Lords Sitting of 21 March 1983

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

Coal Mining Industry: Productivity and Investment
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to what extent productivity in the coal mining industry has improved since May 1979 and how much capital investment has been spent on new underground equipment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, productivity in the coal mining industry in terms of overall revenue output per man-shift has improved from 2.31 tonnes in the financial year 1979–80 to 2.42 tonnes in the first 48 weeks of the current financial year. This is an improvement of 4.8 per cent. Since May 1979, the National Coal Board has invested an average of some £270 million per year in new underground equipment.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, is it not a fact that in the 1974 Plan for Coal it was envisaged that, if this kind of investment was made, productivity was likely to increase by 4 per cent. every year? Is it not rather disappointing therefore, despite this very high investment, that productivity has risen only just over 4 per cent. in ten years?
The Earl of Avon: Yes, my Lords, it is disappointing. Improvement in productivity this year over the same period last year was 1.5 per cent., which, I think, is also disappointingly low. This was partly caused by industrial disputes, and we believe it is essential that the industry resumes its past progress.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware, when we are uttering the easy phrase, "improvement in production", that in the mining industry we are not dealing with factories, we are dealing with geographical and geological factors over which human beings often have no control? Is he further aware that one of the improving things in the mining industry is that today the average miner at the coal face is 38 years of age, and that we should like to see more men attracted to the industry if we can bring peace and Government understanding to this marvellous industry?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am happy to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, about the youthfulness now of the coalminers, and about his final sentiments. I would say to him that in the 1974 Plan for Coal there were a whole lot of promises made, or undertakings given, on which way it should go; and that one of the sadnesses is that it is productivity which has been lacking.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it is not a fact that some seams are being worked out and that that must necessarily reflect itself in the figures of output?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think that we must leave the detailed planning to the National Coal Board.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is it not a fact that the uneconomic and almost worked-out pits sadly reduce the average productivity? Is it therefore not important that the Government should have confidence in the future, continue to invest heavily and, particularly, in the new, viable and highly-automated pits?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as my noble friend is aware, the Government are investing a considerable amount in the Coal Board, and will continue to do so. We have confidence, too, in the planning of both the present chairman, Mr Siddall, and of his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
Lord Gormley: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for asking this Question, for it gives us a chance to ask one or two other questions. I should like to ask a simple question which has been evaded up to now. Have the NUM members honoured the commitment given in the 1974 Plan for Coal? Secondly, in the light of the recent ballot result, would it not make for more secure feelings in the coal mining industry and for more economic sense to conserve our North Sea oil, in view of the fragile price policy, and help the National Coal Board to dispose of its big stocks of coal to industries in Europe—stocks of coal which are costing so much money—and, in this way, help British industry to meet the challenge from exports?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I welcome the two supplementary questions from the noble Lord, Lord Gormley. Firstly, on the commitment in Plan for Coal by the National Union of Mine Workers, I think I can only underline the point made by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, that in Plan for Coal there was a plan for productivity which could have related to 4 per cent. each year, whereas we have only just reached 4 per cent. over this period. As far as the wider question of relationship between coal and oil is concerned, this is a subject which I believe the House could debate with interest over a long period of time. The only thing I can add to what the noble Lord has said is the fact that at the moment there is a lot of coal around as well, and that we have to rely upon market forces when we come to dispose of it.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, arising out of what the noble Earl has said about the chairman of the NCB, may I ask him whether any decision has been made

927
about this; and, if so, whether the Government are aware of the importance of choosing someone who is acceptable to all sides of the industry and of the advantage of having a youngish man who would be able to do the job for some years?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will have to wait for an announcement by my right honourable friend in another place, which I gather will be made quite shortly. I am sure he will find that the person chosen will have plenty of years to run and will be a great expert in the profession.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether the Government have received any complaints from the fox hunting fraternity in the Vale of Belvoir, and whether the Government intend to proceed with the coal mining plans that they have in hand?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as I understand it, my honourable friend in another place in the Department of the Environment made a statement about this last Friday, which will now leave the future planning to the Leicestershire County Council.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that coalminers are very keen foxhunters?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am not quite sure what hat the noble Lord is wearing.

Commonwealth Citizens and British Nationality
2.43 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the processing of applications for British nationality from Commonwealth citizens resident in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, procedures for handling applications for citizenship are kept under continuous review with a view to improving them and reducing the time taken to deal with applications. Delays are still longer than we would wish, but we are satisfied that good progress is being made to reduce them.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. May I ask him whether he is aware that many of these folk who have to submit applications have to send with their papers their passport, birth certificate and, where applicable, their marriage lines? To be without these documents for some time can be inconvenient. Noble Lords will appreciate that when we surrender something it seems that the next day we require those documents for something. Particularly so far as passports are concerned, Commonwealth
928
citizens who have submitted such applications and have had to surrender their passports are men and women engaged in industry and commerce who have to travel considerably. Also, those who have organised holidays for a specific period find themselves filled with apprehension because their passports and documents have not been returned. Would it not be possible for them to be recorded, perhaps reproduced, and for the original to be returned within a reasonable space of time?
Lord Elton: My Lords, we are aware of the difficulties which the noble Lord has mentioned, and we sympathise with them. The guidance notes for completion of application forms recommend to applicants that if they are likely to need their passports or other documents within six months then they should explain why and should not enclose the documents concerned with the application. The documents will then be requested when the application reaches its turn for consideration. However, our nationality division are always ready to comply with requests for the return of documents in individual cases and will in the majority of instances not require to see that document again.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that an authenticated photocopy would meet the case?
Lord Elton: My Lords, they might meet the case for verification; but if every document received had to be photostated—and there are many pages in some of these documents—the waiting time would be increased and not reduced.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, in evidence given by his department to the Select Committee in another place last week, it was stated that the delay in processing applications for discretionary registration had been reduced from 23 to 16 months following the reforms recommended by Sir Derek Rayner, and that it was the Government's intention to get the period down to 12 months ultimately? Is not a delay of 12 months susceptible of further reduction by concentrating on the police inquiries, which, I understand, particularly in the metropolitan area, are the greatest cause of the delay as well as contributing the largest share to the cost of the exercise?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I can confirm that we are anxious, as I have already said, to reduce the waiting time. It may help to illuminate the difficulties under which we labour if I say that in January and February 1982 there were 5,305 and 5,444 applications respectively, and in the same months this year the numbers were 12,786 and 15,149 respectively.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when I asked for a renewal of my passport, although I was a Member of Parliament I was told that I was not a British citizen because I was born in India and my father was born in Africa? But by simple registration I became a British citizen. Can there not be a procedure of registration as simple as that by which this problem can be solved?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I felicitate the noble Lord on joining us in his nationality by a procedure which is that which I have already described.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, while the noble Lord is at it, will he congratulate all those people—probably running into tens of thousands of Commonwealth citizens—who have always been part of us but now want to confirm being part of us? Is he further aware that when he talks about a number of pages, there is one page on a birth certificate and there is one page on marriage lines? He should tell the civil servant who wrote that answer for him these simple facts. Regarding passports, the quintessential part required in other areas of this country for proof purposes is the very first page on which is stated the age of the subject, to whom the passport belongs and for how long it is valid. If the noble Lord really is prepared to consider seriously what I am suggesting, I am sure that he will receive the thanks of tens of thousands of our Commonwealth citizens who are acting swiftly to fulfil their desire to be British citizens and the bureaucrats are holding them up from doing so.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I can only assure the noble Lord that we wish to accelerate the process in the way that he describes. He was kind enough to tell me the line on which he was thinking and I have already inquired about this matter. I am informed that it will take longer to deal with it in this way and it will not be quicker. If the noble Lord cannot accept that, I ask him to take a passport up to the copying machine on the first floor of this building and see how long it takes to put through and then multiply that by approximately 15,000.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I did that. It took me 30 seconds flat because there was no one else there. If he would like me to give his department a few hints, I am prepared to do so for a reasonable understanding.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in this case there will be 15,148 other people there.

Hyde Park Corner: Traffic Lights
2.49 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will direct the traffic authority for Greater London to remove the traffic lights recently installed at Hyde Park Corner.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: No, my Lords. I understand that the Greater London Council, which is the traffic authority responsible, intends to install additional traffic lights at this junction shortly, with a view to improving the flow of traffic. Both the council and the Metropolitan Police are monitoring the situation carefully and are keeping my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport informed.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that that Answer will be extremely disappointing to the many thousands of people who during the last few weeks since the installation of these lights have found that the congestion at Hyde Park Corner and in the streets leading up to it has become very much worse? Is my noble friend further aware that in the guidance to motorists given by Capital Radio on a number of occasions recently there have been warnings to motorists to avoid Hyde Park Corner because of the lights? Is his indication that the Greater London Council intend to put in more lights an indication that they are not satisfied with the damage they have done and that they want to make it worse?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am not aware of the messages that Capital Radio send out. However, I can tell my noble friend that about 150,000 vehicles use Hyde Park Corner each day, and that excludes the underpass. At peak flow there are about 11,000 vehicles per hour. The additional two sets of traffic lights are to complete a traffic management scheme. These lights should come into use over the weekend of 27th March and, as the traffic management scheme is experimental, it may well be some time before this can be evaluated.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I have lived by Sloane Square for some 20 years and have come round Hyde Park Corner in order to get to the Palace of Westminster and also to get to my home in the North? While it is occasionally like the Place de la Concorde, being a shade exciting, it is quick and I have never known a blockage there until these lights arrived. Now I find a total blockage between the big square past St. George's Hospital right up to Seaford House and another blockage down to Victoria Station. When I am coming down Park Lane I find it blocked from Grosvenor House. I have in fact had to search for other ways both to get to the Palace of Westminster and to get home. These lights are an infernal nuisance, and will he please remove them?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am not able to remove them; nor indeed is the Secretary of State for Transport. The Greater London Council are the traffic authority and it is a matter entirely for them. Much as I regret that the noble Lord has been inconvenienced, I should tell your Lordships that over the last four or five years there have been a consistently high number of accidents in that area, and the traffic management scheme is in part to alleviate that irreparable damage.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that those who use Hyde Park Corner and have used it over a long period of years have long thought that something was needed to control the traffic problems—problems caused mainly by the selfish and impatient driver, and therefore that some control was necessary? Would he also agree that, as this is a matter for the GLC (as the highway authority) and for the Metropolitan Police, questions like this could be raised in respect of places all over the country, and this is not the place to deal with them?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who has quite obviously grasped the seriousness of this situation and recognises that a traffic management scheme is necessary both to control the traffic and to reduce the toll of accidents. I confirm that this is an experimental scheme, the results of which are being monitored and will be reviewed in the fullness of time.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the irritation caused by hold-ups which are occurring at present may well in the future increase the accidents that we are all anxious to stop? Does he know whether the future traffic lights are to help the roar and flow of London's traffic or to stop it?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, patience is a virtue seldom found in men and very seldom in drivers.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that the monitoring is already being done very effectively by the motoring public using Hyde Park Corner? Might I suggest to my noble friend that perhaps the traffic authority might be advised to consult the taxi drivers who use that area most frequently, because information from them would be both helpful and pungent?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the monitoring is done by both the GLC traffic department and the Metropolitan Police. I have little doubt that the comments made by your Lordships this afternoon will add to the whole point of the monitoring.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what effect the experiment has had so far on the punctuality of the buses involved?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I cannot give an answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, but I am sure he will recognise that when any new traffic scheme comes into operation it takes some little time to settle down. I can tell him that officials from my department were at Hyde Park Corner from very early this morning for about three hours and did not notice any ill effects from the scheme. The scheme is now one month old.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, as my noble friend has told the House that the Metropolitan Police are monitoring the situation, may I ask what conclusions they have so far come to?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: None whatsoever, my Lords. It is far too early to come to any conclusion on a scheme as massive as this.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in view of the damage being done and the waste of time caused by this scheme, can my noble friend at least tell us when this so-called experiment will be deemed to have had enough time, so that we shall be able to get back to reasonable traffic movement?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I cannot give my noble friend any exact date, but obviously it will be
932
some months before a true and full evaluation can be made. That time must follow on the introduction of the additional lights which I mentioned earlier and the settling down period for them; so I should imagine it will be four or five months at least.

Long-Life Milk: Imports and Hygiene
2.57 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how long it will take to decide whether long-life milk as consumed in continental Europe is harmful for British consumers and whether, provided the investigations show that there is no threat to health, the Government will make sure that consumers who wish to buy this milk are able to do so.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the Government are concerned that the health and hygiene status of imports of UHT milk may be below the levels on which we insist for the production and processing of our own milk. Consultations with the commission and others concerned are at present taking place in order to enable the United Kingdom to comply with the recent judgment of the European Court, whilst preserving our own public health standards.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that reply, may I ask him to answer the last part of my Question, which is that when the health standards are satisfactorily established the Government will make it possible for the public to buy this milk?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I thought I had answered the last part of the noble Baroness' Question in my reply, part of which I will repeat:
"Consultations with the commission and others concerned are at present taking place in order to enable the United Kingdom to comply with the recent judgment of the European Court, whilst preserving our own public health standards."
When these consultations have been completed, of course, we shall be able to take the necessary action.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that this dreadful UHT stuff ruins any cup of tea into which it is put, and will he do his best to keep it out?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, of course, that is a matter of personal preference. If the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, wishes to buy UHT milk in England he can do so, but he is very wise not to do so.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the final article may be perfectly hygienic but that the production of it could be very bad indeed? Although the final article is good, it is not very nice to

933
think that straw and muck and stuff might have been in it originally. It is rather like the chefs who used to spit in the fat—perfectly hygienic, but not very nice.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is a simile which stretches the imagination beyond desirability, and I hope that that does not happen with UHT milk.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the standards to which UHT milk is subjected in France are the same as they are in England, and whether he has comparable figures for other EEC countries?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can tell my noble friend that in the United Kingdom the data collected recently by the Milk Marketing Boards indicate that over 97 per cent. of milk which is produced in the United Kingdom has a total bacterial count of less than 100,000 per millilitre. I understand that in France only 75 per cent. of milk reaches this standard. Certainly, that was the case in 1981.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Swinton will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the White Paper on teaching quality.
It may also be for the convenience of the House if I say that it has been agreed through the usual channels that dinner will not now be available this evening.

Pilotage Bill [H.L.]
3.1 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been put down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I propose to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Currency Bill
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): 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. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Civil Aviation (Eurocontrol) Bill
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Lyell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Public Records (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Report received.

