Lords Sitting of 13 May 1980

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

POLICE SUMMONSES: DELAY
The Marquess of AILESBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, it is clearly desirable that the period between the commission of an offence and the service of a summons should be as short as possible, and the police make every effort to achieve this. It is however important for all concerned that each case should be carefully investigated and properly prepared; in some cases this may delay the decision to apply for a summons. Once a summons has been issued, however, arrangements are made to ensure prompt delivery.
The Marquess of AILESBURY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that general reply. However, considering the number of motoring offences which begin with the police warning: "You may be prosecuted ", may I ask the noble Lord this question: If it is right to have a time limit on the period within which the police must initiate proceedings or drop the case—and surely that time limit was put there in the interests of natural justice—how then can it be right or just to follow that by a game of cat and mouse, of unlimited duration, during which nobody bothers to tell the motorist that he is being prosecuted? And when, months later, he is finally let into this
96
little secret, does the noble Lord suppose that that kind of treatment will have encouraged in him a proper co-operative attitude towards the police who are operating this system?
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, it is standard police practice to warn a suspected offender that the facts of the case will be reported. In a small number of road traffic offences which do not involve an accident, Section 179 of the Road Traffic Act 1972, as amended, provides that a conviction cannot be secured unless the offender is warned at the time that prosecution for a particular offence, or offences, will be considered or a summons or notice of intended prosecution will be issued within 14 days. That is the established practice. The noble Marquess will be aware that the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure is sitting at present. It has, I understand, completed taking its evidence. If, however, the noble Marquess wishes to draw the attention of the Royal Commission to some further aspect, we will attempt to make available facilities for doing so.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, in cases other than traffic cases, is the noble Lord able to say whether there are statistics to show what is the average time between the alleged offence and the serving of a summons? It does seem intolerable if it runs to months and months.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, will be well aware from his former office of the great difficulties surrounding the arrangement of the affairs of courts and the administration of justice. As it happens, I do not think that there is a sufficient amount of statistical evidence on hand at the moment to provide the noble and learned Lord with a satisfactory answer, but I shall make inquiries and will attempt to communicate with him.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, this is not really a problem for the courts. The interval between the alleged offence and the serving of a summons is in the hands of the police.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, your Lordships will of course be aware that circumstances

97
vary from district to district, I should not like to commit my right honourable friend to any matter in this regard.

STRIKES
2.40 p.m.
Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EMPLOYMENT (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, strikes represent a waste of resources that should have gone into production and are of overall benefit, therefore, to the living standards and job security of overseas rather than our own employees. They are futile in that most strikers do not recover their lost wages even if they achieve a sizable pay increase. The Government are taking every opportunity to make this known and there are indications that the message is coming to be increasingly understood.
Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister of State for Employment for his Answer, but may I draw his attention to one fact which is illustrative of my Question? Would he concede that in the case of Fords, the year 1979 saw them virtually free of strikes and industrial unrest—an important factor in the all-time record pre-tax profit of that firm for the year 1979? Does not this underline the desirability of avoiding strike action on all occasions except as a very last resort? Perhaps this example might be brought to the attention of those trade union leaders who have responsibility for trade union matters.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I should have thought that most people working in or anywhere near a Ford's
98
factory would be well aware that the dramatic decline in the number of days output lost through strike action at Ford last year and the consequent improvement in continuity of production made a significant contribution to overall performance and also to the wealth of the districts involved. I am delighted to underline that point to which my noble friend has drawn attention.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that labour relations are much better in Ford than they are in Leyland? Does he not think that he ought to address his remarks to the people who control Leyland, and let us have better labour relations with the trade unions?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I am entirely in favour of improved labour relations, wherever they should take place. I think that there are some encouraging signs in Leyland as well.

NORTHERN IRELAND DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
2.43 p.m.
Lord BLEASE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Elton): My Lords, the Northern Ireland Department of Commerce already maintains in London an office, closely allied to other Northern Ireland departments, for the purpose of actively promoting trade, industry and commerce. This is known as the Ulster Office. My right honourable friend the

99
Secretary of State for Northern Ireland intends to continue this arrangement. Plans for future services will be formulated in the light both of the needs of industry and commerce, and of the need for cost-effectiveness.
Lord BLEASE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that very helpful reply. Is he aware that in the Ulster Year Book annual statistics, which are most useful to commercial and industrial interests throughout the world, no reference has been made recently to the functions and the role of the Ulster Office, and will he seek to repair this particular misrepresentation of the position? Will he not also agree that this is disconcerting to those who have been using the excellent facilities of this office, and also that it is demoralising to the staff?
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for drawing this lacuna to my attention, and I will certainly see that attention is drawn to it elsewhere. I am sure the noble Lord is aware that the activities at present carried out by the office are primarily directed towards promoting Northern Ireland trade and industry. The office acts as a display centre for Northern Ireland products, is a point of contact between Northern Ireland firms and buyers in Great Britain, organises the attendance of Northern Ireland firms at trade exhibitions in Great Britain and provides accommodation and services for Northern Ireland firms. It also provides accommodation and staff support for those Northern Ireland public agencies which need to maintain representation in London.
Lord O'NEILL of the MAINE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there has been some alarm and despondency in the Ulster Office in the last few weeks because nobody knew who the new director was going to be, and that is what led to rumours that the Government were considering the possibility of closing down the office? The Northern Ireland Office does a marvellous job in New York and I hope we shall continue to have a thriving office in London, as indicated in the noble Lord's reply.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I am again
100
grateful for this support for the admirable activities of the Ulster Office, which will continue albeit, as my noble friend is doubtless aware, it is necessary to see that this is done in the most cost-effective manner possible.
Lord KILBRACKEN: My Lords, would the noble Lord consider re-naming the Ulster Office the "Northern Ireland Office" in view of the fact that three counties of Ulster are in the Republic of Ireland?
Lord ELTON: My Lords, that is an interesting proposal, but as I already work in the Northern Ireland Office I feel that I might be receiving some misdirected mail if this were done.

REGULATED TENANCIES AND RENT INCREASES
2.46 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, I do not have information in the precise form requested by the noble Lord but I hope the following will prove helpful. Excluding first registrations of formerly rent controlled property there were 180, 000 rent registrations for furnished and unfurnished regulated tenancies in England and Wales in 1979. The mean percentage change in rent following a registration in these

101
cases was an increase of 65 per cent. Nearly all of the previous rents will have been over three years old and many will have dated from considerably earlier.
We only have figures available for the type of applicant on the first registration of a fair rent. Of the 26, 000 first registrations, 73 per cent. followed an application by the landlord. Rent assessment committees made 7, 400 determinations. There is no available breakdown showing how many stemmed from an objection by the tenant. In 58 per cent. of cases, rent assessment committees fixed a rent higher than that set by the rent officer, there was no change in 29 per cent. of the cases and a reduction in 13 per cent. The mean change in the rent officer rent for all cases determined by committees was an increase of 7 per cent.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for having furnished me with some information on this very important topic. I realise that it may have been difficult to furnish accurate statistics, but is he aware that as a result of inquiries I have made, particularly in the areas of St. Marylebone and Regent's Park, and indeed in other parts of the West End of London, landlords have not had any difficulty at all in obtaining the highest rents in these regulated tenancy habitations because they are occupied by Iranians, Asians, Jamaicans and those who are quite capable of paying the highest rent that is demanded, even if it does not come out of their own pockets?
Does this not constitute a hardship for the ordinary Britisher who cannot afford to meet the demands that the landlords are making? Indeed, I do not blame the landlords because, naturally, they take advantage of the foreign element who find no difficulty in paying whatever sum is asked. May I ask this further question: May I have an assurance from the Minister that the Government will seek to protect tenants of regulated tenancies in order to prevent undue hardship?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, it is a marathon question and I am not sure that I can cover all the points asked; but if the noble Lord is saying that people do not know, or do not care, about the
102
rights that they have under the Rent Acts, I am not sure that the Government can do anything other than make available to them, as indeed to any people in the country, information about the fact that there are Rent Acts which give them protection. I do not know that one can really go beyond that.
As for the last point the noble Lord raised—namely, would we try to ensure that there is protection under the Rent Acts—I can only add what I have said on a number of occasions previously. That is that there are indeed considerable protections for both sides, and if it turns out in practice that both sides, landlords and tenants, are frequently unhappy about the final determination of fair rent, that is because the rent assessment committees or rent officers are trying to adjudicate on a matter which is really a very difficult one.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, will the Government bring to the attention of the rent tribunals the fact that scarcity value should not be taken into account? Will they also take account of the fact that vastly increased rents are probably a more inflationary measure than anything else, and that their present policy, if they do not change it, is leading to the increasing foreignisation of the inner residential area of London? Perhaps they like this.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I do not think it is rent assessment committees or rent officers who make policy at all. They are there to adjudicate upon what should be a fair rent. The fact is that the law as it now stands says quite clearly that scarcity should not be taken into account. Indeed, one of the noble Lords opposite, Lord Janner, regularly exhorts me to do exactly the opposite of what the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has suggested. In any case, I do not think I can add much to what I seem to say at regular weekly intervals on this same question.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to reconsider his reaction to the points that I have been making from time to time? Is he aware, first of all, that we are in as bad a position, as tenants, as people were in the days when we were fighting under the Leasehold Reform Act? There are here many

103
previous Members of the other place who know what a fight we had in order to preserve tenancies, without exorbitant amounts being asked by landlords to protect them against the leasehold system. Will my noble friend have a look at the situation again? Does he not realise that various districts, particularly in London, will have no places to rent at all? The figures the noble Lord has given to us do not reveal that in London an addition of up to 500 per cent. is being charged by the rent tribunals. The Rent Acts are no longer a protection for very many Members of this House and people similarly placed.
The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Lord Soames): My Lords, just before my noble friend answers, I feel I must suggest to noble Lords that perhaps it would be to the advantage of the whole House if supplementary questions were kept somewhat shorter.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask a short supplementary?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I feel that the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Janner, is on a different topic from the one raised by this particular Question. If we start to talk of these huge increases we find they tend to be in the areas where the rateable values are very high, and that is a problem. The last time we were bearing this in mind I did say that it was a matter of concern, but I could not go further than that last week, and I cannot go further than that today. Other than that, I do not think there is evidence in truth to indicate that the Act is being operated by the rent assessment committees other than in an impartial way. There is surely no basis for saying that. If the conclusions that they reach are unhappy for many people, that is the basic problem that exists.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, will the Minister be prepared to indicate to the House how many Civil Service man hours were involved in extracting and preparing the information given in response to this Question? Can he furthermore tell us what relevance that information has to the working of the Rent Acts?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, clearly
104
at this moment I cannot give information as to the number of hours involved, but I understand the thrust of the point being made and have much sympathy with it. As to whether or not the Question has relevance to the working of the Rent Acts, I think I have in fairness to say that there is concern about certain aspects of it; it would be less than fair to imply that there was no point in the Question. Frankly, I think we have to be concerned about the Rent Acts.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have not the faintest idea how much it is going to cost to answer the Question that I asked, in spite of the noble Lord, Lord Foot? There is a short question I wish to ask the noble Lord. Will he not agree that, because of rising prices in various directions, electricity and all the rest, it is desirable that the Government should give some consideration to preventing undue hardship to people who are unable to meet the demands that certain landlords are making?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, the only thing I can say on the ability of people to meet rents is that this is taken care of in the rent allowances available to those who cannot meet them. I think it would be fair to say that the extent of rent allowances is often far more than people realise. For instance, rent allowances are in certain circumstances available for families who have an income even as high as £14, 500 a year. So on that latter point I think the only answer I can give to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, to be helpful is that a closer look at what is available under rent allowances is the best I can advise.

BUSINESS
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement, being made in another place, on the Civil Service.
It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I mention that dinner will be available this evening at the usual time. The Committee stage of the Transport Bill will adjourn at approximately seven o'clock for about one hour. The Criminal

105
Justice (Northern Ireland) Order and the Committee stage of the Concessionary Travel for Handicapped Persons (Scotland) Bill will be taken during this adjournment.

WATER (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
The LORD ADVOCATE (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): 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 Recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Recommitment be discharged.—(Lord Mackay of Clashfern.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: 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 Recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Recommitment be discharged.—(Lord Mackay of Clashfern.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TRANSPORT BILL
2.59 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bellwin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to. House in Committee accordingly. [The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Preliminary]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, this is an unusual clause and we on this side of the House could have moved an amendment to almost every subsection. It is not at this stage my purpose to go into another Second Reading debate, but I should like to make just three points. First, Part I of the Bill deals with the general question of transport licensing and conditions. Here I should like to say to noble Lords that there will be various provisions in the various clauses and in the amendments which will have some bearing on the rural areas. We would like to stress to noble Lords—I am certain they will take note themselves—that it may well be that what appears to be an advantage for rural areas may not be when one looks deeply into it. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will give very careful consideration to the various amendments as they come before the Committee
As regards Part II, dealing with the National Freight Corporation, I should like to say that it was made perfectly clear from this side of the House during the Second Reading debate that, while we strongly object to the Government's proposals, this is a matter which has been approved by a Division in the other place and, therefore, we shall not take any steps other than try to improve the decision on the freight corporation.
As regards Part III, which deals with the question of pensions arising from the Government's decision on the National Freight Corporation, we shall be moving various amendments. I should like to stress at this stage—and my noble friend Lord Mishcon will deal with this part of the Bill—that this is a completely non-political matter and we shall be dealing with it solely from the standpoint of the Government honouring their commitments and also from the standpoint of fairness and equity for those working in the freight corporation.
I thought it necessary to make those statements, but we shall not oppose the Motion that the clause shall stand part of the Bill.
Lord TEVIOT: It is rare for a Bill of this size not to have a whole host of amendments on Clause 1. However, there are one or two things to state or even pave the way for the rest of the Bill on the Question, That the clause stand part. Having had for some years a close and pleasant relationship with the industry, I feel that there is much that one can do to improve the Bill. I can say with great respect to its authors and to my noble friend Lord Bellwin, who has been so helpful, that I hope he will see fit to reconsider some of the points that will be raised in the form of amendments and even perhaps to accept some of the amendments themselves.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I hesitate to repeat a Second Reading speech or indeed make one. However I must reiterate that, while understanding the Government's intention, and particularly their desire to remove red tape, their belief that they will revitalise a declining industry by this measure is, sadly, a vain hope. Most important of ail, the bus and coach operators, whether they be from the National Bus Company, the municipal undertakings or the large number of "independents" are most alarmed by this Bill, especially the parts that concern road service licensing and trial areas. They are not alarmed just because they feel that the Bill will affect their business: above all they feel that it is unworkable and against the public interest which, in theory, is what the whole Bill is about.
Finally, I must say that I shall be supporting the amendments that have come from the Confederation of Passenger Transport—I have studied them most carefully—whether they be in my name or in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and his team. However, there are certain amendments being moved by the noble Lord that I shall oppose and no doubt he will do the same to some of mine.
Lord BELLWIN: I, too, do not intend to make any major observations or repeat what was said at the Second Reading of the Bill other than to say that, quite clearly, as your Lordships would expect, the Government feel that the measures in the Bill are indeed an attempt to improve something which clearly needs
108
improving. This situation has existed, in the main, for as long as 50 years. There has been no major change in that time and it is now time for a change. I expect that, when the Bill finally goes through and receives Royal Assent, the legislation pertaining to road transport in this country will be much better than it is today.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Definition of "public service vehicle"]:
3.6 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 15, leave out (" one or more ") and insert (" not more than five ").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1 and, with the leave of the Committee, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 5, which is consequential upon Amendment No. 1 being carried. I should make perfectly clear to your Lordships that we support car-sharing. In fact, proposals were developed by the last Government in respect of both community bus services and car-sharing. But it must be made absolutely clear that, when those proposals were introduced, the one objective was to encourage community self-help to tackle the needs that were obvious regarding the ordinary bus service which could not be reached. The proposals then were aimed mainly at the problem of the rural areas.
One gets the impression from the present Bill, and from the speeches in the Second Reading debate, that the Government tend to regard the question of car-sharing as a panacea for many of our public transport problems. The proposals in the Bill go much further than the previous legislation. First, advertising is somewhat extended, with complete freedom from any control by local authorities or the traffic commissioners. Shared taxis and hired cars under certain circumstances are now to be taken outside public service vehicle conditions.
All that the amendment proposes is that, for the purposes of car-sharing, instead of "one or more" passengers, as proposed in the Bill, there should be

109
substituted the words "not more than five". It may be argued that the last Labour Government permitted car-sharing with capacity up to seven. However, that limit was to encourage social-sharing—that is, people getting together as friends and neighbours which frankly they will do and have done for very many years and I daresay most of your Lordships, like myself, have done this without legislation and with no worry at all.
The changes proposed in the Bill will introduce the danger, frankly, of "wide boys" coming in, and that is what we wish to avoid. We wish to avoid people who will come in and will be acting commercially and doing something illegal which it will be extremely difficult to prove. It is true to say that the bus operators and the taxi trade are extremely concerned about the principles in the Bill as they are laid down concerning car-sharing.
Few cars are constructed to take more than five passengers plus the driver. Therefore, our amendment is a safeguard and if the Government are—as I believe they are—primarily concerned with social car-sharing, we hope that they will accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord MORRIS: I believe that this amendment is singularly lacking in common sense. Anyone who allows his car to be used, or who shares his car, will make absolutely certain that he will not have a whole gang of people jammed into the back of the car with all the damage that might ensue from that. I would suggest that for legislation to be introduced on a point like this brings it into serious disrepute. The eminent common sense of most people in these circumstances is quite adequate to handle this problem.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: I have some sympathy with what lies behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. However, I feel that the Construction and Uses Regulations would take adequate care of any question of overloading. There are a number of vehicles that are constructed to carry more than five passengers and one driver, and one notable exception is the Peugeot family estate car which is a widely-used vehicle. Be that as it may, I think that it is rather irrelevant because, as I say,
110
the Construction and Uses Regulations provide all that is required to minimise the number of people who would be carried in any vehicle at any one time.
Baroness STEDMAN: I should like to support my noble friend with regard to these amendments. I was privileged in the last Government to pilot through this House the Experimental Areas Bill and also to sit in on some of the working party meetings before that Bill was prepared for the statute book. When we were in Government we increased the number of people in cars from four to seven which this Bill is now increasing to eight. However, we brought in the car-sharing provision which was largely to meet the problems in the rural areas within our trial areas. With hindsight—and we can all be wiser with hindsight—we feel that perhaps five would have been a more practicable number and a more realistic number for the normal carrying capacity of cars at present. Under the previous Act seven was agreed to in order to encourage the social sharing of cars, and the amount of money to be paid by each passenger was something that would be decided among the participants in the car-sharing. The proposals before us this afternoon go much further than that. They will allow—and we shall come to this later—more advertising. They are also to be free of any control by local authorities and the commissioners, and could very well have the danger of turning car-sharing or small minibuses used for that purpose into a business operation.
On energy saving, I think that most people would agree that cars carrying five passengers rather than eight would mean that there would be less fuel consumption. If we are to increase to eight the number of passengers that may be carried, we shall allow unfair competition with theexistingtaxi and hire car businesses. We believe that five would improve the situation. It would not diminish the possibility of achieving the objective of this clause, to reduce congestion and to encourage the sharing of cars and the greater use of cars. But to leave the clause as it stands will undermine the existing provision of services.
The present law lays down a figure of four passengers for the hire car trade in London and five in the Provinces. Before

111
they can do this, the drivers must pass very stringent tests and become suitably qualified. That safeguards the passengers. Yet as it stands the Bill says that for one or more passengers a driver must only have passed his driver's test. "One or more" is much too ambiguous a phrase to have in a statute. It means all things to all men, and we believe that five is much more specific and more intelligible to everyone.
Lord BELLWIN: I must say that this amendment seems to me to be unnecessary. The present threshold is seven seats, as has been said, and we are proposing a modest increase of one seat. I see no reason why a relatively small number of owners of very large cars or small minibuses should be excluded from private, non-commercial car-sharing simply because they may occasionally wish to give a lift. I believe that any fears of a threat to taxis or to public transport are exaggerated.
The proponents of this change want to stop someone from sharing costs with, say, six members of his tennis club if he takes them to a match in his minibus. It really is not on. I agree that there must be an upper limit. Indeed, there are arguments for a much higher limit which would encompass all minibuses, for instance, allowing a complete football team to be carried. But we have restricted the number to eight because eight paying passengers seems to us to be an acceptable maximum for a privately-owned vehicle. Any fewer would exclude the large cars, small minibuses, vans and other vehicles which private owners might occasionally want to use and which can be of real value in certain circumstances, as the Americans with their "van pooling" have shown.
As I said, there are arguments, to which I am not unattracted, for a higher threshold. But I accept eight, which is the exemption limit from much EEC bus legislation, as being a realistic level. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, implied that it was a panacea. We do not think that it would by any means be a panacea to all the problems; but why not do something to make things a little better? That is one of the intentions behind this proposal. The noble Lord also said that it
112
introduced the danger of "wide boys" coming in. By increasing the number from seven to eight, will that suddenly make the "wide boys" come in? I wonder. I doubt it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, quite rightly reminded us that it was the previous Labour Government that increased the number from four to seven. We are now talking of eight and the Labour Party is talking of five. What is in a number? I think the point that a car carrying five passengers may use less fuel than one carrying eight is probably more than countered by the fact that a vehicle carrying eight passengers means, in theory at least, that the number of journeys required would be fewer. These points simply illustrate the whole irrelevance, if I may use the word, of the amendment. Before we are through with this Bill, we shall have discussed matters of considerable moment and importance. I should not have thought that this was one of the most important points. I ask your Lordships to resist the amendment.
Lord UNDERHILL: It is not just a question of the overloading of the car, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chil-worth, suggested. We on this side of the Committee are worried that unless the Bill is carefully worded, there will be an encouragement for commercialisation to enter under a cloak. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said that he does not think that will arise. In discussions in another place a number of examples were given of trips to and from Heathrow, et cetera. We agree that we do not want to spend a great deal of your Lordships' time upon this matter. Therefore, I shall withdraw the amendment, but I hope that the Government will pay very careful attention to what may happen as a result of any extension, because if commercialisation under a cloak steps in, I hope that they will be bold enough to deal with the situation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.16 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 20, after (" journey") insert (" but shall not include any element of profit ").
The noble Lord said: The subsection in question sets out the costs which, within the Bill, can be met for car-sharing; that is the running costs for a journey, and inclusion of an appropriate amount for depreciation and general wear. From the Second Reading debate there would appear to be general agreement on all sides that although this type of social car-sharing should be encouraged—although we all accept that it does not necessarily meet all the needs of the rural areas—no one should make a profit from it. I think that there is general agreement on that. The problem is that the definition of costs is so wide that we seek to include in the Bill the words: "but shall not include any element of profit"'.
On Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, observed that there was an impression that the Bill had been introduced in something of a rush. When the relevant clause was in the original Bill it was proposed that the Minister would have power to give directions by order to fix the amount of costs for journeys of different lengths and for cars of different descriptions. How any department or Minister could have put forward such a ridiculous, foolish proposal, frankly we just could not understand.
It was realised in the other place that this was a nonsense and it was removed from the original draft of the Bill. During the Committee stage in another place on 22nd January the Secretary of State said at column 409:
"But if the indication in Clause 2 is not adequate, we shall certainly consider whether it will be spelled out with more clarity and whether we should include a few more obvious examples of costs in order to give the courts the guidance that my honourable friend, with his experience of advocacy, considers is required ".
He added:
" This is an amendment which in many ways I should like to accept ".
Therefore, I hope that the Minister will appreciate that we are putting forward something which has the general sympathy of the Secretary of State and that, as there is a general desire that there should be no element of profit at all in this car-sharing proposal, our amendment will be accepted.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for reminding me of a
114
statement I made on Second Reading, that I thought that possibly the Government had introduced the Bill in something of a rush. But it seems to me that perhaps the noble Lord and his colleagues have introduced this amendment in something of a rush. As I read it, it suggests that the words:
" but shall not include any element of profit "
be included. But, having regard to the wording of the clause itself, is the amendment really necessary? The last few lines of the subsection read:
" and for the purposes of paragraph (a) the running costs of a vehicle … shall be taken to include an appropriate amount in respect of depreciation and general wear ".
That is all that should be included. I can quite understand that it is rather difficult to assess what is an appropriate amount in respect of depreciation and general wear, but perhaps the driver may be influenced by the small amount that your Lordships have in relation to their costs of running a car. It seems to me that this amendment is quite unnecessary.
Lord MORRIS: I speak as a somewhat indifferent accountant on this amendment. I believe that this amendment flies in the face of reality, because the test of profit, among other things, is indeed almost beyond the measure of an accountant, let alone anybody else. Who is going to measure this element of profit anyway? Primarily on the grounds of necessity this amendment should fail.
3.21 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: I must say that this amendment seems to me to be unnecessary. "The running costs of the vehicle" in this clause means precisely what it says; that is, the costs attributable to the vehicles only—petrol, oil, insurance and so on—and not costs in respect of any labour or profit element. If the passenger's contributions do not exceed the vehicle costs, there will be no element of profit. To add on a specific reference to "profit" is thus an unnecessary complication.
The Government see the removal of the final unnecessary obstacles to car-sharing as a very positive step, and one on which we hope to build in the months to come. Car-sharing can save energy and reduce congestion, and it can widen the choices open to people; car-sharing to

