HL Deb 01 March 1983 vol 439 cc1121-9

8.47 p.m.

House again in Committee, on the Question, Whether Clause 5 shall be agreed to?

Lord Underhill

Just before we adjourned our consideration of this Bill I said that it was our wish to speak on the Question whether the clause shall stand part and to obtain the opinion of our Lordships' Committee. I shall not go through all the arguments that have been put forward in our various amendments; I think that the position is known quite clearly. Clause 5 is the kernel of the Bill, and judging from earlier debates, it is quite clear that many Members of your Lordships' Committee take very serious objection to the Bill on a number of grounds, including what it will do to local government, the question of the general constitutional relationship, the view that it does not give proper attention to transport needs and benefits, and so on. I shall not rehearse what was said in all the earlier speeches, but we consider the clause so objectionable that we feel that we ought to have our views on it recorded.

When in Standing Committee in the other place the Question was put that the clause stand part, not a single word was said on it, owing to the guillotine procedure. The Standing Committee proceeded straight to a Division. But at least in your Lordships' Chamber not only have we had good debates on many issues, but we now have the opportunity to voice oar objections to the clause. It is not my usual practice to be melodramatic in these matters, but I would say that the clause is so objectionable, so bad for local government and for transport, that we resist it and we shall be asking the Committee to divide on it.

Lord Pitt of Hampstead

I am one of the noble Lords who feel very strongly about the clause. Up until now we have committed ourselves to a procedure under which the Ministry and the transport executive prepare a plan, which will then go to the authority. The authority might modify the plan if it wishes, but it has to take into account guidance from the Minister. They then make a determination which goes to the Minister. If the determination is below or at the level at which the Minister has suggested that subsidies are satisfactory, that is all right. But if it is above that level, then, in effect, if we are to follow the White Paper, the authority run the risk of being surcharged.

Up till now, we have tried to find principles which the Government are prepared to accept, which would allow an authority to carry out their responsibility under the 1968 and 1969 Acts, and taking the Minister's guidance into account, make a determination which may be more than the Minister has suggested. I know that the noble Lord will tell me that they can do so, because he has always insisted that the power is with the authority to make a final decision. But the power is there only if the authority accept the Minister's guidance.

While the noble Lord the Minister has been very nice and affable and all along has tried to reassure us that the authority have the final word, his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter spelled it out when he said, quite clearly, that, provided the authority do not exceed the Minister's subsidy level, they are in order. So what passenger transport authorities are confronted with is a situation where they can make subsidy payments, provided that they are payments which the Minister thinks they ought to make, and there is no room for making greater payments.

It is no good the Minister saying that they can do so. The whole tenor of the Bill confines them to doing it up to a certain level. That has been proved by the attitude of the Government to all the amendments that have been moved. We have moved several amendments which would have improved the situation, and would have made it incumbent upon central Government to give guidance to authorities; amendments to make authorities follow the plans in Clauses 3 and 4, and amendments which stated that they must accept that what they were doing was done because they wanted to observe the laws and obligations laid upon them by the 1968 and 1969 Acts. But the Government have refused to accept any amendment which would provide any sort of protection to transport authorities. Because of that, we have no alternative but to reject Clause 5. The Minister may say that it is a wrecking approach, but if we reject Clause 5 it will be incumbent upon the Government to think again and come back with some more reasonable proposition. Because of that, I hope that this Committee will reject Clause 5.

Lord Bellwin

I shall not make another speech. I shall just say that there is a difference between us. We have talked it out at great length and anything that I said now would be bound to be a repetition of what I said before. There is a difference which is deeply held on both sides and, if the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, wishes to put the matter to the Committee then he must do so.

8.53 p.m.

On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 30.