Transport Bill
3.3 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bellwin, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 6 [Supplementary provisions]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 5, line 31, after ("may") insert ("reasonably").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 6(1) provides that:
"An Executive shall supply the Secretary of State with such information as he may require for the purpose of giving advice".
The advice concerned is referred to in Clause 3(5) and it covers advice on the amount of revenue grant, the method of determining the estimates of the cost of providing services and facilities and the form and contents of the annual plan. Your Lordships will see that these items are so extensive that the information required by the Secretary of State could be very detailed. In fact, the Department of Transport's consultation document, which has already been issued, indicates how detailed the information required could become if it were permitted to do so.
The amendment proposes to insert the one word "reasonably", so that the subsection would read:
"An Executive shall supply the Secretary of State with such information as he may reasonably require".
Although this improvement will not extensively curtail the power of the Secretary of State, it is suggested that the insertion of the word "reasonably" will qualify the Secretary of State's requirement. I hope that the Minister will not say that this is implied and that, of course, the Secretary of State will act reasonably. Whether or not the existing Secretary of State will act reasonably remains to be seen. But there will be future Secretaries of State, and by inserting the word "reasonably" we shall be doing what I think has been done in quite a number of other pieces of legislation, and putting in a qualification which will hold back any attempt to get too detailed and unnecessary information. I beg to move.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, I should like to ask: who is to interpret the meaning of the word "reasonably"?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I have to thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for explaining the purpose of this amendment. I can assure the noble Lord that the Secretary of State is indeed reasonable, and he certainly has no intention of asking for information other than that which he considers necessary and relevant for the purpose of giving initial advice. This is really the point. The Secretary of State can ask only for information which is relevant to giving initial advice. He does not have freedom to require any information. Indeed, as the full planning cycle gets off the ground, much of the information for setting the next year's initial advice will no doubt come from previous year's plans.
Furthermore—and this is the point which the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, has just made—the amendment would not, in practice, make clear the boundary between what was reasonable and what was unreasonable. The amendment would not actually make a clear distinction. If an authority or an executive wished to challenge a request from the Secretary of State, they could do that equally well under the existing wording.
I recognise that there is a genuine desire in your Lordships' House to ensure that the Bill is as good as we can make it, but I ask your Lordships to consider this matter particularly carefully. The Bill does not qualify what the authority may require from the executive under Clause 4(2). We all assume that the authority itself will limit its request to a reasonable number of reasonable alternative proposals, and I should not want at this stage to pepper the Bill with "reasonables". With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sure that the House will be reassured by having the undertaking of the noble Lord the Minister that the present Secretary of State is reasonable, and will always act reasonably. May I give him a similar assurance from this Front Bench that my noble friend Lord Underhill is a very reasonable man, and I hope that your Lordships will similarly think of me. We are not really in the process of defining whether any particular Secretary of State, or any Member of your Lordships' House, has the distinct quality of being reasonable. This is a mandatory requirement.
Secretaries of State are not immune from the legislature seeing to it that what they require other people to do shall be reasonable. Indeed, in many Bills that have come before your Lordships' House either for revision or for dealing with here in the first instance, all the requirements that are made of individuals or of corporations have, as a rule, if they are not definitely defined in a clause, had the qualification that they must be reasonable. How unreasonable will the noble Lord the Minister be in resisting this amendment? Is it part of the policy that we were dealing with last time that, despite the fact that these clauses have not been revised in another place, not one single word is to be altered? We are not trying to alter words just for the sake of it, but the
936
House knows perfectly well that a very busy Secretary of State does not peruse all the requirements made of every executive throughout the country. These requirements are drawn up by civil servants. The Secretary of State may peruse them, but he is most likely to delegate this duty.
The Minister made much of the point that we are dealing with the need to conserve funds. Despite all the needs of transport, very few funds will be available for it. Are we to say that the Secretary of State, of whatever party he may be, will be able in future through his civil servants to require any executive to supply any information which he may require in order to enable him to give advice? It may be a very expensive exercise. If the Minister wants to continue to resist the word "reasonably", is he prepared to undertake that the whole cost of this exercise, whatever it may entail, will be bound to be recognised in full in the budget when the limit is fixed? This is a perfectly sensible amendment: That if you require somebody to give you information which may be ultra-sensitive and ultra-expensive, and which it may therefore be a hardship for an executive to fulfil, the requirement must be reasonable. Therefore, this amendment ought to be accepted.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, there is complete agreement on both sides of the House that we want this Secretary of State and, whenever there is one, his successor to act reasonably. The point, however, which the amendment makes is, who is to deal with the question if it is alleged that the Secretary of State has not acted reasonably?
As I understand the amendment—the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will correct me if I am wrong—if the word "reasonably" goes into the Bill it will be open to the body concerned which believes that the Secretary of State is acting unreasonably to challenge him in the courts and to take the matter from the High Court up to the Court of Appeal and then to this House, sitting judicially—a process which would inevitably take a certain amount of time and money. It would also delay the whole process contemplated by the Bill. On the other hand, if we leave the Bill as it stands and any Secretary of State of any party acts plainly unreasonably, we can be certain that either in this House or in another place he will be challenged immediately. Both Houses of Parliament are flexible in their procedure and can move quickly.
In the very unlikely case of the Secretary of State acting unreasonably in this respect—one cannot see why he should want to do so, but let us suppose that we are engaged in stopping up every hole—surely we can rely upon either this House or another place to make sure that he behaves properly. This is a much more effective power. If another place were to find that a Secretary of State had acted unreasonably, by the end of the week he would be the ex-Secretary of State.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—this is my only way of answering the question which he very courteously put to me—is the noble Lord seriously suggesting to the House (usually he is a serious Member of your Lordships' House and when he fails to be serious he is even more attractive than when he is serious) that when a local executive wants

937
to grumble about a document which it received requiring information the matter will be dealt with in either House of Parliament? How in the name of Heaven would the Members of either House be able to decide in a question and answer session, which presumably it would be, whether or not the Secretary of State was reasonable in his requirement for information? The noble Lord cannot really mean that.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I can answer his question very simply. An executive which believed this to be so could go straight to its local Member of Parliament or to a Member of this House with whom it was in contact. The noble Lord knows enough about the procedure of this place and I know enough, perhaps, about the procedure of both Houses of Parliament to know that it is possible in an important case to move very quickly indeed and to exercise quickly an effective sanction, whereas on an issue of this sort the alternative of recourse to the courts would inevitably be prolonged and expensive.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I hope that he will support my amendment. There is nothing in it to suggest that the matter will be settled in the courts. It could possibly lead to the courts, as anything else in the Bill could possibly lead there, but if the matter were to be settled by Parliament, should the occasion arise, the fact that the word "reasonably" was inserted would greatly assist Parliament to wrap the knuckles of the Secretary of State. Therefore, I shall look forward to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, supporting me on this amendment.
One of the points upon which information is required is the form and contents of the plan. I am referring to subsection (5) of the clause. The formal context of the plan could be sweeping; a mass of detailed information could be required. That is what we are trying to prevent. All we are asking for is the inclusion of the word "reasonably". The Minister said that the Bill should not be peppered with "reasonably", but we want to include that word in one place only. If the noble Lord the Minister looks carefully at what has been said, I believe he will find that we are being reasonable and that the inclusion of this word would assist Parliament to deal with the matter. In view of what the Minister has said, we shall look at the matter and consider what action to take at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.18 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 28:
Page, line 33, leave out ("consult") and insert ("seek the advice of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another simple amendment. It relates to the last part of the same subsection. It provides that before preparing any plan the executive shall consult the passenger transport authority. This appears to us to be a very strange provision. The executive is the operating body—the unelected body—which is responsible to the passenger transport authority, the elected council. Yet the Bill provides that the unelected body, the operating
938
organisation, shall consult the authority. All that the amendment seeks to do is to substitute for the word "consult" other words, so that the provision would read:
"… and shall, before preparing an plan under that section, seek the advice of the authority".
It would provide the proper relationship between the executive and the authority. This simple amendment means that the unelected body would seek the advice of the body to which it was responsible rather than that there should be consultation, which would be the wrong relationship between the two organisations. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with the greatest respect, is this not a distinction without any difference in substance?
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I do not know whether it will be useful if in answer to the noble Lord (who asks whether this is merely a distinction of words—whether there is a difference between "consult" and "take the advice of") I were to tell him that on the last occasion when we dealt with the Bill at Report there was a discussion about this matter. Because I do not have Hansard readily to hand I must paraphrase, but I am sure I am accurate when I say that the noble Lord the Minister, Lord Bellwin, dealt with the question of consultation in one of our amendments and used words to this effect: that of course there will be consultation, but what is the point of putting consultation in the Bill? Does it mean that people must talk to each other? That was the inference of his remarks. There is nothing about consulting between organisations and authorities which, of necessity, will be in touch with each other. I adopt that argument in reply to the noble Lord and in support of this amendment. It is meaningless to talk about consultation here. The proper words to use are the words,
"seek the advice of".
and there is no need—and again, we have heard this from the Front Bench opposite—for the recipient of the advice necessarily to take it.
Many of us who are engaged in the profession of advising have met with a client who does not care to take the advice that we tender. That is his right, and that would be the right of the authority. But in order to give the authority the dignity that it should have, the authority's advice should be sought—but not necessarily is there any compulsion to accept that advice, and nothing of that kind is sought in this amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, whether "consult" is the right word or not, I would have thought that the words "seek the advice of can imply taking the advice of a more learned or superior body and then being under a duty to consider and accept that advice. We would not want to imply that in the Bill. If an authority does not like the executive's proposals, there are plenty of safeguards for the authority to require the executive to set out the implications of alternative proposals.
The requirement for the executive to consult the authority, as is laid down in the Bill before us this afternoon, before preparing the plan, was added to the

939
Bill with the agreement of both sides of the House during Committee stage in another place. The word "consult" does seem to be the proper one to use here and replacing it by,
"seek the advice of"
seems unnecessary. We cannot see that any improvement would be created by such a change.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I must first correct the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, as I have before me a copy of Hansard for the Standing Committee on 18th January, when the particular amendment was carried by 13 votes to 11; therefore, the amendment was not carried by both sides of the House and there was no discussion. The amendment was just proposed and the vote was taken, because it was guillotined. It was not passed with the full approval of both sides of the House in another place. If the Government cannot see the difference between the unelected body consulting with the elected body and seeking the advice of the elected body to which it is responsible, then to me it means that the Government are scraping the barrel to find every possible argument why they should not accept a single amendment to this Bill. But it is an issue on which we leave your Lordships to ponder, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 29:
Page 5, line 33, at end insert ("and take into account their advice").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment together with Amendments Nos. 11 and 13. I shall not move it.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 5, line 33, at end insert—
(" ( ) The National Bus Company and their subsidiaries shall supply an Executive with such information as they require for the purpose of preparing a plan under section 3 above or supplying information to the Secretary of State under sui)section (1) above.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, within the metropolitan counties there are very extensive operations of the National Bus Company. Generally, these are subsidised and carried out by means of agreement under Section 24 of the Transport Act 1968. It is clear under that section that the transport executive's powers to obtain information from the National Bus Company or their subsidiaries are not wide enough to enable them to comply with the requirements of the department in relation to the planning process under the Bill; in other words, not sufficient for the Secretary of State—because he is in charge of the department.
The Bill will give the Secretary of State authority to require information from the executives; that is what we were discussing on the very first amendment. Therefore, the executive itself must have adequate powers to obtain relevant information from the National Bus Company about the operation in their area. This information is required of the NBC, not only to enable the executive itself to supply the
940
required information to the Secretary of State, but also so that it may obtain sufficient information for the three-year plan which the executive has to prepare under the provisions of the Bill. This seems to be a very sensible amendment to enable the executive itself to bring forward its detailed three-year plan—and also in order that the executive will have the wherewithal for supplying the Secretary of State with some of the information he may require, which we hope will be reasonable.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the principle behind this amendment seems to be a useful and constructive one, but the obligation is put on the National Bus Company, which I would have thought in this context was the wrong way around. I would have been happier to impose an obligation upon the executive to obtain such information as it needs from the National Bus Company and not impose a direct obligation on the National Bus Company. If this makes sense to any of your Lordships, I wonder whether further consideration might be given to it?
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the difficulty is that the National Bus Company is under no obligation to supply such information, however firmly the executive may request it. The purpose of this amendment, as I read it, is to make it necessary for the National Bus Company to provide such information as is requested by the executive. Otherwise, the NBC may just say, No, which will place the executive in very considerable difficulties in supplying that information to the Secretary of State.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in view of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, when he was speaking to Amendment No. 29, I wonder if he can tell your Lordships why, where information is to be required—as his amendment proposes—from the National Bus Company, he has not proposed the word "reasonably", so that it would read,
"with such information as they reasonably require".
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I admit that it is a defect, and if I insert the word "reasonably", perhaps the noble Lord will support me at Third Reading; that is the second opportunity he has had to support us.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I should like to tell the House that there is already adequate statutory cover for the purposes of this amendment. The purposes are twofold: first, to ensure that executives obtain the information which they themselves need from the NBC; secondly, to ensure that they can obtain information required by the Secretary of State. So far as the first point is concerned—and as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, reminded us—Section 24(2) of the Transport Act 1968 places the NBC and the executives under a duty to co-operate with one another and to enter into agreements as to the services to be provided by each within a metropolitan county. Agreements have been concluded between executives and NBC subsidiary operating companies. Under the terms of these agreements, there is already a flow of information to the PTEs about NBC's operators within their areas. Certainly at this time there appears to be no difficulty with regard to the transfer of information.

