, line 9, after ("are") insert ("or are likely to become").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, have spoken to this already, with Amendment No. 21. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Clause 59 [Supplemental provisions]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendments Nos. 25 to 28:
Page 52, line 29, at beginning insert ("(a)").
Page 52, line 29, after ("of") insert ("any").
Page 52, line 30, leave out ("otherwise") and insert ("(b)").
Page 52, line 32, leave out ("that") and insert ("either").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it would be convenient to take Amendments Nos. 25, 26, 27 and 28 together. They are drafting amendments. They are intended to put it beyond doubt that the power to amend pension scheme rules so as to pay increases is independent of the power to amend rules to bring the scheme into conformity with the Bill. It is the intention that the power of rule amendment should be available for either purposes. For the record, I ought to say that there is nothing in the Bill which would require benefits to be reduced, and there is no question of this clause being used for that purpose. With your Lordships' permission, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 25 to 28 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 64 [Roof signs on vehicles other than taxis]:
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 56, line 15, after ("of") insert ("or any part of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it will be convenient if I speak also to Amendment No. 35, which will be consequential if this amendment is carried. Although we are at the tail end of this Bill, the amendments I am going to move—this one and the subsequent one—deal with the taxi cab trade, and all your Lordships, I am certain, rely very often
1278
upon our taxi drivers and taxi operators for assistance. This amendment relates to a new clause which was tabled by the Government at the Report stage. Therefore, this is the first opportunity that your Lordships have had to consider any possible amendments.
The National Federation of Taxicab Associations have for some time been pressing for action on the lines of this particular clause, but they have expressed great concern at the drafting of it. The clause as drafted will not have the desired effect unless certain changes are made. I find the arguments advanced by the association to be compelling and logical, and I hope your Lordships and the Minister will find them likewise. It is essential that the words "or any part of" should be inserted after the words "roof of" in line 15 of the new clause. It is possible for signs mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) to be displayed elsewhere than on the roof of a vehicle; and your Lordships will be aware that in certain parts of the country taxis do not carry signs on the roof, they carry them behind the windscreen and they are activated (maybe illuminated, maybe not) when the meter commences ticking over.
From my reading of the new clause, it would permit a sign or notice, whether illuminated or not, containing the word "taxi", "cab" or "hire" to be displayed elsewhere than on the roof. It could be displayed above the bumper; it could be displayed on the rear of the vehicle; it could be displayed on the sides of the vehicle. I am certain that is not what the Government intend, but that is what the clause will permit; and I urge that this amendment be supported in order to make the position logical. I am certain it is not the intention of the Government that any of these signs should be displayed in the way I have mentioned, but the wording of the Bill, unless it is amended in the way that I have suggested, could mean that these signs could be displayed anywhere on a vehicle other than a taxi except on its roof. I beg to move.
6.50 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I have given careful consideration to these amendments, which would extend the ban on roof signs to cover signs anywhere

1279
on the vehicle. Having done so, I have concluded that the clause as drafted at present goes as far as we would wish. If I may remind noble Lords, our aim is to prevent vehicles which are not taxis from pretending to be taxis. Since, as I understand it, throughout most of the country it is roof signs that are the distinguishing marks of a taxi, we have directed the provisions at roof signs. Indeed, it was at these that the noble Lord's own clause, which he moved in Committee, was directed. It referred in terms to roofs.
I believe that the clause as drafted recognises and meets the legitimate concerns of the licensed taxi trade. It may be indeed that a more comprehensive look should be taken at the sort of signs that taxis and hire cars are allowed to carry; and I gladly undertake to draw what has been said to the attention of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. But it is not possible to go further than we have gone in this Bill.
I should like to add that here is a dilemma, a dichotomy. The problem on the one hand is of ensuring that the taxi trade and its interests are properly covered. The service which they give is a vital one and we recognise and accept that. On the other hand, it is also fair to say that the private hire trade also carries out an important service. It, too, has its concerns. In pleasing one, one takes the risk of having the opposite result for the others. That is why I said that there is probably a very strong case for having a comprehensive look at this whole area of signs and the like. I gladly confirm that we shall be doing that. So far as this Bill is concerned and for the time being. I fear that I cannot go further.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, while we are on this particular subject, and while I support my noble friend Lord Bellwin, it may be an appropriate time to recall the debates that we had on this subject in 1976 when the interests of the hackney trade were being debated. I think one should remember that the hackney trade carry out a number of the functions which the licensed hire business carry out in so far as they, the hackney trade, undertake private hire work. This is an areas which used to be the province of the private hire industry;
1280
and while the hackney trade have that privilege, the hire people have no like privilege. They can do nothing other than the private hire work which is mostly telephone bookings.
It is also right and proper—and I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, who brought this up in 1976—that on being sent to an area a private hire car which may not be recognisable by the hirer should have some element of recognition. It may be a plate on the rear of the car or perhaps a firm's name on the side of the car or something like that. There can be only one real point of confusion and that is where at high level, either on the roof or high on the screen, there is a lighted sign implying "For Hire". That would breach the touting rules. At the present stage in this Bill, I think it is reasonable to accept what my noble friend has said.
I wonder whether my noble friend is able to confirm that the licensing arrangements of both private hire and hackney vehicles are the subject of a Home Office review and that a consultative document is anticipated later this year. If he is able to say anything on this, it would indicate to us the time at which we may wish to take further the whole matter of licensing and sign.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I am not able to be as specific as my noble friend would wish, but I undertake to take up this matter elsewhere. I will write to him and to any other noble Lord who may be interested. I think that his point is a valid one. If we can do what he says at that time, then it brings it closer to a time when decisions will be made. I have tried to indicate that we are concerned about this. I shall certainly write to him on that.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, it is not the purpose of this amendment to endeavour to set up any arguments between the private hire trade and the taxi-cab trade. We are endeavouring—as are the Government in their clause—to make it clear that nobody misrepresents a vehicle to be a taxi when it is not. If my remarks are read carefully, in the Official Report, I think it will be seen that logic is on my side. If somebody is to be prevented only from putting a sign on or above the roof, it means that it can be