115
and from work can often be the sensible thing for all concerned, and in rural areas the WRVS have already shown what a boon it can be to those who would otherwise be housebound. We refuse to look at it in a negative light, as a competitor with buses and trains, but see it as another mode of transport capable of development to the benefit of all.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred to a comment made in another place by my honourable friend. We have not finally closed our minds to a more comprehensive definition of "running costs". In addition to depreciation and general wear, we could add on such items as road tax and insurance, but once we start to list items the problem is deciding where to stop. Company cars, of course, present special difficulties in any allocation of costs. I shall, however, take note of what has been said today and consider whether the present drafting is entirely adequate.
I was amused when the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said that the Bill had been introduced in a rush, quoting the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. All I can say is that it may or may not have been introduced in a rush, I do not know; but after 110 hours of solid debate in another place it can no longer be said not to have been considered. Therefore, any criticism that may—and I say "may"—have been apposite previously no longer applies. I am grateful for the observations and support from the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and my noble friend Lord Morris. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord MISHCON: Before that possibly inevitable course takes place, may I address myself to the comments just made by the noble Minister. I am sure that the Committee would agree that it is a wrong and certainly foolish thing to introduce into an Act of Parliament something so uncertain that it is not capable of practical interpretation. If somebody does it, I am afraid that they must be accused of a rushed job, even if the rushed job has taken 110 hours to achieve.
I ask your Lordships to look at what the average member of the public providing, we would hope, a social service and not a commercial one, has to do in order to comply with this clause as at present
116
worded. I take from the noble Minister some of the things that he said. Presumably the driver has to compute the cost of the road fund licence; the cost of the petrol likely to be consumed on a journey; make an assessment that I would love to hazard not one single Member of your Lordships' House could make at this moment, namely, an allowance for half-an-hour's journey to cover the depreciation and wear of a vehicle which one of your Lordships may own. This is an impossible provision for any practical application.
This amendment can be termed a probing amendment, but the one thing that at least it makes certain is that if somebody makes a completely extravagant calculation in regard to depreciation and wear and the amount of petrol that may be consumed and the cost of the road fund licence apportioned to a journey, at least a court, or any other authority trying to interpret this provision, will say, "You must have known. The words are there that you were not to have an element of profit, and on any reasonable look at the calculation you have made there is, and you must have known it, an element of profit".
Leave those words out and, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran (and he knows how much respect I have for him) to leave this clause as it is—and I challenge the Minister to say otherwise—produces a calculation which is impossible, and whatever defendant, however much of a wide or a narrow boy he may be, who comes before any authority will at least have to meet the challenge of, "You must have known there was an element of profit." Whereas, at the present moment, whatever calculation he produces would presumably satisfy this paragraph.
Lord BELLWIN: All I can do to be helpful on this point is to repeat what I said a few moments ago; namely, I recognise, and I think anyone would, the problems that exist in trying to define profit and costs. Therefore, I said, and I repeat, we have not finally closed our minds to a more comprehensive definition of "running costs", but we recognise in saying that the great difficulties that there are. I said, and I repeat, that we shall take note of what has been said today and consider whether the drafting is entirely adequate. Beyond that I fear I cannot go.
Lord UNDERHILL: I appreciate the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, that they will take note of what we have said. If it was a matter left to he and I, I am sure that we should have no problem at all, because we would not trouble to charge depreciation, or anything. Under the circumstances, we withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.28 p.m.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 26, at end insert—
(" () Section 145 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 shall be amended so as to add at the end of subsection 145 (4) (A) the words "other than any such liability within the provisions of section 6 of and Schedule 1 to the Transport Act 1978 relating to car-sharing for social and other purposes ".").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I do so with some diffidence in that it is precisely the same amendment that was set down in 1978 when we discussed car-sharing in principle. In effect, the argument I put forward today is almost the same as that which I put forward two years ago, but it does have somewhat more meaning in that Her Majesty's Government, by virtue of the provisions of this Bill, are to encourage a wider use of car-sharing. They have also extended the number of people who may be taken into a motor car on a sharing basis. Nevertheless, there are certain elements of confusion that arise.
At Second Reading on 24th April my noble friend Lord Bellwin referred to this matter, and said at column 924 of the Official Report:
" At present, the law is complicated and not well understood ".
He then goes on to say, referring to the 1978 Transport Bill:
" Encouragement for car-sharing was generally welcomed, although some doubts were expressed about the insurance position and the undertaking given by the Motor Conference. I can assure your Lordships that that undertaking has given rise to no problems during the two years or so it has been operating, and that the Motor Conference has assured us that the removal of restrictions on advertising by this Bill will not affect its policy ".
I was delighted to hear that, but yesterday afternoon my noble friend Lord Gowrie replied to a Question on car sharing from my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, who had asked:
118
" My Lords, would my noble friend give some assurance to certain people who are a little anxious as to whether their insurance covers passengers whom they may pick up as they travel to work? Is this covered in normal practice?"
The response of my noble friend Lord Gowrie was:
" My Lords, that depends on the precise insurance arrangements which individuals have with their own companies. There is no blanket arrangement there, because some individuals are insured only for third party. So everybody should be most careful to check up as to what their precise insurance arrangements are ".—[Official Report, 12/5/80; col. 4.]
That is precisely the point at which difficulties arise because when in 1978 we discussed this matter and the undertaking was given—I shall not read the whole of the undertaking because it is set out in Hansard —there was this caveat right at the end:
" If in any doubt whether the car-sharing arrangement is or is not covered by the terms of a private car policy, the policy-holders concerned should make inquiry of their motor insurance ".
There was also the undertaking that the principle involved in applying insurance where car-sharing was being undertaken would be drawn to the notice of insured persons at the next renewal. I wonder how many noble Lords saw on their last renewal notices any note of warning in regard to this matter. I certainly did not, and my inquiries yesterday of two brokers and five individuals drew this reply, "I do not know what you mean. I thought it would be all right as it always has been". When I asked what they meant by "as it always has been", the reply was, "As when I take the tennis club or the football chaps to a match, or to here, there or anywhere else".
That is not good enough, and in any event the undertaking is now out of date by virtue of the number of passengers who are allowed to be carried. I shall not weary the Committee by giving one instance after another of argument and hassle, discussion and negotiation, that occurs particularly with motor insurance, and invariably after a claim has been made—that is, after an accident has occurred or, indeed, after a prosecution for an offence with regard to insurance. I say not too unkindly that insurance companies are great hagglers. They are great negotiators who have assessors and loss adjusters. These are men for whom the average domestic policy-holder is no match, and it is the average domestic

119
policy-holder who will be the person most likely to engage in car-sharing.
If, as my noble friend Lord Bellwin said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, the Bill is to remove the last obstacles to car-sharing, then that obstacle in regard to insurance must also be removed. There can be no reason whatever why the insurance companies should not be required to include full cover, as provided by the law, for those engaged in car-sharing. It would be for the insurance company to show proof that the policy was invalidated either by carrying more people or charging too much. They have the probability (not the possibility) in the event of a court appearance of gathering together that information which will prove or disprove whether there is an element of profit or whether the payment made is just a contribution towards running costs. It would not be possible for the average motorist to provide that information. Nor, indeed, would it be possible, as we have found in recent years, for the average motorist to bring to the court his argument with the insurance company; that is far too expensive. In respect of those claims of which I have knowledge, invariably the policy-holder backs off and settles for what the insurance company offers him.
This is the case where the original 1930 provision, that insurance shall as a minimum provide for compensation for passenger and third-party liability in the event of an accident, should be included in the event of car-sharing, and that is what the amendment would do. This is not a light matter, and, while I regret delaying my noble friend the Leader of the House who has a Statement to make, this is not a matter which should be passed over as lightly as perhaps the Committee dealt with the first two amendments, and I urge that the subject be given some careful consideration. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says in answer and to any comments that other noble Lords will make. I beg to move.
Lord SOAMES: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

THE CIVIL SERVICE
3.38 p.m.
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, with the leave of the House I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the efficiency and size of the Civil Service. The Statement is as follows:
"The Government have been reviewing the efficiency of the Civil Service in the light of experience gained in our first year in office. The work of the Civil Service divides broadly into two areas. The first is the formulation of policy and the direct support for Ministers in Parliament. The second, on which the great majority of civil servants are engaged, is carrying out the executive tasks which flow from the Government's policies in the manner and to the extent decided by Ministers.
"In the past, Governments have progressively increased the number of tasks the Civil Service is asked to do without paying sufficient attention to the need for economy and efficiency. Consequently, staff numbers have grown over the years. This Government arc committed both to a reduction in tasks and to better management. We believe that we should now concentrate on simplifying the work and doing it more efficiently. The studies which departments have already carried out, including those in conjunction with Sir Derek Rayner, have demonstrated clearly the scope for this.
"All Ministers in charge of departments will now work out detailed plans for concentrating on essential functions, and making operations simpler and more efficient in their departments. The preparation of these plans will be co-ordinated by my noble friend the Lord President of the Council.
"When the Government took office, the size of the Civil Service was 732, 000. As a result of the steps we have already taken, it is now 705, 000. We intend now to bring the number down to about 630, 000 over the next four years.
"I recognise that contracting the size of Government always causes staff both fears of insecurity and genuine anxiety lest important work

121
should suffer. The Government are allowing time to produce the best possible plans, to take account of the legitimate interests of the staff and to encourage them to involve themselves in drawing up proposals for reform. I stress that each year some 80, 000 people leave the Civil Service on retirement or resignation. It should therefore be possible to accommodate a reduction of 75, 000 spread over four years without significant compulsory redundancy. We shall of course be consulting the Civil Service unions about implementing our plans.
"My experience from visiting departments, and that of Ministers and Sir Derek Rayner, is that the staff want to work in, and for, an efficient organisation. I have been particularly impressed by the quality and enthusiasm of the young people I have met. They want more personal responsibility for providing the country with good value for money.
"It is the Government's job to ensure that the structure of the Civil Service, its working methods and the rewards it offers for success bring on the right kinds of talent; give it scope for personal initiative; and offer conditions which promote loyalty and commitment.
"I believe that the great majority of civil servants will welcome the changes which I have described."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.42 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am grateful for the Statement repeated by the Lord President. The Statement has of course been made by the Prime Minister in another place, and that emphasises the importance of it. The noble Lord said:
"In the past, Governments have progressively increased the number of tasks the Civil Service is asked to do without paying sufficient attention to the need for economy and efficiency ".
Surely it is not the Civil Service who are at fault here, but rather Governments—whatever Governments have been in power—over a long period. I think that it is wrong to blame the civil servants in that respect.
There has been considerable press speculation about the further cuts in the
122
Civil Service, and the Government have already made further cutbacks. When they came into office they introduced a ban on recruitment, which led to the loss of 20, 000 posts. On 6th December last year they announced the cutting of a further 39, 000 posts, and the pay settlement announced on 14th March included further reductions averaging 2½ per cent. to reconcile pay research and other pay bargaining arrangements, with a cash limit. This will amount to 15, 000 to 20, 000 jobs.
I should like to know more details relating to each department. I see no reason why the Government should not have given these details. I know that the noble Lord has been very busy elsewhere, and I am not chiding him. I blame the Prime Minister here. I believe that more information should have been given, and I should like to know whether the House will be able to learn of the percentage cuts to be made in each department. I think of my own former Ministry—and the noble Lord's former Ministry—the Ministry of Agriculture. I recall when that Ministry was attacked, and indeed the Agricultural Advisory Service was considerably harmed. Not only was it a useful service to the farming community; it was also a model for advisory services all over the world. I hope that we shall be given more details. I am sorry that the Statement lacks details and precision. There may well be a debate on this matter in another place, and perhaps Ministers will have to indicate what is to happen to specific departments.
It would be a tragedy if the morale of the Civil Service was affected. Morale is important. I have always considered our Civil Service one of the best in the world, but along with other organisations it has had to suffer attacks from people who decry public enterprise. After all, the civil servants make government work in the best sense. I hope that we shall be given much more detail about these proposals, and I regret that the Statement does not contain this.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I am sure that the emphasis on simplifying the work of the Civil Service and carrying it out more efficiently is absolutely right. I am equally sure that the Government must have benefited greatly from the work of Sir Derek Rayner. Of course any

123
reversal in the rate of growth is welcome. On the other hand, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Peart, I wonder whether the target of a reduction of 75, 000 posts over a period of four years is not in fact unambitious. The fault here does not lie with the Civil Service; it lies with Governments. I wonder whether, by reducing the number of tasks that we place upon the Civil Service, we could not in fact achieve an even greater reduction over this period.
I should like to ask two questions of the noble Lord the Leader of the House. First, when is it proposed to issue a further bulletin giving much more detail, particularly of the departments and organisations affected? For instance, is the Bank of England affected? Is the Foreign Office affected? We should like to know. Secondly, what arrangements will be made to ensure that the reductions in some departments are not offset by increases in others?
3.46 p.m.
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, I shall try to address myself to the questions of the noble Lords, Lord Peart and Lord Byers. I turn first to the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Peart. I hope that he did not get me wrong. I said:
"In the past, Governments have progressively increased the number of tasks the Civil Service is asked to do without paying sufficient attention to the need for economy and efficiency ".
That refers to Governments. I was not blaming the Civil Service in that regard, and I should like to make that absolutely clear. The noble Lord has been a member of a Government that has been guilty of this; so have I—and in our own department, too. I recall the years that I spent in Government in the 'fifties. At that time Ministers tended to leave the actual management of departments to their permanent secretaries, and now the situation has grown to such a size that Ministers must take a grip of it themselves. This has not traditionally been done by Governments over the past years, since the war.
The noble Lord raised the question of morale. Here I quite agree with what was said. The noble Lord spoke of speculation in the press. I think that nothing is worse than speculation. Indeed, uncertainty is the worst enemy of morale. It was in order to make it clear at what
124
the Government were aiming over the next four years that we thought it right to make an announcement to Parliament as soon as the figure had been decided.
I turn to the question of being more specific. In December when I announced what was, in effect, a cut of about 5 per cent. we were specific. At the time I said that there was more to come, and since then we have made the best judgment we could of the scope for further reductions over the next four years; that is, the four years from April 1980 to April 1984. We have not done this without evidence from, for example, Sir Derek Rayner's scrutinies and from staff insepction. I am not in a position to be more specific. We have been specific in regard to quite a lot, and as Ministers decide where savings are to be made, they will themselves make announcements to Parliament. There will of course be announcements to Parliament from time to time. The noble Lord, Lord Byers—
Lord PEART: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting? Will there be a time limit in regard to announcements?
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, I do not think that I should like to commit my right honourable and honourable friends to any particular time limit regarding announcements. We announced quite a considerable chunk of reductions in the past, and we are now giving what we consider a proper figure at which to aim over the course of four years. I think that there will be announcements when Ministers feel it right to inform Parliament. This involves not just the Civil Service Department, but individual Ministers in charge of their respective departments; and I think that there will be announcements when they think it right to inform Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, wondered whether we were going far enough in aiming at 630,000. One can never be absolutely sure. It will be a considerable reduction. As I say, when we took office a year ago it was over 730, 000. It is a reduction of more than 100, 000 over four years. We think that this is about the right figure. I cannot be absolutely specific or precise, but we thought it right to inform Parliament that after a good deal of heart-searching and examination

125
in every department this, we thought, was about the figure for which it would be right to aim.
Lord PLANT: My Lords, I think the Civil Service will receive this Statement with great dismay, and what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has said with even greater dismay. What the noble Lord, Lord Soames, has said will not be welcomed by the Civil Service. I am not conscious that there are many young clerical officers and executive officers straining at the leash and reaching up to do better work, for this reason. It is only recently that we had the inquiry by the noble Lord, Lord Fulton, which in my view was somewhat of a mistake. There, the words used were very similar to those which the noble Lord, Lord Soames, has used. The Civil Service has suffered many commissions, Royal Commissions and inquiries into their efficiency over the last 35 years, and now, apparently, it is to suffer another one. Of course you can save staff, but what about the black economy? What about the unfortunate position in social security, and the checking that is needed? What about the customs officers, with more work to do in preventing arms and drugs coming into the country? If we reduce the size of the Civil Service, we are not going to give as good and effective a service to the public as we are giving now; and if we take short-cuts then of course we can reduce the size of the Civil Service, but at the same time we shall increase the black economy and, I believe, give less service to the public.
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Plant, generalises a bit when he says that the Civil Service will be dismayed by this. There may well be some civil servants who are, but I think there will be a lot who are not. I think there are a lot who will be only too glad to see and feel that they are working in an effective and efficient machine which has been slimmed down and which has the prospect of being able to do its task efficiently and without undue waste. I think a lot of them will think this. In fact, I know a lot of them do and will. But this is not to say that all of them will, and this is not to say that there will not be personal anxieties. I appreciate that; but I really do not think it is right to say that it will not be well received.
126
I am sorry, but I am reminded that I did not answer one of the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, asked me, and the noble Lord, Lord Plant, as well, as to the position in areas where there will need to be increases in the number of civil servants. This, of course, we have needed to take into account. About 11, 000 more will be probably needed this coming year—the figure may well be of the order of 10, 000 or 11, 000; I do not know exactly—for a number of reasons; but this we have taken into account over the course of the next four years. It is certainly not our intention to increase the black economy, but the argument that by increasing the number of civil servants in any particular area you necessarily catch more people who are trying to do evil things is not always true. Certainly it is something which has to be taken into account, and I can assure the noble Lord that it has been taken into account in our assessment.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether he is aware, as he must be aware, that for several years now, in certain quarters, there has been a demand for a reduction in the number of civil servants without any logical reason for it being offered? There has been almost a passion for cutting down. He is aware, no doubt, that in the mining industry a few years ago the notion was conceived that in order to improve the industry and make it efficient the best thing to do was to close down a large number of pits—only to discover, subsequently, that that was a blunder. Is he not aware that when Dr. Beeching was entrusted with the task ot promoting greater efficiency in the railway services he cut out a vast number of branch lines, only to discover that it adversely affected the people who wanted to use transport in the ordinary fashion?
I ask the noble Lord these questions for this reason. Does he not think that the Government should exercise a little caution in this matter? Is he not aware that those of us who have been Ministers of the Crown over a period of years have always had a great pride in the Civil Service? Occasionally there have been complaints, but more often than not we found ourselves understaffed, not overmanned. Why is it that civil servants are required? Is it because of Government demand?

127
The answer is, Yes. But why do Governments demand more civil servants? It is because of Questions asked in another place and in your Lordships' House, and demands that are made by institutions all over the country—the CBI, the TUC and a vast number of other organisations. That is why we require civil servants. Would it not be better, before a plan is conceived by consultation with Ministers of the Crown, for the organisations of civil servants to be asked themselves, in an effort to promote efficiency, to consider the situation and to suggest a plan, and for the Government to consider those suggestions of the civil servants before conceiving a plan and then asking the civil servants to accept it?
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, I think it is a false analogy to look at the Civil Service in the same light as closing down pits or closing down railway lines. They are really not the same. What we are seeking to have here is a Civil Service which can do what government needs of it and can serve the nation well; but I do not think that anybody, not least the Civil Service itself, would like to think that there are more civil servants than are necessary to do the job. This is not an exact science. I do not know what the noble Lord thinks should be the right size for the Civil Service. What we are saying is that, taking into account the examination which we have given to this over a year in office, we think that 630, 000 after four years is the right figure at which to aim. I hope that the noble Lord will believe us in this, that this, we think, is in the best interests of the nation, including the Government. I assure him that his Questions will still be answered, as will the CBI's and those by all the other organisations. But it is not just that. Of course, it is a very broad area, industrial and non-industrial, that we are covering here. As to the civil servants being asked to co-operate in this and to make suggestions themselves, I assure the noble Lord that this is exactly what is happening.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, while supporting the principles which my noble friend has put forward, may I ask two questions? First, will the Government also relate this to examining carefully the tasks which the Civil Service
128
are being asked to carry out? Following up what the noble Lord, Lord Peart, said, I am sure that Governments have asked civil servants to do more than their job has required them to do in certain cases. My second question is: Will the Government examine the classification which is used for civil servants? For example, the Post Office and all its workers were at one time civil servants, and I understand that when a change took place they ceased to be civil servants, causing a significant reduction in the total numbers. At present, the equivalent of this is in the Home Office and the Scottish Office where a very large proportion of the civil servants are prison warders. At the Scottish Office, it was my duty to examine the tasks of civil servants in relation to their numbers and I found that about one-third were prison warders. I was also hoping for the police to be successful in catching criminals. So on the one hand one was being successful with the police force and, on the other hand, it meant larger numbers of those who are technically civil servants. I ask that the classification of civil servants should be looked at so that it roughly corresponds with what most people in the country regard as civil servants.
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend, of course the tasks performed are a vital element in this connection. This is not just a question of doing things better; it is also one of how many things have to be done, of examining whether or not we are asking for an unnecessary number of things to be done or for some things to be done in a too gold-plated and Rolls-Royce fashion, and whether we could not do things more cheaply. I think the nation will be pleased about this. We are not doing this just for cost considerations, but cost has its importance. A 10 per cent. reduction in the size of the Civil Service is equal to about £500 million a year of taxpayers' money. The civil servants themselves think that they owe it to the taxpayer that it should be done rightly, and properly. I assure my noble friend that we are not intending to do this by any sleight of hand, by saying that from now on there will be no prison warders counted as civil servants and that therefore we have reduced the size of the Civil Service by x amount. I assure him that that will not be our intention.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, will the Government give us a little more information? It is a bit much to come along and say, "We know how many we are aiming for, but we do not know how we are going to do it". As does the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, I recall the Scottish Office very well. Are we going to cut anything at all in the prison service either in Scotland or in England?—because, if not, it means a heavier burden of cuts elsewhere. There can be no suggestion that this has never been done before. I remember that we had it when Mr. Roy Jenkins was Chancellor of the Exchequer, when we were going to cut the "Mrs. Mopps" in Whitehall. And how much money did we save? We then employed contract labour and probably got not such a good service at probably even more cost.
I am also concerned to know not just the savings in cost but also that we tell the public of the conseqences. I can remember very considerable concern—and I do not know if it is any better in the Scottish Office now—about the delays that people experienced in waiting for public inquiries, not big public inquiries but small ones, in relation to some change affecting a house. Sometimes it was over 18 months. If we are going to make cuts, then the public will have to wait for essential services. As my noble friend Lord Shinwell said, it is a popular cry: "Cut the Civil Service"—but we should tell the people the consequences. The Government cannot do that, because they do not know where they are going to cut. It is a bit much taking Parliament for granted in your Lordships' House by saying, "We are cutting by another 75, 000, but we do not know where". We ought to have a proper plan before us.
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, I beg to differ from the noble Lord in that we have already expressed a lot of specific intentions where reductions are concerned. The saving of some 40, 000 posts which I announced early in December last year related specifically to various departments where the cuts would fall. I agree with the noble Lord that there is no question of everybody doing an exact 10 per cent. over four years. That cannot be so. Some will cut less, some will have no cuts at all, and others we hope may be able to cut more than that. I hope the House does not think that the Government should
130
never seek to give information of where we are intending to go until we are ready with every detail of how we are going to get there. I assure the noble Lord that, as time goes on, announcements will be made to the House.
Lord PEART: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me one question, there is no mention of the industrial Civil Service. They are important from the point of view of defence in our dockyards. Why are they not included in the Statement?
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, this will apply both to the industrials and to the non-industrials.
Lord BALLANTRAE: My Lords, as a fool I rush in where so many distinguished angels have been treading. I want to make three points. The first is that I think there was far more to the analogies made by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, then the noble Lord, Lord Soames, was prepared to concede. There is a lot to be learned from some excessive cuts made in the past. My second point is that we must all concede that the Civil Service and local government services have swollen far beyond what is tolerable; and I think it is only right that we should look at this and set a figure towards amending it, a figure from which we can withdraw if it proves necessary. My third and last point is that we must all be aware of some fields where staffs have swollen ludicrously in proportion; and that one is the field of planning. You must now ask permission to put a window in your house. I have been waiting for 10 months for permission to put up a sign over a charity of which I am the chairman. This is one field, and there are many other fields where the "chop" is long overdue.
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, what the noble Lord was talking of when he mentioned planning was an area which falls within local government. This is not what I am talking of today. I am speaking of the Civil Service and Central Government. But I do not in any way disagree with what the noble Lord has said. There are great areas in local government too where staffs have increased beyond all recognition over the years and the ratepayers are paying very highly for it. We would hope that the same sort of

131
exercise will be done in local government as well.
Lord CLEDWYN of PENRHOS: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the Government propose to do two things; first, to reduce the size of the Civil Service and, secondly, to remove inefficiency in the Civil Service. Can the noble Lord indicate to the House where, in his view and in the Government's view, this inefficiency occurs and precisely what plans the Government have to improve the efficiency of the service?
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, to improve efficiency, rather than to remove inefficiency, is the best way to put it. We all know that in an organisation of 700, 000 people there is always room for improvement in efficiency.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I ask whether the way to increase efficiency is to build up a bigger and bigger army of unemployed people? That is the very simple question that I ask the noble Lord.
Lord SOAMES: No, my Lords, I would not agree with the noble Baroness that that is our thought, or that it would be right. The object is not to remove employment but to have an efficient Civil Service.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether the Government can circulate a detailed list showing, department by department, what reductions are being made? Will it show whether any reductions are being made, for example, in the number of income tax collectors?
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, I have no doubt that the Inland Revenue is decreasing in size; but the size of the Inland Revenue depends very much on the structure of taxation. As to the publication, I will bear in mind what the noble Lord has said. Perhaps he will forgive me for not answering immediately.
My Lords, would not the House think that there is a good deal of work to get through—not that I am seeking to defend myself; for I rather enjoy it—and that it would be best to continue with that work?