941
So far as the second point is concerned, Section 27(7) of the Transport Act 1962, which is applied to the NBC by Section 52 of the 1962 Act, already provides the Secretary of State with a comprehensive power to obtain all information from the NBC directly. So there is an adequate exchange procedure under the 1962 Act. It would appear that there really is no gap for the amendment to plug.
I said that there was a statutory duty on the NBC and the PTEs to co-operate with each other. I am aware that there have been complaints from time to time from some metropolitan counties that they have not always got what they wanted from the NBC. Well, there are quarrels in the best of relationships, but in practice and so far as the arrangements for providing information are concerned I cannot see any need to apply a new statutory duty. I would certainly expect the NBC to co-operate, as they do now, in providing all the information necessary to go into the annual TPPs. I think I made it clear that the Secretary of State himself has statutory powers, under Section 52 of the Transport Act 1962, to get any information from the NBC, if that is absolutely necessary. I think your Lordships will agree that, reasonable or not, there is no necessity for this amendment, and I hope the noble Lord will agree to withdraw it.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him a question in regard to the first part of the amendment, the obtaining of information by the executive from the NBC? If it is shown between now and Third Reading that some executives do have difficulty in obtaining information, apart from the question of co-operation between the two bodies, would the noble Lord be prepared to accept an amendment to rectify that?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, as I said, I think we would all accept that even in the best relationships some difficulties might arise. Perhaps they have. I would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, that he raises a hypothetical question to which I regret I cannot give a hypothetical answer.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if we cannot have hypothetical answers to hypothetical questions, perhaps we can, I suggest to your Lordships, have a straight answer to a straight question. This is an amendment requiring the NBC to give information to the executive—taking the first half of the amendment—in order that the executive may prepare its plan. The Minister concedes, as I understand it—he will quickly correct me if I am wrong—that such information might well be necessary, might well be essential, for the executive to prepare its plan. The Minister has not risen, so I take it for granted that, so far, he agrees with what I have said. If it is necessary or essential for the executive to have information from the NBC in order to prepare its plan, the Minister answers this amendment by saying that it is already provided for.
May I analyse the noble Lord's answer. He referred to one statutory provision which obliged the NBC and the executive to co-operate. Co-operation can be defined in many ways. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will not tell me that if there happens
942
to be a failure of co-operation one is either driven to the courts in order to decide whether co-operation was reasonably or unreasonably refused, or one can go to Parliament. I do not think we want exercises of that kind. Co-operation does not mean anything other than working together. It does not mean that one body, if required, has to supply information to the other.
The next answer given by the noble Lord the Minister is that there are agreements between certain executives and the National Bus Company. There may be agreements; I do not know what the agreements say; the noble Lord the Minister has not revealed what the agreements say. Your Lordships have not got the agreements before you. In any event, it only refers to agreements in certain parts of the country.
The last answer given by the noble Lord the Minister is that the Secretary of State can require information. I have specially limited myself to the first half of this amendment, which deals with what the executive wants in order to prepare its plan to submit to the Minister. So the Secretary of State has not come into the picture yet. Are we legislating in such a tidy form that, before an executive can get from a recalcitrant National Bus Company some essential information which is required for its plan, it has to plead with the Secretary of State, explain why it needs the information and ask the Secretary of State if he will be good enough to exercise his power?
This is, in my submission, an absolute test of the bone fides of the Government. I am not interested, nor are my noble friends, I would assure the House, in trying to force amendments back to the other place in order that time may be taken. If there were an obviously sensible amendment sent back to the other House—and, my word, the other place will not think very much of this House if this Bill, which was not even considered in the other place, goes back without a single amendment!—it would not take two minutes to go through. If there were the slightest doubt, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, was persuaded by the good sense of the principle, but thought we had got it round the wrong way; I hope he and others will be satisfied that we have now got it round the right way. I challenge the Government to produce one single section of an Act which says what this amendment says and sensibly says—namely, that the National Bus Company shall be required to give this information if the executive requires it in order to prepare its plan for submission to the Secretary of State.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I make one submission which has not been made yet and which, in my judgment, is primary above all that have been made? This amendment, as my noble friend has said, is a reasonable proposition. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, submitted that if the word "reasonable" was included it would be a good thing. Now comes the question, a good thing for whom?—the executive, not at all; the NBC, not at all; the Minister of State, not at all. Above all these are the British people for whom this Bill is being directed to provide. Our responsibility in this Chamber is to put them first, above national bus companies, above executives; yes, even above ourselves and the Secretary of State. If that is the quintessential nature of what our endeavours

943
should seek to achieve, I believe the Minister should forthwith accept this amendment.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am sorry that once again the Minister cannot accept what is a reasonable amendment. While the debate was going on I looked very carefully at Section 24: there is nothing in Section 24 which provides for information to be given. Subsection (3) provides that the bus company and the London Board and the bus company and the Railways Board shall exchange information. But subsection (2), to which the Minister referred, provides for co-operation with one another in the reorganisation of bus services within the area—nothing to do with supplying information for the purpose of this plan, because a three-year plan was not even thought of at the time. He says they are expected to co-operate with information in order to prepare the TPP each year. What we are trying to do in this amendment is not simply to expect them to co-operate but to lay down that it shall be done, in the same way that the Bill, instead of just relying on the commonsense of the executive and the Secretary of State to secure the appropriate information for the Secretary of State, lays down a legal requirement that the executive must provide the information to the Secretary of State. All we are asking is that we should put in the Bill an obligation on the National Bus Company to supply this information.
This is one of those issues which may seem small but where the Government are resisting a completely reasonable request. I believe that the House ought to be given the opportunity to say to the Government: "Do not be foolish on this matter. Support this amendment." Then, on Third Reading, if we wish to assist the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, we can have another amendment to bring in the word "reasonable".
3.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 30) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 96.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Amherst, E.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Amulree, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ardwick, L.

Gormley, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hale, L.

Bacon, B.

Hampton, L.

Banks, L.

Hanworth, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Beswick, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bishopston, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Blyton, L.

Kennet, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Brockway, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Byers, L.

Leatherland, L.

Caradon, L.

Listowel, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Collison, L.

Longford, E.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Mayhew, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Mishcon, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Molloy, L.

944

Oram, L.

Segal, L.

Peart, L.

Stedman, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Phillips, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Plant, L.

Stone, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Roberthall, L.

Tordoff, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Underhill, L.

Rugby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Wigoder, L.

Seear, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Auckland, L.

Loudoun, C.

Avon, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Lyell, L.

Bancroft, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Beloff, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Belstead, L.

Mancroft, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Margadale, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Marley, L.

Chelwood, L.

Merrivale, L.

Clancarty, E.

Mersey, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Molson, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mottistone, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Daventry, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Northchurch, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Dudley, B.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Onslow, E.

Eccles, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Pender, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Penrhyn, L.

Elton, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Erne, E.

Porritt, L.

Faithfull, B.

Portland, D.

Ferrers, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Gainford, L.

Reigate, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Romney, E.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

St. Davids, V.

Glanusk, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Glasgow, E.

Sandford, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Selkirk, E.

Glenkinglas, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gridley, L.

Soames, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Spens, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Hayter, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Holderness, L.

Hunt of Tanworth, L.

Strathspey, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sudeley, L.

Ilchester, E.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Inglewood, L.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Kilmany, L.

Terrington, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Teviot, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Trumpington, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Vivian, L.

Long, V.

Westbury, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Teaching Quality
3.48 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The Statement is as follows:
"I wish to make a Statement about the Government's policies and actions to improve teaching

945
quality in schools in England and Wales by the better use of the resources available. These are set out in a White Paper which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I are publishing today. Copies are available in the Vote Office."—
it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I say that copies are also available in the Printed Paper Office. I return to the Statement:
"Our first objective is to improve the arrangements for teacher training. Last November I announced changes in the structure of the initial training system in England which are designed to match the supply of newly trained teachers to the needs of both primary and secondary schools over the next few years, both in quality and in quantity. My right honourable friend will soon be announcing his decision for the system in Wales. We shall now use our power to approve initial training courses to improve their content and structure, a matter on which we are indebted to the valuable advice of our partners in education through the Advisory Committee on the Supply and Education of Teachers and to the work of Her Majesty's Inspectors. We accept the committee's recommendation that initial training courses should in future be approved on the basis of explicit criteria. Newly trained teachers will be expected to have greater knowledge and expertise in the subjects they are to teach, as well as more practical experience: and will have to provide satisfactory evidence of classroom competence. The training institutions will be expected to improve their arrangements for selecting students and to demonstrate that their staff have themselves recent successful experience of teaching in school. We now look forward to the committee's advice on the details of the new criteria and intend to apply these to new course proposals and in reviewing existing courses during the academic year beginning in September 1983.
"Our second objective is to improve the deployment of teachers so that their pupils can obtain full benefit from what they have to offer. We shall record the subjects and the ages of pupils for which new teachers have trained in formal letters from the department. We shall bring forward amended regulations to require local education authorities to have more regard to the formal qualifications of teachers, as they relate to specific subjects and age ranges, when they appoint them to particular posts; and we shall ask HMI to keep under review the operation of this requirement.
"It is also in the interest of the pupils that local education authorities should pursue positive policies in managing their teacher force at a time when resources are limited and teacher numbers must fall because pupil numbers are falling. Authorities need to use the various management instruments at their disposal in a planned and sensitive way so that the inflow of able recruits is maintained and so that teachers are deployed where they can best serve the pupils.
"At the same time authorities need to make it possible for serving teachers to continue their professional development through in-service
946
training. Additional provision has been made for this in the Government's expenditure plans.
"The schools depend crucially on the professional skill and commitment of the teachers. The Government believe that the White Paper provides a sound basis for enabling the teachers in our schools to serve their pupils as the nation, and they themselves, would wish".
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
3.52 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Of course, our final comment on it will have to wait until we have had the opportunity to read the White Paper. Naturally, we are in favour of the highest quality in our teaching force and of better selection and assessment of teachers during their training, and indeed during their probationary period.
We welcome the Government's realisation that educational standards are threatened, but this of course is not only because of the quality of the teaching force; it is because of the lack of resources and the cuts that LEAs have had to make on central Government instruction. The lack of remedial teachers, which of course affects very much what children learn and will be able to learn in the future, and the curtailing of the curriculum in the secondary schools, are both highlighted in the latest HMI report. This really does depend a great deal on resources.
I wonder whether the Minister could expand a little on the beginning of paragraph 2 where it says:
"Our first objective is to improve the arrangements for teacher training".
Apparently the Advisory Committee on the Supply and Education of Teachers is to be consulted and its advice taken. Are we sure that it will be taken, because it was not taken in the autumn? What it suggested as to the number of teachers in training was ignored by
We welcome the acceptance that more practical experience is necessary before the new teachers get into the classroom, and that the staff at the training establishments should have had recent experience of teaching in schools; and of course we welcome what the Statement says about in-service training. Again, according to the last HMI report, only half the LEAs were providing a satisfactory amount and quality of in-service training. This is particularly important if we are thinking of new subjects coming into the curriculum and a changed curriculum. Could the Minister say how the Department of Education and Science will be certain that the money intended for in-service training is used for that purpose? Are there to be specific grants for that?
In paragraph 3, the Statement says:
"We shall bring forward amended regulations to require local education authorities to have more regard to the formal qualifications of teachers, as they relate to specific subjects and age ranges".
I hope that the Minister can explain a little more about that. This seems to be narrowing things very much. Teachers may need to change and in-service training will help that. I shall be glad if the Minister can say a little more about that.

947
Paragraph 4 says:
"local education authorities should pursue positive policies in managing their teacher force at a time when resources are limited".
I think that what has happened with LEAs is that very often, because of falling rolls, they have been forced to redeploy their teachers. They have to use them rather than sack them. They cannot do that which perhaps the falling rolls would demand, get rid of all the teachers at once, so they may be forced to use these teachers in not altogether the places that best suit them. Could the Minister say what the Government's intentions are about this? Again, it is really a question of resources. It is easier not to have a mismatch if there are enough resources to employ more teachers.
I should like to ask about outside experience. There is nothing in the Statement to the effect that people will be brought in from outside the normal school situation. I think that it would be very valuable for the education of children and for teachers if people from outside, perhaps from industry and other businesses, could come to teach in schools for a certain amount of time, to bring variety and a change, and that teachers could go out from schools and have some experience in industry and elsewhere. Could the Minister say whether there is anything of that in the White Paper, and if it is intended? We all want quality, but being a really good teacher is a very rare quality. However many first-class degrees or whatever one may get in the school, it may not mean that one is a good teacher.
One final question: was there any consultation with the teaching unions—with the teacher force—before this White Paper was written?
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I, too, would like to thank the Minister for repeating this Statement. Of course, as far as the central part of it goes, it is very pious and very encouraging. We look forward to reading the White Paper now that it is published. I hope that we shall be given a fairly speedy opportunity to discuss the White Paper in your Lordships' House.
As far as the Statement goes, it is all very well to put the emphasis on quality. Of course we all want the emphasis on quality, but one cannot produce quality in this kind of situation unless there is some form of quanitity as well. I was up in Lincolnshire over the weekend and the teachers were discussing the cuts in staff in their schools that they were going to make over the coming year. All that I can say is that in places like that one will not be able to have any teachers seconded for in-school training.
There is also the problem, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, said, that teachers are having to be redeployed, because of the shortages, to jobs for which they are not entirely suitable. There is nothing much one can do about that except to provide more teachers. This is really what is needed to put up the quality as well as the quantity.
Lastly, I would like to ask the Government whether they have really looked at the resources that are going into the teacher training colleges after all the recent cuts, to know whether there will be enough to deal with the workload which appears to be the thought behind this White Paper.
3.59 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am most grateful both to the noble Baroness, Lady David, and to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for the way that they have received this White Paper. I was particularly pleased about the way that Lady David began her remarks. She asked me a number of questions in fairly rapid succession. I apologise if I do not have the answers to all of them. I shall certainly write if there are some that I miss out.
I think that both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, referred to the cuts in education, and the number of teachers concerned was referred to especially by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. Between January 1979 and January 1982 the numbers of full-time equivalent teachers employed in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in England and Wales decreased from 471,000 to 448,000, but because there was a greater proportional fall in pupil numbers the overall pupil/teacher ratio actually improved from 18.9 to 18.5. The pupil/teacher ratio for January 1983 is expected to show a further improvement. In fact, present pupil to teacher ratios are the best that they have ever been. Our expenditure plans allow for some further improvement in the ratios over 1982 levels if local education authorities contain their pay and other costs.
Of course, the Government accept that there will be strains on the staffing of secondary schools as the weight of demographic decline shifts to the secondary sector. But LEAs and teachers can relieve these strains by keeping a tight rein on pay and other costs, thus facilitating the employment of more teachers within the salary bill which can be afforded by reorganising schools in areas where rolls are falling and by careful planning of early retirement and redeployment. So I do not think that the situation is quite so bleak as the noble Lord and the noble Baroness made out.
As for the changes and bringing them about, which matter was raised by the noble Baroness, I hope that those responsible for individual teacher training courses will read the White Paper and that some changes will be introduced simply as a result of that. But on a more formal level, my right honourable friend is writing to Sir Clifford Butler, the chairman of ACSET, today and I hope that the committee will be able to submit advice on the criteria to be established for initial teacher training courses by July. The aim will then be to establish the criteria as soon as possible after that date and to begin applying them to new course proposals and to review existing courses from the autumn of this year. The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked me about consultation with the teachers. Of course, the teachers' organisations are involved as partners in ACSET, so in a way they have had a say there and ACSET is going to be re-consulted. As far as the local education authorities are concerned, I understand that my right honourable friend is also writing to them to try and arrange a meeting to consider this matter.
Specific grants towards in-service training were also mentioned. The sum of £7 million is being earmarked for that very purpose. It is always difficult when local education authorities get their hands on their money to know how they are going to spend it. The noble