DIVISION NO. 3
CONTENTS
Airey of Abingdon, B. Glanusk, L.
Avon, E. Glenarthur, L.
Bathurst, E. Gridley, L.
Bellwin, L. Harvington, L.
Beloff, L. Henley, L.
Boardman, L. Hives, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Home of the Hirsel, L.
Caithness, E. Hornsby-Smith, B.
Campbell of Alloway, L. Inglewood, L.
Chelwood, L. Ingrow, L.
Cockfield, L. Kemsley, V.
Cork and Orrery, L. Killearn, L.
Crathorne, L. Kinloss, Ly.
Davidson, V. Kinnaird, L.
De La Warr, E. Lane-Fox, B.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Lawrence, L.
Drumalbyn, L. Long, V.
Ellenborough, L. Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Elles, B. Lyell, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Faithfull, B. Mackintosh of Halifax, V.
Ferrers, E. Macleod of Borve, B.
Ferrier, L. Mansfield, E.
Fortescue, E. Mills, V.
Gisborough, L. Molson, L.
Mottistone, L. Skelmersdale, L.
Onslow, E. Stradbroke, E.
Orkney, E. Strathclyde, L.
Portland, D. Swinton, E. [Teller.]
Rankeillour, L. Trumpington, B.
Rochdale, V. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
St. Aldwyn, E. Vivian, L.
Saltoun, Ly. Young, B.
NOT-CONTENTS
Airedale, L. Phillips, B.
Ardwick, L. Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Bishopston, L. [Teller.] Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]
David, B.
Denington, B. Rochester, L.
Hall, V. Sefton of Garston, L.
Hampton, L. Stedman, B.
Hooson, L. Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
John-Mackie, L Stewart of Fulham, L.
Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. Stone, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L. Strabolgi, L.
Mackie of Benshie, L. Tanlaw, L.
McNair, L. Tordoff, L.
Milner of Leeds, L. Underhill, L.
Mishcon, L, Wigoder, L.
Nicol, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 5 agreed to accordingly.

Clause 6 [Supplementary provisions]:

9.1 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

I am instructed that if Amendment No. 41 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 42 and 43.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 41:

Page 5, line 30, leave out subsection (1).

The noble Lord said: I appreciate that we are now on the supplementary provisions in the Bill and that much of the substance of this subsection of Clause 6 has already been relatively fully covered in the debate in Committee. Therefore, it only falls to me to remind your Lordships of the issues which have been raised on this side of the committee in previous amendments and to urge that this Amendment should be agreed to. The subsection says that the executive shall supply the Secretary of State with such information as he may require for the purpose of giving advice. At first sight, this might seem to be something admirable, a short cut in a more roundabout procedure of the executive giving information to the authority and the authority giving information to the Secretary of State.

On that basis, I can see that some might be tempted into thinking that it was a reasonable proposition and one which would cut out unnecessary work and unnecessary circumocution. I am afraid that this is not the case with this subsection. I am afraid that this amendment is necessary still in view of the rejection of all the previous amendments. It is not a short cut, as has been made clear by the Minister in his replies on earlier amendments. What we have here is not a short cut but duplication of effort and, much worse than duplication of effort, although that is bad enough, we have also what must be a deliberate confusion of the relationships between the executive, the authority and the Department of Transport; and, in that confusion, we have an attempt by the back door—because it is never spelt out in the change of the formal responsibilities of the authority—to reduce the responsibilities and authority of the passenger transport authorities.

That seems to me to be extremely undesirable. It has been found to be undesirable by the courts who have said that the authorities must exercise their judgment in the light of a full examination of the facts of passenger transport operations before they come to a conclusion about the expenditure of public money. What is proposed in this subsection is that the executive should deal directly with the Secretary of State and that the Secretary of State, in return, presumably, must deal directly with the executive, by-passing the authority, despite the fact that the noble Lord the Minister has told us time after time in response to previous amendments that it is at the end for the authority to decide. If it is at the end for the authority to decide—and I believe that it should be—then this subsection is going behind the back of that responsibility. It is an undesirable accretion to the chain of communication rather than a short cut. This amendment, by omitting those undesirable words, would make the position better. I beg to move.