1281
put anywhere else. Therefore, the sign the Government wish to prohibit can be put elsewhere. Somebody can then represent a vehicle to be a taxi when it is not a taxi.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lord, if the noble Lord will give way, I have had it confirmed that the review to which my noble friend referred is taking place. It is hoped to produce a consultation document during this year.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, logic is on our side. I hope that that will be taken into consideration when this review takes place. In the light of the Minister's statement that he will discuss this too with his right honourable friend and colleagues, and that this review will take into consideration what I believe to be the logic of the argument, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 56, line 24, leave out ("having regard to the time and place at which it is displayed").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House, I shall take also Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 together. They are interrelated. I am advised that a legal opinion has been taken on the wording of this clause and that the effect of the wording as it is will make prosecutions extremly difficult. One can imagine the arguments which could take place if the wording in the Marshalled List which we suggest should be deleted, is not deleted. Your Lordships' will agree that it is not our desire to have prosecutions. We hope that the law will be observed. But if people infringe the law, there must be clear legal arguments. The purpose of this amendment is to make the law less ambiguous than it appears at present. I have hope and reason to believe that the Minister may be able to regard these amendments sympathetically and I look forward to his comments.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, as I have indicated in a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, we have considered these two amendments and have concluded that they do, indeed, render Clause 64 more straightforward. I am happy to
1282
recommend the House to accept the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 56, line 25, leave out ("to a person seeking to hire a taxi").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 56, line 26, at end insert—
("(c) no vehicle being used to give lifts for payment under this Act, or the Transport Act 1978, shall carry any sign of any kind or description on any part of the vehicle indicating that the vehicle was being used, or is used, to give lifts for payment.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will be pleased to know that this is the last amendment that I shall move on this Bill. The wording of this amendment was included in the amendment tabled for Report and which I withdrew in view of the Government amendment setting out the new clause which we have been debating on previous amendments and on this particular amendment. No reference at all to the point of this amendment is made in the Government's clause. We are concerned not only that any vehicle used for car sharing shall not carry any sign such as "Taxi" or "Cab" or "For Hire" (which would be prohibited by the wording of the clause) but that any car being used for car-sharing under other proposals in the Bill shall not be able to carry any sign or notice indicating that the vehicle is being used, or can be used, for car-sharing. This is a simple amendment which I hope the Government will find it possible to accept.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I have written to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, explaining that Clause 64, which bans roof signs on vehicles other than taxis, extends to private vehicles used for car sharing. It covers any vehicle which is used for carrying passengers for hire or reward. Although vehicles not used in the course of a business of carrying passengers are exempted from bus licensing by Clause 2, they are still carrying passengers for hire or reward, and are therefore caught by this clause. All vehicles other than taxis will be prohibited from masquerading as taxis.

1283
I am afraid that I cannot agree to a wider ban on signs on private cars used for car sharing. They will be unable to ply for hire, since as Clause 2 makes clear the arrangements for payment must be made before the vehicle begins its journey. And I do not think that in general notices on vehicles are the best way of getting car sharing or car pooling schemes going—notices at workplaces or in local newsagents are likely to be much more effective. But this Bill gets rid of restrictions, particularly the irksome existing restrictions on advertising car sharing, and it would be wrong to go back now on this policy. I can, moreover, envisage circumstances in which some indication on a vehicle being used entirely non-commercially is positively desirable—a driver for instance participating in a rural social car scheme may be unknown to his passenger, and a sign on the car may be a real help in identification. With this further explanation, I wonder whether the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment which I fear we must resist.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, on a very small point, I hope that the noble Lords opposite will withdraw the amendment. I feel any parliamentary draftsman who included the phrase "give lifts" would certainly turn in his grave.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, as my colleague says, it would give the parliamentary draftsman some activity. There are other colloquial expressions one sometimes finds in Bills. I hope that this matter will also be included in the general review of signs on vehicles. If that is the understanding, in the light of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 56, line 36, after ("1869") insert (",section 270 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this clause does not extend to Scotland, not because the Government believe that the principles behind it are valid only in England and Wales, but because taxi and hire car legislation—unlike bus licensing legislation—has always been separate for Scotland, and there will be an appropriate
1284
mechanism for making similar provision in Scotland in legislation which the Government have in preparation. The clause as drafted however fails to allow for the possibility of taxis licensed in Scotland crossing the Border into England. The amendment ensures that they will not, in England, be caught by the ban on roof signs. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Minor and consequential amendments relating to public service vehicles]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 71, line 25, at end insert—
("1A. In section 7 (interpretation), in the definition of "public service vehicle" for sections 117 and 118 "substitute" Part III".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor consequential amendment which replaces a reference in the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Act 1972 to Sections 117 and 118 of the 1960 Road Traffic Act by a reference to Part III of that Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
7.5 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, in moving, That the Bill do now pass, I feel it proper that I should make a brief reference to a report which your Lordships may have seen in the Press today about the effect of this Bill. The comment was made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on the publication of the annual report and accounts of the National Bus Company. I feel it proper that some reply on behalf of the Government is called for and I shall do it briefly.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was of course speaking from the point of view of an operator, while the Government's perspective is necessarily wider. For the past 25 years bus services have been cut and subsidies and fares have increased owing to cost increases and declining demand for conventional bus services as more and more people have cars. The present licensing system and the cross-subsidisation to which the noble Lord,