949
Baroness raised a very good point in that respect. However, this money has been specifically earmarked for in-service training in different fields, and I think that I answered a Question on that matter the other day.
On the question of teachers coming from outside into the schools to teach, that I do not think is mentioned in the report. However, I think that there is something which suggests that there is, indeed, a case for young people who are going into teaching taking a year off and doing something else before they go to their institutions of training. In my view, that is a very good idea. I suppose that so far as getting people in from outside is concerned, that is for the head, the staffs and the governors of schools to try to do.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement. Of course we welcome the commitment to increase initial and in-service teacher training. But we are slightly puzzled by paragraph 5 of the Statement, the last sentence of which reads:
"Additional provision has been made for this in the Government's expenditure plans".
When one turns to the White Paper containing the Government's expenditure plans, one finds that under "education" there is a drop in education expenditure envisaged between 1982–83 and 1983–84—that is to say, we are going down from £12,628,000 to £12,560,000. I would like to ask the noble Earl from where in fact the funding for that additional initial, and particularly in-service training is coming?
Secondly, I managed very quickly to scan one page of the White Paper, which was embargoed of course until 3.30. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, in hoping that we shall have a chance to debate it in greater detail. But I see that under "management issues" there is a reference to small schools. It says:
"The population distribution makes it inevitable that there should be some small schools which are staffed at disproportionate expense".
That is then followed up by an injunction to local authorities to rationalise their teacher force. May I ask the noble Lord for an undertaking that this rationalisation of the teacher force will not be at the further expense of small schools in rural areas?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for those remarks. I really do not have any more to say about the £7 million which, as I mentioned to the noble Baroness, Lady David, is being specifically spent for in-service training. So far as teachers in the rural areas are concerned, I really cannot give an undertaking as regards that. There are some scattered rural areas where, however much the numbers go down, we must have a school; and where we have a school, we must have a teacher.
Baroness Bacon: My Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that the most well trained teachers cannot be really efficient if, at the end of their training, they are teaching very big classes? Does he not remember—I am sure he does—that when he was chairman of the Primary School Committee of the North Riding County Council and I was the Minister, he came to me
950
with a deputation imploring me to let his authority build more schools because the schools were bursting at the seams? We have got over that now because of the fall in numbers; yet does he not agree that his Government are not now reducing the size of classes but are closing schools and leaving classes as large as they were before, and that it would be much better to have smaller classes because then we would get real efficiency from teachers?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, my chief memory of that interview is that I was absolutely terrified and the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, as always, was absolutely charming and put me at ease. But to spring that one on me at this stage is something of a fast ball! Again, as I have said, the pupil/teacher ratios have in fact never been better than they are at this moment. Obviously, numbers are falling and teachers have to go, but the ratios are better than in the days when I came to see the noble Baroness in her office.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, if my memory serves me aright, nearly 30 years ago, when I became responsible for education, there were approximately 150,000 teachers in post. We now hear that there are over 400,000—two and a half times as many. Does my noble friend think that education has improved anything like two and a half times? Was not the real trouble that the expansion of the teacher training colleges was much too fast; that the selection of the students was not well done; and that when they got there they were allowed to choose what they studied, with the result that the core subjects were not taught to a proportion of teachers, which meant that in the primary schools subjects like mathematics went down like a stone?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Eccles for those remarks. Yes, the facts he gives are absolutely right. As I have said, there are in England and Wales 448,000 teachers. It is to try and improve the standards that this White Paper has been produced. It is very much the policy of this Government to try to improve the standards in our schools, and one of the ways in which to do this is to try to improve the standards of the teachers in those schools.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that we are grateful for the Statement and we are also pleased that he takes a great interest in education, which we have known for many years. Nevertheless, is he further aware that the word "quality" is something esoteric and abstract and very difficult to define? There must be a certain charisma about teachers, no matter how well they may be informed academically and even if they are senior wranglers. In the old-fashioned days I had a senior wrangler teaching me mathematics. I had to go down to the fourth form to understand what the man was talking about. Consequently, if we are looking for quality, we want the background. Is the noble Earl further aware that a good mechanic or carpenter needs the tools? Unless we get the books and the impedimenta that are needed, this modern apotheosis of a micrometer and electronics has nothing at all to do with the quality of education. We want to see the classes smaller and the rulers of schools given a better chance than they are getting today.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, could never have taught me because I would not have understood half the words he used: he is way above my head. But, yes, I think that there is a great deal of sense in what he says. Having read this White Paper—and, like other noble Lords, I have not had very long to study it—as I understand it, the aim is to try to teach teachers how to teach. I think that that is a very important point.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, after the questions that were put to him last week about religious education, some noble Lords will be disappointed to find that there is no word about that in the whole of this White Paper? Can my noble friend tell me whether this is a subject which my noble friend and his noble friends and right honourable friends will really take seriously? Is he aware that most of us think that the Christian heritage, based on Roman civilisation, is the whole basis of our lives and that, unless children are taught this at school—or, at any rate, given a rough idea of it—the major foundation of our whole civilisation is omitted? Will my noble friend undertake to convey to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State our very deep concern that in the whole of this White Paper, which I have skimmed rapidly through, there is no word about this as a qualification which should be sought for in at least some teachers who are to teach in our schools today?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, Lord Nugent, for raising that point. Yes, this is very much some of our thinking. In fact, I was aware of some of the things that were to be included in the White Paper but I was not allowed to mention them. One thing I wanted to say then was that the whole area of teachers and what they teach is a matter that will be closely examined, as will be the subject matters that teachers will teach. The whole idea of this is not only to improve the teaching of religious education, but to improve the quality of teaching of all sorts of subjects.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to clear up two points. On the consultations, do I understand that the teachers' unions were not consulted at all about this, which is really all about teachers, apart from those who happen to be on ACSET, and that the local education authorities, which are being required to do various things in the Statement, were not consulted? Secondly, is the £7 million which the Minister said is earmarked for in-service training earmarked for something within the general rate support grant or is it as a specific grant for in-service training?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think that I shall have to write to the noble Baroness on both those points. As I understand it, consultation has taken place and is continuing to take place. As regards the extra £7 million, I shall have to write to the noble Baroness about that.

Transport Bill
4.13 p.m.
Report stage resumed on Clause 6.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 6. line 20, leave out ("have regard in particular to") and insert ("include among the matters to which they shall have particular regard").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment still deals with Clause 6, and it brings us back to the words:
"have regard in particular to",
although I am hoping that when I have explained the amendment this will be one occasion when noble Lords and the Minister will be able to agree with it. The provisions of subsection (7) are not immediately apparent. The subsection requires reference to the relevant sections of the 1968 or 1969 Acts or references to the Notes on Clauses, which explain the actual purpose. I do not think that many noble Lords reading subsection (7) would know to what it refers unless they did one of those two things.
The subsection requires that, before giving or withholding an approval for an increase in fares, a passenger transport authority shall have regard to the extent to which their decision will affect the amount of revenue grants needed by the executive to break even. The subsection provides that the authority:
"shall have regard in particular"
to that matter.
This amendment does not seek to remove that particular aspect. But I am certain noble Lords will readily agree that there will be other matters of importance to which the authorities should have regard before giving or withholding approval to a proposed rise in fares. With the amendment, the relevant part of the subsection will read:
"the Authority shall include among the matters to which they shall have particular regard the extent to which their decision will affect the amount of revenue grants".
In other words, we are not in any way changing the intention of the Bill that there shall be particular regard to the effect which any decision on fare increases may have on revenue grants. The amendment ensures that as well as having particular regard to this matter there may be other issues to which they ought to have particular regard.
One that comes to mind immediately is that there could be protests from employers that increases in fares may have terrible effects upon their own workpeople in certain areas. Therefore, there could be other matters to which they should have particular regard. But on this occasion I think noble Lords will agree that, to use that great word, we are being very "reasonable", and that we are not changing the intention of the Bill but widening it so as to improve its content. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for explaining the purport of his amendment. Although he thinks that this is a very reasonable amendment, in fact I would have chosen a rather different description. Although at first sight it seems harmless enough, in

953
fact it seems to me that it quite alters the meaning of the subsection, and in quite a significant way.
As the noble Lord was kind enough to remind us, in Clause 6(7) we are saying that, before giving or withholding an approval for a rise in fares, the authority must have particular regard to two specific issues—the effect of their decision on the amount of revenue grants which will be needed by the executive in order to meet its financial duty to break even and, secondly, the need to achieve a proper balance between the interests of ratepayers and transport users. In our view these are the important issues to which they really must have particular regard. These are the issues which, in essence, give rise to the Bill itself.
However, in fact, the amendment actually changes this emphasis. It says that the authority shall include these two issues:
"among matters to which they shall have particular regard".
So the amendment contemplates other issues to which the authority must have particular regard but does not specify what those issues are. I rather question how an authority can give regard to particular issues, as set down in Clause 6(7), which are unspecified. I am sorry if this sounds a rather convoluted English lesson, but, so far as I can see, the amendment rather muddies the waters. It leaves the authorities unclear on the issues to which they must have regard. Of course, we would much prefer that the issues to which the authorities should have regard are left quite clear.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, once again I rise with pleading in my voice, sorrow in my heart and a prophetic expectation of the reply that I shall receive, and it all makes me very miserable. I tried to listen to the noble Lord's reply with the courtesy with which I know the Minister listened to my noble friend Lord Underhill. Are the Government so complete in wisdom that they can imagine that there is nothing to which an authority would want to have particular regard other than the matters that they have mentioned? Are they really saying, with their hand on their hearts, that an authority will be put into some doubt as to what it can do if it is told that it must have particular regard to these two items, but it could indeed have particular regard to another item?
I regard this almost as one of the benedictions which Lewis Carroll left to our literature. I am trying to envisage an authority saying, using the example of my noble friend that a rise in fares may hit employment, "No. We can have regard to that, but we must not have particular regard to that, because all that we are allowed to have particular regard to is set out in the sub-section". Really this is reducing the language to an absurdity.
All my noble friend is saying, and all I am saying on behalf of my other noble friends, is that we are trying to see to it that there is a tidy provision which carries out the Government's policy that before a fare rise there must be particular regard given to these two matters, but it is not shutting the door to an authority being able to take other considerations into its mind before making a decision, and indeed to have particular regard to things that may be local, that may be unseen.
There is nothing in the world that can stop them from having particular regard. If they can have regard
954
to something, they can have particular regard to it. We are therefore making it transparently clear that the door is not shut to other items of consideration when a fare increase is indeed being looked at. If the Minister indicates after this that again he can still see no reason for reconsideration, the door is closed to this amendment, I am really beginning to wonder—and I think that those on Benches behind me and by the side of me feel the same—whether or not the task of an Opposition trying constructively to improve a Bill is not, in your Lordships' House, a waste of time at the moment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I think all of your Lordships would be sad at the thought, at the concept, of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, despite appearances to the contrary, being sad. I console myself, and your Lordships can console yourselves, with the atmosphere of robust cheerfulness in which he gave that indication.
The noble Lord somewhat understated what seems to me to be the effect of this amendment. Undoubtedly its acceptance would blur the clarity of the subsection as it stands. There two matters are specified to which particular regard must be given. If it is suggested that there are other matters susceptible of equality of regard, equally to "have particular regard", then a good deal of the effect of the shortness, if you like, of the subsection is removed and the guidance that it gives to those who have to administer this would be the less clear. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will not accept this amendment.
Having referred to the sadness of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I am now going to make the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, sad. He consoled himself on the preceding amendment by indicating that he thought—and I am sure he said this in entire sincerity—that he would have my support on Third Reading if he moved his same amendment with the one word "reasonably" added. Quite apart from the folly of the noble Lord in seeking to speculate on how I should view an amendment which I have not yet heard argued, I would remind him, and this may make him very sad indeed, that it would be wholly contrary to the practice of this House to have an amendment in substantially the same form as was rejected on Report discussed on Third Reading.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, may I answer particularly one point? The Bill, as drafted, does not prevent an authority having particular regard to other matters. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter so succinctly put it, if we add the words of the amendment, it blurs the clarity of the subsection. We could not agree to compel the authority to have particular regard to matters which are not specified. That really is the point.
With the leave of your Lordships' House, may I correct something I said earlier this afternoon? When we were discussing Amendment No. 28, I rather misled your Lordships in my response to that. I said that the requirement to consult was added with the agreement of both sides at Committee stage in another place. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, quite rightly pointed out that the voting was 13 in favour of the amendment and 11 against. I accept this. However, in

955
his speech, the honourable Member for Westhoughton said in reference to the amendment to add consultation:
"This amendment is a palliative. It ameliorates the excesses of the Bill, and we shall not vote against the amendment".
Again I have to apologise if I misled your Lordships on that point.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for confirming what I said on Amendment No. 28. It is good to have that matter clarified. Once again I emphasise, as did my noble friend Lord Mishcon in his remarks, that we are not attempting to take out of this subsection the two particular items mentioned there. The only basic argument that the Minister has put forward is that any other matters are not specified. Between now and the Third Reading we shall give some thought to that. Maybe we can specify items at the same time as making these two points ones to which particular regard shall be given. If we can do that, that will improve the subsection.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I am not easily saddened. If I were, I should have given up politics many years ago. We know only too well that we cannot bring forward an amendment in the same terms as one defeated on a Division, but the addition of the vital word to which the noble Lord referred will make it a different matter altogether. I have not said that we shall bring it forward, but we shall give serious consideration to that. As the Government are being very sticky on this, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Review of managerial organisation]:
4.27 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 6, line 27, leave out from ("shall") to ("cause") in line 28 and insert ("if the Secretary of State so requires, not more than once in any period of three years").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must not keep using the word "reasonable" because I am expecting far too much of the Government to be reasonable. Clause 7(1) will compel a passenger transport authority to undertake a management review,
"whenever the Secretary of State so requires".
When originally drafted the Bill provided that the authority should undertake a review whenever the Secretary of State so required, but also forthwith after the passing of the Act. The Government, on second thoughts, thought that that was going much too far.
Although Clause 7 was not properly discussed in the other place, the Government brought forward an amendment to remove reference to an immediate review after the Act became law. Once again, that was not discussed. As reference to cols. 925 and 926 of the Official Report for Standing Committee A will show, the amendment was proposed by the Minister, Mr. Eyre, and then put to the vote and carried by 13 votes to 11. That particular amendment, while it improved the Bill, did not necessarily have our approval because of other factors in it.
This amendment takes this commonsense step a little further. Surely it is unreasonable for a Secretary of State to have power to require a review to be undertaken at any time and as often as he may think fit, because that is what "whenever" means. I dare say that our legal gentlemen present will be able to confirm that that is what it must mean. It is clear from the wording of the provision that the review is designed to determine whether, in the interests of managing the actions of the executive in the most efficient manner, any particular activities of the executive should be managed as separate units with separate accounts. Thus, there is a special purpose for having a review.
Surely it is unreasonable that the Bill should be left as drafted, enabling the Secretary of State to conduct a review whenever he desires. The amendment proposes that a review should be conducted,
"if the Secretary of State so requires, not more than once in any period of three years."
Bearing in mind the reasons for the review, that would appear a sensible, practicable and reasonable proposal, remembering that the annual review which the executive prepares is for a running period of three years, so no Secretary of State should want a review to cover the points I mentioned more than once every three years.
The amendment would, therefore, tie the Secretary of State down to having a review not more than once in a period of three years. It may be argued—the same argument has been used on other amendments—that the Secretary of State, being a reasonable man, would never think of doing otherwise. But Secretaries of State, like people's attitudes, change, and the Bill should make it clear that once in three years should be sufficient. We are not saying it must be once in three years, but not more than once in three years. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I made the somewhat flippant remark on Second Reading that the clause as drafted gave power to the Secretary of State to have a review every Thursday fortnight. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said, a reasonable Secretary of State would not call for a review more frequently than he felt was absolutely necessary; but let us consider the position if the present wording of the Bill had been set down as an amendment. Undoubtedly the Minister would say that it was foolish because it left the Bill wide open, and was bad drafting. I suggest that the Bill as drafted leaves a lot to be desired. Even if the Government do not accept that three years is the correct period, I hope they will agree that the Bill needs amending; and if they would prefer a period other than three years, perhaps they will bring forward an amendment at Third Reading.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, having listened to the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Tordoff, I can say categorically that the Secretary of State has no intention of requiring transport authorities to cause frequent reviews to be made of the management and organisation of their executives. Once a review has been made—whether it has been initiated by the executive, the authority or under Clause 7 of this measure—the authority and the executive will need to consider the report and,