TRANSPORT BILL
4.10 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Baroness STEDMAN: If I may support the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, he and I had rather lengthy—I hope usually friendly—correspondence on this subject a couple of years ago when the earlier Bill was going through. We thought that we had gone as far as we could to meet the point he so adequately described today. Now we have a new Bill it might be sensible if it is written into the legislation. I therefore support the amendment.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: Knowing the great experience of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, when I first saw his amendment I made a number of researches into what he said, what happened on Second Reading, two years ago and into the sections of the Acts referred to in his amendment. What impressed me about his submissions was that this is a matter which concerns the average domestic holder. He would want full cover for those engaged in car-sharing. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred realistically to the problems that the domestic car driver may have with his insurance company. Therefore it seems to me, prima facie, unless the Minister can persuade me otherwise, that there is at least a case made out for reconsideration of the wording of the Bill in relation to this matter. Clarification in regard to the use by the average domestic holder seems to be an important social matter in relation to this part of the Bill.
Lord TEVIOT: I too should like to support this amendment. I also recall when the House was considering the 1978 Transport Act that there was doubt over the insurance issue. Eminent legal opinion has indicated that the MIB's undertaking was hardly worth the paper that it was written upon. It is a difficult matter to deal with because enforcement is a problem. Defects do not seem to come to light until a car-sharing passenger is killed in an accident. Fortunately, this has not so far happened frequently. This amendment seems to clarify the position in insurance and appears to fit the bill at a time when the practice of lift-giving is being encouraged.
Lord BELLWIN: May I begin by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, that I can assure him and other members of the Committee about their concern. I will endeavour to do that in a moment. May I say that I entirely accept what my noble friend Lord Lucas said, that this is not a matter that should be passed over lightly. It is one of considerable importance and arguably one of the most important aspects of this part of the Bill. My noble friend said very fairly that this amendment is precisely the one that he put down in 1978. I suggest that it disregards the most important factor of all; namely, what has in practice transpired since his amendment was put down two years ago. I will come to that in a moment. It is a cardinal principle of this Government that statutory regulation should be avoided except when it is demonstrably necessary, and my noble friend Lord Lucas has not convinced me that it is necessary here. I will endeavour to convince the members of the Committee. The purpose of the compulsory insurance provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1972 is to ensure that funds are available to meet the cost of compensation for damages awarded to an injured third party or, in the case of death, to his dependants, in respect of a common law liability incurred by the user of a motor vehicle. This requirement covers passengers, and cannot be avoided by whether or not they are contributing towards the cost of their journey. Passengers are required by the present law to be covered by insurance against personal injury, whatever the use of the vehicle or conditions under which they are carried, and I state categorically that neither the provisions of the Bill nor the proposed amendment would have any effect on these requirements.
There is absolutely no question of any award of damages for death or injury to passengers or other third parties not being paid. Their position is protected unconditionally by arrangements of long standing between the Minister and the Motor Insurers' Bureau under which the bureau is required to meet any unsatisfied judgment for personal injuries if for any reason the negligent driver was uninsured. None of the provisions in the Bill affects those arrangements in any way. The only possible uncertainty is over the motorist's own liability to his insurers,
134
coupled with the question of damage to vehicles and other property.
I say this as clearly as I am able: We are satisfied that motorists who share their cars are fully safeguarded as far as insurance is concerned by the undertaking given by the motor insurers in 1978 and sent to all their policy holders. This makes clear that the condition in insurance policies prohibiting use of the vehicle "for hire or reward" does not apply to car-sharing arrangements provided that not more than seven passengers (to be increased to eight by the Bill) are carried; and that passengers are not being carried in the course of a business of carrying passengers; and that the total contributions received do not involve an element of profit. I simply cannot conceive of a motorist taking contributions within the provision of this Bill and of the undertaking being accused of driving uninsured, or of an insurance company repudiating the undertaking. Someone who pretends to be operating a non-commercail car-sharing but is in fact in business is, of course, in a different position—and rightly.
I should like, furthermore, to point out that we know of no problems which have arisen in this area since the undertaking was given. However, to clarify the position still further, Clause 2 of the Bill defines when a motorist may accept contributions from his passengers without risking being in the course of a business of carrying passengers. As long as the fares paid do not exceed the running costs for the vehicle of the journey, including an amount for depreciation and general wear, and as long as the arrangements for the payment of fares were made before the journey began, then the journey will not be treated as made in the course of a business of carrying passengers.
We have discussed the car-sharing provisions in the Bill with the Motor Conference. They do not think it necessary to alter their undertaking and are happy with the Bill's provisions on car-sharing. We have fully discussed this as I have said, and I repeat—because I think it is of great importance—that they are happy as to that. They are against reference in the main legislation to car insurance such as my noble friend Lord Lucas is pressing for; they consider this to be both unnecessary and undesirable

135
on the ground that it would be an interference in the contract between the motorist and his insurer. It is significant that whereas in 1978 the insurance side worried the AA and the RAC, both organisations are now completely satisfied with the working of the undertaking. Neither we nor the Motor Conference are aware of any insurance problems stemming from the undertaking or car-sharing generally and neither the AA nor RAC have commented adversely about the provisions in the Bill.
In the light of this, I cannot accept that the kind of interference in the contract between the motorist and his insurer which this amendment involves is either necessary or desirable; indeed, in so far as the amendment would act only in relation to personal injury while the undertaking applies to the whole of the policy, it would actually be a retrograde step. In view of this, I ask my noble friend to consider withdrawing his amendment.
4.19 p.m.
Lord MISHCON: I wonder whether the Minister would forgive me if I extract from something he has just said the words that appear to be an understanding with the insurance companies
" but shall not include any clement of profit."?
I wonder whether in uttering those words he was either quoting by way of complement the amendment which he said was unnecessary when we were dealing with the question of car-sharing, or whether it just occurred in his brief and he was merely reading it out?
How necessary, when the Government come to reconsider the wording, as the noble Lord promised they would, it now becomes that words such as were suggested do in fact occur. It is all very well to talk in terms of understandings with insurance companies. Some of us who have the greatest respect for and the most cordial relationships with our insurance companies know that others have found to their cost that a debate very often occurs when an insurance company feels either that it has an excuse for repudiating liability or a reason for recovering from the party insured. Would it not be very dangerous if, purely in reliance on the clause we were considering a moment ago that there would in fact be no element of
136
profit, the person sharing the car did not have brought to his notice on any view, though I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, very, very clearly the necessity of not having any element of profit in the charge that was being made?—otherwise he might indeed find himself liable to his insurers in view of the very words mentioned by the noble Lord the Minister.
Lord BELLWIN: What I said when I touched earlier on the point of profit still stands. We cannot ignore what is surely the most significant factor of all, to my mind. We must look at what has happened and at the experience we have had in the two years since this very same point was made in detail in an amendment in the same wording. It was discussed and debated at some length then, and obviously at that time it must have given rise to concern. What has been the experience? What could be better as a guide to us than that? The evidence is that we have observations by those very important bodies such as the AA and the RAC. They have to be people of standing in this whole scene, and they have said categorically, "We are satisfied". The Motor Conference has also said, "We are satisfied". If they all say they are satisfied then, while I take the point which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, put forward so ably, as always, I think that in the context of where we are standing in relation to this amendment we are entitled to say: "We can be satisfied on this". Certainly, I am.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: I am obliged to those of your Lordships who have spoken. If I may, I should like to start right at the beginning with the 1972 Act. I am no lawyer, but in Section 145 (3) (a), we have this, in respect of requirements in relation to policies of insurance:
"the policy … must insure such person, persons or classes of persons as may be specified in the policy in respect of any liability which may be incurred by him or them in respect of the death or bodily injury to any person caused by, or arising out of, the use of the vehicle on a road; …"
It goes further in subsection (4) and says this:
"The policy shall not, by virtue of subsection (3) (a) above, be required to cover … any contractual liability ".
Notwithstanding what has been said about the intentions of car-sharing, there

137
comes this matter of money, and as soon as money changes hands a contract is entered into. It is no good at the end of the day the AA, the RAC, or anybody else, arguing that the amount of money involved does or does not constitute a contract. This matter is primarily going to affect what I call the domestic policyholder, and these people are not people who can or do afford to take this kind of argument through the courts. In any event, if one were bold enough to do so this would be a test case and it would cost a fortune. Most of us would shy away from it.
Of course the Motor Conference are happy: if I belonged to that body I should be delighted that the law was not going to apply to me and that in this instance I could rest on an undertaking I give, on an understanding between me and the Government. That past Governments have relied upon it and that there has been no difficulty or no claim does not reduce the strength of my argument. I would anticipate, judging by what Her Majesty's Government have said throughout these debates, that car-sharing is going to increase considerably. That is the hope, the intention and the desire. Therefore, the law should be enacted now rather than when it is too late.

CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Falkland, V.

Lee of Newton, L.

Airedale, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Listowel, E.

Amherst, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ampthill, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L. [Teller.]

Auckland, L.

Galpern, L.

Loudoun, C.

Aylestone, L.

Garner, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L. [Teller.]

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

McCarthy, L.

Balogh, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Maelor, L.

Banks, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Minto, E.

Barrington, V.

Gosford, E.

Mishcon, L.

Blease, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Oram, L.

Blyton, L.

Grey, E.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Brockway, L.

Hale, L.

Rhodes, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hall, V.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hampton, L.

Rochester, L.

Byers, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Cairns, E.

Hayter, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Henderson, L.

Sandford, L.

Clwyd, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Seear, B.

Collison, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Craigavon, V.

Jacques, L.

Shinwell, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Janner, L.

Simon, V.

Darling of Hillsborough, L

Jeger, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

David, B.

Kaldor, L.

Spens, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Stamp, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L

Killearn, L.

Stedman, B.

De Freyne, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Denington, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Stone, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strabolgi, L.

138
I must confess to some little surprise at having the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman: of course, I am delighted. The reason she gave for supporting my amendment was that events have changed in two years. She now believes it would be right to include this provision. My noble friend Lord Bellwin argues that we should look at our experience of what has happened in two years. He said I disregarded the practice. He said nothing had happened. I am absolutely delighted: indeed, it would be a tragedy if anything had happened and I hope nothing happens in the foreseeable future, because that, too would be a tragedy.
I do not quite know where the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, now stands, but I believe that my case is better than that of my noble friend, and I am going to ask your Lordships' Committee to decide whether my case is better than his.
4.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 104; Non- Contents, 84.

Strauss, L.

Tranmire, L.

Whaddon, L.

Swinton, E.

Underhill, L.

White, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Vivian, L.

Wise, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Teviot, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Elton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Milverton, L.

Allerton, L.

Exeter, M.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Amory, V.

Gormanston, V.

Newall, L.

Avon, E.

Gowrie, E.

Norfolk, D.

Bellwin, L.

Gridlcy, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Berkeley, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Bessborough, E.

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

Onslow, E.

Birdwood, L.

Orkney, E.

Booth by, L.

Henley, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hereford, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Hillingdon, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Redmayne, L.

Caccia, L.

Inglewood, L.

Romney, E.

Cathcart, E.

Kilmany, L.

Rosslyn, E.

Chesham, L.

Kimberley, E.

St. Davids, V.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Lauderdale, E,

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Clitheroe, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Savile, L.

Croft, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Selkirk, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Long, V.

Sharpies, B.

Daventry, V.

Luke, L.

Somers, L.

Davidson, V.

Lyell, L.

Strathspey, L.

de Clifford, L.

McFadzean, L.

Swansea, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Donegall, M.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trumpington, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mancroft, L.

Vickers, B.

Ebbisham, L.

Margadale, L.

Young, B.

Effingham, E.

Marley, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.36 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 27, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: For the convenience of the Committee, with this amendment I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 18, 19, 110, 188, 189 and 192. I said on Second Reading that, as part of our policy of seeking to open up as many ways as possible of meeting people's varied transport needs, I would move at Committee stage an amendment to give a new power to local education authorities to carry fare-paying adults on their own school buses, where they have spare capacity. I added that, at present, the position is that buses provided on contract to education authorities might pick up adults and charge them, but that in the small number of cases where the authorities themselves owned the vehicles, they had no powers to take fare-paying adults. This group of amendments meets the undertaking that I gave, and empowers
140
local education authorities to carry ordinary fare-paying passengers on school buses belonging to them.
There are various features of the amendments to which I should like to draw attention. First, the maximum flexibility will be allowed. It is not only on journeys to and from school that school buses will be able to carry other passengers, but also at times of the day and of the year when they are not required for their primary purposes. That will enable the maximum benefit from the new power to be gained by the travelling public. Secondly, as subsection (2) of the new clause states, in very clear terms, the existing duties of authorities to carry pupils free remains quite unaffected.
Thirdly, road service licences will be required and the traffic commissioners will judge services provided by school vehicles just like those provided by any other operator. Fourthly, the present status of vehicles owned by local education authorities in respect of public service vehicle licensing will be maintained, and operators' licensing will not be required of them. The Government have carefully considered and rejected the case for imposing restrictions

141
on such vehicles that they do not have at present.
It would be wrong to claim that this new freedom is of major importance, or that it will solve the rural transport problem. But it will remove a quite unnecessary restriction on the use of a few vehicles, and I hope that local authorities will seize the opportunities it gives them to provide services that would otherwise not be provided and, at the same time, to earn a little income. I beg to move.
Lord UNDERHILL: May I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for letting a few of us have a note on this clause, which has been very helpful and has enabled us in the last few hours to take a very careful look at it. I must ask: Is this a public transport decision, or is it a decision in an endeavour to get more revenue for education, in the light of the rejection of the proposal regarding school transport? When that decision was taken to remove the proposal to charge for school transport, we believed that we would have the status quo as laid down in the 1953 Act. One important provision there was that, in England and Wales, if there were any vacant seats they could be filled with pupils not entitled to free places, provided that the traffic commissioners gave consent. I want to emphasise that, because I shall come back to it in a moment.
In those provisions, it was also added that consent must not be given if any other transport facilities are available. Up to then, there were tighter provisions in Scotland; any spare seats had to be given free to any pupils who were not entitled to free transport. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has made it quite clear that there may be only a few authorities which will be affected by this, but I would stress that the numbers are irrelevant; it is the principles which matter.
Under the proposals, there is now to be power to pick up and therefore, presumably, to set down passengers on journeys to and from school in connection with free transport where the vehicle is owned by the education authority and, in addition, the power to run a stage bus service during the day when the vehicles are idle and also at weekends and during school holidays. We are very pleased
142
to note that it is made absolutely clear—the noble Lord stressed this himself—that road service licensing will be required in both of these cases.
At present, as I have already stressed, if there is a desire in England and Wales to pick up pupils for payment in addition to those who are entitled to free transport, the consent of the commissioners is needed. I emphasise that consent must not be given if other transport facilities are available. These two provisions do not appear anywhere in the new clause. If that is the instruction given to traffic commissioners in connection with a very limited scheme, why are those instructions not going to be given to the commissioners in connection with this greatly extended scheme?
If I read the new clause correctly, we must bear in mind that it does not cover merely rural areas or isolated areas with limited transport. It covers all areas. This could be another example of adopting what appears to be a useful innovation in order to provide additional transport, and then finding that it could severely damage existing services. If an education authority decided to run a bus service—which it would have the right to do, provided the commissioners approved—no doubt they would run it where it was profitable, otherwise they would not trouble to run it. It would be ironic if, as a result of this scheme, an education authority damages a public service scheme running in the area of that authority, because in general it will be a shire county.
Incidentally, may I ask the noble Lord whether the phrase "local bus service" needs improved definition? What is "local"? Does it mean the area of the education authority only? If so, it seems to me that it should be made quite clear in the Bill, otherwise they could run a stage local service in someone else's locality.
Viscount SIMON: If the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening, can he explain to me what he is dealing with? I cannot relate what the noble Lord is saying to the amendment, which is simply to leave out subsection (5). The noble Lord spoke about a new clause.
Lord UNDERHILL: The noble Lord said that he was speaking to a number of

143
other clauses, including Amendment No. 110, which is the major amendment. That is the one upon which I am spending most of my time. I was asking whether or not the word "local" required better definition. Presumably there is no provision for any district council which may be affected to be consulted on these proposals. It would be a very difficult situation if the district council itself had a passenger transport undertaking and yet the education authority was going to apply to the commissioners for a service in that particular area.
The noble Lord said that he thought the various provisions which are not going to be covered would be unnecessary in the case of education authority buses, but I would put it to your Lordships that this is most unsatisfactory and even dangerous. When I look at the provisions which are not going to apply, Section 15 relates to powers of, and facilities for, the inspection of public service vehicles. Why is that not going to apply to a school bus? Section 16 relates to the need for a PSV to have a certificate of initial fitness, yet it has been said that that will not apply in this case. Section 17 relates to the power of a certifying officer or a PSV examiner to prohibit the driving of an unfit public service vehicle, yet that provision is excluded. Section 18 relates to the need to have a public service vehicle operator's licence. Why is a school bus which is to be used, provided the commissioners agree, on a local bus stage service not required to have a PSV operator's licence?
Then we find that Section 144 of the 1960 Act is not to be included. Section 144 provides that a person shall not drive a public service vehicle unless licensed to do so. Why should a school bus which is running on a local stage bus service not have that requirement which every other stage bus service would require? Surely this is ill considered. It may even be dangerous from the standpoint of safety that these items are going to be excluded although they apply to all other public service vehicles.
While there are features in this amendment which may appear to be an encouraging development so far as providing transport in a few areas is concerned, it is fraught with many problems. Therefore
144
I am wondering whether or not this is a case of a hastily contrived amendment which has not been thought out, consequential upon another decision taken by this House.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: May I join the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in thanking the noble Lord the Minister for his help in sending us copies of the notes in relation to some of the new clauses? When I listened to him making his submission in relation to his amendments, I thought he was very persuasive and that what he said should have support, but having regard to what I have heard now from the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I must say that I am a little confused. It is entirely my fault for being confused, because while I was struggling to take my seat, having been a Teller in the Division, I missed the numbers of the amendments to which the noble Lord the Minister said he was speaking. May I therefore ask for his indulgence and apologise to him for not having had that list adequately noted before I made my submissions?
Lord BELLWIN: May I, in turn, apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. I had not realised that one was quite so quick off the mark, or that the extent of the opposition which he was counting was so great as so to delay his return to the Committee.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I am not criticising the noble Lord's efficiency!
Lord BELLWIN: I will gladly repeat again the numbers of the other amendments which I am including. They are amendments Nos. 18, 19, 110, 118, 189 and 192.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord.
Lord BELLWIN: If I was unable on the last amendment to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, of the strength of the case I was arguing, I would at least hope to be more successful on this occasion. May I therefore begin by picking up the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill? The first, and I think the most important to make absolutely clear, is that the intention of this amendment is not in any way to seek to replace what might be lost by a local

145
authority because of what transpired in the Education Bill as regards school transport. I thought that I had said that quite clearly—and I repeat it, though not gladly because I hoped I would not have to do so. But I certainly do confirm that.
As to the other points which were made, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said that this could severely damage the existing bus services. With great respect, this really is not so because, all else apart, the commissioners would hardly give a licence if that were so. I have to stress again, if I did not make it sufficiently clear last time, that such a licence would be required.
The noble Lord asked for a definition of "local bus service". It means all that fits within the definition of a stage carriage service.
Lord UNDERHILL: If the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, I appreciate his explanation but I should like to know this: In what locality would a local bus service apply? Would it be the area of the education authority? If so, that is not made clear in the Bill. Or would it be a local bus service anywhere?
Lord BELLWIN: Among other parts of this definition of a stage carriage service, I understand that it covers a 30-mile area, and I would assume that would apply in this case also, but, if I should have any reason to state otherwise I might, at a later date, confirm or deny that.
As to the other points, I think the noble Lord said that consents would be unduly restrictive, but in our view road service licensing does give an adequate safeguard against unfair competition. The other points made referred in the main to the fact that there is a genuine concern—and rightly so—about matters of safety. On that point clearly it must be of the essence of this amendment that local authorities are fully responsible bodies and in our view can be trusted to maintain safety standards; but in any case, leaving that aside, annual testing under the roadworthiness directive will apply to these as to all other large passenger vehicles. It has to be said that the Labour Party was quite content through all its years of government to allow school children to be carried in these same vehicles about which
146
they are now expressing such concern as soon as we are simply allowing adults to be carried in them.
On the point of the drivers' licences, which also is a safety factor, again we prefer to leave it to the local authorities to decide what qualifications to require of their drivers. But I should like to repeat that all such vehicles involved will require road service licences, with all the obligations attached to that. Therefore I cannot go along with all the concern that has been expressed by noble Lords opposite in connection with safety.
I feel that this amendment has merit. It is right that there should be questions as to all the implications of it. It comes at a late date, without too much time to consider it. It covers the key points of safety, but the fact that, at the end of the day it really only concerns a handful of vehicles, leads one to say, "Why have it at all, if that is all it does?" The fact is, however, that it is an opportunity, and I commend it strongly to your Lordships.
Lord TEVIOT: Having listened to my noble friend, I must confess that I am not happy with this amendment. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, intends to do about it but I think we should perhaps try to amend it on Report stage. There are certainly quite a lot of things which need to be done to this clause. My noble friend commented on the questions of safety—the PSV fitness tests and the PSV driver, and the fact that these vehicles were being allowed to carry school children, so why should they not carry adults? Also it could be said, why have PSV fitness tests at all, or why have PSV drivers?
The noble Lord also said that it is hardly likely to harm existing services because the commissioners are unlikely to grant licences where there are other services. I am not convinced because if there is a changing pattern I think it is a very dangerous area to allow local authorities to use their school transport vehicles for other purposes—except that perhaps something might be considered whereby existing companies could hire the local authority's vehicles if they saw fit, but only if these vehicles come under the standard requirements, that is, PSV fitness or those that have PSV drivers.
4.55 p.m.
The Earl of MINTO: I apologise to the Committee for the fact that I was not present at the Second Reading of this Bill and perhaps I should declare an interest in it, in so far as I happen to be a deputy traffic commissioner for the traffic area of Scotland. I have not had the advantage enjoyed by certain noble Lords today of having placed before me the information that has obviously been of great use to them, so I may be speaking marginally out of place. However I should like to say this to your Lordships: if I have read the amendments correctly, we are in a position where the education authority will be able to use the school buses to all intents and purposes as stage carriages and although they have road service licences—and that provides a certain defence mechanism—the vehicle would not need to comply with PSV standards. As a traffic commissioner, that concerns me very much indeed.
The education authority would not need an operator's licence and the driver of the vehicle would not need a PSV licence. I think that is what has been said by other noble Lords and that is my interpretation of this particular amendment. If this is true, then I consider that this relaxation is really indefensible. As traffic commissioners we have enough trouble already with works' buses taking people to work. Admittedly, I suppose the people on those particular buses are to a certain extent defended by the Health and Safety at Work Act, but that would not apply in this particular area and I do not think there is a record of proof that the education authorities are good operators. The local authority transport undertakings are extremely good operators and they have to comply with all the restrictions of the traffic commissioners. Then suddenly along comes the education authority, which have no operating experience whatever, and they have these relaxations made for them. Speaking as an individual traffic commissioner—and I have to say that, although I know that my view is shared by many of my colleagues—I do not like this amendment one little bit.
Lord BELLWIN: So far as the Scottish side is concerned, the Scottish education authorities' duty to carry pupils is in no way affected by this clause. Their first
148
duty will continue to be to pick up pupils, as at present. I can only repeat what I said earlier, that this relaxation, freedom—call it what we will—which it is proposed to give to local education authorities is only to provide stage carriage services, and the traffic commissioners (and J suppose it is most apt that the noble Earl himself is a traffic commissioner) will have their normal responsibility to ensure that competition is not unfair. So long as we are satisfied about the safety aspects, then I think this minor relaxation that is proposed should be made within the context of all this Bill seeks to do, which is, if you like, to make freer the opportunities for everyone to improve the facilities for transport throughout the country, which, in my view, really fall short of what we want them to be. Therefore, I hope your Lordships will accept this amendment.
Lord UNDERHILL: The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has said that this is a minor matter, with the number of vehicles involved. I am sure your Lordships would agree that it would not matter if only half a dozen were involved. We all know that there have in recent years been a number of most unfortunate accidents affecting public service vehicles, and we cannot play ducks and drakes when we are moving passengers about. The noble Lord said the commissioners would hardly give a licence. Well, why have we got in the present provisions, in the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1953, that before consent is given to an education authority to use its bus to pick up children other than those who are being taken free the commissioners must be satisfied that there are no other transport facilities available? That is the instruction now.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: In England.
Lord UNDERHILL: In England and Wales. Why is there any doubt about putting that in the new clause so as to give a direction to the commissioners as to exactly what they should do? I cannot see why. We are looking at it from that angle.
We are looking at it also from the point of view of safety. I would reiterate that the Act is quite clear, the clause is

149
quite clear. It states the sections which will not apply. I will not weary your Lordships by going through them again. But they are very important safety provisions. If there was only the one, the fact alone that the driver—although he or she may be on a stage bus service because the commissioner has granted a licence—need not be a driver licensed to drive a public service vehicle, should make us very doubtful about approving this particular clause. In the absence of any definite assurances to this Committee that

CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mancroft, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Elton, L.

Margadale, L.

Allerton, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Marley, L.

Amory, V.

Exeter, M.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Auckland, L.

Falkland, V.

Merrivale, L.

Avon, E.

Ferrers, E.

Milverton, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Ferrier, L.

Morris, L.

Bellwin, L.

Forester, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Berkeley, B.

Fortescue, E.

Newall, L.

Bessborough, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Norfolk, D.

Birdwood, L.

Gainford, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Geddes, L.

Onslow, E.

Brookeborough, V.

Gisborough, L.

Orkney, E.

Cairns, E.

Glenkinglas, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Caithness, E.

Gormanston, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gowrie, E.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Cathcart, E.

Gridley, L.

Redmayne, L.

Chesham, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Romney, E.

Clitheroe, L.

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

Sandford, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Cork and Orrery, E.

Henley, L.

Savile, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hereford, V.

Selkirk, E.

Craigavon, V.

Hillingdon, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Croft, L.

Inglewood, L.

Sharples, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Killearn, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Daventry, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Soames, L. (L. President.)

Davidson, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Strathspey, L.

de Clifford, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Swinton, E.

De Freyne, L.

Long, V.

Tranmire, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Luke, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Donegall, M.

Lyell, L.

Trenchard, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

McFadzean, L.

Trumpington, B.

Ebbisham, L.

Mackay of Clashern, L.

Vivian, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Airedale, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Ampthill, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Aylestone, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ilchester, E.

Baker, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Balogh, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Jacques, L.

Banks, L.

Galpern, L.

Janner, L.

Blease, L.

Glenamara, L.

Jeger, B.

Blyton, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Kaldor, L.

Boothby, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Brockway, L.

Gosford, E.

Leatherland, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hale, L.

Listowel, E.

Byers, L.

Hall, V.

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

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Halsbury, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hampton, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Collison, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Loudoun, C.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Henderson, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

the clause will be looked at with great care with a view to bringing improved provisions to the Report stage, I must ask the Committee to divide on this particular proposal.
5.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:
Contents, 101; Not-Contents, 91.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Strabolgi, L.

McCarthy, L.

Rosslyn, E.

Strauss, L.

Maelor, L.

St. Davids, V.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Minto, E.

Seear, B.

Teviot, L.

Mishcon, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Underhill, L.

Northfield, L.

Shinwell, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Oram, L.

Simon, V.

Walston, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Somers, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Peart, L.

Spens, L.

Whaddon, L.

Phillips, B.

Stamp, L.

White, B.

Rhodes, L.

Stedman, B.

Willis, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Rochester, L.