1285
Lord Shepherd, refers have failed to prevent this decline. It is wrong to attribute to the Transport Bill cuts in services that any prudent operator has to make as costs rise and demand changes; the nation simply cannot afford the massive subsidies that would otherwise be needed.
What the Transport Bill does is to make it easier for small new private operators to enter the market, and it may well be that they can provide services on the less used routes that the NBC cannot. The greater competition on the more profitable routes will tend to keep fares down and improve services; and although there may be fewer profits available for cross-subsidisation it is wrong to assume that cross-subsidisation always benefits the poorer sectors of the community (in fact it may well be the poorer people who use the profitable routes while the less profitable ones serve the more affluent areas, and cross-subsidisation then would keep services to the richer going at the expense of the fares paid by the poorer).
Moreover, let us not forget that the Transport Bill does not abolish road service licensing; it retains it, though in a more relaxed form, for local services. If the traffic commissioners are convinced that protection of an established operator on a route is essential in the interests of the public, they will be able to refuse licences to any competitors. County councils and their Scottish equivalents will retain their transport co-ordinating role and power to pay revenue support, and their views will be given great weight in the traffic commissioners' decisions whether or not to grant licences. They will be able to subsidise conventional buses when they are convinced this is necessary and it will be for them actively to seek out less conventional ways of meeting residual transport needs in areas where demand is just too small for a conventional bus service. The previous Government's RUTEX experiments indicated some of the possibilities, and the Government will be building on this work in the coming months. We must not be mesmerised by the past and by the conventional bus—there are many more cars and minibuses about now, and they can, we are convinced, be better deployed to meet people's real needs.
When I moved the Second Reading of this Bill nearly two months ago I said that this was my first Bill, and one which
1286
I was proud to present to your Lordships. I also said that I looked forward to a stimulating debate. We have certainly had many very stimulating debates, most of which I have greatly enjoyed. I have found the contributions made by noble Lords opposite and by various of my noble friends always interesting, usually constructive, and not infrequently of great value. I gladly pay tribute to all who have been involved. I believe that the Bill has been improved by our labours, and that what was always a good Bill is now an even better one.
This Bill is about freedom and opportunity. It relaxes bus licensing after 50 years. It provides opportunities for new bus services to be provided to meet the real needs of the travelling public. It frees the National Freight Corporation from the shackles imposed by nationalisation and Government controls and allows it to exploit the opportunities that the market offers. Finally, the pensions provisions of the Bill—which we have debated at great length—meet the justified criticisms voiced by the Public Accounts Committee while preserving the respective responsibilities of the Government and the Railways Board and, above all, the pension entitlements of members and pensioners of railway pension schemes. It is now for those to whom the Bill gives freedom to take advantage of it and to benefit the whole community in the process. I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Bellwin.)
7.12 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, may I first express warm thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for the courteous and efficient way he has handled all stages of this Bill. He has shown courtesy in all directions and has been extremely helpful. As I mentioned in a previous debate, I and my colleagues are very grateful for the various exchanges of correspondence with the Minister. I only wish that he had a better Bill on which to bite his teeth.
A number of amendments have been accepted. We are grateful that a number of amendments proposed from this side of the House and from other noble Lords have been accepted. In other cases, the Government have been impressed by the arguments and have tabled amendments

1287
in line with the principles that we have outlined. We are very pleased with that. I believe that the House, in relation to this Bill, has shown itself to be a revising Chamber. I think this is now a better Bill than when it first came here because of the amendments, but, in our view, it is still not a good Bill.
Having paid my tributes to the Minister, I must say there is still a great difference between the Government and this side of the House on the principles of road passenger transport and its future. The Government have set store on the relaxation of licensing, on deregulation and the opening up of competition. I must make it clear that we on these Benches support innovations, experiments and enterprise, but in our view they must be within a system of regulation which for the past 50 years has enabled this country to have one of the finest national networks of bus services; and that we wish to continue. We do not want control for control's sake, but the licensing system and regulations have served the British public well.
I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord said about the report of the National Bus Company and its chairman. If he had not referred to it I should have done. It would be of little value if one area were perhaps to improve its services to the detriment of a network of services. It would be of little value if new operators come in to try to cream off the best routes on the most popular days and at the most profitable times. That is one of the apprehensions about the Bill.
In the course of the debates, the Government have consistently rejected or adopted a somewhat cynical attitude towards cross-subsidisation. The noble Lord was critical of cross-subsidisation in his remarks about the National Bus Company but I hope that the remarks of the National Bus Company in its report and of the chairman will be taken very seriously.
We from these Benches have represented on some occasions the views of the Confederation of Road Passenger Transport. I would remind your Lordships that they represent 95 per cent. of the operators in this country—that is, the national networks, the PTEs and also private operators. Sometimes we have represented their views and sometimes we
1288
have put up views which they have not supported. But, by and large, their views are put forward not only on behalf of operators but in the interests of the travelling public, and we have endeavoured to reflect those in the amendments we have put forward.
I turn now, briefly, to another subject. The Government seem to have put a lot of store on car-sharing. They seem to over-emphasise its value and possible extension. Car-sharing, of course, has been a civilised practice by many of us for very many years; and long may it continue. But we think, on this side, that there seems to be a certain amount of window dressing on the part of the Government to hide a lack of concrete policies.
The Government have also put a great deal of faith in the trial areas. Although I raised this on more than one occasion, we have not heard in debate any analysis of the experimental schemes under the 1977 Experimental Areas Act; nor have we had any analysis of the 15 Routex schemes to see whether or not the trial areas would be successful. Naturally we shall await with great interest the developments in that scheme but, perhaps because some of the proposals in the Bill have not been amended on the lines we wanted, some counties will be very chary of coming in. There is apprehension already on the part of some counties that the floodgates will be opened and operators will be at the mercy of outsiders coming in. That is particularly so in some seaside resort areas.
I shall not take up the time of the House for very much longer, but I should like to say that, although we are grateful for the changes, there are still things in this Bill on which there are great differences between us. I am certain that the Government will consult with the confederation as regards all the many regulations that have to be drawn up as a result of the proposals in this Bill. I hope they will also keep in close touch with the operators to monitor the changes under this Bill, many of which are likely to be far-reaching, and that they will monitor the changes with the counties and also take heed of what the licensing commissioners may say as time passes.
Lastly, I should like to refer to the sad view we hold of the decision to sell the National Freight Corporation. We have