957
perhaps, implement changes. It is essential that the structure should then be allowed to settle down and the executive get on with the job of running the local transport.
The Monopolies and Mergers Commission commented about the West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive that after completing the present organisational changes the executive should, for a time, limit further changes to those necessary to secure specific efficiency improvements. We do not want unnecessary and frequent upheavals. That would be a recipe for low morale and inefficiency. Once we have an efficient and effective structure, we need stability.
While the Government have every sympathy with the views expressed, we must ask whether it is necessary to amend the Bill. I do not think it is. I have made the Government's position clear—that there is no intention of making frequent demands for reviews—and I reiterate the assurance given by my noble friend Lord Bellwin (as reported in column 893 of Hansard of 17th March) that the Secretary of State would call for a review under Clause 7 only at the time of giving the guidance.
It would be undesirable to modify the Bill to prevent the Secretary of State asking for more frequent reviews. However, I assure the House that it is not his intention to ask for such reviews more frequently than once in every three years. The existing power in Section 15 of the 1968 Act does not prevent an authority from requiring frequent reviews; the wording there is that the authority "may from time to time" cause a review to be made. The authorities act reasonably and properly, and there is no reason to suppose that the Secretary of State would do other than likewise.
In more practical terms, even were a Clause 7 review called for, a considerable amount of time must elapse for the preparation, further consideration, the review itself and ultimately the implementation of that which the review might contain. Therefore, probably most of the time referred to in the amendment would elapse in any event. With the assurance I have given—namely, that it is not the Government's intention to ask for reviews more frequently—I hope the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I hope the Minister will remember that this is not a discussion with the department which he represents with such ability after so little experience (from that point of view he deserves the congratulations of the whole House) or a question of your Lordships interviewing the department before a Select Committee knowing the present intention of the Secretary of State. We are legislating. The Minister says, "The Secretary of State has not the slightest intention of doing anything like this twice in three years"; and, "After all, it will take a terrific amount of time, anyway, in the preparation of it, and it would not be practical to do it more than once in three years"; and, "The Secretary of State would not want to gum up the machinery by asking for more than one review in three years". The noble Lord then hopes the House will accept that assurance as being the present intention of the present Government. I repeat that this is not an interview between the department and the legislature. This is a debate on the wording of a Bill which is supposed to last quite a long time, despite the
958
frequency of Transport Bills under this Administration.
From that point of view, I repeat the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff: if the Government feel it would be wrong to say three years—legislating for future Secretaries of State and future Governments—but have in mind another period, by all means let the Minister frankly say so. But we cannot leave the wording as it is, enabling the Secretary of State to call for more frequent reviews, on the lame excuse that the present Secretary of State has told the noble Lord, I am sure personally, that he does not intend to have a review more than once in every three years. I see the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, nodding in assent: that useful interview with his right honourable friend, I note, has taken place. But it does not bind anybody. Indeed, if the Secretary of State's successor happened to be more active in calling for reviews and thought it was a pleasant way for a Secretary of State to conduct the activities of his ministerial office, then I am sure the Minister realises that a quotation from Hansard saying it was not the intention of his predecessor to do so would not have the slightest effect. I repeat, therefore, that we are legislating, not interviewing.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I do not have a great deal to add to what my noble friend Lord Mishcon has said. I would draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that this provision is for reviews for particular purposes, not just general reviews to check the organisation to see how things are going. It is for special purposes which I read out. I can only say that it is all very well having sympathy. Noble Lords were awaiting the word "but" and once again we were not disappointed. "Every sympathy, but …" is what we are told on amendment after amendment. Everything that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has said confirms that there is no reason why these words should not be put into the Bill. There is no intention of the Minister to conduct unnecessary reviews; we would not require unnecessary upheaval, certainly the requirement would have to be met not more than once in every three years. That is what the amendment says.
We will not press this to a Division. Perhaps the noble Lord will look carefully at Hansard to see whether I or he made a mistake. I thought that he said that the Secretary of State would only ask for a review at the time he gives guidance. He is going to give guidance every year. If that is what the Minister is going to do, we shall certainly need to have this provision put in. We will read what he has said and I hope that the Minister will read carefully about this. The drafting was found to be inadequate and an amendment was introduced by the Government in the Committee stage in the other place. It may well be the desire of the Government to make this improvement at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 7, line 14, at end insert (", but shall not be hound to accept the lowest, or any, tender so invited.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to the

959
provision that an executive shall invite tenders to carry on certain activities of the executive. The amendment would provide that the executive shall not be bound to accept the lowest or any other tender. Noble Lords will recall that a similar amendment was put forward at Committee stage and that I and other noble Lords then stressed that there are various factors which an executive might wish to take into consideration. The noble Lord the Minister (the same Minister) on that occasion said that the executive—and I quote:
"will only have to accept tenders where it appears to the executive that the activity can be more satisfactorily and more cheaply carried out by another body".
That is in col. 1253.
Various noble Lords put forward reasonable arguments as to why an executive might not wish to accept the lowest tender. The Minister has made quite clear that that would not necessarily be made compulsory on an executive. I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway (who is in his place today), said that there is nothing in this amendment which would destroy any intention of the Bill. The Minister during our Committee stage (in Cols. 1254 and 1255) said:
"In view of what has been said, I am quite happy to go away and read and consider again what noble Lords have said with regard to this matter".
The Government have not brought forward an amendment. We have brought forward an amendment and hope that the Minister, with his colleagues, has been able to reflect on this and will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is quite correct. At Committee stage, I undertook to read and consider what noble Lords had said at that time. We were then discussing an almost identical amendment (No. 59 at that time) which sought to insert a provision in the Bill that an executive should not be bound to accept the lowest or any tender.
This amendment has to be seen in the context of the clause as a whole. It is for the executive to determine which of its activities are appropriate for a tendering exercise and to decide the period for which, and the basis on which, tenders should be invited. An authority may direct its executive to invite tenders for such periods, on such bases and for local activities as they may direct. Subsection (3) requires that if it appears to the executive that the acceptance of a tender would result in the relevant activities being carried on in a satisfactory manner and at less cost to them than if they were to continue to carry on those activities themselves, they are to accept the tender. The Government consider it to be right that the executive should be under a duty, where they are satisfied in the terms of subsection (3), to accept the tender. The amendment would be in direct conflict with that duty as it would enable the executive to refuse a tender even if they were satisfied that by letting a contract the activities would be carried out in a satisfactory manner and at less cost to themselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, raised the question as to whether this would require an executive to put out to tender part of its activities which could be run
960
more cheaply by a private concern but in cricumstances which would be disadvantageous to other parts of their operation. It will be, first, for the executive to consider whether any activity is appropriate for inviting tenders. If the separation of a particular activity would have an obviously disadvantageous effect, it would surely not be appropriate to invite such tenders. If tenders are invited, it is the executive which is the judge of whether the activities will be carried out in a satisfactory manner. The economic test is whether the result of letting the tender will be less cost to the executive than if they continued running the activity themselves. When we talk about "at less cost", one has to take into account—and I emphasise this point particularly to answer the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff—and to look at the spread or overheads over the whole operation. If an activity were removed but the overhead stayed, then the overhead in relation to the activity remaining would be that much higher. There would, therefore, be a disadvantage so that it would be for the executive to take that kind of calculation into account. If the executive apply this test, then they have the opportunity of not just making a comparison of direct costs but relating the running of the activity against the price in the tender.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, suggested that there might be reasons for not accepting the lowest tender and there might be reasons why it was considered unsatisfactory which the executive did not necessarily want to discuss in public. I was at some pains at that time to explain that it is the executive which has to be the judge of whether or not the tenderer will run the activities in a satisfactory manner. If they are not satisfied of this, then they will certainly be under no duty to accept the tender.
Following on that point, it was the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who again raised the question of the persistent tenderer who might press an executive to accept a particular tender. The Government do not consider that the executive should refuse to accept a tender otherwise than on the test set out in subsection (3). If the tender is unsatisfactory, the executive should be able to say so. In any case, this question of the persistent tenderer is no different under the Bill from what it would be under a conventional tendering system.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway suggested that the inclusion of Amendment No. 59 at Committee stage did no violence to the spirit of any principle in the Bill. But, as I have pointed out, it would detract from the duty under subsection (3) to accept a tender where the executive is satisfied that the activity will be satisfactorily carried on and that the overall cost to the executive will be less.
So I ask that your Lordships' House will accept the Bill as it stands, so that where an executive or authority has decided to seek tenders, and where a fully satisfactory tender can be carried out with those two conditions met—less cost and the tenderer being satisfactory—the executive should be bound to accept it. In the light of the explanation I have given as to why the Government do not believe it right to accept the amendment, which is so similar in terms to the previous amendment, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw it.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, which I think is the appropriate phrase to use, I shall be grateful to him if he will reply to the points which are relevant and with which, with great respect to him, he has not yet dealt. May we approach this amendment with a practical sense and an objective view? There is an imposition upon the executive which is accepted, that they must choose the activities which they think may suitably go out for tender. That presupposes a bona fide executive considering within the spirit of this Bill what could possibly be more economically or indeed more satisfactorily carried out by somebody else. So you start off with a predetermined fairness and honesty of an executive.
Once you take that for granted, do your Lordships not think that you have to protect the executive? A tender may be submitted which happens to be at a low cost—this may be true of two tenderers, not just one—but the executive's inquiries show that the people concerned have not given satisfaction in a certain number of cases or have been dilatory in the work that they have carried out. That information may have reached the executive as a result of private inquiries carried out by the executive's officers. The executive, knowing of these facts, having in good faith—because otherwise it would not have gone out to tender—decided that these are activities suitable for tender, wonders how it can deal with this situation. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who will correct me if I am wrong, was seized of this point when he participated in the debate last time. I hear the noble Lord, Lord Soames, and he is quite right: lawyers do sometimes contribute usefully, even as usefully as the noble Lord, Lord Soames, does whenever he speaks. The noble Lord, Lord Soames, has the gift, too, of a voice which, whenever he whispers, is heard in all parts of the Chamber.
My Lords, the executive is faced with this position: I referred at the Committee stage to a persistent tenderer. They want tactfully to be able to point to a portion of a clause in the Bill which says that the executive is not necessarily bound to accept the lowest tender. There is not anything in the clause at the moment. So the tenderer, feeling very dissatisfied and being the type of person to whom Lord Soames's attention was being drawn, a rather astute and persistent lawyer—unlike members of your Lordships' House—thereupon advises: "I doubt whether the executive has this right. I think that we ought to take them on judicial review. I think that we ought to approach a Member of Parliament known to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who has all the time in the world to raise matters of this kind; and the other place and this place have all the time in the world, according to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to consider such matters".
The matter is raised. There is a mandatory obligation, I submit, under this clause that the executive has either to show that the tenderer was not a satisfactory tenderer, or they cannot refuse it. All that my noble friends and I are trying to do—and I repeat it—is to give the bona fide executive that has already decided on its own volition to go out for tender, the opportunity to be able to point to words in this Bill which enable them to say: "We are not accepting your tender although it is the lowest, and we do not
962
have to satisfy you, a court or Parliament that you are not a satisfactory tenderer".
These cases are bound to happen, and that is why we are here. It is to consider matters of that kind and to make sure that if there is what appears to be a bona fide gap in the provisions, without people trying to make subtle points to wreck the clause or whatever, it should be looked at fairly and objectively, and not voted on on a political basis. I shall not object if any noble friend of mine, having listened to this dissertation, calls out, "Not-Content", when this amendment is put to the House. I equally turn to the Cross-Benches and every other section of the House and I ask your Lordships to look perfectly fairly at the argument that I have put.
It cannot be an executive that does not want to get shot of this activity and does not like the idea of any tenderer getting it. Under the provisions of this clause, the executive has carried out the duty of putting it out to tender because the executive has determined it is appropriate. Nobody else has done so. Before we pass on to another amendment, I ask that this matter is properly considered. From the words that he uttered as he sat down, the noble Lord the Minister seemed almost convinced last time, and we left the matter with contentment. He said that he was quite happy to go away, read and consider again what noble Lords had said with regard to the matter. I hope that your Lordships will do the same and that this is at least one amendment that will be accepted.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I add that certainly Lord Mishcon's recollection of the issues that we discussed on the last occasion is correct. He failed to say that there were a great many noble Lords on both sides of the House who pressed for the Government to have a further look at this matter, and indeed we have done just that. We do not see the requirement under the clause as an imposition, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, described it. It is a requirement that the executive—and the executive alone—may decide whether or not any of their activities is suitable for going out to tender. It is for them so to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, raised particularly the point of the lowest tender which was perhaps unsatisfactory in other respects, howsoever the reasons for that tender being unsatisfactory are obtained. But the Bill in fact allows the executive to refuse a tender on the grounds that it is unsatisfactory, and—
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I do beg of the noble Lord, only because it is so important and I am thinking in terms of executives and the duty that this House has. I have admitted all that. I am asking the noble Lord to put himself in the position of having to communicate to a tenderer who knows that his tender was a low one, and possibly the lowest, why it is that his tender has not been accepted: because under the present wording of this Bill (and I challenge the noble Lord to say that I am wrong and to give me reasons for it) he has to say, if it happens to be the lowest tender, that it is that the tenderer is unsatisfactory. The executive, without these words, is left naked before the tenderer—a most unseemly position, as I am sure your Lordships will agree.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. If the tender is unsatisfactory in any way the executive are not bound to accept it. There must be a reason for an executive not wishing to accept—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, will allow me to continue—and if there is such a reason why the executive do not think the tender is satisfactory they ought to be able to say so. If they cannot, there must be some doubt as to whether or not it is satisfactory; and they are under a duty, if the tender is satisfactory in all respects and can be undertaken at less cost to themselves, to accept. Did the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, want to intervene?
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I merely wanted to refer the noble Lord to the wording of the Bill. It does not talk about being "satisfactory in all respects", but about the
"relevant activities being carried on in a satisfactory manner".
That is the only point where the word "satisfactory" comes into this clause.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I take it the House will accept that I was interrupted rather than that I am coming to the Box for a third time. Yes, I did say "in all respects", but perhaps I should remove those three words and say "satisfactory". At the end of the day it is for the executive to determine whether the tender is satisfactory, and if it is, coupled with the point as regards the cost, then they should accept it.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, one thing has been overlooked by the Minister in his replies, and that is subsection (5). The report that has to be presented under the terms of the 1968 and 1969 Acts, as detailed in subsection (5), has to contain a statement showing the steps which have been taken by the executive to comply with subsections (1) and (2) of this clause. The Minister is bound to ask: What have you done? They include in the report what they have done, and whether they have not accepted any tender. The next question is: Why have you not accepted a tender? Surely, if these words are put in they safeguard the transport executive.
The Minister said that the insertion of these words would detract from the provisions of the Bill, but the provisions would still be there—that they should accept, in the words that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, just read out. The position of the executive would be safeguarded if these words were inserted. Perhaps I might also suggest to the Government that they should take a careful look at subsection (5) to see whether that is worded correctly, because the report is a joint report of the authority and the executive. Therefore, that might want tidying up as well; but that is not the purpose of our amendment.
Once again, I think it is apparent to noble Lords that the Government are being unduly opposition-minded in refusing to accept these amendments. We will have a careful look at this matter again, and I hope that the Minister himself will look very carefully at what has been said. I believe a reasoned argument has been put forward from this side of the House, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. We are not trying to take away the provisions under Clause 8; what we are trying to do is to make them fair and reasonable. In the
964
circumstances, we will have a careful look at this and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 34:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
("Travel concessions for unemployed persons, etc.
. Section 138 of the Act of 1968 (travel concessions for the elderly, blind and disabled) shall be amended by inserting after subsection (5)(c) the words—
"(d) unemployed persons and persons training for employment under arrangements approved by the Manpower Services Commission.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that the same amendment as is now before your Lordships was considered during the Committee stage. It was then argued by some that the Transport Bill was not the right place for this kind of issue to be dealt with. I said that I would consider very carefully what had been said during that very interesting debate, and drew attention to the fact that my noble friend Lord Molloy had a Bill covering the same issue. I indicated that we might wish to come back on Report after considering everything that had been said.
As your Lordships may recall, on Friday, 11th March, we discussed this Bill and once again we had a very interesting debate. An amendment was put down and, on a Division, the Second Reading of the Bill was refused; but I must draw the attention of those of your Lordships who may not have been present or have read the Official Report, that it was not necessarily because of any disagreement on the principle of my noble friend's Bill. The Division was taken on an amendment,
"That the Bill be read this day six months".
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, made it absolutely clear that his amendment was introduced on procedural grounds and so the amendment is back today, in accordance with the statement I made when withdrawing the earlier amendment at Committee stage.
Your Lordships will not wish me to repeat all the arguments that were put forward during the very interesting debate at Committee stage or that were put forward in connection with my noble friend's Private Bill, but there are some misunderstandings which must be cleared up. At the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, referred to travel assistance which is available in connection with the steps a person may take to secure work under schemes sponsored either by the DHSS or by the Manpower Services Commission. This was reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in the debate on my noble friend's Bill. I must remind the House that it was stated that under the DHSS scheme the condition is that the person has to be unemployed and in receipt of supplementary benefit. Therefore many unemployed persons will be excluded from the provisions of the DHSS scheme for assistance to travel when seeking work. So even on the grounds of help in applying for jobs, this amendment is needed to cover those persons who are not in receipt of supplementary benefit.
The Minister also explained the assistance available in connection with the MSC scheme when going to