Lord Bellwin

In many ways, this is a very strange amendment for noble Lords opposite to be moving. The provisions of Clause 6(1) are important to ensure that all parties are kept informed during the planning process. The effectiveness of that process would be weakened by this amendment and I do not think that that would be in anybody's interest. If the Secretary of State is to give advice to executives under Clause 3(5), it is necessary that the Secretary of State should be able to call for such information as he thinks necessary in order to ensure that the advice is sensible and meaningful.

Uninformed advice would be of absolutely no help at all and could have serious repercussions on the effectiveness of the planning process. Moreover, I cannot readily understand why the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would wish to remove the requirement of the executive to consult that authority before they prepare the plan. We have heard in debates on other amendments many accusations that the Bill, in giving the executive the task of preparing the draft plan, usurps the position and responsibilities of the authority. Those accusations could only be fuelled by this amendment and I fail to see what it will achieve. Clause 6(1) provides important consultation procedures to ensure the effectiveness of the planning process and I must therefore resist the amendment.

Therefore I have to resist the amendment. We consider that the provisions of Clause 6(1) are essential in order to ensure that all parties are kept informed during the planning process. This function was added by means of a Government amendment during the Committee stage in another place. The noble Lord says that this is a deliberate confusion. I am sure he does not really mean that. He may feel that it is confusing, but deliberate confusion is not the way to put it. There would be absolutely no point in doing so. We have to resist the amendment.

Lord Underhill

The noble Lord the Minister drew attention to the last part of the amendment. When my noble friend moved the amendment, I am certain that he was not so much concerned with the last line, which says that the executive shall consult the authorities, as with the other part. May I ask the Minister why the Government or the Secretary of State consider it to be necessary to obtain the information from the executive? Why not seek the information from the elected body? Why not seek the information from the authority? We do not argue that the Secretary of State should not ask for information, but why go to a non-elected executive? The Secretary of State will be free to ask for any information that he desires. He could ask why something which may refer to policy issues on which the authority ought to give an answer is being done. If the authority want to get information, they will go to their own appointed executive. Throughout the whole of the Bill there seems to be a suspicion that the authorities will not act correctly. It is that suspicion which we are criticising throughout. One reason, among others, why my noble friend has moved the amendment is because there is suspicion about the activities of the authorities.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

It has to be said that behind the amendment is a lack of trust. It is not a lack of trust of the noble Lord the Minister. Of course not. It is a lack of trust of the intentions of the Government in trying to include the clause in the Bill. If the noble Lord had said that the Government would specify publicly for all authorities and for all executives what information must necessarily be made available to the authority, to the public and to the Secretary of State in order that all parties could come to a reasonable conclusion about the right amount of revenue grant, that might have been a different matter.

However that is not what the Minister said, and it is not what the clause says. The clause says that an executive shall supply this information. It does not specify what the information is, or indicate that the information will be in terms which apply to all authorities and to all executives. It lays open the possibility that the Secretary of State can probe—I have used more unpleasant words than "probe" in discussions on earlier amendments, but I shall use the word "probe" now—into the day-to-day details of the operations of an executive. In other words, he can usurp the legally recognised function of the passenger transport authority. That probing is enshrined in the clause, and that is why we find it objectionable.

I recognise that the clause contains an element of consultation of the authority before the plan is completed To that extent I accept that the wording of the amendment may go too far. But I do not believe that any noble Lord on this side of the Committee can be accused of being antagonistic towards consultation between the authority and the executive. Throughout the debate on the Bill we have urged that there should be consultation and joint action rather than that procedures should go backwards and forwards between the executive and the authority.

Until the Minister can assure us that there will be a standardised requirement for information required of all executives through their authorities—because that is the right, responsible and democratic way to do it—in order to come to a general decision about the amount of public expenditure to be devoted to public transport, rather than the much freer, much looser and much more particular requirement for information that is contained in this clause, I am afraid that we will not be in favour of it.

9.14 p.m.