1289
followed the right line in not asking the House to oppose this issue as it has been decided in another place. We are concerned, of course, that the case of the National Freight Corporation has been decided by following a doctrinaire line. Here we have an undertaking which everybody admits is efficient and a pacemaker in the haulage industry, and yet it is going to be hived off and sold. I sincerely hope that the Government will adhere to their undertaking not in any way to divide up the National Freight Corporation as a unit. It is a tragedy that, for doctrinaire reasons, we are going to have unsettlement in that particular concern and also unsettlement among the workers in that industry. Therefore, while expressing appreciation for the attitude and the courtesy of the Minister, there are still aspects of this Bill with which we are very concerned. We do hope that some of its provisions will be monitored very carefully as the years go by.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I promise I shall be very brief, but I should like to take the opportunity, as someone to whom your Lordships have shown much patience in the course of the debates on this Bill, to pay my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for the manner in which he has piloted his first Bill through this Chamber. It is odd that it should be a transport Bill, but may I say that if his piloting is equalled by the drivers of whom we have been talking in their manner of conducting their vehicles, I am perfectly sure that the nation will be satisfied with its drivers at all events!
I ventured to describe this Bill on Second Reading at column 975 on 24th April—I must be accurate and look at what I said—as:
"…doctrinaire,… muddle-headed, … rushed and, … when dealing with Part III of the Bill, we find it inequitable".
I do wish that my judgment could have been varied in the course of the debates. I find myself with the same impression at the end except that, in so far as the Opposition amendments have been accepted and those of noble Lords opposite with the support of the Opposition, it is a slightly less bad Bill than it was at the beginning.
We have had a rather impregnable team opposite us and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, would want to
1290
mention the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, who assisted him on several occasions in the discussions. Indeed, my closing words in regard to both of them might be to paraphrase, if I may, the immortal words that King David uttered as he lamented for Saul and Jonathan:
"They are lovely and pleasant in their lives and, my Lords, in their departmental briefs they were not divided".
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, I should like to add just a word to wish the Bill well on its way and to join in the tributes paid to my noble friend Lord Bellwin. I should like also to wish him success with his future Bills. On this, his first Bill, he could not have been kinder, though I still do not think the Bill is a very good Bill.
There is one other thing I should like to refer to, as the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has been mentioned—and I may say I have not read the report but I have read an account of it in the Daily Telegraph. It would be a great shame if anything did happen to the National Bus Company. It is not a massive, nationalised giant with large tentacles. It was composed of the two main companies: the British Transport Corporation (formerly Thomas Tilling) and British Electric Traction, which got out of bus operations in 1968. They picked up a great many of the stage carriage services from private operators. They took it all on their backs and they continued to give the public a service. It has been suggested that there will be some splendid small operators who will come back and take over those services. I hate to be pessimistic about this, but I regret to say that I think that is very much wishful thinking.
Having paid tribute to my noble friend, I must also pay tribute to noble Lords on the Benches opposite. It has been a very pleasant Bill, and although I have stayed on this side I have sometimes also been on their side. For the past 12 years my noble friend Lord Lucas has talked about freight and I have talked about passengers. We must both get dusted down, get wrapped in tissue paper and be put back in our box, and be ready to come back again, whichever Government is then in power, when there is future legislation.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, may I say that if I have learned anything—and I hope

1291
I have—it is that I have cause to be most concerned when my noble friends behind me rise, not always in support; which is not to say that I do not have great respect for their views, especially when they have the kind of expertise and know-how that both my noble friend Lord Lucas and my noble friend Lord Teviot undoubtedly have. If I have not always had their acquiescence in everything that I have been proposing, I have certainly always been grateful for the way in which they have put their view.
Also, may I thank noble Lords on all sides for their great kindness to me. It is quite a salutary experience to take through a Bill. I only hope that the experience gained may well stand me in good stead in the debates which are ahead, starting next week, with the small Housing Bill that is to come before us.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I make two points? First, I should like to join with other noble Lords on both sides of the House in the exchange of pleasantries. That is always nice at the end of a rather hard-fought Bill. Secondly, what I really want to do is to echo the words of my noble friend when he moved, That the Bill do now pass. He said that this would give opportunities. While there may be some doubts, both on this side of the House and on the other side, as to certain aspects of this Bill, it is a complaint of many of us in both Houses that Governments do not provide the kind of climate for enterprise. This Bill provides the climate for enterprise in the field of passenger transport. If, however, enterprising people do not take advantage, then they cannot grumble. If that is all this Bill does, that is absolutely splendid. It gives an opportunity. We will measure it, possibly, the next time we return to power in the later 1980s. Then if we have to change it, we have to change it. That will be the testing time of this Bill.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