965
interviews to obtain employment. Again it was made perfectly clear by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in what they said respectively at Committee stage and during the discussion of my noble friend's Bill. I quote from what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said on 11th March at col. 451:
"… the prospective employer must confirm a good chance of success in the job application;".
So even that help under the Manpower Services Commission has stringent conditions, and we have the situation that both schemes for assistance which were mentioned at earlier stages can still exclude quite a number of the unemployed.
During the debate in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said he was not sure about assistance for training, but that he would have a look at that. The noble Lord kindly wrote to me and drew attention to certain provisions, to which I should like to make reference. Persons employed in youth opportunities schemes are reimbursed with travelling expenses over £4 per week. Persons taking other training opportunities schemes are at present reimbursed for journeys over two-and-a-half miles as the crow flies—although buses do not travel as the crow flies, and often go around lanes—at flat rates of £2·50 in London and £1·75 elsewhere. But the Minister kindly pointed out that, as from 1st April this year, they will be on the same basis as the YOP schemes; that is, they will be reimbursed for travelling costs over £4 per week. This information, for which I am obliged to the Minister, means that a person on a training scheme has to meet the first £4 of travelling costs each week and, once again, it appears that this amendment is necessary.
We need to help the unemployed person who does not receive supplementary benefit and who is excluded from the DHSS scheme, because he has to bear the first £4. We need to help all persons undergoing training with the cost of fares up to £4 a week. These can be young people or people out of work. I would remind your Lordships that on 16th March this year official figures stated that 500,000 persons who are out of work have been unemployed for two years.
The amendment is not concerned only with assistance to find jobs, or with helping people who are undergoing training, although it is clear from the information given by the Minister that those points alone would justify this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that it would be very difficult to draw a distinction between the unemployed and those who are eligible, and that, if we brought in this category, other persons would have to be brought in as well. That is a time-honoured excuse for any Government not to do anything about something that is necessary.
At the Committee stage of this Bill and on my noble friend's Bill, I stressed that, as well as being concerned with those who are unemployed and are not on supplementary benefit, and who are now having to meet the first £4 per week of any travelling expenses for training, we are concerned with the lives of unemployed persons. I ask your Lordships to bear in mind that, according to official figures on 16th March, which was only a week ago, half a million people have been out of work for two years and I ask you to picture what their lives can be.
Can they afford to visit relatives, if they live in estates on the outskirts of London and their relatives live in the city? I can tell your Lordships what the Central Line costs. It is far more than an unemployed man can afford. Are these people to be regarded as persons who must not travel anywhere for any social reasons, just because they cannot afford it?
I think that some noble Lords were a little sceptical when I referred to my football team, who have a specially reduced price for the unemployed at their matches. But if they live, as I do, five miles away, it could cost them 90p, and an unemployed person could not afford to go. He could not have that recreation. I hope that no one will say that the only recreation he should have is to ride his bike.
So this amendment is concerned not only with assistance for those travelling to find work who are not on supplementary benefit or who have to bear the first £4 of travelling costs. It is concerned with enabling the unemployed to live a normal type of life, the same as noble Lords in this House do.
I also want to make it clear, because it was stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that not all local authorities take advantage of the provisions of Section 138 of the 1968 Act. We have made it absolutely clear that this amendment will not make it mandatory upon local authorities to grant this concession to the unemployed. Like the concessionary schemes for the aged, for the disabled, and for the blind, the power is permissive for the local authority concerned. Secondly, in the light of remarks that were made on my noble friend's Bill, the amendment would cover travel only within the area of the local authority which makes the decision to give the concession, or on routes which are adjoining. What is more, the local authority will determine any conditions applying to the concession.
There is every reason why noble Lords should support this amendment. It was stated at the Committee stage that this Bill is not the vehicle for it. It was stated on my noble friend's Bill that that was not the proper procedure. The only way in which we can come back to this matter is on this Transport Bill. This gives us an opportunity to do the right thing for the unemployed. I ask your Lordships to bear in mind that, as I said, half a million people have been out of work for two years and, for them alone, we ought to agree this concession, so that they can lead the sort of life which everybody ought to lead. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, in opposing this amendment it would be wholly inappropriate to seek to repeat the reasons for opposition which I advanced at the Committee stage. But, surely, it cannot be desirable to leave travel concessions for the unemployed to the discretion of the local administration, at the ratepayers' expense, when it is the responsibility of central administration: quite apart from the problems of disparity of treatment, the discretion of the local authorities, and the limited local incidence.
It is wholly appropriate to afford requisite travel concessions to the registered unemployed in search of work. This is, essentially, a matter for central administration under the DHSS or the Department of

967
Employment, albeit with safeguards against abuse such as were operated so successfully in the Manchester scheme to which the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, drew our attention.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said that these DHSS schemes as they exist today, and the MSC as it exists today, have certain inadequacies. If so, then so be it. But, surely, it is wrong to grant travel concessions to the unemployed as a matter of status, unrelated to the purpose of seeking employment. This amendment, in seeking to grant travel concessions to the unemployed as a matter of status—a form of general aid to the unemployed—goes right outside the scope of this Bill as envisaged by the short Title. I will not weary your Lordships by citing it. A glance at it should satisfy any of your Lordships who happen to be interested.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said that this amendment was to enable the unemployed to lead an ordinary sort of life. Humanitarian considerations always attract some of your Lordships and, indeed, myself. But this Bill, according to its intendment, is not a Bill to enable the unemployed to lead an ordinary sort of life. If it were the declared intention of Her Majesty's Government not to implement a centrally administered scheme to assist the registered unemployed, then, obviously, consideration would have to be given to some other means. However, it is understood not only that such is not the case but that at the moment the matter is under review as to whether or not the centrally administered scheme, as it is at present, can be improved. Bearing in mind that the direct cost of the centrally administered scheme is very small, especially if one gives credit for the benefit of each job secured, such a scheme would provide a morale booster, which is so desirable and necessary, not only for the unemployed who are seeking employment but for us all.
The reason I oppose the amendment, and the spirit in which I oppose it, is on the same basis as I previously opposed travel concessions for the unemployed. I opposed it on its merits, not on a procedural point. It would be wrong to detain your Lordships with any further repetition.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I have no wish to detain your Lordships for too long. I wish to make only one point. Since we last discussed this issue, a few thousand more of our fellow Britons have been deprived of the right to earn a livelihood. When I listen to debates in this place, I sometimes think that it is the fault of the unemployed that they are on the dole; it is their fault that they are unable to find work and have gainful employment. We have to take these matters into consideration because there is a large, festering sore of bitterness in our country. According to my mail, that sore has turned gangrenous throughout this nation, because of the way that the issue was treated in this House on the last two occasions. Different reasons have been given for the opposition to it, but the united endeavour has been not to give a Briton of this country one ha'penny to go and look for work, despite the fact that he was exhorted so to do by one of Her Majesty's Ministers, the Secretary of State. People are asking, "Which bunch of you democratic politicians are we to believe?"
968
Another serious matter is that there are other people who are exploiting this issue. I feel sure that their views would be totally repugnant to every Member of your Lordships' House. Why are we giving them grist to the mill? When one tries to explain to a skilled artificer, doctor, nurse, labourer, electrician, or electrical engineer what is meant by something not being read until six months hence, they ask whether it means that they have got to stay on the dole for another six months or whether it is just a parliamentary gimmick so that the Government do not have to say that they do not agree that this concession should be given to the unemployed, despite the exhortation from one of Her Majesty's Ministers in another place.
Many arguments could be put forward. I am bound to say that there are times when I feel desperate. As I was walking up Whitehall the other day (I hope this will not be regarded as a rude or infamous thing to say, because I know many ex-members of the eighth army and of the British second army who are unemployed) I wondered what that great Field Marshal whose statue is there would have said had he known that many of his men, of my age, would be out of work and many of their sons, too, would be. I wondered whether he would have asked if this is the proper way for this nation to reward these men.
In the pubs they take two hours to drink a pint because they cannot call another one. This is happening in the clubs. It is a point of discussion in the Royal British Legion, of which I am proud to be Vice-President. Does all this mean just nothing to the House of Lords, either because it is a bad principle or because it is constitutionally unwise? How do you tell a man that he gave his life for his country in a manner which was constitutionally unwise?
I ask your Lordships to consider also this argument. If we could catch all the "patriots" in this land of ours who are cheating our nation to the tune of £9 billion on the black economy by tax evasion, or if we could get back 1/20th of the amount by which rich people are cheating this nation, it would pay for these concessionary fares over and over again. If your Lordships say that this is an emotional appeal, I shall reply that nothing can be more agonisingly emotional than for a craftsman or a professional man suddenly to lose his professional post or his job. They will look for work, and they are looking for work. As I have tried to explain, they are endeavouring to seek professional or labouring work in order to keep their families and maintain their dignity; but when they see that it will cost them another £12 or £13 a week out of their £30-odd unemployment benefit to do so they ask themselves whether it is worth it. They say that even after my endeavours last month and my endeavours over the last two years they have had to spend a great amount of money upon simply trying to get a job in order to earn a living for their families and to contribute to their country.
If we still want them to try and maintain their spirit and their desire to work, can we not at this stage say that we believe that they have done pretty well, that they are made of the right sort of stuff, that we understand the economic agony they are going through because of being on the dole, that we understand that they dare not risk a few more pounds in order to try to get a job because we realise that if

969
they fail again the economic burden will increase? I am asking your Lordships to say that this House will not do that to Great Britain's unemployed and that at this late hour we shall say to them all, "We will not merely stand by you; we will pass this amendment so that we can make our contribution towards helping you to help yourselves".
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, sits down, may I respectfully ask him whether he appreciates the difference between that which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said this amendment was designed to achieve—to enable the unemployed to lead an ordinary sort of life—and the question of risking a few more pounds to provide the unemployed with money to search for work, which is the principle to which I have said over and over again that I adhere? Does the noble Lord appreciate the difference?
Lord Molloy: I appreciate the difference, my Lords. I am saying that the kernel of the submission is the search for work. That is the whole point. I will not accept the argument that if there were some heavenly host examining the proposition of the founder of the Christian religion and of the good Samaritan, it would be rejected on the basis that the good Samaritan was the last sort of person to have been brought into this proposition. If this House accepts that, then let us stop having Prayers before we meet each day or we shall have reached the apotheosis of hypocrisy.
You cannot take Great Britain's unemployed and look at one single man. Many of these people have the audacity to get married. Many of them have had the audacity to supply our nation with future Britons, their children. What I am suggesting is that this is not some magnificent contribution. It is not even the full fare. It is just a concession, and as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has said, there is some argument against it not being compulsory. I can understand that argument. We all know and understand that unemployment is massive in certain areas. Such a concession probably will not be needed at all in Southern England—but in our great industrial bases this small contribution could help. If people do find work, then that is one move with my Bill. It is not only good for the man and his family; it is good for the area and the industry in which he works, and good for the economy and morale of our nation.
5.33 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am always fascinated to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, because he does have an understanding of the unemployed in the town from which he comes. But for him to say that one cannot look at a single unemployed man and for him then to press a Bill lumping all unemployed together, as if their needs were in all cases exactly the same, and that this concession should apply to everyone, is something that I cannot accept.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will allow me, I meant that when one says, "This man is unemployed", it should be remembered that often he is not in fact alone but has a wife and children. His wife
970
and his children do not figure in the 3½ million unemployed but they breathe, they go hungry, and they need things just the same as the unemployed man himself.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for his explanation, but it does not interfere with my point. I do not believe that one can take the unemployed as a mass and put them all together, and say, "These people in general and in toto require this concession". I do not believe that is the right way of dealing with this matter.
If the noble Lord's view is that this concession will help people to get work, I agree it is important that something should be done in this way, but not in this particular form. The point was made that this concession would apply only in one's own area, and this means that the only way it could help one to find a job would be within one's own area. If one is in an area of the kind to which the noble Lord referred, where the unemployment is hardcore, long-term unemployment, the concession will not enable one to travel to another area where there might be jobs, because the concession will not apply outside one's own area. In that sense it is self-defeating.
I should like to say too that unemployment, particularly in the South-East, is not always what it seems. Reading that great banner across the water, I decided to take on a further part-time person to help at my dental surgery. I phoned the Job Centre and the answer that came back to me was, "No one wants to take a job like that. We would not have any hope of finding an applicant to send to you". For six months that job was open and not one applicant came to the door. This shows what the situation can be like in this great city.
There is a heavy amount of unemployment, but there is a mismatch between jobs and people—and a disinclination on the part of many to bother taking on a job unless it is so well-paid that the person is going to be much better off than he is when unemployed. We have reached the ridiculous situation now across the water where they are going to pay people £2.50 an hour to attend some of the committees as members of the public. I am all for opening the committees to the public, but then to pay people a granny allowance or a baby allowance to encourage them to attend the committees does seem to be a nonsense.
The noble Lord is now proposing giving them free fares to come there as well. All of this is at the expense of the ratepayers of this city, who can barely afford to live here and who are all getting out as fast as they can. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, last week raised the point about voters knowing what it was they are voting for in transport fares—but he said nothing about people who are paying the heaviest rates and who have no vote.
It is important also to realise that this concession will be yet another spring in the poverty trap. It would be yet another benefit to lose if one secured a job; another disincentive to taking a job. That would be the position—lose your job and get a travel concession, quite apart from the impracticability of trying to operate the scheme. One would have to have people notifying monthly or weekly whether or not they were