Stone, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
5.12 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 4, line 14, at end insert—
(" (7) Where a fare is paid for the carriage of a passenger on a journey by air, no part of that fare shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (6) as paid in consideration of the carriage of the passenger by road by reason of the fact that in case of mechanical failure, bad weather or other circumstances outside the operator's control part of that journey may be made by road.").
The noble Lord said: I think that we now come to an amendment which is genuinely not too contentious. Most airlines make contingency arrangements for the transfer of passengers by coach between airports when aircraft are diverted, for example, because of adverse weather. Those of us who live in Scotland have had this happen to us all too often, I am very sorry to say. There is some uncertainty as to whether these services need road service licence. On the one hand, as passengers have paid a fare, albeit not one originally intended for coach travel, the service needs a licence. On the other hand, the passenger buying an airline ticket does not expect to travel by coach and in the normal event he does not make a coach journey. When in emergency he does make a coach journey, he does not make any payment for it.
If a licence is needed, there is further uncertainty over who should hold it—the airline, the ground handling agent or the coach operator—and there have been time-consuming disputes over that. We see really no need for such diversionary services provided on a contract basis, to be subject to road service licensing. This amendment will put the issue beyond all doubt in future, and I hope benefit all
152
airline travellers who land in the wrong place. I beg to move.
Viscount SIMON: I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell us whether the amendment should not also refer to people who are carried when there is a railway breakdown, which is also something that happens. I should have thought that it was exactly the same as the situation which arises with the airways. I do not know whether the provision can be extended perhaps by an amendment at the next stage of the Bill?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: Although I spoke to what was the most common cause or the reason for it, if one reads the words I think one finds that it covers those situations as well.
Viscount SIMON: I do not read it as saying that. It says:
"Where a fare is paid for the carriage of a passenger on a journey by air ".
So, apparently, it would not cover a journey by rail.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: I have an idea that that may be covered by some other provision. However, I shall write to the noble Viscount on that point and, if necessary, if it is seen fit, we shall add something at a later stage.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Classification of public service vehicles as stage, express or contract carriages]:
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 4, line 27, after (" fares ") insert (" at not less than the prescribed amount ").
The noble Lord said: I shall be very brief as regards this amendment, because it is really in the form of a probing amendment to ascertain the Government's views on the matter. We are proposing that the words:
"… at not less than the prescribed amount "
should be inserted when dealing with the question of fares for local bus services—that is, the normal stage services. We propose that not less than the prescribed amount should be laid down quite clearly.
We all know the problems of bus fares and the increasing problems in many areas for the travelling public. We want to be assured that there will be no possibility of fares being unduly excessive and, therefore, we have tabled this amendment in order to ascertain the Government's views upon the issue. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: I do not think that this is really an amendment which your Lordships would wish to see pressed. I suggest that all that it possibly achieves is to exclude certain services where fares were less than some prescribed amount from any categorisation at all. We used to have the magic figure of 21p. There is no indication of what this prescribed amount in future is supposed to be. The effect of the amendment would be to remove the requirement for a road service licence from certain presumably cheap local services. I cannot believe that the Opposition really wish to see licensing requirements for public buses dependent upon what fare is charged. But it is still quite an intriguing thought.
Lord UNDERHILL: In the light of what the noble Lord has said, we shall read very carefully the words that he used when we have the Official Report and decide whether or not to put down an amendment at the report stage. Therefore] I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 4, line 35, leave out (" conditions ") and insert (" requirements ").
The noble Lord said: This is purely a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
5.18 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 4, line 35, leave out from (" conditions ") to (" of") in line 42 and insert (", namely—

(i) no passenger may be set down at a place less than 30 miles, measured in a straight line, from the place where he was taken up; or

(ii) some point on the route between those places is 30 miles or more, measured in a straight line, from both ").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 9. Both the section in the clause and our amendment may seem very confusing—to be honest they would certainly have been confusing to me unless I had had some guidance on the matter. However, a very important matter is contained in the amendment. The Government have decided—and this is made clear in a later clause—that an express service shall be taken out of necessity for road service licensing. The requirements laid down in this subsection, therefore, determine whether or not a particular service shall be an express service and, therefore, taken out of the requirement for licensing. Hence the wording must be precise.
The Minister pointed out during the Committee stage in another place that, on re-examining the definition, as drafted in the original Bill, it was noticed that in some circumstances the result could be that the service is an express service when running in one direction, but not for the return journey. The consequence of that would have been that it would be de-licensed for the outward journey but would require licensing for the return. So the Government very wisely decided to make the position, as they thought, clearer and changed the wording. I repeat that the wording must be precise, but we are not satisfied that the wording in the Bill achieves that.
Perhaps I may point out to the Committee that there could be a situation of an operator, with a stage service route of say 29 miles, run as a stage service, fully licensed. Another operator may decide to extend the journey to 32 miles and he assures the authorities that no passenger will alight fewer than 30 miles from where he was picked up. There will be no need for him to license. Yet both of them will run on the same routes. Perhaps I could give an example, and I shall give it slowly.
I do not expect the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, to deal with this in his reply because that would be unfair, but it will be in the Official Report, and so he could check for a later stage whether this example covers the question that we have in mind.
There could be a service from Manchester to Stoke-on-Trent, with a picking-up point at Sale; and on leaving Sale the bus would proceed along the A556 road, joining the M.6 at Junction 19. It then proceeds south to Junction 16 and takes the A500 straight into Stoke-on-Trent. That route would be entirely within the 30 miles of Sale and Stoke-on-Trent; therefore, it would be licensed. However, if the operator decided to continue on the M.6 to Junction 15 and double back on the A5006 and the A500, it would add only four and a half miles to his journey; but the route would then be taken outside the 30-mile limit and the service would be wholly freed from licensing.
We are advised that the amendment which we have tabled will deal with that situation and, therefore, it is an important amendment. The amendment also simplifies the wording of subsection (3) (a), at the same time as removing some uncertainty. This is done by replacing the word "is", which is associated with the words "every passenger", and substituting the words "no passenger may"; in other words, it relates to what passengers are authorised to do—except, of course, in an emergency—rather than to what may actually happen, say, if someone decides to leave the bus before the stop to which he has booked, with or without the authority of the driver. Therefore, the amendment tidies up subsection (3) (a). However, we believe that the most important part of the amendment is the amendment to paragraph (b) , which would deal with the situation which I tried to explain in the particular example which I quoted. I beg to move.
Lord TEVIOT: I hope that when my noble friend replies to this amendment he will give it due consideration. It is a very important amendment, but it is not an emotive or contentious one, like those which we dealt with earlier. But if, as the Bill recognises, there is still a need for road service licensing—thank goodness!—it is a mistake to provide loopholes. I do not wish to repeat the arguments that
156
have already been presented, but I have also been given another dog-leg anomaly. I am sure that there must be very many. The example that I have been given is where the 30-miles' distance from either place will be exempt from licensing, as licensing is intended to be under this new legislation. The example I have been given is of a service from Leicester to Northampton and, quite obviously, the M. I has been chosen. If a coach leaves the motorway at Junction 16 and takes the A45 into Northampton, that route is entirely within 30 miles. Therefore, it should require a road service licence. However, you could have someone, who is not very scrupulous, who, by continuing to Junction 15 and doubling back into Northampton, adding only four miles to the journey, can operate the service without a licence.
In another place the Minister agreed that it was anomalous to have a service licensed in one direction but uncontrolled on the return journey. I submit that this is the wrong answer to this anomaly. As has been shown, this is a loophole, and good sense suggests that it should be overcome by the proposed amendment. Finally, I agree that the simplified wording of this subsection will be appreciated by those who are on the receiving end of this legislation—the bus and coach operator, and the travelling public.
Lord BELLWIN: I, too, had gathered that there has been much talk about whether Clause 3 (3) (a) provides a loophole for operators to escape road service licensing for services between places which are, in fact, less than the specified distance apart, by taking a roundabout route. The answer surely is that the clause does, indeed, permit roundabout routes, but provided that every passenger goes at least 30 miles in a straight line in the process. That really is the basic criterion; that is what really matters on this point. It is not only the distance between places on which the amendment concentrates, but how far each and every passenger must travel.
As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and my noble friend Lord Teviot said, I cannot comment on the specific instances that they gave. I would simply say that from listening to them the mind boggles. No doubt there are many other and even better examples that could be

157
given. But, in practice, I cannot see operators making a great profit out of running bizarre routes just to cheat the system. What passenger wants to waste his time going all round the houses? What kind of a business would the operator have, and for how long, if he indulged in such practices? I should not think too long. A slight deviation where places are, say, 29 miles apart is certainly foreseeable, but I do not believe that such a practice will undermine the purpose of the express carriage definition; that is, to protect vital local services.
At the moment, I cannot say more on this amendment. I take the point that my noble friend Lord Teviot made as to whether or not in another place this would be looked at, or even whether it could be looked at at another stage in this House. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, whose amendment this is, that I shall certainly discuss the point with my honourable friend.
Lord MISHCON: I am sure that the Committee will be grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for the usual courtesy which he showed in saying that this matter will be further discussed. It is only upon that basis that I ask him to consider something which I do not think he has considered in his reply. First, it is a very nice picture to paint of those who operate transport that they would not dream of getting the advantage of an express service, which means that they would thereby be de-licensed, or would not require a licence, and would therefore not wish to think in terms on any way in which they could surreptitiously obtain that advantage. I am sure that that applies to all the transport operators known to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin; but some of us who have knowledge of other transport operators are in a more unfavourable position than he is, and we would not put it past them, if I may put it in that brief way.
I think that the Minister was, in fact, dealing absolutely correctly in his reply with the point under subsection (3) (a) (i) where he spoke about the passenger having to be set down 30 miles or more, measured in a straight line, from the place where he was taken up. The noble Lord said—I think very sensibly—that the passenger would get rather annoyed
158
if he were taken on a circuitous route and if his journey took longer than it should, and that the traffic operator would thereby lose business. I think that the noble Lord forgot the word "or" and the fact that it is paragraph (ii) which is the main point of my noble friend's remarks and the remarks which I believe were made by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot.
The vital point is that in paragraph (ii) one is dealing with the measurement of a straight line in regard to the journey itself, and this has nothing to do with the passenger involved concerning his being set down. As I said, the last thing in the world that anyone on this side of the Committee would want to be is ungracious. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has said that he will look at this matter and see whether or not it should be covered at a later stage. I think that my noble friend Lord Underhill will be content with that statement, and that other Members of the Committee will wait with anxiety to hear the results of the reconsideration.
Lord TEVIOT: I too am happy that my noble friend is taking this back and looking at it again, because the express bus side has been something of which the country can be proud. Express coaches have taken on routes going all over the country, backwards and forwards. You can get from practically anywhere to everywhere without having to cross London. It is one of the most flexible services there is. Anything that could upset something that is so clearly successful would be a great pity, so therefore one is very pleased.
Lord UNDERHILL: In view of the generous gesture by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, that he will give this matter consideration, we will withdraw this amendment. I am not a legal expert but you will notice that the words used in paragraph (ii) are
"from either of those places "
whereas in the amendment it is "from both". That is the important question which should be considered. In view of the assurance given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.32 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 5, leave out lines 1 and 2.
The noble Lord said: This is a rather simple amendment. It proposes the deletion of the first two lines on page 5. This would take out reference to an express service being a tour or excursion when deciding whether or not a service should be taken out of licensing requirements. If the 30 miles requirement is met then the Bill proposes that, if the journey is an excursion or tour, that finishes the matter. If, however, the service is not an excursion or tour then it is necessary to supply particulars to the traffic commissioners. This has nothing to do with licensing, for which there is no requirement as regards an express service.
I mentioned this on Second Reading. Time and time again I have looked through the arguments in another place on this matter, and I cannot see why this provision is in the Bill. The definitions of excursion or tour and of express carriage service given in Clause 36 are not too helpful. It states:
"' excursion or tour' means a stage or express carriage service on which the passengers travel together … to one or more other places and back ".
That confuses me even more. It may be my confusion and not anyone else's. A stage carriage service is surely one for which a road service licence is required. Why should an operator running an express service have to supply information to the traffic commissioners but another operator, running say a daily service from London to Blackpool as an excursion for three summer months, does not have to give such information? The distinction made between tours and excursions and express services would appear to be unjustifiable. Therefore, the amendment suggests taking these words out of the subsection and if need be the position of excursions and tours could then be dealt with separately outside this particular clause. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: As the noble Lord said, this matter was discussed in the House of Commons, and I thought my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary had rather the better of the argument. I am slightly surprised
160
that it has been raised again in almost the same fashion in this House. As was said in the other House, the requirement in Clause 3 (b) (ii) that express service operators have to notify details of their services to the traffic commissioners is designed to import a degree of commitment by the operator to the running of the service. This is not done for any perverse reason but to give a commitment that it is going to provide a long distance inter-city service; a regular, dependable, and direct method of public transport from one place to another.
Thus this provision is designed, without being in the least a hardship to the operator, to give the passenger some assurance—it is the would-be passenger who wants to know—that there is a long-term regular service. If there is no requirement for the traffic commissioners to be told about it, it is not published. This is designed to help the public, the passenger travelling long distances. It is some assurance that the service will run, and to make competition between operators open and fair, discouraging "pirates" who could choose to run or not to run at whim. That is the position for the express service.
The position with excursion and tours is totally different. These are not by nature services designed as a quick and efficient method of transport between A and B. They are not a regular service, but they are nearly always part of some holiday package or pleasure trip, with passengers possibly alighting and rejoining the coach at various stages along the journey which has been organised beforehand by the tour organiser. I do not envisage many cases where these types of service could compete with regular express services. It would in our view be unnecessarily restrictive and bureaucratic and contrary to the whole spirit of the Bill to impose on excursion and tour operators the type of requirement suggested by the noble Lord. I hope that the noble Lord will take a common-sense view of this and not an extreme view. It is a matter of common sense for the public that the operators on the regular route just notify the traffic commissioners. But if we had a House of Lords staff trip organised to Brighton, why should they have to tell the traffic commissioners? Look at it in the common-sense context, I beg of you.
Lord TEVIOT: On this amendment I find myself agreeing with the Government. I think that my noble friend has very well explained this sort of business about having to tell the commissioners every time you are going to take a party out somewhere. This is somewhere where a bit of red tape can be cut out with no harm.
Lord UNDERHILL: I shall have a careful look at the noble Lord's words in the Official Report. In the light of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.38 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 5, line 10, at end insert—
("Failure to comply with this condition shall mean that the service shall be a stage carriage service and all the conditions appertaining to a stage carriage service shall apply ")
The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment, which I hope the Government will accept. At Second Reading I stated that I could not see any reference to any penalty should the operator of an express service fail to send the required particulars to the traffic commissioners. I have found the answer in the helpful Notes on Clauses which the Minister made available to us. This states:
"Failure to notify a service which would otherwise have been an express service will make it a stage one service"—
that is, a stage service—
"and hence be subject to road service licensing ".
That was in the notes, but I cannot find that specific provision in the Bill. It may be there but it is rather obscure, and I have not seen it. If it is in an obscure place in the Bill, then surely it is desirable that it should be absolutely clear. We therefore propose the addition of the words in the amendment to make it clear that these conditions shall apply. I beg to move.
Viscount SIMON: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, can help me. The amendment says "failure to comply with this condition". There are in fact two, if not three, conditions, are there not? Does this apply to all or any of them?
Lord UNDERHILL: We are referring to the condition in the clause that the
162
information must be supplied, but we are also saying that once the information has been supplied, all the conditions applying to a stage carriage service should apply here. The important thing is that if it is a condition and if it is not complied with, the clause then says that therefore the service must be a stage licence, simply because the conditions have not been complied with and the details have not been sent in. We want to make sure that is added to the Bill because I am sure that is the intention of the clause.
Lord BELLWIN: I think I can help the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. The amendment is not necessary because the Bill already provides what is sought. The definition of an express service works by stipulating two conditions, both of which must be satisfied for a service to be classified as express. The first condition—the 30 mile rule—we have already discussed. The second condition—that of notifying the traffic commissioners—is what concerns noble Lords opposite. I can reassure them that satisfying the notification requirements is as much a part of the basic definition of an express service as the 30 mile rule. If the service has not been notified, it is not an express service. If it is a service at separate fares, then it will be a local service, requiring a road service licence, and the sanction in Clause 4 (5) will bite. I hope that in the light of that reassurance, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord UNDERHILL: Without wishing to detain the Committee on this matter, and while accepting what the Minister said, I cannot see where it is stated precisely in the Bill; if the noble Lord tells me it is to be found elsewhere in the Bill I will of course apologise. If, however, it is an assumption, then would it not be better actually to have the words in the Bill? Everybody agrees with what I said—there is no argument about it—so why not include these words so as to make the position absolutely clear?
Lord BELLWIN: The noble Lord is right to say it is not stated in the Bill, the reason being that it is not considered necessary to state it for the observations I made, and that is still the position. I can only repeat my assurance that the wording of the Bill is such that without

163
specifically referring to the point, it is covered for the reasons I gave and which I am sure the noble Lord does not want me to repeat.
Lord UNDERHILL: In the light of those remarks, although [shall consult further on the matter, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.43 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 5, line 18, leave out (" paragraph ") and insert (" subsection ").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple drafting amendment. The use of the word "paragraph" is clearly incorrect; it should be "subsection".
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
5.44 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
"Signs on vehicles (.—(I) Notwithstanding anything in any enactment:

(a) no passenger vehicle of less than eight seats which carries passengers for hire or reward, or for payment of any kind, other than a hackney carriage licensed to ply for hire under the several enactments in force within the United Kingdom for licensing such hackney carriages, shall have affixed to the roof, thereof, a sign of any kind of description;

(b) nothing in paragraph (a) of this subsection shall prevent a District Council from requiring, or allowing, an identification sign, or mark, on a Private Hire Vehicle licensed under Part II of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976:

Provided always that any such sign, or mark, so required or allowed, shall have no means of illumination and shall be fitted, or affixed, on the side doors, and, or, rear of the vehicle and below the window line of the said vehicle;

(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, or is used, to give lifts for payment.

(2) If any person contravenes the provisions of this section he shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds and to a daily fine of twenty pounds.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this new clause is to prevent private hire cars and cars giving lifts for hire or reward from carrying on the roof of the vehicle a display sign or, in those cases where a district council authorises an identification sign, that sign shall not be illuminated. I am sure the Committee will agree that there is clear need to differentiate between a hackney carriage licensed to ply for hire—which carries a sign which, when lit up, means that the vehicle is available for hire—and other vehicles which are not hackney carriage licensed carriages. I understand that the organisation concerned with the taxi trade is very much concerned about the absence of this provision. At the conclusion of the discussion of this matter on Report on another place, the Minister stated:
"I give an undertaking that the Government will seek to meet the spirit of the new clause in another place. I hope that in the light of that assurance, the honourable Member will withdraw his clause".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/3/80; col. 1065.]
On that understanding, the amendment was withdrawn in the other place. I assume that the reference to "another place" can refer only to this place, and that is why this amendment has been tabled. It is in the light of the Minister's helpful observation—that the Government would seek to put the matter right in this place—that I hope the Government will do so and accept the new clause.
Lord BELLWIN: I accept much of what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said about the importance of the licensed taxi trade and of the protection which taxi licensing gives to the public. Without therefore denying that private hire cars are also an invaluable part of our transport system, I agree that taxis and their users deserve protection from people who pretend to be taxis by putting up signs on their roofs which closely resemble those used by licensed taxis.
However, I am afraid I cannot accept the clause as drafted. It raises issues of policy on which we are consulting my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. Even so, as indicated in another place, and as the noble Lord rightly said, the Government are prepared to accept the principle behind the first part of the clause which would increase the distinction between taxis and private hire cars. It

165
will be in this place—which, in the context of what he said, was "another place"—that I will table a new clause on Report.
On car-sharing, my reactions are that I am not attracted by the idea of a total ban on all types of advertisement or distinguishing marks by private motorists, but I accept that any prohibition that applies to commercial hire cars should also apply to private cars, and I will cover this in the amendment I table for Report. I trust that in those circumstances the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the new clause.
Lord UNDERHILL: I am grateful to the Minister for that statement. Naturally he will not expect me to commit myself to being completely in favour of the Government's new clause when it is tabled, particularly in the light of the reservations he made, but as a new clause will be presented on Report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Public service vehicles: conditions affecting status or classification]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 52, line 14, at end insert (" except where the local authorities concerned have approved the arrangements under which the journey is made as designed to meet the social and welfare needs of one or more communities, and their approvals remain in force.
(2) In relation to a journey the local authorities concerned for the purposes of this paragraph are those in whose area any part of the journey is to be made; and in this sub-paragraph "local authority" means—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, the Greater London Council or a county council;

(b) in relation to Scotland, a regional or islands council.").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to restore a provision introduced in the Transport Act 1978 which has inadvertently been removed in the Bill as it stands. The present provisions for what are called "social car schemes" enable bodies like the WRVS to advertise publicly the arrangements they make for sharing cars for social or welfare purposes. The Bill, of course, removes the current restrictions on public advertising for private car-sharing, so
166
special provision for social car schemes is no longer needed for that kind of arrangement. But social car schemes can also make use of taxis and hire-cars, and under the Bill public advertisement for sharing those vehicles will still be restricted.
What this amendment does is to put back a special exemption from the advertising restriction for local authority approved social car schemes. I should just emphasise that we are not concerned here with taxi-sharing initiated by the driver, but by the passengers or organisers of the scheme who agree among themselves to divide up the total fare. The driver or owner of the vehicle derives no financial benefit from the arrangements. I beg to move.
5.50 p.m.
Lord MISHCON: I am sure that the Committee will not at all wish to oppose the spirit of this amendment. The only reason why I rise is to ask a question, since a definition may have escaped me. I am sure that the Committee will not wish vague words or phrases, that could be misunderstood, to appear in a schedule which they were about to approve. The amendment refers to meeting
"the social and welfare needs of one or more communities ".
Perhaps I have overlooked something, but I have not found in the Bill as at present drawn any definition of "communities", which is a vague term which calls for some definition. One does not know whether in this instance a community must exist within the areas of the local authorities concerned, though one imagines that it would. Furthermore the word itself is very vague and general. The Minister may feel that another word should be chosen when he reviews the matter at Report stage, or that there should be a precise definition of the word "communities".
Lord BELLWIN: All I can say on this point is that the wording is precisely the same as that in the 1978 Act. What the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, says is of itself valid, but if the wording were acceptable in the 1978 Act and has caused no problems, it might not be unreasonable to assume that the same would again apply. However, there is no reason why I should not say that we shall have a look at this matter to see whether there is a

167
practical, clearer definition which would be better and to consider that if it would be better, why it should not be included. The noble Lord will excuse my saying that a commitment I cannot give, but I certainly give an undertaking to look at the matter.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 15: Page 53, line 6, at end insert—
(".In the case of a journey to a particular destination the passengers must not include any person who frequently, or as a matter of routine, travels, at or about the time of day at which the journey is made, to or to the vicinity of that destination from a place from or through which the journey is made.").
The noble Lord said: It will be noted that there is another amendment (Amendment No. 16 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot), which is in precisely the same terms as this amendment.
The Government are accepting that road service licensing should be retained, albeit in some limited form, for all stage bus services. I think it is generally agreed that this is not in order to protect the operatives as such, but to ensure that the public are given the best possible transport service. Therefore it is remarkable that at the same time it should be proposed in the Bill that there should be a relaxation of the conditions under which a contract carriage may carry passengers at separate fares in possible competition with a bus service and in a way which could make a mockery of the Government's own road service licensing provisions. The purpose of the amendment is to reintroduce the existing provision which prevents the carriage of regular passengers in these cases. Unless the amendment is approved—if there is to be improved wording, that would perhaps be better—the revised provisions for contract carriages could adversely affect existing bus services. It is on those grounds that I beg to move the amendment.
Lord TEVIOT: The case for this amendment, or these amendments, has been well expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I hope that my noble friend will take kindly to this amendment, as he has done to others. I do not want to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord
168
Underhill, has said, but rather to express surprise that in certain instances the Bill can be described as being so contradictory as to require licensing, in the public interest, while then, with, respect, the Government sometimes appear to be cutting at the very roots of their own provisions.
It could also be said that the Government are trying to protect themselves from criticism, if, and when, the new licensing system is found to be ineffective in introducing new public transport services, but, at the same time—because a licensing system is against their philosophy, —to make sure that it does not work. The Government can then with greater conviction abandon the whole licensing system.
The reintroduction of this paragraph from the existing Schedule 12 to the 1960 Act will protect services available to the general public. It will mean that the provision of a fare-paying, so-called "contract" service for the few will not lead to failure of a service available to the many. If the contract service is useful to the travelling public as a whole, then I affirm without any doubt that the traffic commissioners will readily grant a road service licence for it. The Government must not label these sincere and distinguished public servants as being negative and restrictive merely because that suits them. I know better than that.
I should like to consider some rather strange statements made in another place when this subject was being debated. Replying to the debate in Committee, the Minister claimed that the idea contained in the present amendment was unenforceable. However the very words are contained in the existing law, and have been for at least 20 years. I previously mentioned the year 1960 when, incidentally, we on these Benches were in power. During those earlier years, there have been no problems over enforcement. Perhaps my noble friend when he replies will tell the Committee why there should now be problems.
My honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Department of Transport, said:
"Contract carriage will be taken out of the road service licensing requirements, and we cannot sec anything objectionable in that ".

169
When challenged, he corrected this, and said:
"The right honourable gentleman has successfully identified the change. Regular arrangements were not contract carriages before. We are making sure that regular arrangements are contract carriages and therefore outside road service licensing ".
With great respect, I feel that this is rather confusing.
In support of Amendment No. 17 (to which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has referred) I quote the same source. My honourable friend admitted:
"it is not right that clubs should be set up for the specific purpose of organising travel and to take advantage of the contract carriage arrangements ".
The need for licensing was further demonstrated when the Parliamentary Secretary said:
"We toyed with the idea of excluding all excursions and tours, but there are plainly circumstances where they could be thinly-disguised ways of competing with existing stage carriage services ".
"Given the need to protect stage carriage services in certain circumstances, we could not do that".
Need I say more? The Government must not seek to have it both ways. Therefore I beg to support the noble Lord's amendment, even as I urge on the Committee the merits of Amendments Nos. 15 and 16.
5.58 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: Judging from what has happened this afternoon I should not have thought that the Government were at all seeking to have it both ways. This amendment illustrates perhaps rather dramatically the difference in approach between the Government and the Opposition. We are determined to sweep away unnecessary controls and restrictions, and we believe that people are most likely to get the transport they require if they are free to arrange it themselves. The Opposition believe in controls and are apprehensive of freedom. We should prefer to hear less about the adverse effects on established bus operators of the formation of commuter clubs and more about the frustrations that commuters now feel when they have no alternative to the inadequate service that the licence-holder chooses to provide; —or at least their only alternative is the one that they take: the private car. Why should commuters
170
not be able to band together to improve their lot?
As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, very fairly said, the amendment deliberately seeks to put back the operations of commuter clubs and the like into road service licensing, from which the Bill specifically frees them. As such it is unacceptable to the Government, and I hope it will be to most of your Lordships. There will still be adequate restrictions to protect the licensed stage carriage operation. We would have to resist this amendment.
Lord UNDERHILL: I should mention that, although reference has been made to Amendment No. 17, I have not spoken on No. 17 because it is a separate principle. I have been dealing solely with the principle contained in Nos. 15 and 16, which have the same wording. I am sorry that the noble Lord has said that, while the Government in their proposals are determined to sweep away controls and restrictions, we on this side are apprehensive of that and apprehensive of freedom. What I thought we had made absolutely clear time and time again is that what we are apprehensive about is damaging the general network of public services. That is what we are concerned with, and that is what will worry people living in the rural areas. As I said when I spoke on Clause 1, although you gain in a limited way in one direction you may do immense damage to the network of public services in this country, which is a credit to this country and the envy of the world. That is what we are worried about, and I hope it will be seen in that context.
This is just one of the proposals in the Bill which we are trying to amend, by Amendments Nos. 15 and 16, to try to avoid those people who do a regular daily journey taking contract services when there are other services which they ought to take, or which are available for them to take. If they do not take them, then it could be that the established bus service gets weakened, and when that gets weakened then services are taken off because nobody is going to run unprofitable services. That is the angle we are worried about: the preservation and, what is more, the development of the best possible public transport service for our people. This is a small indication of the damage that could be done to it.
Lord MORRIS: The noble Lord did not say, or even suggest, really, that the established services would be damaged: he said that they may be damaged. Does he have any doubt on this particular issue?
Lord UNDERHILL: Naturally, I would be challenged in your Lordships' House if I said that they definitely will be damaged. What I am saying is that there is a possibility, and if there is a possibility then we have to avoid it. It all depends on the circumstances in the area; it all depends on the effectiveness of the transport service in that area; and it depends on whether that particular route is one which is being run by cross-subsidisation. I know that noble Lords opposite do not like us constantly talking about cross-subsidisation, but this is something which enables a great number of routes in the rural areas to be run. They may be damaged, and we want to avoid that possibility.
Lord BELLWIN: I would only add, as I said before, that this is fundamental. In fact, we do not see it at all as the noble Lord has said. We see an opportunity here, indeed, to improve that which needs improving. There are many people who would disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that what we have is so fine and so wonderful. I think there is a great need for improvement here, and what we are proposing will meet that need. That is why we cannot accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 53, line 28, at end insert—
(" (2) In this paragraph references to a club or association do not include references to a club or association whose activities are directed to the provision of road transport facilities, whether for members of that club or association or for others, such provisions not being merely incidental to its other activities.").
The noble Lord said: There has been some discussion on this already, but not from me. Therefore, I will be very brief; but for the same reason as advanced in the case of the previous amendment, I move this particular amendment. We are trying to protect the Government's own revised licensing provisions, and that is a point I want to emphasise. This amendment seeks to prevent the formation
172
of travel clubs which have as their sole purpose the provision by hired vehicles of a contract service which would otherwise be provided by a licensed stage bus service. Therefore, as I said on a previous amendment, the intention is to safeguard local bus services from possible (I emphasise that word "possible") increased competition from uncontrolled contract carriage operations. It is because we are so jealous—and I hope that noble Lords opposite share that feeling—of our network of public service operations that we do not want to see them damaged, and I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will be able to accept this very simple amendment to remove one possible avenue of difficulty. I beg to move.
Lord TEVIOT: I apologise for speaking previously to Amendment No. 17. I should have paid slightly more attention. One does not like to get confused, but sometimes we try to take two or three things together, and in the case of one notable piece of legislation earlier this year we got into the most awful muddle. So I apologise to the noble Lord, but I would say now what I said then.
Lord BELLWIN: I certainly sympathise with my noble friend. Indeed, he made the case for me. I was very much in the same position myself at regular intervals during the day. As to this matter, I do not want to add much to what I said on the previous amendment except, perhaps, to say that we intend to allow, and indeed to encourage, commuter clubs and parents' associations to arrange transport for their members to and from work or their children to and from school. I believe there is real scope for this. I must emphasise that there will still be adequate restrictions to protect the licensed stage carriage bus operator. Commercial organisations will not be allowed exemption from road service licensing; nor will vehicles which stop to pick up and set down, and charge fares which vary according to distance travelled. Unlicensed stage carriage services will not be permitted. We must always remember that the vehicles used by those clubs will be full public services vehicles, and operated by people with operators' licences. It is only road service licences that will not be required.
On Question, amendment negatived.
On Question, Whether Schedule 1 shall be the first schedule to the Bill?
Viscount SIMON: I want to ask a question about the first paragraph of Part 1 of this Schedule. It reads:
"SHARING OF TAXIS AND HIRE-CARS
The making of the agreement for the payment of separate fares must not have been initiated by the driver or by the owner of the vehicle …".
It is a very common thing, which many noble Lords will have experienced when there is a big queue for few taxis at a lonely station, that when a taxi arrives the first person goes to the taxi driver and wants to go to, say, Muddleswick. The driver then says, "Does anyone else want to go to Muddleswick?" Is that going to be illegal under this schedule? It is a very useful provision.
Lord BELLWIN: I must confess, if I have heard the noble Viscount correctly, that I am not aware that the proposal would prevent that. Should it be otherwise, I will certainly come back and say so. I believe that the proposal does not in any way affect it.
Baroness PHILLIPS: By coincidence, I was discussing this today with a taxi driver. I am sorry to tell the noble Lord that he informed me that in the metropolitan district of London it is illegal for a taxi driver to invite other people into the taxi. A customer may invite another to share, but the driver may not. I do not think it would in any way cut across the schedule that we have already.
Viscount SIMON: I am obliged. The difficulty at country stations is that other passengers in the queue often do not know where a particular place is, so it is the taxi driver who is the catalyst in this proceeding. I am glad to hear from the noble Lord that he is not likely to be had up in court.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Road service licences]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 6, line 4, after (" to") insert (" subsection (4A) and ").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 6, line 9, at end insert—
(" (4A) Subsection (4) does not apply—