EDUCATION ACT 1944 (TERMINATION OF GRANTS) ORDER 1980
7.24 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPART- MENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Baroness Young): My Lords, I beg to move that the Education Act 1944 (Termination of Grants) Order 1980, a copy of which was laid before the House on 21st May, be approved. I will not detain your Lordships for long in introducing this order which is intended to eliminate an administrative anachronism dating back many years.
During the last war, the then Government gave an undertaking to local authorities that the full cost of removing air raid shelters and other defence works erected on educational premises under emergency legislation would be met centrally. Section 100(1)(a)(iii) of the Education Act 1944 gave the necessary power to the Secretary of State to meet this undertaking, and currently the Removal of Defence Works (Grants) Regulations 1971 prescribe the circumstances in which payment is made to local education authorities. The reimbursement by the Department for the removal of these air raid shelters for safety and other reasons has thus continued since the war, but over recent years the number of claims has declined and at about £150,000 per annum the average value of work done has been negligible. When discussed at the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance, it was readily accepted that the work involved in administering this specific grant could be reduced by incorporating it within the local authority Rate Support grant system. The local authority associations have been consulted and are in agreement with this proposal.
In taking this action, we have no reason to believe that authorities would cease to remove shelters which were unsafe or unhealthy, or preserve a shelter when the ground was required for school building, simply because the cost of removal would no longer attract grant. Any defence considerations have long since been overtaken by the passage of time and, indeed, the Home Office, in 1973, discontinued their practice of giving similar grants in respect of shelters built on other premises. The order before you now proposes that the payment of specific grants should cease in respect of expenditure incurred after 14th July 1980, although payments in respect of work undertaken before then will continue to

1293
be made until 31st March 1981. I now seek the House's agreement in relegating this wartime relic to the history books. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 21st May, be approved.—(Baroness Young.)
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for her explanation of this extraordinary affair, and also for her kindness in letting me know where I could read up the references and so on. I was interested to read the account of the Committee stage of the Labour Bill in 1978, on Clause 19, which said exactly the same thing as this order, and to find that Dr. Rhodes Boyson suggested that the shelters might have been used as sanctuaries for bad boys or as chapels. So it has caused me some interest and entertainment. As local authorities have been fully consulted and are in agreement, as they were with the Labour Bill, I am very happy to agree to the order and to support it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ARMY, AIR FORCE AND NAVAL DISCIPLINE ACTS (CONTINUATION) ORDER 1980
7.27 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of DEFENCE (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal): My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1980 laid before the House on 3rd June 1980 be approved. In the past, the moving of these renewal orders has sometimes been the opportunity for a general debate on defence matters and, in particular, for questions concerning the conditions of service in the forces. However, it is only recently that we had a general debate on defence, and I think it is, therefore, appropriate that I should confine myself to personnel matters today. But I will endeavour to answer any relevant questions which crop up during the course of any further debate which may rise.
Your Lordships will be aware that a new Armed Forces Act is required every
1294
five years and a continuation order, such as the present one, is proposed only in the intervening years. A new Armed Forces Bill will be introduced in the next Session of Parliament, which, once again, we are promised will be less onerous than this one, I am happy to say, and it would seem appropriate if I gave a brief account of the experience of the major changes that have been introduced under the 1976 Act: the extension of the powers of summary punishment available to commanding officers in the Army, the Royal Air Force and the Royal Marines, and the establishment of standing civilian courts to deal with civilians subject to the Army and Air Force Acts while serving overseas.
To take first the rather technical matter of summary powers, these have now been used on more than 400 occasions since 1977, and there has been a parallel reduction in the number of courts-martial during this period. So we are satisfied that the extended summary powers are fulfilling their purpose in avoiding the full administrative burden of a court-martial. The standing civilian courts were intended to provide a more appropriate form of tribunal for dealing with civilians overseas, akin to the magistrates' court in England. I can report that since the standing civilian courts came into operation there have been over 120 such trials involving over 170 accused, of whom a large proportion were juveniles. The operation of the standing civilian courts is generally considered to have been very successful, and full use has been made of the new sentencing powers granted under the 1976 Acts.
During the recent debate on the defence estimates, the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, referred to the possibility of arming servicewomen, and this present debate is perhaps an appropriate occasion to remind the House that we are considering allowing members of the women's services to carry arms for purely defensive purposes.
I must emphasise that there is no intention of employing servicewomen in combat roles, but even the limited arming would enhance the already considerable contribution that women make to our defence by removing barriers to a more flexible use of personnel. At present, employment opportunities for the WRAC have to be

1295
limited in the forward area of BAOR, and members of the WRAF cannot play a part in certain guard duties in an emergency.
This proposal would not, I think, be out of line with developments elsewhere, including some among our major allies, though I would not for one moment suggest that we should conform only for the sake of conforming. I fully recognise that this is an important issue about which many people hold very definite views. We are especially anxious that no decision should be taken before there has been every opportunity for public and Parliamentary opinion to be heard, so I stress that no decision has been taken. Indeed, noble Lords, Members of the other place and the public at large are most welcome to communicate with us and let us know their views.
I now turn briefly to the strengths of the services as a whole. I was able to tell the House on 8th May that we expected to have recruited over 50,000 service personnel in the year 1979–80. In fact, the total came to 50,652. That is an achievement bettered only once in 17 years. But as I said then, and as I would like to say again, even more important than recruiting is the question of retention. It is keeping the trained personnel which makes the whole difference to the effectiveness of our forces. It is difficult to achieve dramatic reductions in outflow, however attractive a service career is made. Nevertheless, we have achieved very substantial successes. The total outflow in 1979–80 was down by 8½ per cent., and I am particularly pleased that applications for premature voluntary retirement fell by one-third or so and are now running at levels similar to those experienced before the sharp increases in the 1977–78 period which caused us so many problems.
Of course, the maintenance of fully comparable pay for servicemen is a vital key in improving retention, but it is not the only factor. The other conditions of service also matter, and we are still looking for ways of making improvements, particularly in the field of housing. Sadly, there is not by any means an unlimited pool of money available to finance improvements. It has to come from a defence budget which, though large, is unhappily finite and limited. So we have to look
1296
very hard at the effectiveness and the costs of proposals for improvements, and this sometimes takes us a good deal longer than we would wish. Nevertheless, we are still working on it.
I have moved rather rapidly over one or two areas affecting conditions of service, and perhaps the House will forgive me—probably it will welcome it—if I do not detain it any longer at this juncture. I shall sit down now but will be prepared to do my best to answer any questions which noble Lords may have. I therefore beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd June, be approved.—(Lord Stratheona and Mount Royal.)
7.36 p.m.
Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord the Minister, in particular for reminding us that in recent times the placing of this order has given Members of your Lordships' House an opportunity to go into matters outside the order. I am certainly not intending to repeat the performance of, I think, 1978, when Members of your Lordships' House spoke on the order at very great length. Indeed, one noble Lord whose speech I read mentioned, I think, every weapon ever manufactured, with the possible exception of the bow and arrow and the Gatling gun.
There are just three points I wish to make on this order. One of them is certainly within the scope of the order, while the second is somewhat outside it, but I assure your Lordships that I shall be brief. Although it has been mentioned in another place and, I think, in your Lordships' House, the question of disciplinary procedures in our forces based in Northern Ireland bears repeating. They are acting under extreme stress in very exceptional circumstances, and even the strongest personalities can break under the stress of the conditions in Northern Ireland. A great measure of understanding is needed when disciplinary action is taken. I was very pleased to read that the Secretary of State has said in another place that he recognises these unique circumstances and that of course any disciplinary action taken against our servicemen under stress is tempered with mercy.