971
unemployed, because the number of people who secure jobs and the number who lose jobs is a pretty rapid turnover in this city.
Has the noble Lord thought also about the number of women who will automatically register as unemployed, because I presume they would have to be registered as unemployed. Women now do not bother to register as being unemployed, but I would certainly advise them all to do so if it is going to achieve free travel or a travel concession. Has the noble Lord considered what that will cost?
This is not a practical proposal. Noble Lords might be aware already that the Transport Committee chairman of the Greater London Council believes that there should be no concessions but instead a totally free travel system. Think about the unemployment that would be created if such a thing was introduced to London. One would be losing around 50 per cent. of London Transport staff, and this would be a great number of people.
Lord Molloy: But, my Lords—
Lord Skelmersdale: Order! This is Report stage, my Lords.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am making a point about the transport executive, and this whole Bill is related to the moves which are made by the transport executive. Where is one to stop these concessions? The classification of the unemployed is extremely difficult to assess. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, in his statement about older people—and he mentioned people from the 8th Army, so obviously he meant the older section of the community—and I know from my own patients, that this is the hardest and saddest situation for people who have been made redundant and yet who are not old enough to retire. I hope at a later stage that the Government might look sympathetically at doing something to help those people. As I see it, there is little or no possibility of those people ever getting jobs again—but they are quite different from the people at the other end, the young ones, who definitely can and should be able to get jobs, certainly in this part of England and, as matters improve, I hope everywhere else too.
We must have the safety net to help people, to enable them to get about. I should like to see an improvement in the conditions attached to the schemes which have been mentioned from the DHSS, so that people could look for work in areas wider than any area that would be covered by this type of concession.
Mention was made of the black economy, and I would again mention to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, that we are all well aware of the existence of this. Are we going to add a further perk, so that if you are registered as unemployed and working full-time in the black economy, as some people most certainly are, you might just as well have free fares on top of it? That is what this concession would do. I must oppose this amendment as I see it here. I think it is not correct. I think the motivation may be good, but the principle is not correct. It would be impractical and it would not be desirable.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, today's debate on this amendment is the third we have had in a fortnight about travel concessions for unemployed people. It was quite clear, particularly from what was said in the debate on Lord Molloy's Bill recently, that there was then, and indeed from what has been said this afternoon there is now, a great deal of sympathy on all sides of the House for the problems faced by those without work. But what we must ask ourselves, I suggest, is whether the measures here proposed represent a sensible response to those problems, whether this amendment really is an effective means of bringing help to the unemployed, and, equally important, whether it can be justified on general grounds of social policy.
The Government have no doubt that the best means of bringing help to those out of work is to get the economy back into a sound state of health. There are no easy answers on that score. We believe that the latest Budget represents a further solid step on the road to the kind of expansion in the economy that we want to see. It is only such expansion that can produce the new jobs—new jobs that will bring real hope to those now looking for employment. The steps taken by the Chancellor in his latest Budget include direct assistance to business which will be worth £3¾ billion in a full year, and reductions in the real burdens of tax and national insurance contributions on industry; and this will bring these down to some £2 billion less than in 1978–79.
That these measures of assistance are now possible is as a consequence of sound financial management in earlier years. The Chancellor has shown that he is determined to remain true to the same principles of sound and prudent management in this latest Budget. I would suggest to the House that those are the principles which could not be reconciled with the kind of expansion in public expenditure which would be involved if the amendment now before us were to be accepted. On the contrary, it could only have the effect of increasing the overall burden of rates and taxes, and any such increase must inevitably tighten the pressure on business and industry and put even more jobs at risk. It would in fact be a move in the wrong direction. The Budget itself also brought direct assistance to the unemployed by restoring the 5 per cent. abatement of unemployed benefit introduced in 1980.
Reference has been made in this debate and our two previous debates to the more specific problem of costs incurred in looking for work. My noble friend Lord Bellwin described during Committee stage of this Bill, and indeed I reiterated and added to his remarks during the debate on Lord Molloy's Bill, the help which the Government already make available through the Department of Employment and the Department of Health and Social Security towards travelling costs. The details of those schemes are, of course, matters for my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Employment and for Health and Social Security. I shall convey to them the views that have been expressed in this House on the operation of those schemes. My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway particularly, mentioned the operation of those schemes. Certainly I have no doubt in my mind that my right honourable friends would in

973
any case wish to ensure that the benefits which are available are brought to the attention of those eligible to benefit from them.
As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, would, I think, be the first to acknowledge, the amendment before us is very much wider in scope, and is designed to make it possible for those authorities who so wish to provide concessionary fares on public transport for the unemployed, and indeed for those training on schemes approved by the Manpower Services Commission, whatever the purpose of the journey might be. This is perhaps the point that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, in his very powerful speech to us, did not take sufficiently on board. The amendment would allow concessionary fares whatever the purpose of the journey. There is no doubt, of course, of the sympathy that the proposal may command, but we have to ask ourselves far more searchingly how far such a measure could be justified, not only in terms of the increase in public expenditure which it would involve but also on the grounds of general public policy.
The unemployed are by no means the only group who might well have such a claim on public sympathy. Indeed, the potential anomaly is increased when we add to the unemployed, as the amendment does, those training on MSC schemes. It makes no similar provision for other groups of people who may also have very little money and who are also restricted in the extent to which they feel able to spend money on travel. One might refer to housewives, low-wage earners, single parents, many others with very similar problems. We have to ask whether if we extend these special concessions to the unemployed we are not being unfair to those other groups. Those groups might not only not benefit from them but have to contribute towards their cost.
The services we are talking about are already very substantially subsidised through local authorities' revenue support payments. What we are really asking here is whether local authorities should make a higher subsidy still. I have to say that I am afraid that the practical result of this amendment might well be that a few high-spending authorities would seize on the opportunity to increase the generosity of their subsidies, while perhaps there would be no concessions to other unemployed people in other areas where authorities take a rather more balanced view of their ability through rates to support expenditure.
We have to be quite clear that the amendment is aimed at increasing the expenditure funded by the rates. It aims to empower authorities to pay these concessions under Section 138 of the 1968 Act, absolutely and entirely outside the scope of the constraints in this Bill. From the Government side we have made it clear that where operators can offer concessions to the unemployed on a commercial basis, without further subsidies, then we welcome that, and there are a number who have succeeded and they should be commended very strongly.
I have to return to the fundamental point about this amendment, which is that there is a difference of view about priorities. The question is what is the best and most effective way of bringing help to those who are out of work? I suggest it is to create the economic conditions for fuller employment, for job
974
opportunities, and we would actually be moving away from that objective if we gave our blessing to proposals which increase the burden of rates and taxes on industry and put more jobs at risk. I believe that that is what this amendment would do.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am absolutely amazed that on this amendment your Lordships should be treated to a political talk about the Budget. I am absolutely amazed that arguments of that kind have to be introduced in an endeavour to turn down this type of amendment. The noble Lord says that there is a difference of views on priorities. There is. There is a difference of view as to whether something can be done to assist unemployed persons who, despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, said, are unemployed through no fault of their own.
We are told that young people should be able to get a job. But your Lordships should go to the North-East, where young people leave school knowing that they are not going to get a job, perhaps for 12 months or two years. I want them to live normal lives. If the Government say that this is not the measure and that it should be a national responsibility, then I challenge the Government to bring in a Bill tomorrow, or to ask one of their noble friends to bring in a Private Member's Bill, and all my noble friends will give immediate assistance to get it through the House as quickly as possible. But the Government will not do that. All sorts of spurious arguments are being brought forward as to why this amendment should not be carried.
There are people excluded from the DHSS scheme because they are not in receipt of unemployment benefit. Those people will have to be dealt with. I have not heard any proposals from the Minister that before the end of this Session the Government will bring in an amendment to put that right. Persons who are undergoing training with the MSC have to bear the first £4 of travel each week. I have not heard the Minister say that he will deal with that. We must therefore deal with the situation as it is now.
There are two purposes in the amendment. The first is to bring in those persons who are not getting free travel to look for work in the area of their local authority because they are not in receipt of supplementary benefit. Secondly, it will help the unemployed to cover the first £4 when undergoing training, which is now excluded. There is a third purpose, to assist the unemployed, whether they are old persons who are still unemployed or whether they are young, to live ordinary lives.
I am absolutely amazed that the impression is given that this belief of my noble friends and myself that the unemployed should live ordinary lives is something extraordinary. People are not unemployed because they want to be. They are unemployed because of various factors. I am not embarking on a political argument, but we ought to do something about it. If there are other persons who are excluded the Government can amend my amendment. I should be quite happy for them to do so if they believe there are other areas which should be brought in. As I said in my opening speech, it is a time-honoured political argument to say that certain people are excluded and, therefore, it cannot be done.

975
Is this a valid amendment? The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, said that it is impractical to operate. The local authority concerned can lay down the conditions under which this will operate, in the same way as it can for concessions for the aged. Incidentally, I do not want to be personal but I bet there are persons in this House who are receiving travel concessions from their local authority under Section 138; aged persons who are far better off than the unemployed. I do not receive them, but I do have a British Rail pass which enables me to travel for half fare. Many noble Lords are in that position. Good luck to them. But it would be for the local authority to decide on the conditions for operating these proposals. I refuse to believe that if this amendment is carried local authorities would not find it possible to carry out a watertight scheme.
The issue before the House is: Do your Lordships agree that we should endeavour to bring in persons who are outside the DHSS scheme and outside the MSC scheme (for the first £4); that the unemployed should be given an opportunity to travel within the area of their local authority, and that the local authority should determine the conditions, so that they would then be able to move around? If a person has to decide on whether to travel to see his parents, and it will cost £2 and possibly more, or whether to spend it on something else, your Lordships know what will happen. He will spend it on something else. Therefore, this is a sensible, humanitarian and practical way of assisting the unemployed. I hope that your Lordships will agree by voting for the amendment in the Division Lobbies.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I hesitate to speak because I am absolutely committed to leaving the House but I hope that the vote will be taken before that time. The debate should not be allowed to pass before some reply is given to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. He made a very reasoned case and I again read what he said on the Bill of my noble friend Lord Molloy. I think I am not misinterpreting what he said when making three points: first, that assistance for the unemployed should be left to the Government and should not be done in the local areas; second, that benefit should not be related to the status of being unemployed; and, thirdly, that the Bill is not in any case intended to allow unemployed people to lead a normal life. That was the essence of his case. But that is a very good way of doing what an individual did about 1,900 years ago; he sent for a bowl of water and washed his hands. But it does not relieve one's conscience if the answer can be given to those three points.
Let me first of all deal with the point that we should leave it to the Government and not to the local authorities. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, gave the answer to that. Let me make it absolutely clear that one does not fool the people in the North of this land. We know that the unemployment figures in the South-East are fictitious. We know that the unemployment figures in the South-East do not represent the kind of privation and suffering that has been occasioned in the North. We know by the number of vacancies that are advertised in the South that there are jobs here, but there are none in the
976
North. That is one reason why concessions for the unemployed should be left to the local areas.
The situation pertaining in Merseyside or the North-East is entirely different from that pertaining in the South. We have deliberately moved people in Merseyside, with the collusion of central Government, away from where the job opportunities are. If one lives in the middle of Kirkby or Netherley, or even further out, it is no use staying there and walking out of the front door and looking for a job. There are no jobs. Historically, I can remember when going to school that I passed hundreds of men walking on the main road. When I went home again I passed them walking back the other way. What were they doing? They were walking looking for work, day in and day out. If people are to find work in places like that then they have to travel.
Nobody can suggest to me that an unemployed person with a family can afford the fares now being charged. That is one reason why it should not be left to central Government. It is a matter that impinges on the locality, especially in those areas such as South Yorkshire where, in spite of the subsidy coming from the rates, the people still return Labour councils because they, if nobody else, believe in subsidised fares.
Noble Lords say it should not be related to status. What is this wonderful word "status"? What does it mean? It is a type of description for a person. If we give concessions to disabled people, must the disablement be a leg disability? Must it be an age disability? Can it not be a disability that society has refused one the opportunity to work and earn money? Is that not a status? Is not that a disablement that is worse than the others because physical disablement is something that one cannot do much about, but the disability that we have inflicted on the unemployed is the deliberate intent of this Government?
I think everyone in the House will agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that the Bill is not intended to help the unemployed to lead a normal life. The only point that misses is that this Government have deliberately set their face in the direction that means they will deny a normal life to 3½ million people—and it will get worse next year. The real truth and the answer there is that it is not this Government's intention to allow people to lead a normal life but to lead a very abnormal one.
5.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 34) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 61; Not-Contents, 100.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ardwick, L.

Collison, L.

Aylestone, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Bacon, B.

David, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Diamond, L.

Beswick, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Birk, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Bishopston, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Briginshaw, L.

Flowers, L.

Brockway, L.

Gormley, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hampton, L.

977

Hanworth, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Seear, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Serota, B.

Kennet, L.

Shackleton, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stedman, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Stone, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Mayhew, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Mishcon, L.