(a) to a road service licence held by a local education authority or, in Scotland, an education authority;

(b) to a road service licence granted in respect of a community bus serice within the meaning of section 5 of the Transport Act 1978.").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment, too. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 6, line 10, leave out (" Subject to subsection (7) ").
The noble Lord said: For the convenience of the Committee, with this amendment I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 21, 22, 36, 52, 60, 61, 68, 69, 70, 71, 88, 89, 100, 103, 122, 132 and 133. These amendments put together, in a manner which I hope you will consider is neat, logical and consistent with normal policy relating to criminal liability, provisions which are scattered in the 1960 Act and in the Bill, may I say, like raisins in a pudding. Some of the order provisions (for example, those in Sections 146(2) and 147(2) of the 1960 Act which relate to breaches of regulations about the conduct of drivers, conductors and passengers) impose strict liability which might lead to harsh results. These older provisions and those in the Bill will, if these amendments are made, all be brought together into the pattern which was considered appropriate when the Bill was being framed That pattern is as follows.
For what might be called "organisational" offences—those where the accused is likely to be other than an individual person—such as the provision of a stage carriage service without a road service licence, the offence is cast in terms of strict liability (so as not to put unfair burdens of proof on the prosecution) but there is provided the defence that the accused had taken all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence. In other cases, the offence is cast in terms of strict liability, but there is provided

175
the defence that the accused had a reasonable excuse—which would, of course, include the excuse of having acted with all due diligence. I commend to your Lordships these amendments. They would achieve a worthwhile shortening and simplification of the legislation; they would achieve consistency and accord with what I understand to be the normal policy relating to criminal liability.
Lord MISHCON: It is with some heartburning that I find that I have to differ from the noble Lord on what he regards as a simplification of the Bill. It may be a simplification for the purposes of codification and draftsmanship, but I do not think that is the sole consideration that will be in the mind of the Committee. We are dealing in this Bill with a list of offences for which members of the public may be brought before a court and in respect of which they may have convictions, in respect of which they may be fined and in respect of which as a result of the convictions they may lose a licence.
As in the Bill as drawn and before this amendment was proposed, in respect of each one of those offences, all that one had to do was to look at the clause and it would be seen whether or not a defence was available to the citizen. As the noble Lord correctly said, there were two sets of defences. One was whether some good reason could be given by the person charged as to why he had failed to observe the section, in which case a defence was available. In the other set of circumstances, it was a question of whether there was mens rea, a guilty intention, whether the thing had been done knowingly or not.
I would suggest that merely to have the excuse of economy of wording and, by that, deprive the subject of looking at an Act of Parliament in respect of matters which are criminal and in respect of which, I repeat, he may be brought before the court, is not right. It is obviously right, I would submit, that the defence should be there in the same clause as that in which the offence is described.
As a lawyer I ought to be perfectly content that lawyers, on looking at this Bill, would look for a clause where the defences are set out and where the various provisions of the Bill are contained so that advice can be given to the client as to
176
whether or not he has a defence. It will not only be lawyers who will be looking at this Bill, and it will not only be those who are capable of giving advice. I therefore ask that further consideration should be given to this matter before we put away the various defences that are available in another clause so that they have to be ascertained from that clause instead of being set out in the very clause in which the offence is mentioned.
The noble Lord the Minister will always be admired for two qualities: one is the clarity with which he speaks; the other is a matter which we take for granted; his complete and absolute integrity. I do not in any way impugn that integrity when I point out that in clustering together these clauses he completely unwittingly said—and he mentioned Amendment No. 100 among them—that they were classified merely in this new clause and no alteration was being made. Either some official slipped up or there is a mistake in the noble Lord's notes because he would not have misled the House. Clause 23 of the Bill is a serious clause. It deals with the duty to inform traffic commissioners of relevant convictions and matters of that kind which obviously are of the utmost importance in regard to the granting and revocation of licences. Clause 23 (5) says:
"A person who knowlingly fails to comply with subsections (1), (2) or (3) or with any requirement under subsection (4) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200 ".
Therefore the only defence here would be that the person did not know. Under subsection (2) in Amendment No. 122 Clause 23 (5) is included. Instead of it being a question of having a defence only available if he knowingly did it, one finds that there is now a defence available which is completely different if one looks at subsection (1), which is now applicable. A person can have a defence if he manages to prove that there was a reasonable excuse for the act or omission in respect of which he is charged. That opens an entirely different avenue of defence. If I do not reveal a conviction which I have or which an employee of mine has—a very serious matter—and I prove that when I failed to do that I did not knowingly so conduct myself because I did not know-about the conviction, it is an entirely different matter to have a defence available that I had a reasonable excuse.

177
The reasonable excuse might be that I was hiding it from my wife and therefore I did not want her to know about it and therefore it was reasonable that I shoud not have revealed his defence at the particular time or that I did not want it to appear in the local Press, or whatever. That is an entirely different defence from that of knowingly.
When the Minister considers my main point I hope that he will show that when he included Amendment No. 100, saying that there was no difference being made at all that that was not quite true.
Lord MORRIS: While I have a certain amount of sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I am sure that he will draw great comfort and indeed entertainment if he reads Lord Bellwin's speech on Second Reading. If I remember rightly, he made very clear a consolidating measure regarding public service vehicles was in train. This will help the first point that was made.
Lord BELLWIN: I am grateful to my noble friend for his intervention. Regarding "knowingly", the "knowingly" formulation is defective in two respects. This matter was discussed at some length in another place. The word "knowingly" appears now instead of the words "without reasonable excuse" which were originally in the Bill. They were removed as a result of an amendment made in another place at the behest of the Opposition. It will be agreed that this substitution was unfortunate. It would cast on the prosecution a burden which it would not otherwise have and which might be unduly onerous. On the other hand, it would cause injustice to a person accused who may have done or omitted to do something knowingly but blamelessly—for example, failure to supply information through illness.
I have to stand by the amendments that were agreed by the law officers. I cannot withdraw the amendment, but I will assure the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that the point he made about Amendment No. 100—and, indeed, any others that give him cause for concern—will gladly be looked at very carefully indeed. Before the next stage, I will have gone thoroughly into any other aspects that may give possible rise for concern. If the noble Lord wishes to bring anything to my attention, he knows
178
I will do that specifically because the point he makes is a very fair one and one must be concerned. I certainly undertake to look at them all again. But I cannot at this stage withdraw the amendment.
Lord MISHCON: The noble Lord could not have been more gracious.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No.21:
Page 6, line 14, leave out (" Subject to subsection (7) ").
The noble Lord said: I referred to this earlier. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 6, line 18, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Lord said: Likewise, I spoke to this earlier. I beg to move.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
Clause 5 [Grant of road service licences]:
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 6, line 27, after (" require ") insert (" and shall be published by them ").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple but, we think, very important amendment. It seeks to place with all traffic commissioners an obligation to publish details of applications for road service licences. We regard it as essential to do this so as to enable those who may wish to make objections or to make other representations to know of the application. There is a provision in subsection (2) (c) that the commissioners have a statutory duty to consider objections and representations. To enable those who would wish to do this, it is essential that they should have knowledge of any applications. When discussing this proposal during the Committee stage in another place, the Secretary of State said—and I quote from column 668 on 29th January—
"There is no division between us on publication. We all say we want publication and the only matter of division appears to be whether that requirement should go into the Bill or whether it should be left to be dealt with by regulation ".
In view of that agreement, and it appears to be the intention that it should be dealt with in regulations, we on our part ask, "Then why not put it into the Bill and make the agreement fully complete?" As it is the Government's hope to see a substantial increase in the number of new operators coming forward with applications for licences—I am not arguing on the principle, but that seems to be the Government's hope—it would appear to be imperative that the maximum publicity about such applications should be given. With this simple amendment we feel we shall be helping everyone concerned and meeting what seems to be an agreement on the part of the Government. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, speaks very persuasively. As he said, my right honourable friend in another place indicated that there was not really very much between us on this matter. It was discussed at great length in another place and we have fully accepted, as the noble Lord rightly said, the principle of publishing details of all applications for road service licences. But my right honourable friend said he was quite sure that the matter could best be dealt with by means of regulations, as that is quite satisfactory at the moment. It is in any case far more sensible, I put it to your Lordships, to include such procedural matters in subordinate legislation. They may need changing in the light of practice, and regulations are sufficiently flexible to allow that.
As noble Lords will know, regulations are subject to Negative Resolution and therefore can be prayed against within 40 days if they are not satisfactory. My right honourable friend gave repeated undertakings that the requirement to publish would be maintained in the regulations to be drawn up to replace the old statutory instrument.
All details are going to appear: the number of journeys, the route, the bus stops and times of services. Large operators can purchase copies and copies go automatically to local authorities at county and district level. The only thing that will not appear in these reports are the long and detailed arguments in the operators' minds as to why they are
180
going down route X to Y instead of B to C, for example. Those details will not be available because they would probably require volumes to be written about them; but all those details which are relevant to the main point will appear. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will accept our firm assurances on this point. Of course, the proposed amendment does not prevent regulations being drawn up and it is completely harmless but, by the same token, it is really unnecessary. I hope that, in the light of the assurances I have given, the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness STEDMAN: The noble Lord has certainly given reassurances so far as the regulations arc concerned, but he has referred specifically to the fact that the local authorities, the county and district councils, would know what was going on and would have the information sent to them. But they are not the only people who are concerned. The general public are concerned about what is happening to these licences: they are the people who are going to benefit, or otherwise, if a licence is granted. The trade unions are concerned because their members are involved if there is a change in plan or a change in routes. All these people are concerned, and surely it would be much better to have it written into the Act that they shall be published and let them have as wide a circulation as possible.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: This is a point which has always interested me. Why, when everybody has decided that publication is a good thing, should it then be left to another legislative process—in this case, to be dealt with by Negative Resolution? In that terminology, "negative" is very negative, because these kinds of things do slip away. If the regulation has to be approved by a positive motion then of course it comes up, it is firm and it comes in front of one. On the "negative", it slides away.
It seems to me, not only on this Bill, that there is an element of secrecy about the process. There is a sort of feeling that somebody is going to be denied an opportunity unless they go to a lot of trouble. I do not mind people going to a lot of trouble, but queues of people at offices asking for information seem to me to be totally unnecessary and very wasteful.

181
If the information is to be published, then let somebody who wants it pay to receive the publication. There it is: it is available on request and the fee is X pence or X pounds. It seems to me it would be far more open—and if I use the description "honest" that is not to imply that not agreeing makes it a dishonest action—to have it in now so that everybody knows exactly where they are.
Lord MISHCON: I should like to tempt the noble Lord the Minister to agree to this amendment and not to continue any argument. I hope that I may persuade him in one sentence, before he rises, by quoting the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, when he was dealing with Amendment No. 3. The noble Lord said then—I made a note of it and he will forgive me, I hope, if I use it on a future occasion—
"It is a principle of this Government that statutory regulations should be avoided unless absolutely necessary".
Lord BELLWIN: May I just say that not only will I excuse the noble Lord for using the phrase but I hope he will do so at regular intervals for a long time to come?
Lord MISHCON: I do it now!
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, was quite right in thinking that people should be able to know, but I must have expressed myself rather badly. I did say that, as well as automatically going to local, county and district levels of local authoritities, copies are purchasable and large operators normally have standing orders for them. What I obviously did not make clear was that the applications themselves are also available for public inspection at the offices of the commissioners. Any member of the public who is interested can go to local councils and get them. There is no secrecy about that.
My noble friend Lord Lucas said that the 40-day negative procedure was secretive. I think he underestimates the activities of Members of Parliament in another place and of Peers in this Chamber who are interested in various matters. I am not aware of many things of interest slipping by unnoticed. The intention of the Oppositon in putting this in to the Bill
182
would still be vague: it would still need to be backed up by regulations that would have to be published anyhow. That is my advice.
Baroness STEDMAN: Can the noble Lord say how the general public would know that these were available at the offices of the commissioners if there was no publication about them?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: That is a good question, indeed. But you have your local councillor, and I should have thought that if you made it clear to him that you wished to be informed when such regulations were coming along, he could see that you were informed.
Lord UNDERHILL: There is obviously no difference between us about the necessity for publication, as I said earlier. For the life of me, I just cannot understand why, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, if there is no disagreement, these four or five simple words should not be put into the Bill. The Government have put down 81 amendments to their own Bill. This is another one which they might have slipped in, having left it out by mistake. It is such a simple little thing and it makes the position quite clear. Why leave this to be dealt with solely by regulation, when by putting in these few words everybody would be completely happy, because we are in complete agreement about the need for publication?
On Question, amendment negatived.
6.42 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 6, leave out lines 28 and 29 and insert—
(" (a) where it is proposed that passengers shall be either taken up or set down in the area of any other traffic commissioners the applicant shall at the same time send copies of the application to those other commissioners; and
(b) the applicant shall give any such commissioners such information as they may reasonably require for dealing with or disposing of the application ".)
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to be of help, when an application for a road service licence is before the traffic commissioners in one area and the new service proposes the

183
taking up or setting down of passengers in an area covered by other traffic commissioners. What the amendment proposes is that when an applicant sends his application to the traffic commissioners for his own area, he shall at the same time send copies of the application to the commissioners for those other areas. Paragraph (b) provides that the applicant shall give those other commissioners such information as they may require. The purpose of the amendment is to enable the commissioners in the first area to consider the application and, if satisfied, to grant the licence. It is understood that at present it will be necessary for the traffic commissioners for the various areas involved each to give a separate licence.
Our intention—I am certain that in this we shall have the wholehearted backing of the Government—is to simplify the procedure in this case and to reduce bureaucracy. We understand that that is what the Government wish to achieve. When this matter was considered in Committee in another place, the hope was expressed that the Minister might reflect upon it before the Bill achieved a later stage. We have tabled the amendment in the hope that there may now have been this reflection and that, in the interests of assisting procedure and removing bureaucracy, the Government will agree to it. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: The noble Lord's last words are dear to my heart, but I am not sure that his amendment will do precisely that. I totally accept that he is concerned that applications for cross-boundary services should be dealt with as expeditiously as possible. In practice, traffic commissioners will still work closely together on such applications. Joint sittings will frequently be appropriate. But we should not try to spell out the procedural details here and now. It may be that the final decision will be to require applicants to copy their applications to the commissioners for all the relevant traffic areas, but there are alternatives. It may be simpler to require an application to be sent to only one area, which the commissioners would then copy to all other areas.
I think that the industry will want to be consulted on this, and it is far more
184
sensible to hammer out the details in regulations. Regulations are much simpler to alter—this applies to what I was saying on the last amendment—than are Bills which have become Acts of Parliament. After all, only practice makes perfect, and what we want is flexibility, which the noble Lord wants. We think that regulations offer a better chance of improving procedures later, if we find that to be necessary. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw this amendment. His right honourable and honourable friends in the other place discussed this matter at great length and did not press the amendment to a Division, so I hope that he will copy them.
Lord UNDERHILL: If the noble Lord is saying quite definitely that the Government see that there is a case for looking at some improved procedure, and he also gives an assurance that the industry will be consulted, we shall be quite happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 6, line 29, at end insert (" which information shall be made available for public inspection.")
The noble Lord said: I could not have moved this amendment if the last but one amendment had been agreed. In that amendment which was negatived, we pressed for the publication of applications. This further amendment deals with the question of the additional information which applicants may be asked to supply. In this case, we think it would be asking much too much to ask for all the additional information to be published. But what we do ask is that the additional information should be made available for public inspection, and that anyone who considers there is a case for submitting an objection or other representation must be in a position to see the relevant information. We are not asking for publication. We are asking that all the relevant information should be available for public inspection. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: We have already established on the previous amendment that we all agree on the importance of publishing the details of applications for road service licences. In addition to the notices which are published at frequent intervals by commissioners, the applications themselves are available for public inspection at the offices of the commissioners. This is already laid down in regulations: it will continue to be so. I hope that this will satisfy the noble Lord. It really is much the same principle as we were talking about on the last two amendments.
Lord UNDERHILL: In the light of what the Minister said previously and the withdrawal on that occasion, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Nugent of Guildford): The next amendment is No. 26, and F should point out that in the second line the first "or" should read "on".
6.48 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 7, line 7, at end insert—
(" () the likely effect on the public of granting such a licence or the continuity or efficiency of any existing services;
() road safety; ").
The noble Lord said: This amendment contains only a few words, but we regard it as of the utmost importance. It will be recalled that during the Second Reading debate, some of us on these Benches made clear our criticism of the emphasis placed in considering applications for road service licences. The Bill proposes a shift in the balance towards the applicant, so that an applicant shall be granted a licence unless the commissioners are satisfied that to do so would be against the interests of the public. The change of emphasis in this direction makes it absolutely imperative that the commissioners shall have regard to the effect of a proposed new service on existing services, and on the important question of road safety.
Again, during the Second Reading debate, a great deal of concern was expressed about the difficult task that would be
186
given to the traffic commissioners in the light of the change in balance to determine the interests of the public. It is essential that the commissioners shall consider not only the interests of the persons living on or adjacent to the proposed route, but the interests of the public in other areas who may be affected by the grant of an application.
I stressed in an earlier debate the effects of cross-subsidisation and, whatever may be the doubts expressed on the Government side, it is a fact that operators, particularly those with an extensive network of routes, run buses on many unremunerative routes from the surpluses they receive from the more profitable services.
Therefore, it is essential that the traffic commissioners should consider the effect on those who benefit from cross subsidisation, should a new application be granted. There will be no gain if a new operator is allowed to run a service on a profitable route, or just at a profitable time, if we find that this only leads to the withdrawal of other services on unremunerative routes. I would urge noble Lords who are interested particularly in rural areas to note this point very carefully: that instead of securing an increase of services in such areas, the new criteria could lead, if we are not careful, to further damage to services in those areas.
Despite car-sharing and other innovations, a normal bus service is something which we all wish to achieve. Few will disagree that extensive networks are essential for a public bus system that is able to serve the maximum number of persons in the largest number of areas, and cross-subsidisation helps us to do this.
The amendment also refers to road safety. When discussing the question of licences, little has been said about this aspect, but it is a matter which we feel the commissioners should be expected to consider. In my view, the Government cannot possibly oppose the points in our amendment because their inclusion in the Bill will give to the traffic commissioners a helpful indication of the criteria to be considered when applications are before them. We hope, therefore, that this amendment will be included. We regard it as absolutely imperative that the points made in it should be included in the Bill. I beg to move.
6.52 p.m.
Lord MORRIS: This is a most extraordinary amendment. Clause 5 quite clearly makes the test that is placed upon the traffic commissioners, that in granting such a licence they must consider or have regard to the interests of the public. I should have thought that that was quite clear. What this amendment, as drafted, is seeking to do is to place a statutory duty upon the traffic commissioners to consider the likely effect on the public. In other words, they are making it a statutory duty to soothsay or to crystal-gaze on the effect it will have on the public, and as a test I do not think that that is the least bit reasonable.
I should have thought that Clause 5 as drafted is perfectly adequate. The traffic commissioners will take into consideration the safety aspects as well as the interests of the public. Nothing that I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, say has made me think that this amendment adds anything whatsoever to this clause.
Baroness FISHER of REDNAL: It is important to mention that this affects not only rural areas but also urban areas where public money is being used to subsidise certain bus services because the local authorities think that those services are good for the public.
If I may go back to what was said by the noble Lord on the Front Bench, very often this is because local councillors have worked hard on the local authorities and the PTEs and PTAs to make sure that the services are good for their electors. Therefore, a lot of thought and work by many urban areas has gone into this, as a result of which local authorities have seen fit to subsidise what they think are uneconomic routes.
I go back to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, at the beginning of the debate: the public services are providing a network. It has to be reiterated time and time again that if one is thinking of providing a network, obviously, as it is being provided by a public body, consideration has to be given to what the public wants, otherwise there will be political and electoral repercussions.
188
One also has to say that because urban areas and municipal authorities run uneconomic routes, what they are going to do if they get competition will not be to pull out of the competitive routes. They will stand their ground; that is where the cream is. They will be the competitors. But they will have to consider pulling out of their uneconomic routes. When I spoke yesterday to members of the Association of Municipal Authorities, I found that there was a feeling that in many areas many of those uneconomic routes which are being run by PTAs are carrying school children. It might be that the PTAs will decide, as the Government cut back on local authority grants, that this is a service to cut out because they are determined to fight for those routes which are fully paying now and to stand their ground where competition is concerned.
I repeat what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill: that it is the services to the general public about which we are concerned. It is those services which are going to suffer because of the breaking down of the network. The public transport system must take into consideration the effect on the public. We have to make sure that both taxpayers' money and ratepayers' money which has gone into the building up of public services is not sacrificed on the high altar of some operator who wants to come in and make a quick buck out of the more lucrative parts of the public network.
Lord MISHCON: May I add a slightly new thought to this debate, especially in view of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Morris? There is a new onus in regard to the granting of licences. The new onus is not upon somebody to prove that it is in the interests of the public. The new onus is that one has to prove that it is against the interests of the public for the licence to be refused.
There are legal connotations, because an appeal lies from the traffic commissioners to the Minister. I notice from the Marshalled List that an amendment is to be moved by the noble Lord the Minister in which he is going to say that on a point of law one can go to the High Court in England and to the Court of Session in Scotland as to whether the traffic commissioners have acted correctly

189
and as to whether the Minister has acted correctly in law. Your Lordships will be treated to a part of that amendment in which the court is going to be given the power, if the amendment succeeds, to take the place of the Minister and the traffic commissioners and make the decisions itself.
I do not want to anticipate the victory of the Government in regard to that amendment, but I must assume it for one moment. High Court judges are expert upon many things but they are not—so far as one is aware, unless a few of them have had it by way of special experience—experts on the matter of transport and the use of transport by the public, the requirements of the public and what is contrary to the public interest.
Especially in view of the Government's own desire for a whole network of appeals, and whether the traffic commissioners and the Minister have taken the right things into consideration, it is necessary for these matters to be spelled out in this Bill. I repeat that this is especially so when the onus has shifted as it now has. Is it not right that in those circumstances, when looking at whether it is contrary to the interests of the public, matters of safety should be taken into account? Tt is not a good enough answer to say, "But of course the traffic commissioners will, of course the Minister will, and if this amendment succeeds so will the High Court judge or the Judge of the Court of Session in Scotland". If we are to put these matters of a most serious nature into an Act of Parliament they must be spelt out and the two things contained in this amendment are essential ingredients. I therefore especially ask that the legal issues here are made transparently clear.
There cannot be any objection at all to the two ingredients of safety and the whole question of efficiency from the public point of view—the economy of the service from a public point of view, if the grant of a licence is to be made or is to be refused. Therefore, on consideration and with no politics in this at all, from the point of view of clarity and from the point of view of tidiness and in the proper way in which this discretion should be spelt out, I hope your Lordships will agree that this amendment should be welcomed.
Viscount SIMON: I support this amendment and I only want to meet the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. I agree that the wording of the amendment is rather curious. I suggest that it could be met by an amendment at the next stage to delete the words "on the public" so that it reads:
'" the likely effect of granting such a licence or the continuity or efficiency of any existing services ".
Lord BELLWIN: I think that this amendment highlights the differences that exist between the thinking on this side of the Committee and noble Lords opposite and indeed between the thinking of the Government and the Opposition. I can understand the motives behind this amendment, but I cannot agree that it is necessary or indeed desirable. What we have done in subsection (3) of this clause is to set out in very general terms what the traffic commissioners must look at when considering a licence application. However, let me emphasise that nothing that the Bill says precludes examination of any question or argument which affects the public interest. It is inconceivable that the effect of a proposed service on existing services would not be a major consideration of the commissioners where that was put to them. It is for them to decide, having looked at all such arguments, whether the grant of a licence would be against the interests of the public.
The trouble is that when one begins to list in other than general terms the matters to which the commissioners must have regard, undue weight begins to attach to them. If a number of matters are spelt out, does that mean that others are not to be regarded? For example, if we put in road safety is there some implication that environmental matters are not to be considered? Tn my view the Bill has the balance right now. First, there is the most general of requirements to consider the transport requirements of the area. We have then picked out specifically the county transport plans and policies because the planning role of counties is, in our view (and I think that of the Opposition) of particular importance. Lastly we have made it clear, lest there should have been any doubt, that the commissioners must pay regard to any relevant representations made to them. Let it then be for the commissioners to weigh all the arguments.