1297
Turning to last Tuesday's Statement on the cruise missile bases, the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, said that an information folder was being prepared covering all aspects of the basing of cruise missiles in the United Kingdom. He said, and I quote him:
"I am notifying the local authorities concerned about the deployment, and their views on the environmental and social aspects of the arrival of the cruise missile units will be taken into account to the fullest possible extent. They will of course be consulted in due course on the detailed building plans".—[Official Report; 17/6/80; col. 989.]
May I ask the noble Lord whether this information folder will contain information about all aspects of the basing of the cruise missiles? There is a great deal of disquiet over the answer which the Secretary of State gave in another place when he said:
"On the question of use, I confirm absolutely and have no hesitation in saying that the political decision requires a joint decision by the two Governments ".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/6/80; col. 1345.]
That seems clear and definite enough, but it does not tell us whether there is a dual key system to be operated and whether, if the unthinkable should happen, it will be a British or an American finger on the trigger. I believe that the mass of the British public, while accepting the necessity for the basing of these missiles in Britain, would nevertheless want to know that in the last resort the use of these missiles is in the hands of the British Government.
The third and last point that I wish to make is that in our defence estimates debate the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, took the point that was made by a number of noble Lords that perhaps a more manageable format was needed for the estimates debate. We do try to do too much and, as the noble Lord said, it was like trying to squeeze a gallon into a pint pot. I hope that we can find a more suitable arrangement for the future.
With those few comments and apologies for stepping slightly out of order I am grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister, for introducing the order.
7.40 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I am very pleased to be able to follow the
1298
noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa. I think it is the first time that he has spoken in these debates and I hope that he will do so in future because he seems to have sympathetic ideas about the services.
I should like to raise two points, the first with regard to housing. In Command Paper 7826, it states on page 57 at paragraph 614:
"After pay, housing is probably the most important factor in the willingness of servicemen to make a career in the armed forces. Some 77 per cent. of officers are married and some 52 per cent. of servicemen".
As the noble Lord mentioned, recruiting is up, and I should like to congratulate him on that. I think housing is most important so far as keeping the men in the services is concerned. The White Paper goes on to say that nevertheless home ownership is desirable but is difficult to reconcile with service life, especially in the Army and the Royal Air Force. However, I think that now so few in the services go overseas for any length of time people are more willing and anxious to have some accommodation in this country. Therefore I was rather astonished, because I had believed that there were surplus houses, to read in the report of the proceedings in another place on 17th June 1980 that the Minister had said, in answer to a Question:
"I do not believe that any Ministry of Defence houses, at the moment, are being kept empty and surplus to requirements".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/6/80; col. 1331.]
I have asked several Questions, as the noble Lord will remember, both of him and of Sir Derek Rayner, and I was told that anything up to 21,000 houses were empty—some of them of course being surplus. The Minister went on to say:
"If any honourable Member knows of such houses, I hope that they will get in touch with me. If the houses are genuinely surplus to requirement, they will be passed to the Property Services Agency for disposal".
I hope that will happen quickly because we know that there are many men who really want these houses. It is all the more necessary now because women have to stay in England more often than they used to because there is now no possibility of going to Singapore and other places which they used to go to. They need to have educational facilities for their children and also many wives like to have some work outside their home, either part-time or full-time or voluntary.