Lord Bellwin

I have already said, but probably I ought to repeat it, that a consultation document is in existence which sets out the proposals for the content of the plans. We are looking forward to receiving the views of the PTAs and the PTEs. I should have thought that that was the time for the authorities to put their 10 cents in. I shall call it more than 10 cents if the noble Lord would like me to do so. To answer the noble Lord, that must be an important point.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I have to say that that document was one that my noble friend Lord Sefton and I had to draw to the attention of the Committee. It was not known to the Government Front Bench. We referred to it because we had to correct mis-statements made by the Government Front Bench, no doubt inadvertently, about the nature of the information that is to be required. We on this side of the Committee have made the point very clearly that the information that it is proposed to demand in that consultation document goes into the most extraordinary detail about the day-to-day operation of passenger transport undertakings. It is not the kind of thing that ought to be required by the Government in making a decision about the level of public expenditure on public transport. That is the essence of our case. It is we on this side of the Committee who had to draw that point to the Government's attention.

Lord Sefton of Garston

The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, did not reply to the straight question asked by my noble friend Lord Underhill, which was: why go to the executive and not to the authority? I should like to frame that question in another way. I should like a straight answer to the question: does the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, intend to reply to that question? Secondly, what the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has said seems to answer a question that not only have I asked in this Committee but about which I should also like to ask: am I likely to have it answered?

As to my question on whether or not the executives have been consulted, especially on the drawing up of the document to which reference has been made, it seems to me from what the noble Lord has said—and I do not wish to misunderstand him—that the executives have not been consulted and that the document was drawn up in complete isolation from them. That is a very serious statement, and I should not like to make a false assumption. If it is true, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, will reply.

Lord Bellwin

I cannot tell the noble Lord what the build-up was to the document in question. I just do not know the answer to that question. This was part of a process of discussion and negotiation. If the noble Lord feels that it was less than adequate in some way, I can make no comment but I will certainly find out and let him know. He knows that I will do that. I will tell him exactly what the position was.

As to the point about consulting the executive rather than the authority, I know that this was debated at great length and I do not see that it is so sinister. I know the point that was being made: that at the end of the day it is the authority that makes the decision and, therefore, why not go direct to them in the first place? Again, I do not know but I do not see that it is sinister in any way. At the end of the day, whatever is done, it has to go to the authority for modification, if they wish to modify it. I do not see why this is so important.

The PTEs already submit a lot of statistical information to the department, as do other transport operations. But the main source of information will be the plans submitted by the authorities. I know that this is troubling the noble Lord and that he seems to think that there is something amiss in following this route. It may be that I am missing the point, but I do not believe that I am. I do not see its importance in the context of the totality of what we are talking about.

Lord Tordoff

With respect, if the noble Lord the Minister does not see that it matters which way around this goes, why should it not go the right way around and the proper way around—and the way that retains the respect of the authority?

Lord Bellwin

That is a question of which comes first, the chicken or the egg.

Lord Tordoff

But the noble Lord the Minister has indicated that he knows which comes first.

Lord Bellwin

The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, can turn words around, but if it helps I will make another observation to the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, on the document. The noble Lord asked whether we consulted on the document beforehand. The answer is that we did not because it is a consultation document. We put it out to get the authorities' views. Again, one can go round and round the consultation asking where does one start and where should one have started, but I do not believe it takes us that much further.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I have to say to the Government Front Bench that we on this side were not responsible for the legislation. We get our information from wherever we can. We do not have the same resources that noble Lords opposite have. They are responsible for what they say and are responsible for knowing the answers to questions that are raised. I have to say that there have been a number of occasions when noble Lords opposite simply have not known the answers to questions which my noble friends have raised. It is not good enough for a Government Front Bench to be in that position on legislation which is to go on the statute book.

Lord Bellwin

I really think that gets us absolutely nowhere at all. As the noble Lord will find the longer he is in your Lordships' House and in Committees, when the day comes that everybody knows everything that he thinks they should know we shall have reached the millennium. We shall never reach that point.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

But in the meantime legislation will go through, and it will go through with imperfect information. I think there is a difference in the responsibility. However, the noble Lord the Minister rose when I was about to make my last sentence, which was to say that we recognise that in the last part of the clause there is something which ought to be preserved in one way or another and which it is clearly the wish of my noble friends to preserve. Therefore, because of that defect in wording, and not in any way because of the answers given by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Underhill

Can I assist the Chair and say that I shall not be moving Amendments Nos. 42 to 51.