191
Of course, road safety can be relevant to deciding whether to grant a licence or not. Of course inter-relationships between services are relevant—not only financial interrelationships (cross-subsidisation is certainly sometimes vital, if not always as much as has been claimed) but also physical connections between services. The traffic commissioners will of course take this into account without precise statutory requirement. The effect on existing services will certainly be argued before the commissioners either by the local authority (to whose policies and plans the commissioners must have regard) or in objections or representations. If they are not so brought up, the reason will probably be that no one thinks them relevant in that case.
If I may just comment on the observations made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, with respect, I think her reference to the school buses was a delightful red herring right across the trail. Can one really see the local education authorities saying "Well, times is 'ard", as Dickens said and therefore the first thing we must do is to stop carrying out our statutory obligations with regard to providing free transport for children to school? I think that is not likely to happen. So far as services to the general public are concerned, the noble Baroness rightly emphasised that this was a key aspect of what this is all about. I entirely agree with her, but we are saying that the proposals we have and the way we propose to improve those general services to the

CONTENTS

Airedale. L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ashby, L.

Gregson, L.

Rhodes, L.

Balogh, L.

Hale, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Banks, L.

Hampton, L.

Rochester, L.

Barrington, V.

Howie of Troon, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Birk, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Seear, B.

Blease, L.

Jacques, L.

Simon, V.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jeger, B.

Stedman, B.

Brockway, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stone, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Leonard, L.

Strauss, L.

Collison, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

McCarthy, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Underhill, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Northfield, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Galpern, L.

Oram, L.

Whaddon, L.

Glenamara, L.

Peart, L.

Wigoder, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Phillips, B.

192
public will be a more effective one than the adherence to the cross-subsidisation worries that so trouble noble Lords opposite. The reference to taxpayers' and ratepayers' money struck a chord in my heart, as I am sure the noble Baroness would expect it to, because I know that her interest in the local scene has been very much akin to my own.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, hoped that we would not oppose this. By now I am sure he is not surprised to learn that we do oppose it, and therefore I hope he may feel that the hour being what it is perhaps he might withdraw the amendment.
Lord UNDERHILL: I should like to make just one point. If the noble Lord and other noble Lords opposite will look at Clause 9, dealing with certain excursions and tours he will see that there are clear instructions given to the traffic commissioners that the proposed service would not compete directly with any other road service for which a licence has been granted. It is good enough to put it in that clause; let us put it in this one which is an even more important clause and affects all stage bus services. In no circumstances can we withdraw this very important amendment.
7.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 26) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56; Non-Contents, 96.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Gainford, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Glasgow, E.

O'Hagan, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Gormanston, V.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gridley, L.

Onslow, E.

Auckland, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Orkney, E.

Baker, L.

Hacking, L.

Pender, L.

Bellwin, L.

Harvington, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Belstead, L.

Henley, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Holderness, L.

Redmayne, L.

Bradford, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Brookeborough, V.

Inglewood, L.

St. Davids, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Keyes, L.

Sandford, L.

Caithness, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kimberley, E.

Savile, L.

Cathcart, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Selkirk, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Colville of Culross, V.

Linlithgow, M.

Sharpies, B.

Colwyn, L.

Long, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Soames, L. (L. President.)

Craigavon, V.

Lyell, L.

Spens, L.

Crathorne, L.

McFadzean, L.

Stamp, L.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Croft, L.

Mancroft, L.

Strathspey, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Margadale, L.

Swinton, E.

Davidson, V.

Merrivale, L.

Teviot, L.

de Clifford, L.

Milverton, L.

Tranmirc, L.

De La Warr, E.

Minto, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Donegall, M.

Morris, L.

Trenchard, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mottistone, L.

Trumpington, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Vivian, L.

Elton, L.

Wise, L.

Ferrier, L.

Newall, L.

Young, B.

Fortescue, E.

Lord TREFGARNE: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.

CORONERS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1980
7.15 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I beg to move, that the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1980, a draft of which was laid before the House on 31st March, be approved. This is a lengthy and detailed Order which will make a number of changes in the law which are aimed at improving the day to day administration of justice in Northern Ireland. A large
194
proportion of the provisions follow closely provisions which have already been enacted for England and Wales.
For example, Articles 3 to 5, which amend and consolidate the powers of courts to order payment of compensation by offenders to victims of crime, follow closely corresponding provisions in the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973. Article 6 amends the provision of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969, which relate to the making of restitution orders in relation to stolen property. This provision is modelled on Section 6 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972.
Article 7 strengthens the power of the court by enabling it to deprive an offender of his rights in property used for the purposes of crime in certain cases. Article 8 extends the court's powers to deal with the criminal by enabling it to disqualify from driving anyone who is convicted of an offence carrying a penalty of two years or more in which a motor vehicle was used. Both these provisions have equivalents in the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973.
Part I of Schedule 1 makes a series of amendments to the Magistrates' Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964, and Part II

195
contains amendments to a number of other enactments. Many of these are minor or technical and most have English equivalents. This measure has, of course, been through the normal consultative procedures. Your Lordships may wish to know that during the consultative period reservations were expressed on two items and that these were in consequence withdrawn from the order. The first was an amendment to the Magistrates' Courts Act which would have enabled a near relative to enter a plea on behalf of the accused; the second was an amendment to the 1968 Children and Young Persons Act enabling a magistrates court dealing with a juvenile jointly charged with an adult to sentence the juvenile rather than remit him to a juvenile court. Neither of these proposals is now incorporated in this draft order.
As I said earlier, this is a detailed order containing a wide variety of provisions whose general aim is to streamline the administration of justice and to strengthen the courts in dealing with offenders in Northern Ireland. I do not think it would serve the interest of the House if I was to recite all of its minor provisions. As it was tabled at the end of March, your Lordships have had an opportunity to consider it at some length, and I think it would, therefore, be for the greater convenience of the House if I restrict myself to the general introduction I have given and devote any further available time that may be needed to replying to those points which your Lordships may wish to draw to our special attention. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 31st March be approved.—(Lord Elton.)
Lord BLEASE: My Lords, may I express thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for his explanation of this draft order. As the Minister has indicated, the order is a more helpful revised draft of an earlier draft proposal. I warmly welcome the provisions contained in the order, which I believe have the general support of the Incorporated Law Society of Northern Ireland and other interested bodies. As the noble Lord has indicated, the order makes for a number of improvements in the administration of criminal
196
justice in Northern Ireland and brings in changes to correspond with those recently made for England and Wales.
I wish to mention two matters only: first, specially to welcome Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the order, which facilitate making compensation available to victims of crime and bring Northern Ireland broadly in line with the position in Great Britain. The second point arises in Schedule 1, Part II, paragraph 36, on page 14 of the Order, dealing with the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959. As I understand it, the present law makes it mandatory that an inquest be held by the coroner in whose jurisdiction the death occurs. The order amends Section 13 of the 1959 Act to enable a coroner to hold a single inquest on a number of deaths arising from circumstances, or an accident, provided he obtains the consent of any other coroner in whose district any of the deaths occurred. I believe this proposal in the order to be reasonable and helpful and it meets today's criminal justice requirements.
I should like to ask the noble Lord whether there are any reasons to prevent a similar arrangement in the case of a single death? What I have in mind is the removal of a critically ill patient from a more remote part of the Province to a hospital in Belfast, and the patient subsequently dies in the district of another coroner. Witnesses and relations may have to travel considerable distances to attend the inquest. It would appear to me that, in such circumstances and with the agreement of both coroners, the inquest could be held in the most convenient jurisdiction. I believe that this arrangement, while it may not be feasible to have it incorporated into the order, ought to be taken into consideration and I would request the Minister perhaps to give it attention if not in relation to this order on some subsequent occasion. I have pleasure in supporting the order.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to begin by welcoming the order as a whole and by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for his explanation. However, I should like to raise a few points on the order. The first concerns the control of the courts as a whole in Northern Ireland. Under the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act which

197
was passed last year, the complete administration of the courts was handed to the Lord Chancellor's Office. However, under Article 11 we find that the Secretary of State is mentioned in regard to fees for medical practitioners.
I believe that the Government must make it absolutely clear—dare I use the word "disinfected"?—that the courts of Northern Ireland should be disinfected from the political office of the Northern Ireland Office, which is necessarily involved in politics and, therefore, I believe that it is a mistake if, in a measure concerning the judicature, there is some part of it which relates to the Northern Ireland Office. I believe most seriously that this was a great move on the part of the last Government in centring the control of the whole judicature in the Lord Chancellor's Office. It makes it infinitely more difficult for the terrorist at a future date to discredit the courts. Had that not been done I believe that there are courts today which would not necessarily have such a high standing as they have at present.
I turn next to Article 10. Having been in politics solidly for a long time and having been elected for a long time—and I have withstood charges of discrimination of a fairly serious nature and, I might say, I have denied them—I believe that we have in this article a very serious charge of discrimination. Paragraph (1) makes it an offence to be drunk and incapable and that is, I believe, fair enough. But paragraph (2) makes it an offence to be drunk in charge of a horse or cattle. What about the sheep? Indeed, I would go further. Today, I travelled down by car and when I was on the West Derby Road, which is a dual carriageway, the traffic was stopped and a most delightful duck and her family of about 10 ducklings crossed the road. We stopped the traffic and the duck got up onto the verge. Two of her ducklings simply could not get over the verge. So I stopped and helped the ducklings up. It was 7 o'clock in the morning. What would have been the state of those poor ducklings if they had been unprotected by the law and there had been a drunkard helping them?
Further—and I think that there is a case to answer—some noble Lords may not know that in Northern Ireland we have an organisation called the Loyal
198
Orange Lodge. At this time there is a considerable increase in the number of members being enrolled. One of the parts—in theory—of that enrolment is a ride on the goat. That goat is not being protected by this particular piece of legislation. So, nothing has demonstrated to me more than this, the remoteness of the Northern Ireland Office from the Northern Ireland people. I should like the Northern Ireland Office—indeed, the Minister—to explain those omissions.
Lord SPENS: My Lords, I had my attention drawn by the noble Lord who has just sat down to paragraph (2) of Article 10 of the order, and it quite horrifies me. One has the idea that some of these new suggestions are perhaps tried out first in Northern Ireland before possibly being brought across to this country. Although, as far as I know, I have never been in the situation which paragraph (2) might put me, there are, I should say, quite a number of my friends who possibly have been and who are possibly likely to be in the future. I am thinking of those who perhaps go to a meet of hounds at the local inn and then try to mount their horses a little later than they should have done. To find that they might be guilty of an offence and may not only be fined up to £20, but possibly imprisoned for two months, is rather shattering. Moreover, under paragraph (4), one sees that a constable might arrest them without any warrant if he considered that there was reasonable cause to suspect that such a person was in the act of committing such an offence. As I have said, it quite horrifies me.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I am grateful first to the noble Lord, Lord Blease, for his welcome to the order and particularly for his welcome to Articles 3, 4 and 5. He was kind enough to give me notice of the instance which he wished to draw to your Lordships' attention concerning the question of transferability of an inquest. I understand that, if a Londonderry man has an accident and dies in Belfast, difficulties may arise. I agree that, in those circumstances, an inquest at a distance from the deceased's home may be inconvenient for relatives. On the other hand, it may be more convenient for witnesses and of course in complicated cases the witnesses may be numerous and that may be rightly taken as the prevailing

199
consideration. However, as this is a matter which now falls within the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor, I shall ask him to look at the point.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brooke-borough, then brought to my notice his disquiet, at a variety of levels, with Article 11. Section 117 and Schedule 5 to the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 had the undesired effect of transferring all ministerial and administrative responsibility for registered medical practitioners employed in connection with coroners' inquests to the Lord Chancellor. This was contrary to the stated objective of Government policy, as stated by the Solicitor-General in the debate on the Report stage of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Bill in another place on 9th June 1978, to the effect that:
"It is not intended that the work of other persons, such as pathologists, should become the responsibility of the new court service ".
The object of this article is to restore the position broadly to that which existed prior to the commencement of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 and to transfer the functions of pathologists back to the Secretary of State. I recognise that that is not an answer which my noble friend will find entirely satisfactory, and I shall ensure that my nobleand learned friend has his disquiet drawn to his attention.
My noble friend then drew your Lordships' attention to a serious matter of discrimination. I have to agree that there is no offence such as being drunk in charge of either sheep or ducks. However, under the Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Act 1851, it is an offence to allow a beast to wander on the highway. Whether or not a duck is a beast within the meaning of the Act, I do not know but, if a person allows a flock of sheep to wander on to the highway, he may be guilty of an offence under Section 10 of the 1851 Act. On the other hand, if the noble Lord is inclined to exercise his Muscovy ducks on the public highway, even if he is sober, it behoves him to keep them under control, otherwise it will be for the court to decide, not whether he is sober—which I am certain he always is, and my friends and his continually assure me on this subject when I have doubts—but whether or not a duck is a beast, which is very much more a matter of
200
conjecture. I can, of course, understand the alarm of the ducks he spoke of opposite the Orange Lodge because of the connotation which "orange" has for ducks, which is different from that for the rest of us in the Province.
The noble Lord, Lord Spens, then drew my attention and that of your Lordships to Article 10 (2). I have to tell him that we have here merely a restatement of existing law. The friends to whom he refers mounting their horses, as he put it, a little later than they should have done may, of course, constitute a hazard unless it is so late that the horses have left, in which case the law will have to take no steps of remedial action. A horse can be a very dangerous animal in traffic and, on a serious note, I think that it is an irresponsible act for anybody to go from an open meet in a state in which he cannot control his mount on the road, let alone in the hunting field, where he can do equal execution among the mounted traffic.
I think that that deals with all the points that your Lordships brought to the attention of the House. I am grateful for the support that we have had and that we have been able to deal with this order as we have done.

CONCESSIONARY TRAVEL FOR HANDICAPPED PERSONS (SCOTLAND) BILL
7.34 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Ross of Marnock.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord AMHERST of HACKNEY in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Travel concessions for handicapped persons]:
Lord FERRIER Lord FERRIER moved the amendment:
Page 1, line 19, at end insert—
(" (4) Nothing in this Act shall prevent a local authority from adopting some system

201
whereby a handicapped person whose place of residence is not served by any public transport may, within well-defined limits, obtain concessionary motor fuel.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name, and to say that in doing so I have no desire to delay the passage of the Bill. It is simply that in my view the Bill does not go far enough, and my amendment would have the effect of extending its scope. My point is that whereas the Bill provides for concessionary fares on public transport, there is no provision for concessionary assistance to handicapped people who have no access to public transport. It follows that the provisions of this Bill chiefly benefit people with ready access to public transport, and quite rightly, too. But, in places where there is no public transport within reach, such concessions are of no effect.
As emerged from the Second Reading debate of this Bill, I have in mind to suggest that a system could be devised whereby persons recognised by local authorities as being handicapped would be able to obtain assistance in terms of motor fuel so that they could make private arrangements to be transported on necessary journeys. This need might, of course, be met by the mobility allowance. But not every disabled person is in receipt of this allowance, particularly among those over the age of 65; because unless the allowance was awarded before the disabled person reached 65 years of age, he or she is not eligible. As one of the authorities I have consulted writes:
"You will note that unless the person satisfies strict medical criteria, they are not eligible for financial help from the Government, so that any concession local authorities can make for travel would, indeed, be most welcome to the majority of disabled people".
To contemplate the use of the ambulance service to meet this sort of problem would be an extravagance, and the postal bus service arrangements can hardly apply. However, having read the proceedings in another place—and I congratulate the honourable Member who introduced the Private Bill and got it through the other place—and having studied the statutes mentioned in Clause 1 (1) and (2), it is clear that the sort of travel concession I have in mind can hardly come within the four corners of this Bill.
At the same time I have salved my conscience by using this opportunity to suggest a service which would be worth while. I hope that what we have been saying here will find its way into the considerations of the Scottish Office and the consumer councils. Perhaps the Government spokesman can reassure me on this point. I beg to move.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for raising this particular point and for the fact that he gave me notice of it. He is a very persistent noble Lord because he raised it on Second Reading and said that he would pursue it. So he need not think that he has done anything other than carry out his duty, and his conscience should be clear.
I am sorry indeed that it will not be possible wthin this Bill to proceed along the lines he has suggested. The Bill has a very limited purpose indeed. It rectifies an anomaly in the legislation covering concessionary fares that presently exists between Scotland and England. Of course, from the Title of the Bill and from Clause 1, one sees that it is limited entirely to travel concessions for handicapped persons travelling on public service vehicles. Unless they travel on public service vehicles, there is no possibility of a concession. As the noble Lord rightly said, not only in Scotland but in Wales and England there are great areas where no public services are available at all. It may well be that the related previous discussions we have had today hold out some hope, but again not on public service vehicles. Therefore, that limits the purposes of the Bill. I can well understand the noble Lord's feelings about that. I share them. However, he did try to limit this within his amendment to handicapped persons who are covered by this particular Bill.
It is only fair to point out that there is considerable help for handicapped persons within the provisions of other legislation. I can remember when I entered the House just after the war that we eventually got a Minister of Pensions—in those days the Ministry of Pensions applied only to war pensioners—who was of course a Scotsman, George Buchanan, and he introduced the tricycle car for war pensioners. He became the first head of the National

203
Assistance Board. It was said that they got rid of him because if he had stayed any longer as Minister of Pensions he would have bankrupted the Government. His idea was that you did not turn down any pension cases; you only corrected your civil servants when they were prepared to do that.
There has been considerable development, and both sides of the House have something to their credit in this respect, because that was eventually brought in for other disabled people. There was then of course the 1975 development of the mobility allowance. There was the phasing out of the old tricycle form of car and the provision of four-wheeled cars. Then there was the option given in 1979, following a committee headed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp—I knew her better as Dame Evelyn Sharp—in relation to cash support for anyone running a car; and remember that it is not just the person who is handicapped, but it was extended, to enable the handicapped person to get out, to provide for somebody else to drive the car. There were considerable advances.
I am aware of the difficulties here. It is not available for the first time to people over 65. It may well be that that is the way forward in respect of the aim that the noble Lord has in mind, and the present limitations there could be attended to. That would have the benefit too of not being just applicable to Scotland. It would be applicable to the whole country. In rectifying one anomaly we do not want to create another one, or give the impression of creating another one, by putting something like this into this particular Bill.
I am grateful for the support that the noble Lord has given to the principle purposes of the Bill and for the speech that he has made tonight pointing a way forward, and showing that there is still a gap in social provision. I think he will appreciate that I cannot see my way to recommending his amendment to the Committee.
Lord FERRIER: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I appreciate what he has said, and ask forgiveness of noble Lords for raising a matter which is a bit outside the scope of
204
the Bill as it stands, but I have been at it for years over various things. The last time was trying to get concessionary installation charges for telephones for old people who were far away, and so on, but we need not go into that tonight. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
[The sitting was suspended from 7.46 to 8 p.m.]

TRANSPORT BILL
House again in Committee.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 7, line 12, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
(" (c) any objections or other representations made to the Commissioners in the prescribed manner by—

(i) the chief officer of police of any police district in which the service is proposed to be provided;

(ii) any of the local authorities concerned;

(iii) any district council, any London borough council and the Common Council of the City of London;

(iv) any person who is already providing road passenger transport facilities along or near to the route or any part of it;

(v) any other person considered relevant by them.").

The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall, in dealing with this amendment, speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 28 and 40 which are consequential. Clause 5 (3) (b) provides that traffic commissioners, when considering and application for a road service licence, shall have regard to the
"transport policies or plans which have been made by the local authorities concerned and have been drawn to the commissioners' attention by those authorities".
The next paragraph defines the local authorities as being the county councils in England and Wales and the regional and islands councils in Scotland. Paragraph (c) further provides that traffic commissioners shall have regard to,

205
"any objections or other representations made to the commissioners",
which they, the commissioners, regard as relevant. We consider this to be most unsatisfactory and much too narrow. The persons and organisations entitled to make objections or other representations should, in our view, be more clearly defined and not be left for possible inclusion among those whom the commissioners consider to be relevant. The amendment seeks to right this position.
In addition to the county councils and Scottish local authorities defined in the clause, the amendment seeks to specify that included among those entitled to make representations and objections shall be the chief police officer of the area concerned, and not only the local authorities to which I have referred and which are mentioned in the Bill but also the district councils and London boroughs. The operators who are already providing passenger services along or near the route must, in our view, also be included. All the bodies which I have listed will have a direct interest, and in addition to the persons and bodies which are specified, the amendment also retains the umbrella provision for any other person the traffic commissioners consider to be relevant.
It will be noted that the amendment seeks to include district councils and the London borough councils, in addition to the counties and Scottish regional and islands councils. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of District Councils both want to ensure the fullest involvement of the district councils, and I have no doubt that they would support the amendment. It must be borne in mind that some 50 district councils have transport undertakings, but that all district councils will be directly involved in public transport services. For those reasons, I hope the Government will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: The amendment leaves the commissioners with a peculiar decision to make as to whether a person making a representation is a relevant person rather than whether the points being made are relevant. I think the noble Lord is making something of a mountain out of a molehill, if I may say so. The only purpose of the change made by
206
the Bill is to ensure that the rights of individuals, parish councils, community groups and the like to make representations to the commissioners are no longer in doubt, as has sometimes been the case in the past. The new wording will have no adverse effect on the rights of local authorities or operators. There is no sinister motive behind the phrase "which in their opinion are relevant". This is common sense designed merely to prevent time-wasting debate which can occur when a person is putting forward arguments or presenting facts which have nothing to do with the question the commissioners are considering or which go beyond their jurisdiction. That is all that is envisaged, and I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness FISHER of REDNAL: The Local Government Act 1972 placed clear duties on the county council to promote the provision of a co-ordinated and efficient system of public transport to meet the needs of the county. As, therefore, they must provide a co-ordinated and efficient system, this provision is necessary. Further, under the Transport Act 1978 the metropolitan county council was given the duty of developing policies which would promote the provision of a coordinated and efficient system to meet the county's needs. For those reasons we should include a clear provision in the Bill so that those necessary needs, as outlined in the 1972 and 1978 Acts, can clearly he put into operation, with the representations as outlined in the amendment able to be put. I therefore hope the Government will consider the needs of the public services in this regard.
Viscount SIMON: I thought the Minister gave an adequate reply and, with respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, paragraph (b) directly draws to the attention of the commissioners any transport policies such as those of which she was speaking, as made by the local authorities concerned, which would include district authorities and county councils. I feel that the general expression in the clause as drafted is preferable to the amendment, which would tend to lead to the position that there might be people outside the list of five who could make relevant representations and they would be left out altogether.
Lord UNDERHILL: The point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, is covered by the amendment stating
"(v) any other person considered relevant by them "—
that is, considered relevant by the traffic commissioners. That provision was deliberately inserted so that nobody who should have an entitlement would be excluded. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said there was no sinister meaning in the wording of the clause. We are not suggesting there is; that is the last thing we would suggest. What we are suggesting is an improvement in the method of handling the whole matter. The noble Lord said the purpose of the clause as drafted was to avoid time-wasting debate. That is precisely what we are trying to do—by laying down specific bodies from whom the commissioners should be prepared to receive objections and representations—and any argument as to whether they are relevant would be avoided because the position would be clearly stated in the Bill. We are assisting the Government by trying to avoid time-wasting debate.
There is another point which cannot be denied. Unless our amendment is agreed, it is most improbable that the commissioners would feel that district councils and the London boroughs are not relevant, in so far as the local authorities which are specifically picked out are the county councils in England and Wales and the regional councils and the island councils in Scotland. Therefore, by our including in sub-paragraph (iii) the provision for the district councils and the London borough councils we are ensuring that their views will be heard. There seems to be every reason why our amendment should be agreed to. We are assisting the Government in what they are endeavouring to do, but we are clearly defining the rights of these people, and I imagine that that would be of great assistance to the traffic commissioners.
Lord BELLWIN: All I wish to add is that I have to stand on the point that the Bill says that the commissioners would have to have regard to any representations by whomsoever made provided that they were relevant to the application. I think that that covers the point all right. I feel that the noble Lord need have no fears on this matter, and we cannot accept the amendment.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My noble friend Lord Bellwin did not extend the point that he was making quite as far as he might have done. Is it not a fact that points relative to the commissioners' decision and inquiries may quite easily not come from relevant people in regard to the particular application?
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Attachment to road service licences of conditions as to matters other than fares]:
8.12 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 7, line 36, leave out (" 5 (3) (a) to (c) ") and insert ("5 (3) (a), (aa) , (ab) , (b) and (c).").
The noble Lord said: The clause with which we are now concerned relates to the powers of the traffic commissioners to add to road service licences conditions, other than conditions on fares, as they may think fit, and we do not disagree with that. All the amendment seeks to do is to provide that the commissioners shall not exercise these powers without first considering any objections or representations received. The bodies from whom we say they should be prepared to consider objections and representations will be those listed in Clause 5, on which your Lordships have just decided. We regard this as a small but important amendment, and we trust that the noble Lord the Minister will be able to accept it.
Again this is a matter which, in the discussions in another place, the Secretary of State said can best be dealt with by regulations, but once more we make it quite clear here that as we are really saying that a matter should not be determined without consideration of objections and representations, this point should clearly be written into the Bill, because it is written into the Bill in many other clauses. Why can it not be done on this occasion? I hope that the noble Lord will accept the amendment.
Lord BELLWIN: I thought that when speaking to Amendment No. 26 I said that my comments then also applied to

209
Amendment No. 29, and so I have nothing to add, other than to say that we cannot accept the amendment.
Lord UNDERHILL: Perhaps I should apologise to the Committee. It is my intention not to move Amendment No. 29, because it was consequential. What I have spoken on is actually Amendment No. 30, which I should now like to move, if that is acceptable to the Committee. Amendment No. 29 is in fact not moved.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
8.15 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 8, line 19, at end insert—
("The Commissioners shall exercise their powers under this subsection only after considering any objections or representations received from the bodies notified under section 5 (5) above.").
The noble Lord said: I beg formally to move Amendment No. 30.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: I must complain; the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has played a dirty trick. Assuming that he was addressing my noble friend Lord Bellwin, I was in a nice state of oblivion, thinking of the good dinner I had had, but now I find I have to answer the noble Lord. As I said to the noble Lord about 50 minutes ago, my answers to him this evening are somewhat on the lines of a theme song. This matter has been discussed at great length in another place by the noble Lord's honourable and right honourable friends and by my honourable and right honourable friends. We all agree that parties interested in the grant of a licence are obviously and most importantly interested in changes to the licence by variations in conditions. Regulations currently require commissioners either to publish proposals in Notices and Proceedings or to notify affected parties, and then to consider any objections or representations before taking further action. My right honourable friend the Minister undertook in another place to maintain that requirement in the regulations that he will shortly be drawing up. I repeat that assurance, as I have done on so many earlier amendments.
210
This amendment demonstrates how much better it is to proceed by way of regulations in such detailed matters, than to try to spell out everything in the main legislation. The amendment suggests, however inadvertently, that only the bodies notified under Clause 5 (5) should have the right to make representations, but that covers only the police and local authorities. When major changes in conditions are proposed, such as a major re-routing of the service, or the removal of conditions about stopping places, other transport providers, or the unions, or members of the public, may want to comment. In such cases the proposal will be published, a range of representations received, and if necessary, a public sitting held.
Of course in very minor cases—say, the moving of a stop 20 yards up or down the road—the operator will keep his passengers informed, and otherwise only those with traffic management responsibilities are likely to be interested. They will be notified of the proposed change by the commissioners. That is the sensible flexibility that the regulations allow. I apologise to noble Lords that so much of what I have to say sounds like a theme song. But there is this difference between us. We are all trying to get at the same thing, but we are each going about it in a different way, and we think that our way is the better way.
Lord UNDERHILL: I appreciate that this matter has been discussed in another place, but of course that does not debar us from discussing it. We can make improvements which the other place has missed. In fact, even the Government are doing that, judging by the number of amendments—81 of them—to the Bill that they have proposed. So it is possible that we have found something that is wrong. I accept the assurance of the noble Lord that this matter will be covered in regulations, but if one looks through the Bill, one finds that the very provision for which we are asking here is written into other clauses: that the commissioners should not do this unless they consider objections and other representations. Whenever we ask that that should be included in the Bill, in the same way that it has been included by the Government in other clauses, we are told, "No". The matter is as simple as that.