1299
Also in paragraph 614 of the Command Paper it says:
"In addition we are planning to introduce a scheme which will enable service personnel to purchase surplus married quarters at a discount in line with the arrangements proposed under the new Housing Bill".
I should like to know whether my noble friend has a scheme ready and whether he will allow me to table an amendment to the Housing Bill, which is coming to your Lordships' House next week.
The Command Paper goes on to say:
"The AFPRB will be re-examining the basis of married quarter charges this year to ensure that they are calculated in as fair a manner as possible, bearing in mind the standstill of recent years".
Is that scheme going forward too? I think it is essential that we should have servicemen living in their own homes. I know some who are now living on Salisbury Plain, and there are many who are anxious to buy the houses in which they are living. Also quite a number of houses are let to civilians and I think it would be advantageous if these could be sold by the Property Services Agency.
Also, the WRNS have now come under court-martials for the first time. Can the noble Lord tell me whether any have been court-martialled, whether they have been penalised at all, and whether there have been any difficulties?
I should like to refer to what the noble Lord said about combat services because in paragraph 627 there is the most ambiguous sentence that I have read for a long time. It says:
"The Government believe that for the present there can be no question of members of the Women's Services engaging in combat or being armed for any duties"—
and then it says—
"other than in exercises, emergency or war".
That rather goes against what the noble Lord has just said. I am against women being armed in combat services, and I do not think this should be allowed to go by because it is not a good thing that it should be read by the general public. In paragraph 628 it is said:
"As a quite separate question, the Royal Navy is examining the scope for employing WRNS on operational duties, short of combat, to relieve manpower shortages and improve their career opportunities".
1300
I would support that and also I should like to mention that already civilian women from the dockyards go out on trials when the instruments on board ships are being tested, so I think it would he an excellent idea for women in the WRNS to have that opportunity.
I did mention other countries, and I gather that in Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France and the Netherlands women are now being trained in the use of firearms in self-defence. When the noble Lord mentioned the other point of not going into armed combat, did he think that we should train them just for self-defence? I should be grateful if the noble Lord can answer these points.
Lord NEWALL: My Lords, as usual my intervention will be very brief, and while thanking my noble friend for introducing this order and congratulating the Government once again on the pay and conditions that they are providing for Her Majesty's forces, I should like to make one point. That is on part of the conditions, being the equipment that our people have to use. In talking to some servicemen in the past they have told me that they feel like second-class soldiers when they go on NATO exercises, when comparing some of their equipment with the equipment of their neighbours from different countries. I would suggest that if we were able to streamline our defence sales structure, as I have mentioned to my noble friend in the past, and if we were able to sell more arms, as the French and the Italians and many other people are able to do, it would enable us to have more money available to improve other parts of the conditions which are so vital to our servicemen these days.
7.48 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I must first apologise that I was not present when the noble Lord the Minister introduced this order. I do not think I should have intervened in this debate had I not attended this morning a memorial service for the late Sir Charles Goodeve, at which the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, made one of the most interesting and sympathetic addresses at the memorial service that I have heard. He related his address to the innovations and inventions that Sir Charles Goodeve had introduced to the Admiralty; how he had fought

1301
against the Admiralty hierarchy, as the noble Lord referred to it, in order to get inventions accepted which were so advantageous during the war for Admiralty purposes in dealing with the magnetic mine and the degaussing of ships that passed over those mines.
As the noble Lord the Minister is aware I have always been interested in a special form of property. The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, eloquently referred to housing, which is a form of property, but the form of property in which I am interested is concerned with innovations and know-how and patents and trade marks and that kind of thing. A great deal of money is now being spent by the Government, quite rightly, for research and development in relation to the three services. I have traced the history of these orders, derived as they have been, from Acts going back to, I think, 1955. Since that date there has been a great change not only in the character of the persons who are subjected to these various Acts but in their training and the amount of money involved in relation to technical training. Therefore, I have wondered, as the noble Lord the Minister may remember, whether adequate attention is being paid to the spin-off for commercial purposes arising from the great investment made by the Government in research and development for the armed forces' Obviously questions of secrecy arise.
The noble Lord who has just spoken has referred to the nature of equipment. I agree with him that some aspects of the equipment of our forces are not the equivalent of that of other forces, even in NATO. But there are aspects of the equipment which the Government have devised which are superior even to that of the Americans, but for reasons that I am not aware of it is not possible for the British authorities to get this kind of equipment into use in the same way as the Americans have done.
I am not asking the Minister to reply at this stage, but I do ask that he should carefully consider how far his department is failing in exploiting the results of the investment of public money in research and development in two fields: first, perhaps a secret field, in relation to the NATO infrastructure, where we are trying to get our inventions used by other armed forces, around which there is an element of secrecy. And the second is the spin-off
1302
from that research and development for commercial purposes. The Americans, I know, as many noble Lords will be aware, have spent vast sums in research and development in military fields, and there has been a tremendous spin-off for commercial advantage from that investment. My point really is whether or not the British Government have adequately—I nearly said constructed—set up arrangements to ensure that a great deal of this research and development can be used commercially, subject, of course, to the usual secrecy arrangements.
Lord LEONARD: My Lords, I shall be extremely brief in approaching this order, which I realise is a necessity. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, I should like to make just one or two points. The noble Lord the Minister has stated that, while the sums of money available for defence are large, they are very heavily committed. My noble friend Lord Brooks of Tremorfa has brought up the matter of Northern Ireland and the disciplines that prevail among the forces in Northern Ireland. I do not for a moment think that he was implying that discipline should be in any way lowered if through emotional stress some members of our forces commit offences that would be punished very severely here in Britain. I will await the Minister's views on that.
The point I want to make is about finances. In the past 10 years we have spent £4,000 million in Northern Ireland propping up something that could possibly cease to exist if the present Government were willing to listen to the pleas of the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic. It is about time we ceased spending these vast sums of money—and they are, I think the Minister will agree, vast sums. I know I am ranging far from the subject of this order, but then other people have ranged reasonably far also. Therefore, I am making no apology for ranging far, but I am stating my case.
I should like the Minister to consider the savings which are available, provided there is the will on the part of Her Majesty's Government, and the will on the part of the people of Northern Ireland and of Southern Ireland, to come together. I can assure this House that another £4,000 million will be spent if this matter is not settled, and settled soon. I will not labour