[Amendments Nos. 42 to 51 not moved.]

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 52:

Page 6, line 22, leave out from ("Executive") to end of line 25 and insert ("and the Authority to comply with their duties under the Act of 1968 or the Act of 1969 as the case may be").

The noble Lord said: This is introducing a completely new feature which we have not discussed in the course of all the other amendments. It may well be that noble Lords looking at the clause might wonder what it is all about, because one has to cross-reference to Section 15(2)(a) of the 1968 Act or Section 11(2)(d) of the 1969 Act, and then refer back to Clause 2 of this Bill to find out what it is all about. Fortunately, the Notes on Clauses tell us what it is all about. Subsection (7), which we seek to amend, requires the authority before giving or withholding approval for a rise in fares under the provisions of the 1968 or 1969 Acts to have special regard to the effect of their decision on revenue grants, and also on its duty under Clause 2 of this Bill to break even and to achieve a proper balance.

But the comments in the Notes on Clauses are very interesting: It is important that authorities do not vary fare levels during a year either upwards or downwards"— we have heard in response to certain amendments we have moved that the alternative is to put up fares. The Notes continue: without taking into account the effect of a variation on the executive's financial duty, bearing in mind that revenue grants cannot be increased during the year, and to achieve a balance between ratepayers and users. So it is when one reads the Notes on Clauses that one sees what subsection (7) is all about.

If this is to be carried out as laid down in subsection (7), it will place the executive and the authority in a straitjacket, because it means that they have got to look only at the question of cost. I am not one of those who say cost is not important; of course, it is. But there is no regard to needs, no regard to benefits, no regard to anything at all except the question of complying with the grant. What we are seeking to do in the amendment is to delete the last few lines of the subsection and replace them with the words set out in the amendment, so that the provision reads that in considering any upwards or downwards movement of fares the authority and the executive must comply with their statutory duties under the 1968 or 1969 Acts as the case may be.

Time and time again we have come back to the statutory duties laid down in the 1968 and 1969 Acts. I would remind your Lordships that we have been told quite clearly by the Minister that these provisions will not be repealed by the Bill. If they will not be repealed, then the authority and the executive ought to have regard to those provisions in any proposal for increase or decrease in fares. I beg to move.

Lord Bellwin

It is important that authorities do not vary fare levels upwards or downwards without taking particular account of the effects of such a variation both on the executive's ability to meet its financial duty and also on the need to achieve balance between the interest of the ratepayers and the users. This is particularly important after the amount of revenue grant has been determined for the year, because once set it is not to be increased.

Furthermore, it would be totally unsatisfactory to replace the specific requirement to take account of the executive's ability to comply with its financial duty, and the need to balance the interests of ratepayers and users, by a vague reference to the authority having to have regard to its duties under the 1968 or 1969 Acts. The noble Lord has mentioned more than once this evening this matter of the 1968 and 1969 Acts. May I just say that the Bill alters the law from that under the 1968 and 1969 Acts by protecting from challenge up to the protected expenditure limit. Clearly we cannot accept the amendment. I just hope that the noble Lord is clear as to why not.

Lord Underhill

Of course we accept that an executive and an authority must keep in mind their financial duty. I am certain that the Minister does not intend to imply that the executive or authority will not do that, although we have a feeling that there is a suspicion throughout this Bill as to what an authority might do. The Minister also said that, once fixed, the grant cannot be increased. That, again, is one of the problems we have endeavoured to show up in various other amendments.

I am afraid that I cannot accept the position as stated in the subsection. I think that our amendment is a sensible one, but naturally at this late hour I would not attempt to divide the Committee. We will study what the noble Lord said because it may well be that on Report we can deal with the statutory duties at the same time as covering the point made by the noble Lord. Therefore, on this occasion I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 agreed to.

The Earl of Swinton

I think that we have made enough progress for this evening. Therefore, I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past nine o'clock.