211
In the light of what has been said, it is fairly clear that the Government are not going to move, and so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: I wish to draw attention to the assurances that my noble friend the Minister has given in the other place and that I have given to your Lordships.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 31:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
"Carriage services competing with operators holding road service licences
(. No express service or contract carriage service shall operate on a route which is served by public service vehicles operating under a Road Service Licence and supported by a transport supplementary grant and/or cross-subsidised under a passenger transport policy network agreement unless in the cases where cross-subsidy applies the prior agreement of the Traffic Commissioner is obtained and in the cases where transport supplementary grant applies the agreement of the local authority is obtained beforehand.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment is designed to insert a new clause, and I think it is one that should apeal to the Government. I hope that I am not being too optimistic in saying that. It seeks to ensure—and other noble Lords on the Government Front Bench may be particularly interested in this—that payment of a transport supplementary grant is not wasted or its effect minimised by the effect of competing services. We want to make quite certain that public money is not wasted. I should think that in that respect both the Government and this side of the Committee are in complete agreement.
Many bus services operating under road service licences are supported by a transport supplementary grant arranged through the local authority concerned. Other services are supported by cross-subsidisation under a network agreement included in a passenger transport policy of the particular local authority. What the amendment seeks to do is to provide that in such cases no express or contract carriage service shall be allowed to operate
212
on those routes unless prior agreement of the responsible authority is obtained. In the case of a transport cross-subsidisation agreement, we say there must be the agreement of the traffic commissioners; in the case of a transport supplementary grant, the agreement of the local authority shall be required. In other words, we are not providing for a veto; we are saying that it shall be subject to agreement. This seems to us to be a most sensible proposal. It is one which is going to ensure, as I have said already, that public money is not wasted, and I shall be very surprised if the Government feel they cannot accept this amendment.
Lord BELLWIN: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, had his tongue firmly in his cheek when he made his last observation before sitting down, because I have to tell him that in fact the Government cannot accept this proposal. They cannot accept what really is an attempt to reintroduce licensing controls on express services. The amendment also introduces new restrictions on contract carriage services, which even under the present system are not licensed. The Opposition clearly want to protect the local network, and I understand that; but the Government have made it clear all along that they are not out to destroy that network.
That is why licensing is being retained. It is being retained for all services which are part of that very network. I am confident that the distinction which has been drawn between express and stage carriage services does just that. I see no reason why, for example, a non-stop express bus from London to Manchester should damage the local buses stopping at villages that happen to be along the route. Contract carriages are also serving a quite different market. Similarly, we believe that commuter coaches will supplement regular services at peak periods, and will not damage the network.
The Opposition, as we have seen earlier on and doubtless will see again before this Bill is through, seem to be obsessed with cross-subsidisation and the present patterns of local authority support. It is right and proper for operators and county councils to take an objective and critical look at these patterns. The greater competition which I hope to see

213
within the local services will be a better spur to improving services and efficiency than automatic and ever-increasing reliance on subsidy. I hope the noble Lord will feel that in all the circumstances he can withdraw his proposal. I beg to move.
8.23 p.m.
Lord MISHCON: I wonder whether at some stage during this evening the Government will be prepared to admit that their judgment could be fallible. It would be a very touching exhibition of humility, and one that I think the Opposition and possibly noble Lords wherever they may sit might find rather welcome. We are not tonight debating the Government's philosophy, because, as my noble friend Lord Underhill made very clear this evening and I hope we both made clear when we addressed your Lordships' House on Second Reading, that philosophy, through the process of democracy, is the one that has to rule in this Bill. We accept that. What we are trying to do in Committee is to see whether there can be proper safeguards to ensure that that philosophy has the right effect for the travelling public and for those public operators who of necessity, and for the benefit of the travelling public, have to operate on non-economic routes.
I so well remember a Government committee on transport which sat some years ago of which I was honoured to be a member, where we considered in great detail—it happened to be dealing with London Transport—how we could possibly save the non-economic services from being adversely affected if we endeavoured to introduce reforms which included some measure of competition. On that committee, headed, I remember, by a gentleman not associated with the politics of the Right or of the Left—it was the very eminent Sir Paul Chambers, who was then (or subsequently; I cannot quite remember) chairman of ICI—we were very concerned to see that there were safeguards if our judgment and our recommendations were in fact not supported by events.
All that we are trying to do in this amendment (and I would ask the noble Lord the Minister to consider this very carefully if he would, if not tonight then in the intervening stage between now and
214
Report) is to see that there are some safeguards, just in case the Government's optimistic view—that is, that cross-subsidisation is really not necessary, and that even if grants are not made the services on the non-economic routes will still be just as good, and the rural occupant and member of the public will be just as well served as he was before; indeed, he is going to be better served—turns out, in certain areas of the country, to be wrong.
All that we are doing by way of safeguard is to see that in one case the local authority responsible for the grant is first consulted and its consent obtained, and, in the case of cross-subsidisation, that the traffic commissioner, who would not be beset by any political bias at all or unduly imbued with the philosophy of either the Government or the Opposition, can have a chance to decide whether in fact the consumer public is being adversely affected. It is this righteous self-confidence of the Government in their philosophy that makes humble beings like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and myself quake, because we cannot be quite so positive, however much faith we have in our own beliefs.
It is therefore in the hope that the Government may feel that it is possible to fail in the views that they hold—sincerely, I am sure—that I ask the Minister to wear the cloak of humility for one moment and to say that he will think about this amendment.
Lord BELLWIN: I would have thought from all that had gone on earlier in the day that I had been wearing no other cloak. Indeed, it is not without some apprehension that I contemplate what my right honourable friend the Minister is going to say when he sees all those items marked down for him to look at. He will have to spend a lot of time doing the looking. I would hope that noble Lords might feel that, all else apart, the Government today at least, in your Lordships' Committee, have been indeed very willing to be concerned at many of the very fair and apposite points which have been made, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, himself.
I fear we cannot do as he would like on this occasion. I take the point that there is always bound to be an element

215
of uncertainty. Who would be so bold or so arrogant as to pretend otherwise? Whatever the noble Lord may say, it is not the Government's certainty that they are right: it is, on the other hand, their firm belief that the proposals that they are putting forward, and this Bill itself, are an attempt to do, as I think I said earlier in the day, something which has not been done before, at least to the extent that we are proposing it; and that really it is necessary, once and for all, to take legislation which was founded on 1930, 50 years ago, and which is no longer relevant to the present scene, and make an attempt to do something to improve that which so clearly needs to be improved. It is with that as the underlying philosophy that I find myself, not without regret on a personal note, unable to accede to the request of the so persuasive noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
Lord TEVIOT: I have listened to my noble friend talking about our reforming the law of 50 years ago. Does he not agree that the 1960 Act was a very substantial reform and between 1960 and now there have been all sorts of other Acts; so that the 50-year-old reform argument, I am afraid, does not hold water?
Lord BELLWIN: I am not sure whether I am called upon to comment further. If I am, I would only say that I am conscious of the great knowledge which my noble friend Lord Teviot has and which I do not have. Nevertheless, one cannot get away from the fact that the basic principles at least stem back to 1930. If we are to argue about the intervening legislation of the last 50 years, I would concede that to him by all means.
Lord UNDERHILL: The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, is in his most persuasive mood. I am delighted to see it. I follow the point that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, made. The question of 50 years does not arise. There was not the supplementary transport grant 50 years ago; there were not then county council transport policy plans. They came into operation only in recent years. That is why this amendment was put down. Therefore, we hope that the Government will consider it from that angle. We are
216
not talking about the whole Government philosophy on road licensing. We are talking about particular cases where public money is involved in supplementary grants (which, I repeat, came in only in recent years) and where there are county transport policies affected which can have a great effect upon cross-subsidisation and upon other services. We are looking at these things in this amendment.
The points that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, made in his opening remarks about how certain services could affect stage services, are points which will be covered. I would refer the Committee to our amendment. We are not having a complete negative; it is not a veto. We are saying that these things shall not be done without agreement. If the traffic commissioners think there is no competition, okay! They will approve. If the county council concerned believe that there is no conflict with their policies, they will approve. Therefore, there seems no reason why the Government should not move in this direction; and in the absence of any assurances to the contrary, we will adhere to the amendment.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: Before the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, does what he suggests he might do, why can he not for a moment be absolutely practical or pragmatic (I am never quite sure which word to use) about this? The truth is that you are not going to get agreement because there are two totally different interests; and those two interests are going to fight tooth and nail for their own ends. It is rather foolish to suggest that you can put into a Bill a phrase like,
"unless there is agreement",
when you know that, in practice, no agreement will be reached. The interests are different and they counter entirely the kind of theme that lies behind my noble friend's argument; that is, a greater freedom of approach in these matters. The local authorities, particularly, are not going to give up any authority; they will hold on like leeches. They are not born of an entrepreneurial spirit; they like it the way it is; it does not disturb them. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I am afraid, is not likely to get far down this road for that one reason. The interests are too dyed in the wool to allow for anything that his suggested new clause would allow.
8.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 31) shall be agreed to?

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

O'Hagan, L.

Airedale, L.

Elton, L.

Onslow, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Exeter, M.

Reigate, L.

Auckland, L.

Falkland, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Barrington, V.

Ferrier, L.

St. Davids, V.

Bellwin, L.

Feversham, L.

Sandford, L.

Belstead, L.

Fortescue, E.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Boyd of Merton, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Savile, L.

Bradford, E.

Gainford, L.

Seear, B.

Brookeborough, V.

Glasgow, E.

Selkirk, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gowrie, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Caithness, E.

Gridley, L.

Sharpies, B.

Carthcart, E.

Grimstone of Westbury, L.

Simon, V.

Clifford of Chudieigh, L.

Holderness, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Kimberley, E.

Stamp, L.

Cockfield, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Long, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sudeley, L.

Craigavon, V.

McFadzean, L.

Swinton, E.

Crathorne, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Tranmire, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mansfield, E.

Trefgarne, L.

de Clifford, L.

Merrivale, L.

Trenchard, V.

De La Warr, E.

Morris, L.

Trumpington, B.

Derwent, L.

Mottistone, L.

Vivian, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Wigoder, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Yarborough, E.

Elles, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.42 p.m.
Clause 7 [Attachment to road service licences of conditions as to fares]:
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 9, line 9, leave out (" not ").
The noble Lord said: May I speak on Amendment No. 33 as well as this amendment, since this amendment leads into Amendment No. 33? The amendment only comprises a few words but in our view it is of fundamental importance. I do not want to mislead the Committee as to its effect. Clause 7 deals with the
218
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 80.
attachment to road service licences of conditions relating to fares or minimum or maximum fares. Subsection (3) provides that commissioners shall not exercise these powers unless they are satisfied that to do so is to protect the public from unreasonable action by the licence holder or to regulate competition between stage services. The amendment would drastically alter the position. It would provide that the traffic commissioners shall exercise these powers if they are satisfied on one or other of the two points.
Some noble Lords may say that this amendment will make no difference; but it will. By putting the matter in the affirmative and not the negative, the commissioners will be given an indication

219
by Parliament to pay regard to a more positive criteria. This is in line with what the Government intend to do by changing the balance of granting licences to new applicants. We are doing the same thing regarding fares. I need not impress upon the Committee the importance of fares to the travelling public. We hope that the Minister will find it possible to accept this amendment.
Lord BELLWIN: I am afraid that the Government do not share the Opposition's enthusiasm for fares control. We believe that price controls, in general, fail to achieve their laudable purpose of keeping prices down, but simply add a further bureaucratic complication to the lives of those who are trying to run businesses. It is competition, not control, that keeps prices down. That is why we have abolished the Price Commission, and that is why we are getting rid of the automatic control of bus fares by the traffic commissioners. I am sure most noble Lords would be surprised at the detail of the present control, which is not merely of general fare levels or of rates per mile, but of every fare, of the discount on returns and on season tickets, and of the special rates for children. This control sometimes involves days of argument in public about the fares policy of a passenger transport executive; argument which is often sterile because that fares policy is determined by the democratically elected county council, and the proper place for it to be debated is in the council chamber, not before the traffic commissioners.
It might not unreasonably be asked: Why then are we not abolishing fares control altogether? It is because road service licensing can provide a monopoly on a route or group of routes to a licence holder, and monopolies can always be exploited; the traffic commissioners will be able to step in to prevent such exploitation. Moreover, road service licensing will regulate competition—if two operators share a route they may by their licences be required to run at the times that benefit the public most, and it may be necessary in such cases to prevent one from wrecking the other's operation by destructively undercutting it.
These are circumstances in which fares control is necessary and right; but we are convinced that they are the only such
220
circumstances. This amendment would leave open the possibility of fares control in other circumstances, would widen the scope for argument on essentially political matters before the traffic commissioners, and would leave operators uncertain where they stood. The Government's position is clear, and so is the clause; the amendment would introduce confusion. I hope noble Lords opposite will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord MISHCON: The Committee has been treated to another unequivocal example of the Government's philosophy, and I will not waste the time of the Committee by arguing about it. I only propose to argue about the meaning of the English language and to see whether the noble Lord is able an answer this question in the light of his philosophy.
I would ask him not to look at the notes of the clear speech that he has made but would he be satisfied if I ask him this question? Should the traffic commissioners exercise their powers regarding conditions of fares if the unbiased, objective traffic commissioners are satisfied that the proposed exercise of those powers regarding fares is essential in the interests of the public to protect the public from unreasonable use by the holder of the licence and his position as such or to regulate the form of competition?
If the English language means what I believe it to mean, are the Government really saying that if the traffic commissioners are satisfied—and the language is expressed positively—it is essential in the interests of the public to do this, to exercise that power, that they should not do so? It is all very well for this expression of view about competition and all the rest of it; but if this clause is to mean anything at all, I repeat my question to the Minister: Would he not want the traffic commissioners to exercise their powers if they were satisfied, in the language of this amendment, that it was essential to do so in the interests of the public to protect the public? That is all this amendment says.
If the Minister wants to go on record to say that his philosophy—and that is what he was dealing with before—makes him feel that he would not want the traffic commissioners to act in those circumstances, I would be obliged if he would say so. It will be on the record and we shall all know exactly what he means.
Viscount SIMON: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would agree—because it seems to me this would bridge the gap between the two views—that you should add the words, at the end of the subsection,
"… and in no other circumstances.".
Lord MISHCON: I believe that I speak for my noble friend Lord Underhill who moved this amendment when I say that if the Government would accept the amendment with those words added I am sure that we would regard it as a positive contribution to this Bill, because the language would be positive and everybody would know where they stood.
Lord BELLWIN: The clause as drafted leaves no doubt that fares control is a reserve power to be used only to prevent exploitation of a monopoly or destructive undercutting. The norm is to be freedom for the operator to fix his own fares in the light of his own commercial judgment and perhaps by revenue support from the local authority.
The amendment seems to be designed to reverse this and to leave the commissioners discretion to impose fares conditions at any time, while requiring them to do so in the specified circumstances. However, if that is its purpose it does not go far enough, since subsection (4) still directs the commissioners to remove fares condition except where they are satisfied that they are essential for the specific purposes. However, having said that, I feel it is possible that we might look again at the suggestion made by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, also intimated that in those circumstances he and presumably also the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, would feel prepared to withdraw the amendment, despite what I have said and despite my personal reservations, I would say that we will certainly look at this again along the lines suggested by the noble Viscount.
Lord UNDERHILL: I am certain that we from this side would be very grateful to the noble Lord for the readiness he has displayed to have another look at this; otherwise, frankly, we would have had to decide not to withdraw the amendment because we would want to go on record as regards the Government's attitude on
222
fares. But, in the light of the generous offer made, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment until a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
8.53 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 9, line 32, at end insert—
(" () In deciding whether it is essential in the interests of the public to exercise their powers under subsection (1) or (2) the traffic commissioners shall have regard to the duties imposed on—

(a) passenger transport authorities and executives by section 9 of the Transport Act 1978;

(b) non-metropolitan county councils by section 1 of the Transport Act 1978;

(c) regional and islands councils by section 151 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973;

(d) the National Bus Company and the Scottish Transport Group by section 41 of the Transport Act 1968.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to the question of the attachment to road service licences of conditions as to fares to be charged. The clause as drafted gives no guidance at all to traffic commissioners as to what they should take into consideration in exercising these powers. The amendment lists four groups of bodies on whom specific duties are placed by statute with regard to public transport. I will not go on at length, but I should like to point out one or two of those obligations. The Transport Act 1978 places on passenger transport authorities and executives duties with respect to the provision of properly integrated and efficient systems of public passenger transport to meet the needs of the area. Similar duties are placed on the non-metropolitan county councils and on the Scottish regional and islands councils by the respective Acts which are mentioned in the amendment.
The Transport Act 1968 places very definite responsibility upon both the National Bus Company and the Scottish Transport Group. These are duties which I have mentioned only briefly and are such that they must be taken into consideration by traffic commissioners when considering conditions appertaining to fares. Because that is not made at all

223
clear in the Bill, we hope the Government will accept this amendment.
Lord BELLWIN: I agree that it is right that the traffic commissioners should look at the statutory duties imposed by Parliament on operators and to which the noble Lord has drawn attention. I am sure they will, and that they will be very cautious before putting fares conditions on operators who are acting directly in accordance with decisions of elected councils or where fares have been agreed with them in the course of revenue support negotiations. They will not be easily swayed by pressure groups to impose conditions which would nullify decisions taken by these councils. But the essence of the Government's philosophy—about which we have heard so much this evening at least—on fares control, which I explained on the earlier amendments, is that there should be no interference except in specified circumstances where it is essential in the public interest.
I understand the fears of public operators that they might be restricted in ways which conflict with their other obligations, but I am sure their fears are unjustified. The power given in Clause 7 is simply too narrow to enable commissioners to impose fares conditions running counter to financial and co-ordination duties of operators. They are only concerned in fixing maximum fares with the use made by a licence-holder of the monopoly which a road service licence can give him. If he is not exploiting it against the interests of the public, the commissioners will not be concerned. I fear this is an amendment, also, which we cannot accept.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: As somebody who once represented 1, 000 square miles with 3, 000 farms, 1, 400 of them under 20 acres, may I intervene and ask: How does one decide the public interest in local areas where there may be differences in the quality of a service because of hillside terrain above the 600 ft. contour, as compared with the plains? Arriving at this is a very esoteric phrase, "in the public interest".
Secondly, may I refer to the terrific time after World War I when we all sat here, effervescing with the joy of human understanding and comradeship, and
224
agreed that a meal in a restaurant, "in the public interest", so that there would be no exploitation, would only cost five shillings. They arrived at that because of the spirit of brotherhood and even a spark of Christianity about it. We did not refer to this arid thing of" competition being the spice of life ", It was service to individuals, and in deciding what is in the public interest service is of paramount importance.
Lord BELLWIN: I am not sure how far I should indulge in what I should dearly like to do; namely, debate with the noble Lord the esoteric points he makes. Yes, I suppose that if you look back to the time that he mentioned there was a happier spirit prevailing; but might it not be said that had some of the things been done then that we are referring to now we would not have some of the problems that we have today? However, with respect, I think that we are moving off the point and certainly off the amendment. While I respect, as always, the points made by noble Lords opposite, so far as this amendment at least is concerned, I fear we can only resist it.
Lord UNDERHILL: I am sorry the noble Lord feels that he cannot accept this and I would just draw attention to some words in the amendment:
"The traffic commissioners shall have regard … ".
We are not saying they must carry out the views of these organisations mentioned. I should have thought it was common sense that they must have regard to the duties of passenger transport authorities and to those of the non-metropolitan county councils. They must have regard to the duties of the Scottish regional and islands councils and they must have regard to the obligations placed by Parliament on the National Bus Company and the Scottish Transport Group. That is all we are saying—" shall have regard ". I bow to my noble friend Lord Mishcon on the interpretation of the Queen's English, but the phrase "shall have regard" still leaves it completely free for the traffic commissioners to make up their minds. I would once again appeal to the noble Lord to see if he can, on that basis, accept the amendment. If he cannot, we shall not press it to a

225
Division, but we shall ask for it to be negatived so that that will appear on the record of proceedings.
On Question, amendment negatived.
9 p.m.
Lord TEVIOT Lord TEVIOT moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 10, line 3, at end insert—
(" () Where the traffic commissioners have attached to a licence conditions or additional conditions as to fares, on supplying particulars in accordance with subsection (6) and on the expiration of the prescribed time, the holder of the licence may, unless a temporary dispensation to change the fares is granted under subsection (5), until such time as the application is disposed of, introduce the proposed changes to the extent that existing fares are increased or reduced by an average of not more than ten per cent.").
The noble Lord said: It has long been the plea of bus operators that they should be able to increase their fares, within reason, closely following increases in their costs, rather than have to wait until passengers have forgotten that there was ever a reason—fuel costs, wage awards, et cetera. Delay in getting approval has been as much as eight months, and by the time an increase is agreed, when inflation is high, another one is already needed, partly to cover operating losses because fares had not increased to balance increased costs.
With the Government's declared intention that the control of fares by traffic commissioners should be only a reserve power, seldom used, it may seem that the problem has been overcome. That is true only where fares are not controlled by a road service licence, and there is no way of knowing to what extent, now or in the future, it will be found necessary in practice, as opposed to the theory of the Bill, to control fares. In any event, where the commissioners do fix fares, the problem remains and the industry needs a relaxation. Such is the purpose of this new subsection.
The subsection would allow the movement of fares up or down, within an average of 10 per cent., but subject to safeguards. First, the operator would have to submit his application for increases to the traffic commissioners. It might be for more than 10 per cent., but he would still be limited to that figure as to the interim action he could take. Then, when
226
the commissioners reached a decision on the application, that decision would be binding on the operator, even if it meant that he had to cancel the changes he had made under this subsection. The commissioners would still have the last word, subject to appeal to the Minister. After lodging his application to vary fares, the operator would still have to wait for the period to be prescribed for the purposes of subsection (6) before he could use the facility of this proposed subsection. That would give time for the traffic commissioners to intervene, if they thought it desirable. They might even give a dispensation under subsection (5), allowing the variation pending a full hearing of the application.
All these provisos and possibilities are covered in the proposed subsection, but, beyond that, it has the virtue of allowing prompt action when necessary and ensuring that the operator would not make unnecessary losses—losses which, in due course, would be passed on to the travelling public, or met by local authority revenue support—with interest to be covered on top of the actual loss of revenue. This is a slightly different amendment, and I hope that the Government will look at it kindly. I beg to move.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: I have a great deal of sympathy with my noble friend. I always do have, as he does in regard to points which I raise. But I do not feel that, on the one hand, he can expect the Government to offer these opportunities to existing operators and potential new operators, and on the other hand, still expect to protect those who may be in business. My main objection to the proposed subsection is not to the safeguard as regards loss, while the commissioners may, or may not, be making up their minds, but to the fact that you cannot quantify the amount.
In the latter part of the amendment it is suggested that there should be a figure of 10 per cent. I should have thought, if my noble friend wishes to protect operators from circumstances over which they have no control, but which may force them out of business during the time in which a fare increase application is undergoing review, that it would be better if he framed an amendment in a rather different way from inserting a quantification.
Lord BELLWIN: I am obliged to my noble friend Lord Lucas for his comments. May I say at once: yes, the Government look kindly upon the amendment as put down, because we recognise that there is real concern here. There is concern, which shows behind this amendment, that the commissioners will use their reserve powers to impose conditions more liberal than is envisaged. Operators would continue then to be trapped in the delays of fares hearings and proceedings, while costs shoot up or opportunities are lost.
In considering this amendment, we must return to the basic principles of Clause 7. What the Bill provides is a "reserve power"—those are the operative words. The majority of operators will have no fare conditions in future. They will be able to raise their fares without commissioners' say-so, and without attendant delays. In such cases, the notification procedure in subsection (6) will be no more than that. No approval from the commissioners is being sought. So the amendment is directed only at operators whose fares have been controlled.
There are two ways in which this may happen: first, where it has been demonstrated that the public need protection against an operator taking advantage of his monopoly position. Surely it would be very odd to provide in the Bill a specific power to control fares in such a case, and then enable the operator to increase his fares by a fixed percentage, willy-nilly. I consider that an operator in that case must accept delays which may occur in the commissioners' consideration of an application for increase. Surely it is more confusing to the public and onerous to the operator if fares are raised only to be put down again by the commissioners a few weeks later.
The second case is imposition of fares conditions to prevent destructive undercutting between operators on a route. Here the point of attaching conditions is to set a minimum fare level. There will be no reason why the conditions attached should inhibit increases—only reductions in fares. But I ask your Lordships to remember that all the competing operators will be affected. No one will be able to steal a march on the rest.
Let us remember, also, that the system is not inflexible. If my noble friend Lord
228
Teviot is worried that an operator will be unable to respond quickly to an unexpected and crippling increase in costs—for example, a doubling in OPEC oil prices—there are powers in subsection (5) temporarily to dispense with a condition. Clearly, in such cases the dispensation would be maintained until the normal procedures could be completed.
One is concerned. One has seen the report of what was said in another place on this same subject. One respects very much the views of my noble friend Lord Teviot. But I feel, all in all, on this occasion at least, that we cannot accept the amendment.
Lord MORRIS: I put my name to this amendment because I felt a certain amount of sympathy for it, but having heard my noble friend the Minister's sweet reason on this I must confess that I am totally and completely swung round. On reflection, I really misunderstood the point underlying this part of the Bill. I am very much obliged for his clarification.
Lord UNDERHILL: On this occasion, we on this side of the Committee cannot accept the full proposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and the noble Lord, Lord Morris. We can readily understand the proposal but it appears to us that this is not the way to deal with the problem with which they feel they are confronted.
It appears to us that the proposal is being put forward because of possible delays in dealing with applications. We appreciate that in the amendment the increase of 10 per cent. in fares will only be temporary, until the application is disposed of, but we take the view of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, that once an increase is put on it will be very, very difficult to take it off. We would prefer that consideration should be given to speeding up the process of consideration. It may be that the regulations which the noble Lord has talked so much about could adequately deal with the matter and so ensure that applications are speedily dealt with.
We sympathise with the reason for the amendment but we do not believe that this is the way to deal with the matter. We hope that the Government will feel able