1303
this question any further, but I just wish to make the point that money is available, and I can assure your Lordships that it would be much better spent if it was used to combat the insidious forces of Communism in the world rather than to prop up an unstable state. I sincerely hope that the Minister will bear this in mind when he is compiling the future defence budget.
7.56 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I will not follow the noble Lord, Lord Leonard, if he will forgive me, into the politics of Northern Ireland. I am wholly in sympathy with him in saying that this appears to be nugatory expenditure on a large scale, and we regret it, and there are many better things we could use it for. Of course, we have said many times that the activities that are demanded of the services in Northern Ireland do represent a very severe drain and put the services under great stress. While I speak for the Government, I speak particularly for the Ministry of Defence, and I do assure the noble Lord that, while I try and look sometimes for small benefits that the Ministry of Defence can derive from their activities in Northern Ireland, we would wholeheartedly go along with him in wishing that the conflict could soon be brought to an end, for all sorts of reasons.
Perhaps this is the logical moment to refer briefly to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooks. I think we can be very proud of the discipline of the forces in Northern Ireland. They often show incredible restraint under very severe provocation. Happily, there is less of the kind of provocation in recent years than there used to be a few years ago. Some of the living conditions of our servicemen in Northern Ireland are far from ideal. They create a great deal of stress. They have to endure much provocation. They do it very well. On the other hand, given the political circumstances of Northern Ireland, there are times when severe disciplinary action is expected of the administrators of the forces against those who transgress what are very strict codes. Of course, they are viewed internally, I can assure the noble Lord, with the greatest possible sympathy; but we do demand a great deal from the
1304
forces, and on the whole I think we can be proud that we get it.
May I turn very briefly to the question on equipment that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Newall, and by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. To the noble Lord, Lord Newall, may I say this. I am the last person to say I am happy about some of the equipment that is used by some of our forces. That would sound smug. It is an unfortunate fact that one tends to hear more, as is always the case in circumstances of this kind, of inadequate equipment than one hears of superlative equipment. There is inadequate equipment. I would not dispute that for a moment. I have said previously that it is a regrettable fact that some of the lorries driven by the Army are older than the people who drive them, and that is particularly so in Germany. That is not a happy situation. But it is also true that we have some extremely good equipment, and that brings me to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran.
We have some excellent equipment, and equipment which we sell to other services which are very glad to have it. I wish that I had brought with me the book on the life of Isambard Brunel, one of the great inventors of this country, who, to put it mildly, was no lover of the Admiralty. There is a famous letter in which he records his view of the Admiralty which is almost unrepeatable in this House. I do not believe that that view is widely held nowadays, although I have no doubt that there are some who do hold it.
We do our best to exploit for commercial purposes inventions which are made during the course of service research and development. I think that I have said previously that it is not a widely known fact—but I believe I am right in saying it—that the manufacturers of all the green digital watches which are sold in the world pay a small royalty to the radar research establishment at Malvern—they pay that royalty even if they are made in Japan. That is an example of the kind of R and D, and the exploitation of it, that takes place. It is not perfect. I recently chaired a meeting of the Defence Industries Council where we discussed whether the interface between industry and the research and development establishments was all that it might be. I could make a speech lasting

1305
quite a long time on that subject alone, but I must try to resist the temptation.
I point out to my noble friend Lord Newall that we have a sales organisation which we believe is effective. It sometimes works under a good deal of difficulty. There are many political constraints and I should be very surprised if, during the course of the next few months, I get away scot-free with some noble Lords whom I could mention who are passionately opposed to the concept of selling arms at all—they believe that it is an indecent business. There is an Army equipment exhibition about to take place, and certain organisations have been running a campaign against it. I happen to have been the recipient of some of the barbs that they have been throwing. I am totally unrepentent. We are in the business of selling expertise abroad and we do it quite well. We are proud of it and we intend to continue to do it. That is all that I can say on that subject.
I turn to one other extraneous subject. The noble Lord asked me about ground-launched cruise missiles. All that I should like to say on that subject is that the informaton folder will address all the questions which we believe people will be asking. If there are questions which are not answered in that information folder then we shall do our best to answer them as they arise.
I shall now get back to what we really ought to be talking about. The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, asked me a number of questions as regards which I shall have to write to her with details. However, I can answer one or two of the matters which she raised. I found the quotation that she made about houses a curious one. What I can say to her is that we certainly do not have a policy of keeping married quarters empty. Indeed, even that comment has to be slightly qualified. Anybody operating a housing organisation must have a certain number of houses which are kept empty and then rotated. However, we do not have a policy of keeping houses empty. Far from it. We have a great many empty married quarters and we are doing our best to sell off those that are saleable, and that is taking place as fast as possible. But it is quite a difficult and complicated matter, to which I have referred on a number of occasions.
1306
The Housing Bill will be covering only local authority housing, so I do not think it will be appropriate for the noble Baroness to put down an amendment. But we are investigating the possibility of creating some arrangements analogous to the arrangements whereby council house tenants can buy their houses. I think—and I am anticipating this—that it is not entirely likely that servicemen will be able to buy the house which they are actually occupying because they tend to rotate fairly quickly. However, we are certinly looking to see what we can do in that connection.
I am not sure that it is true to say that so few service families go overseas nowadays. If we include Northern Ireland and Germany in that connection it would be true to say that quite a lot of families go overseas and the problem of what is termed "turbulence" is quite a serious one. We recognise the housing problems of the services.
The noble Baroness asked me some questions about what we were referring to the armed forces pay review body. I think that I had better write to her about the details. We are certainly referring to them some of the charges raised for quartering.
I think that I have covered most of the questions that I was asked, with the exception of the House of Lords procedural point which the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, raised. I see that we have the Assistant Chief Whip with us. I think that the proper answer is to say that I would support him in trying to split up the defence debate into more manageable chunks. I think that the formal answer I ought to give is that I shall refer the matter to the appropriate channels and do what I can to support it. I shall be writing on one or two points, particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, but with that may I once again say that I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STATUTE LAW REVISION (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
The Order of Re-Commitment discharged.
SEA FISH INDUSTRY BILL
The Order of Commitment discharged.
INDUSTRY BILL
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.