229
to give an undertaking to look at the whole procedure and see whether it can be speeded up so as to assist the operators.
Lord TEVIOT: Obviously I am not going to pursue this amendment. However, may I thank everybody who has spoken. I think they have a certain sympathy with the principle behind the amendment. It has been a pleasant, generous conversation—something one will look at. It is nice to know that there are these cosy safeguards. On that premise, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.10 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 10, line 4, leave out (" without reasonable excuse ").
The noble Lord said: As I spoke to this amendment when I dealt with Amendment No. 20, I beg to move.
Lord MISHCON: On precisely the same basis as was agreed between the noble Lord and myself, on behalf of the Opposition I propose to say nothing more.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Grant of road service licences for services on routes not otherwise served]:
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
Viscount SIMON: May I ask a question on Clause 8? I find it difficult to understand subsection (l) (a) in particular. I am wondering whether the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill can explain what lies behind it. This clause provides that if there is an application for a road service licence where there are no existing satisfactory transport facilities, then the licence shall be granted. Then it goes on to say that the licence shall be granted unless the commissioners are satisfied that to do so would be against the interests of the public. I cannot conceivably see how it can be against the interests of the public to provide a service where there is not one already.
Lord BELLWIN: This clause replaces Section 30 of the Transport Act 1968, which provides for the issue of permits in lieu of road service licences. Originally it applied only to the use of school buses for adult passengers or to minibus services. The scope was extended in the 1978 Act by removing any limit on vehicle size. I applaud the philosophy behind these permits, which was to provide a quicker and simpler means of licensing services where the need was clearly greatest—on routes where no other service was available to the public. However, they have not been used as much as we all might have hoped. There has been a tendency for operators to go through the whole road service licence hoop instead. So clearly the special permits were not meeting the objective.
Moreover, there were certain oddities about the wording of Section 30. As we wanted to overhaul the legislation, it was clearly better to take the opportunity to sort out these inconsistencies. It seemed to us that we could usefully bring these kind of services back into the road service licensing system without losing sight of the objective—a speedier process from which all genuine candidates would benefit.
I believe that Clause 8 meets the objective. If the traffic commissioners are satisfied that no other transport facilities are available, they will simply grant the licence. There will be an opportunity for comment on applications for such a licence, but if the conditions laid down in the clause are fulfilled there will be no competing operators. It will certainly be a matter of fact in most cases whether there is another service on the route in question. If there is, then the commissioners will not issue a licence under this clause but will go on to consider the licence under the full procedure of Clause 5.
The words to which the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, referred are concerned with the details of an application—stopping places and the like—where there could be separate questions of public interest. I assume that that is the problem which concerns the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and I hope that the explanation I have given as to the clause itself perhaps covers the point. If not, I shall be glad to have another shot at it.
Viscount SIMON: I am grateful to the noble Lord, but I am bound to say that I still do not understand it at all. The first part of the clause stipulates that,
"the traffic commissioners are satisfied that there are no other transport facilities available to meet the reasonable needs of the route ",
so the question of whether there is any other service running seems to be dealt with before we get there. It then goes on to say that they will issue the licence unless they are satisfied that it is against the public interest. I do not know whether it is worth pursuing this any further; it must mean something.
Lord BELLWIN: I take the point made by the noble Viscount and that he is not satisfied in connection with this, so may I undertake to take this away and deal with it separately for him?
Lord MISHCON: I hesitate to intervene in such a helpful observation from the Minister, of which there have not been too many this evening, although each time he answers he does it with such grace, but the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, was kind enough to assist us on these Benches before and I wonder whether, with the agreement of the Minister and so that there is no misunderstanding, I may endeavour to answer his question and then the Minister may see whether he agrees with my answer.
It is perfectly true that Clause 8 deals with a situation where there is not sufficient transport facility in an area and then goes on to say that "the commissioners shall grant the applicant a road service licence in respect of that route", but the words to which the noble Viscount has omitted to pay attention are the following words:
"and shall do so in accordance with the application except to the extent that they are satisfied that to do so would be against the interests of the public ".
So, whereas the principle of the application being made where transport is not available will normally lead to a licence being granted, it may be that there are requests made in the application which will be contrary to the interests of the public, and in those circumstances the traffic commissioners will be allowed to refuse the application.
Lord BELLWIN: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. That
232
seems to me to be entirely the point and, should there be anything to add later, I shall be glad to do so.
Lord MORRIS: There is just one circumstance that I can see in which it definitely would not be in the interests of the public if the applicant should apply for a service where there is no service in existence. That is a service which would undoubtedly be a loss-making one and would have to draw upon public funds. The traffic commissioners would have to weigh up that balance and they might well come to the conclusion that it would be against the interests of the public to draw upon public funds in those circumstances.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Grant of road service licences for certain excursions or tours]:
9.18 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 10, line 36, leave out (" either ").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 37, and I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 39, as No. 37 merely leads in to No. 39.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: With great respect, would it not help to take No. 38, too?
Lord UNDERHILL: No. I am sorry but it is a separate principle which I should like to deal with separately, if I may. Amendment No. 37 is concerned with simplifying licensing procedures for excursions or tours within the 30-mile radius. The longer tours are now, of course, to be completely de-licensed. Clause 9 (1) (a) rightly provides that to benefit from the simplified procedures the traffic commissioners must be satisfied that the excursion or tour would not compete directly with existing licensed services. I should like to comment in passing that that is the very thing which we have been trying to get inserted in a number of other clauses, but it has been resisted. Yet here we have it quite clearly that it must not compete directly with existing licensed services. That is reasonable because tours or excursions can compete with regular scheduled services. Why, therefore, is it considered

233
sensible to allow direct competition if the proposed service of tours or excursions is to intend what in the Bill are called "special events"? That surely is illogical and inequitable.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: The noble Lord is talking about Amendment No. 37 but he is speaking about "directly" the whole time and that is in Amendment No. 38, which he said he was not going to speak to.
Lord UNDERHILL: I am referring to the question of excursions and tours—paragraph (b) and the question of "directly" is a separate matter which I should prefer to move in my own way, separately. It deals with a separate point. My speeches are separate, and it may be that noble Lords can separate theirs. I want to keep to this one particular issue and I am certain that noble Lords will understand the reason.
A further point is surely the difficulty of determining what is a "special event". There is no attempt to define "special event" in the various interpretations given in Clause 36. Paragraph 1 of the Twelfth Schedule to the 1960 Road Traffic Act refers to:
"The journey on which the passengers are being carried must be made on the occasion of a race meeting, public gathering or other like special occasion".
I would ask the noble Lord, is there any difference between "special occasion", as in the 1960 Act, and "special event", as used in the Bill now before us? Is there any particular significance in this change of word?
I am no legal expert, as your Lordships will understand, but I am informed that in Maffhafy and Dobson on Road Traffic, which I am given to understand is the leading legal work in this field, various High Court actions are quoted, which suggest there have been legal arguments as to what is a "special occasion". For instance, in one action it was held that regular trips to the home matches of a football club were special occasions. It is open to speculation as to whether Blackpool illuminations, although not a special occasion, might possibly be a special event. The position is so uncertain and confused that I am wondering whether it would not be more simple to omit
234
these two lines from the Bill, as we are suggesting. The provisions of paragraph (a) are sufficiently wide to give the traffic commissioners all the flexibility they require, and I am sure your Lordships will agree that the traffic commissioners can be relied upon to administer the provisions for excursions and tours as set out in this clause in the public interest without the complications and the uncertainties introduced into the Bill by this description of "special event", as well as the point which I have made about the inequitable position of this in relation to the other points in paragraph (a) . I beg to move.
Lord MORRIS: I think the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, hit the nail on the head when he referred to the number of actions in the High Court which attempted to define what "occasion" meant, which is the word used in the previous legislation. For that reason I rather welcome the word "event". I am not a lawyer; I may have got this absolutely wrong, but I think the test of what an occasion is is a subjective test; namely, what is an occasion to one person may not be an occasion to another person. But an event is a question of fact; the test for deciding what an event is would presumably be one of reasonableness and it is perfectly capable of legal tests. In that respect I think the use of the word "event" should be welcomed rather than not, and I am looking forward to Lord Mishcon knocking me about on this one.
Lord MISHCON: I do assure the noble Lord that I could never do anything as unkind as that, nor would I be intellectually capable of doing it so far as he is concerned. I would merely pose to him the rather interesting question as to whether he would describe the noble Minister opposite giving way to a point of the Opposition as a "special occasion" or a "special event"?
Lord MORRIS: That is very much a subjective test, and it is purely a question of fact whether I would welcome it.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: I think it would be a very special occasion to be celebrated as a special event in a feast day of the Christian Church. I do apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for trying to persuade him to speak to

235
Amendment No. 38 as well as Nos. 37 and 39. Of course, he had every right to do it the way he did. I do not really see a great difference in principle, but I do beg his pardon if I tried to put thoughts into his mind which he did not want put there.
We think these amendments will rather severely restrict the traffic commissioners, which noble Lords opposite up to now have been rather keen not to do. During this debate the noble Lord has referred to legal argument and, with so much legal talent on my left and opposite me, I am rather frightened, like my noble friend Lord Bellwin, when legal argument starts buzzing about because I know straight away that I am out of my depth. However, I am advised that what is or is not a special event relates to a provision in the Road Traffic Act 1960 under which licences were not required by vehicles with under eight passengers, carrying people on the occasion of a race meeting, public gathering or other special occasion. There was much litigation on this point, but that, I am advised, is irrelevant to the present provision which leaves it clearly to the traffic commissioners to determine what is or is not a special event.
Let me first explain the Government's position on excursions and tours. I have done so briefly before on a different point, but I shall now do so again on this point. We do not believe that the licensing of leisure, sight-seeing and similar services, is necessary or desirable in the public interest. We would like to have been able to free them entirely from the control of the traffic commissioners and, as I said earlier, we have done so for long-distance excursions and tours. But we realise that if local excursions are free of all control, the protection of ordinary stage carriage services, for which road service licensing is being maintained, could be undermanned by, for instance, shopping excursions taking traffic on profitable days away from the network operator. It would be impossible to define unequivocally in legislation which services required licences and which did not, without leaving loopholes, and perhaps provoking unproductive litigation.
We have, therefore, left it to the discretion of the traffic commissioners to determine which services need control as
236
part of the stage carriage network and which do not. The clause lays down guidance for the commissioners. If they are satisfied that a proposal passes one of the two tests in the clause, they will grant a licence automatically and with no conditions. If not, they will deal with the application in the normal way under Clause 5. Before deciding whether an application should be granted automatically the commissioners will take into account all relevant factors and will normally publish them in notices and proceedings. They will not take account solely of what the applicant says.
Similarly, as regards special events, the intention is to provide a rapid and sure licensing procedure for the genuine trip organiser not providing any kind of regular service or an excursion; for example, an excursion to the Trooping the Colour, the Cup Final or the Derby—I see that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, is not present!
The commissioners will have to be satisfied before they grant an automatic licence under subsection (1) (b) that the service is only going to a special event, and second that it operates only to enable passengers to attend such special events. Of course, what is or is not a special event is open to debate at the edges, but the traffic commissioners are skilled at exercising their discretion in such matters and if they are in doubt they will not, in the terms of the clause, be satisfied about the nature of the service and so will not grant an automatic licence.
I hesitate to say so, but the commissioners are pawns in this debate as far as I can see. Noble Lords opposite have been arguing half the time that we are not giving the commissioners enough powers and now in this particular amendment they are saying that they do not want them to have powers. Noble Lords opposite cannot have it every way. We are saying that the commissioners are perfectly normal beings to be trusted; but in this case noble Lords opposite are for once trying to say, so far as I can see, that they are not to be trusted. I hope my explanations will satisfy noble Lords that this amendment is not a good thing.
Lord TEVIOT: I had intended to enter this discussion, but as it went on and we had this rather amusing repartee, I thought

237
that I would keep quiet. However, I am afraid that my noble friend's answer has made me rise to my feet. Despite what he says, it seems wholly unnecessary to make specific reference to special events, when the existing provisions of paragraph (a) can equally cover that situation. There are two factors here—I do not know whether this has been adequtaely dealt with—first, the uncertainty of the meaning of the words "special event", which we have been into; secondly, the failure to protect existing public services, which may depend on the fares collected on these occasions, to retain overall viability. Even should the traffic commissioners decide that they could not apply Clause 9, with its simplified procedures the operator still has the opportunity to apply for a road service licence in the normal way.
We are all agreed, or should be all agreed, that to streamline the licensing system is necessary, but, as one has commented before, there is no point in retaining the licensing of services at all if the system is riddled with exemptions. The Bill recognises that the licensing is still necessary and Amendments Nos. 37 and 39 find a practical balance, truly in accordance with the intentions of the Bill.
9.32 p.m.
Lord MISHCON: I think that your Lordships noticed earlier that the Government were very interested in this Bill being extremely clear and that it should not contain superfluous words which were capable either of being dealt with in regulations or which were unnecessary in any event. I shall not repeat the arguments in regard to paragraph (a) , including anything which might be inferred from paragraph (b) , and therefore enabling the traffic commissioners to grant a licence in these circumstances, as mentioned in this clause.
Without being pedantic I want to suggest to the Minister that he may care to have another thought because, indeed, as worded here and with the addition of paragraph (b) , there is undoubtedly an addition of words which I should have thought do not carry the matter any further, but which have the great disadvantage of leading to disputes in the future, certainly in law. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, gave us the benefit of his
238
view in regard to the difference between events and occasions. I do not intend to follow him down that rather rocky path. I wish to refer the Minister—if he, in his kindness, would look carefully at the wording of the clause—to the quandary which he is presenting. First, in this clause there is no appeal, unlike the position in regard to other clauses. The Minister may have felt—and I say this with great deference—that because there was no appeal, it would mean that whatever the traffic commissioners decided in regard to this matter would be final and there would never be any further dispute. But that is not so by the addition of paragraph (b) for the reason that the clause is worded, not with discretion granted to the commissioners, but in a mandatory fashion.
If the Minister would be kind enough to look at page 11 of the Bill, in the third line he will see the words:
"the commissioners shall grant the applicant"
if either paragraph (a) and any of the conditions in paragraph (a) apply, or if paragraph (b) —the paragraph we are talking about—applies. That means that if an applicant comes before the commissioners and says, "I call this a special event" and the commissioners say, "We are very sorry, but we do not regard it as a special event", that is a matter—even though there is no appeal—which can then be litigated upon on the ground that the applicant can say to the court, "The commissioners failed to carry out a mandatory injunction given to them under this Act. Court, this is what I wanted in regard to this excursion or tour, which was under the limit; they should have granted me a licence because this was a special event".
I should have thought that the last thing in the world we want to do is to walk into litigation of this nature. The Minister was very frank about his lack of legal knowledge, but, if I may say so, the way in which he attunes himself to legal problems is such that might be envied by many lawyers. I do not think it fair that one should throw at him in the course of Committee an argument of this kind without his having the benefit of advice.
I say to him most seriously that to include paragraph (b) without a definition of "special events" and to make it mandatory is something which is asking

239
for trouble. I therefore ask whether he will take this matter back and obtain the appropriate advice, and perhaps be able to guide the House further in regard to this matter on Report stage, after receipt of that advice.
9.36 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: I would be less than honest if I let the beguiling and charming manner of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, lead me to say that I would take it back and have it looked at, because I must be quite honest and say this is not something which I am in the least bit able to take back and have looked at. We think that the commissioners are competent to do this. They themselves have to be satisfied that it is a special event, and therefore it is within their competence.
The noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Underhill, are casting doubt as to whether the traffic commissioners are able to decide what is a special event. Earlier, in my first speech,] answered the question about special events and special occasions, and it is not going to cause legal problems. The noble Lord is so clever that he can argue, I am sure, that white is black and that special events are common events. I cannot argue with him, as I have said, but I believe that I would be dishonest to say that I could take it back. If he wants to defy me, he must take the issue to a Division.
Lord MISHCON: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? I was not endeavouring to defy him. I was not endeavouring to prove that white was black. I was merely endeavouring to help the Committee. It may be that my view is a wrong one. It is a view that I respectfully put forward to the Committee without any pomposity at all. It was not a question of saying whether or not the traffic commissioners can decide what is a special event. Nor was it an accusation that the traffic commissioners would either refuse or grant if they had such an application before them.
I am envisaging no doubt about the traffic commissioners, but an applicant making a request for a licence under this subsection being told by the traffic com-
240
missioners that the application was refused; it is an application based on paragraph (b) — a special event—and the traffic commissioners do not think that it is a special event and then the matter is litigated without any definition in this Bill at all as to what a "special event" is. This, in my respectful submission, is asking for trouble. I cannot make the case any further. I am not an expert guiding the Minister; I am merely putting forward a humble view. If he decides that he does not even want to consider the matter further or think about it, I am in his hands.
Viscount SIMON: May I suggest to the Committee that there is another aspect to this clause which I think has not been touched upon. It was suggested earlier that a service vehicle going to a special event—we are talking roughly about special events—could be equally authorised under paragraph (a) as well as paragraph (b) . Let us take a case which is familiar to many of us. There might be a special match at the Chelsea football ground, but there are in fact London buses which pass the door of the Chelsea football ground. Therefore, under paragraph (a) you could not grant a licence under this simplified procedure to anyone going to the Chelsea football ground.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, as he knows. Having said that, I do not believe that there is any chance of it being looked at. I will of course look at what he has said. I will have it discussed by the experts, the officials, and if there is anything in the noble Lord's arguments of course we will have a look at it behind the scenes. I merely do not want to give any impression that I am going to come back with anything, but I will have it looked at.
Lord MORRIS: May I ask whether there was any reason why they changed the test from "occasion" to "events"? I think it would be most helpful to this Committee to know. I am not suggesting that there is anything sinister about it. I would very much like to know, for my own purposes, the reason why they changed the test of "occasion" to "event".
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: I am afraid I am not able to satisfy my noble friend. I am merely told that there

241
was much litigation on the point and that it is irrelevant to the present situation. However, I will try to find out and write to my noble friend, and if he wants the letter put in the Library, I will have that done.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: I feel that my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton has been rather forced into something of a grudging admission to have another look at this matter. I should like to feel, because I have some sympathy—no more than sympathy—with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that my noble friend's looking will be most generously founded so that we may all know that the point has been thoroughly examined; and perhaps we may be given a very full answer on Report.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: I said, without giving any promises at all, that T would have it looked at; and that I will do. As I said, if the letter is of sufficient interest I will have a copy of it put in the Library, or alternatively it could be sent to noble Lords who are interested. I cannot promise there will be any concession, because my advice is that we are fairly convinced that we are right in this case.
Lord UNDERHILL: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, for his assurance that he will have a careful look at the matter. We, too, will look at it with our advisers, and, when we come to Report, if the Government feel they cannot move on it, we may then have to consider the position. In the light of the noble Lord's assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.42 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 10, line 37, leave out (" directly ").
The noble Lord said: I am sorry that I had to insist on dealing with this amendment separately, but, as I briefly comment on it, noble Lords will understand why I was so insistent. It deals with the same general issue as the previous amendment. We consider it not sufficient to provide that the proposed service must not
242
compete directly with any other licensed service. It is possible that a proposed new service could compete indirectly, and there are various examples I could give but with which I shall not weary your Lordships at this hour; it is clear that there could be circumstances where there could be competition of an indirect character.
In our view, the word "directly" is far too restrictive. There will be cases where the commissioners might wish to feel that there is undesirable competition, against the public interest, but which is not strictly direct competition. The amendment meets the situation merely by deleting the word "directly". That would leave the commissioners with sole power to decide, in their wisdom, whether the competition is direct or indirect, and that is the simple point of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: As I said on the last amendment, I am convinced that the procedure provided in the clause gives ample protection for local bus services and that what the amendment seeks would increase licensing controls and bureaucracy to no purpose and make the man who wants to provide simple leisure services go through quite unnecessary hoops. Deleting the word "directly" enormously increases the scope for argument. There is some sort of competition between very distant things—for example, between the cinema and home decorating—and an excursion to a place of interest can attract some people who would otherwise go to bingo or travel on the local bus. But so can a television programme. The word "directly" prevents such far-fetched arguments from being relevant. I hope the noble Lord will see the force of these rather simple points and will withdraw the amendment.
Lord UNDERHILL: I find it very difficult to follow the logic in the Government's case in relation to the Bill. On the previous amendment the argument was that we could safely leave this matter to the commissioners. That is what I want to do. Let us leave it to the commissioners. We should take out the word "directly", and the commissioners can then decide whether direct competition is injurious, or whether indirect competition

243
is injurious. It would appear to me that the logic is in the case that we are putting forward, and I can see no reason at all why the noble Lord should not agree, because, like him, I want to give complete freedom to the commissioners to make up their minds in the light of all the circumstances.
Lord BROUGHAM and VAUX: I should like to put a point to the noble Lord before he sits down. In his opening remarks he said that this amendment was very similar to the previous amendment. My noble friend has agreed to look again at the previous amendment, and I really feel that the noble Lord is asking too much indulgence of the Committee.
Lord UNDERHILL: With all due respect to the noble Lord, this is a separate matter. That is why I wanted the two issues discussed separately. Previously, we were discussing solely whether or not the commissioners should be bound to give a licence in the case of an excursion or tour. We dealt with that, thanks to the attitude adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton. The present amendment deals with another instruction to the commissioners: that they shall take into consideration only direct competition. All we are saying in the amendment is that the word "directly" should be left out and the commissioners could then take into consideration whether there is competition, direct or indirect. That would appear to me to be a most sensible matter for us to leave to the commissioners to decide. We shall not press the matter to a Division, but I do not propose to withdraw the amendment.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Revocation and suspension of road service licences]:
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
9.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: If I may take up the time of the Committee,
244
I rather suspect that this may be the concluding clause for this evening. At any rate I hope so, and I am sure that my noble friend hopes so. During Second Reading I raised some points with regard to the revocation of licences. Clause 10 (1) gives the traffic commissioners the power to revoke or suspend a licence, whereas I believe that subsection (2) of the same clause virtually takes away this power, because it severely restricts the grounds on which the revocation or suspension can be made.
There are a number of questions which one might ask. Who is to say what constitutes sufficient frequency of the breach of conditions? Who is to say what is the danger to the public? In my view it would be far more sensible if we were to adopt the principle obtaining in the Transport Act 1968. Admittedly Section 69 of that Act deals more with commercial vehicle licences, but it lists the grounds upon which revocation or suspension should be made. I find that in Clause 22 of this Bill, which deals with PSV operator's licences, grounds for revocation or suspension in that case are given, and its seems to me that there is an anomaly here. Why can we not accept the listing in Section 69 of the 1968 Act, which in effect meets fairly well all those grounds which normally arise? It seems to me that for the clause to remain as it now stands leaves the matter in a rather lukewarm position. In other words, no one really knows where he is, to where he might go, or from where he might come. I put the matter in that particular way because it is about as indirect as that.
I think that my noble friend will not mind my raising this matter, because on Second Reading I gave notice that this was a point that I should want to discuss at the Committee stage. I do not want to make an issue of it at this time of night, but I should like my noble friend, if he can, to give me some kind of explanation as to why we are adopting this attitude in this particular Bill. If, however, he is not able to do that this evening I shall quite understand, perhaps, in which case he will write to me. But I have to say that I am rather relying upon the reply, whether it should come tonight or in a day or two's time, to decide upon my action as to an amendment during the further stages of the Bill.
Lord MISHCON: It may be convenient in what may be the closing hour of today's session of the Committee if I, too, put a question to the Minister, not for answer today but in case he may care to look at it. I have not had the opportunity, if I may be very frank with the Committee, to do any research upon this. As a matter of fact, the point occurred to me only while I was listening to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, in regard to his point. But I observed that Clause 10 (1) says that a road fund licence may be revoked or suspended
"by the traffic commissioners who granted the licence".
It may very well be that there is an easy answer to this one, and that traffic commissioners are in some way denned in the Bill so that one avoids the absurd position that no power of revocation remains because one of the traffic commissioners has died or has been pensioned off, or for some reason does not attend the application to revoke. But at first sight—and that is all I am saying—it does look rather an extraordinary provision that it is only the traffic commissioners who granted the licence who can revoke it. As I say, there may be a definition of traffic commissioners which says that it is the traffic commissioners for that area, whoever they may be, and that may cover the point; but as I am not aware of that at the moment, I thought it might help if at least I raised the point, however absurd the point may turn out to be.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: Before my noble friend replies, I think the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said in his opening remarks "road fund licence". I am sure he did not mean that, and that he meant "road service licence". We must get this absolutely right, so that there is no confusion.
Lord MISHCON: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. That is obviously what I meant.
Lord MORRIS: Before my noble friend responds, I may be completely wrong but I believe that, in law, the traffic commissioners are an office, and not persons.
Lord BELLWIN: First, let me hasten to assure my noble friend Lord Lucas that the last thing I would do when discussing
246
the Transport Bill is to castigate him. I might take a different view, perhaps, when we come to some later legislation that may come into your Lordships' House, but so far as this Bill is concerned "castigation" cannot be the right word.
I was assured that this was a very uncontroversial clause. It would seem that this is in fact not quite so. However, what I would say on it is this, that we all accept that commissioners must be able to revoke or suspend a licence when an operator has breached, wilfully, frequently or with danger to the public, the conditions which have been attached to it. I would not have thought, though, that there are points of substance on which we need disagree. There are no major differences from the existing procedure. Some of the procedure is of course laid down in regulations, and this we will continue.
At this stage I cannot add a great deal to cover the depth of the points which I think have been made, but I indeed hope that this clause will be accepted. I certainly undertake again to look very carefully indeed at what has been said, and if it may be that there are still matters of concern to your Lordships then I am sure that there are various ways in which they can be raised and discussed. But for the moment, I think, that, again, is probably as far as I can go.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Lord SANDYS: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

WESLEY'S CHAPEL, CITY ROAD BILL
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
SALAVATION ARMY BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
EASTBOURNE HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.