Underhill, L.

Molloy, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Oram, L.

Whaddon, L.

Peart, L.

Wigoder, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Mancroft, L.

Auckland, L.

Margadale, L.

Avon, E.

Marley, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Beloff, L.

Mersey, V.

Belstead, L.

Minto, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Molson, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Caccia, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cathcart, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Chelwood, L.

Newall, L.

Colwyn, L.

Northchurch, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Craigavon, V.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Craigmyle, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Cullen of Asbbourne, L.

Onslow, E.

Davidson, V.

Orkney, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Pender, L.

Eccles, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Elton, L.

Portland, D.

Ferrers, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Fortescue, E.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Reigate, L.

Garner, L.

Renton, L.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Romney, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

St. Davids, V.

Glanusk, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Glasgow, E.

Sandford, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Selkirk, E.

Glenkinglas, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gridley, L.

Soames, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Somers, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strathspey, L.

Holderness, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Swinfen, L.

Inglewood, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Kilmany, L.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Terrington, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Teynham, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Long, V.

Trumpington, B.

Loudoun, C.

Vaizey, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lyell, L.

Vickers, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Vivian, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Windlesham, L.

Resolved in the negative and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.7 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 35:
Before Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
("Bus services: withdrawal.
. Any bus service which has been the subject of a proposal for the alleviation of hardship pursuant to a proposal by the British
978
Railways Board or the London Transport Executive to discontinue any rail service specified in section 56(7) of the Transport Act 1962 shall not be withdrawn unless any such proposal for withdrawal has been referred to the appropriate Area Transport Users Consultative Committee and such committee has confirmed the proposal.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if, with this amendment, we took Amendment No. 36, which is an amendment to the Title. This is the last opportunity at this stage of the Bill for the Government to accept an amendment. I will not be as confident as I should be in asking for that, but I would point out that the provision that we are asking for would in no way impair the objectives of the Bill. This is a provision which has nothing to do with revenue grants and nothing to do with advice to the PTE and the PTA. A suitable amendment has been put down to the Long Title so as to bring the matter in order. It is the same as an amendment that was brought forward at the Committee stage, but on that occasion there was another amendment which related only to services within the area of a passenger transport executive. That has been dropped because, whatever arguments were used, there were no arguments used in the Committee stage that the provision should not relate to a PTE but nationally, or vice versa. At the Committee stage we had both provisions.
In Committee I referred to observations in the Serpell Report to the effect that many persons were concerned that bus services which had been substituted for discontinued rail services in many cases disappeared after no more than two years. I remind your Lordships of paragraph 16.14 of Serpell, where it says:
"But the strongest assurance of continuity would be to subject the replacement services to an appropriate form of TUCC"—
that is, transport users' consultative committee—
"type closure procedure".
That was also included in the evidence presented to Serpell by the Central Transport Consultative Committee. That is precisely what is proposed in the amendment before your Lordships today; namely, that where a rail service is discontinued and is substituted by a bus service, that bus service shall not be withdrawn unless the proposal has been referred to the appropriate area transport users' consultative committee and that committee has confirmed the proposal.
At the Committee stage the Minister was sympathetic but said that these matters would be viewed in relation to the wider considerations of Serpell. A number of other noble Lords spoke in support of the amendment but the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said that he was sure that I would not expect him to accept the amendments in the light of what he had said. I still cannot understand why not. The amendment is not asking for any precipitate decision on Serpell. The issue is not dependent on what may be determined by the Government arising from Serpell. The amendment has nothing whatever to do with rail versus bus controversies. All the amendment is proposing is that, before any replacement bus service is taken off, the proposal must first be approved by the appropriate transport users' committee. That provision, I would stress, is fair to the public, good common sense and very good consultative practice.
At the Committee stage I asked three questions.

979
First, is there assurance that there will not be any rail closures substituted by a bus service before the Government make up their mind on Serpell? Meanwhile, will there be an undertaking that no substituted bus service will be continued? Also, can we be given some idea of the timing involved? The latter point is important because if there is going to be considerable delay there could be a period of time before the principle contained in the amendment could be considered in relation to a further transport Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, when replying said:
"He knows that I cannot give those undertakings".
However, he eventually said that he would consider very carefully what had been said.
The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, kindly sent me a copy of a letter which he had sent to his noble friend Lord Teviot, who in the Committee stage debate asked whether there had been any rail closures recently which had been substituted by bus services. The Minister has pointed out that there has been only one such closure since 1973. But that is not the issue. The issue is concerned with bus services already substituted for rail services which have been discontinued, and that those services shall not be taken off without the proper procedure being gone through, as is outlined in the amendment. The letter further stated that if any rail service were the subject of closure, it would be the intention of the Secretary of State to specify that any replacement bus service would be required to continue for a specified time, which the Minister said in his letter could be a great deal longer than two years. If that is really the intention of the Minister, why not accept the amendment?
This amendment does nothing to interfere with the rest of the Bill. We have provided for a change in the Long Title so as to bring it within the scope of the Bill. If it is the intention of the Secretary of State that any replacement bus service put on in substitution for a rail service which has closed would be for a period a good deal longer than two years before it was allowed to be discontinued, then why not go the whole hog and accept the amendment? The amendment does not just leave the matter to the Secretary of State, but says that the issues shall be referred to the appropriate area transport users' consultative committee, and that only if they approve will the substituted bus service be allowed to be taken off.
This is such a reasonable amendment—and we have said this as regards so many amendments—and it does not interfere at all with the intention behind the rest of the Bill. I am certain that the noble Lord the Minister would like at least to crown himself with some glory before the end of the Report stage by accepting this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for explaining why this clause has been tabled again and of course I accept the reasons why that is so. I am sorry that the letter of my noble friend Lord Bellwin to my noble friend Lord Teviot, which was copied to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, was not available to him before he put down the amendments, but he has obviously had an opportunity of giving consideration to the contents of that letter.
980
It may be of assistance to your Lordships if I briefly explain the position. There has, with one recent exception, been no instance where a bus service has had to be provided as a condition of a rail passenger closure since 1973. We really cannot impose new conditions on substitute bus services which started over 10 years ago. The exception to which I have referred is Broad Street station, which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has agreed can close in due course in order to allow the redevelopment of Liverpool Street station. The Railways Board plan eventually to direct the Broad Street services into the new Liverpool Street station, but as an interim measure they plan to provide a temporary station at Worship Street, some 600 yards to the north of Broad Street. In giving his consent, the Secretary of State has laid down a condition that the board will have to provide a bus service between Worship Street and Liverpool Street, integrated with the train timetable, throughout the period that Worship Street is in operation; and if they want to vary the bus service they will need the Secretary of State's consent in order so to do.
As your Lordships will recall from our debate in Committee, the Government have not reached any conclusions on the Serpell Committee's suggestion about the procedures that should be adopted if buses were substituted for a rail service. But I can and do give the House an assurance that the Government will, in reaching conclusions, take account of all that has been said both now and in the previous debate. Moreover, I can also give the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, an assurance that if in the meantime the Secretary of State for Transport decides, on any rail passenger closure proposal that comes before him, that a bus service should be provided in its place, it would be his intention to specify such a bus service clearly and require that the board seek his approval to changes in the service within a specified period—which could be a good deal longer than the two years common in the 1960s. At present, leaving aside any consideration of Serpell, I understand that the Railways Board themselves have currently only a handful of closures under consideration.
I hope that the assurances that I have given, both regarding our undertaking to take into account the views that have been expressed and also when looking at closure cases which require ministerial approval, will have persuaded the noble Lord that his new clause is not really necessary, and neither, of course, then, would be the consequential amendment to the Title.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord the Minister has said anything which suggests that this amendment is not necessary. Incidentally, he referred to the British Rail (Liverpool Street Station) Bill, and Broad Street and Worship Street stations. I understand that that matter will be debated on Third Reading on Wednesday and some noble Lords will undoubtedly be taking part.
We have all the assurances that "the Secretary of State will not do this", "that the Secretary of State will insist on this", but they are not in the Bill. I take it in good faith that the Secretary of State will keep to these assurances which have been given. But, as we have pointed out already, the present Secretary of State may

981
not always be there; there may be different outlooks. Therefore, these assurances ought to be written into the Bill. Nothing that the Minister has said could not also be covered by saying, "Nevertheless to write these into the Bill will safeguard the future".
There is still an opportunity to have another look at this. I believe that the Government are being foolish here, because I do not believe that the noble Lord could take exception to one word in this amendment. He is merely saying to us that because it is the intention of the Minister, these are the assurances which the Secretary of State will give, and therefore there is no need to put it into the Bill. That could be said on practically every clause of almost every Bill that comes before your Lordships.
Nevertheless, we shall not divide on an issue of this kind, but will think again very carefully about it. I also hope that the Minister will do so because, grateful as we are for these assurances, I am certain that he will agree that these assurances ought to be written into the Bill, and then everyone will be satisfied. What is more, we should have declared our faith in the area transport users' consultative committees, which I believe is as important a matter as anything else. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]

Nuclear Material (Offences) Bill
6.21 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to enable the United Kingdom to ratify without reservation the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material.
The convention was prepared under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency in recognition of the need for co-operation between states to ensure the adequate physical protection of nuclear material while in international transport and an effective framework for dealing with crimes involving such material. It follows the pattern of a number of other international conventions, including the Hague Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, usually known as the Hijacking Convention; the Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation; the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, and more recently the Convention against the Taking of Hostages.
The convention was opened for signature on 3rd March 1980 in Vienna and New York, and was signed by the United Kingdom on 30th June 1980. It has been ratified by five states and signed by 28 others, as well as by Euratom.
It is not necessary to introduce legislation to deal with the first part of the convention, and in particular with the physical protection requirements of Articles 3 and 4. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy has a general responsibility under various Acts of Parliament which enable him to ensure compliance with the physical protection standards
982
specified in the convention. These standards correspond to those set out in existing International Atomic Energy Agency guidance, to which the United Kingdom has adhered since it was first produced in 1972.
Article 7 obliges a state to ensure that certain acts are punishable offences, and Articles 8 to 12 require the establishment of jurisdiction over such offences wherever they occur; and in the event of such cases a state must either submit the case for prosecution in its courts or extradite the alleged offender. The objective is to ensure, as far as possible, that the perpetrator of such an offence does not find a safe haven in another country. We would regard extradition as the most practicable and appropriate course where the offence had occurred abroad.
Fortunatey, the physical protection standards adopted in 1972 have helped to ensure that so far we have not had to deal with any incident involving the use, or threatened use, of nuclear material either in the United Kingdom or, as far as I am aware, elsewhere, apart of course, from obvious hoaxes. However, we must recognise that the very nature of nuclear material makes effective physical protection essential. It is also essential for countries to co-operate together to ensure the prevention of offences and the detection and punishment of offenders.
The present Bill follows the pattern of earlier legislation which has enabled us to ratify the other conventions to which I have referred. It may assist your Lordships if I briefly outline its main provisions and explain how we have attempted to implement the requirements of the convention. The convention requires states to make punishable under their own law certain acts when they are committed in relation to or by means of nuclear material; it also requires them to assume a wide jurisdiction over these acts so that offenders cannot escape justice by crossing international frontiers. The acts which the convention requires us to make punishable can be divided into two groups: those which already constitute offences under United Kingdom law and those for which our law has no direct equivalent.
The first group is the larger. All that has been necessary in respect of offences in this category is to assume extraterritorial jurisdiction over them when they are committed abroad in relation to or by means of nuclear material. This is achieved by Clause 1 of the Bill. Let me illustrate the way in which it will work. The convention requires the United Kingdom to make punishable the international commission of an act without lawful authority which constitutes the use or handling of nuclear material and which causes substantial damage to property. This, of course, is already covered by our offence of criminal damage, and, therefore, no new offence needs to be created. All that Clause 1 does in this case is to extend the application of the offence so that it covers its commission outside the United Kingdom in connection with nuclear material.
Those acts for which there is no precise equivalent offence in United Kingdom law are in the main dealt with in Clause 2 of the Bill. These acts comprise certain preparatory acts or threats which, because nuclear material is involved, are sufficiently serious to attract criminal sanctions. By way of example,

983
subsection (2) of this clause would enable us to deal with persons who deal with nuclear material with the intention of committing a serious offence against the person or property with it. The offences created by this clause are punishable on conviction with a maximum term of imprisonment not exceeding that available on conviction of the substantive offence contemplated or threatened and subject to an overriding maximum of 14 years' imprisonment.
Perhaps I may also say a few words at this point on the question of jurisdiction. The convention requires signatories to ensure they have jurisdiction over the offences it covers when they are committed in their territory or on board one of their ships or aircraft, and when the alleged offender is one of their nationals, as well as when the offence has been committed elsewhere than in their country but the alleged offender is found in their territory and they do not extradite him. Of course, the law of the United Kingdom is based on the territorial principle. Historically, our courts have jurisdiction over any crime committed here, or, with certain exceptions, on our ships and aircraft; but in general they do not have jurisdiction over offences committed abroad even by United Kingdom nationals, and certainly not over foreign nationals.
There are, however, a small but growing number of offences which have arisen out of international conventions and in respect of which the United Kingdom has agreed with other nations that their seriousness in conjunction with their international character merits special measures. Hijacking and the taking of hostages are obvious examples. This Bill, therefore, follows the precedent of previous measures by creating what is, in effect, worldwide jurisdiction over the relevant offences. It is, of course, our usual practice to extradite offenders who have committed offences abroad, and we would continue to do so wherever possible. It is unlikely, therefore, that this jurisdiction will very often be exercised.
Clause 3 provides that the consent of the Attorney-General in England and Wales and the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland in that Province shall be required for the prosecution of an offence which is created by the Bill. It also provides for the jurisdiction of the courts in Scotland. The references in brackets to the Internationally Protected Persons Act 1978 and the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 are necessary to ensure that the consent of the Attorney-General is required before proceedings are begun for offences under the Bill which overlap with offences created by those Acts; for example the offence of manslaughter of a protected person anywhere outside the United Kingdom created by Section 1 of the Internationally Protected Persons Act 1978 overlaps with the offence of manslaughter by means of nuclear material outside the United Kingdom created by Clause 1. Clause 4(1) makes a consequential amendment to the 1978 Acts which similarly closes the same loophole which would otherwise arise in respect of them.
Clause 4(2) adds the offence created by Clause 2 to those listed in the schedule to the Visiting Forces Act 1952 and will give the primary right of jurisdiction to the service courts of the visiting force in respect of Clause 2 offences when a person charged is connected
984
with a visiting force. The offences covered by Clause 1 are already scheduled to the 1952 Act. Finally, subsection (3) adds offences created by Clause 1 of the Bill to Schedule 4 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. Clause 5 is designed to give effect to Article 11 of the Convention, which requires that the offences should be extraditable between states parties to the agreement. Subsection (1) adds the offences created by Clause 2 to the list of extradition crimes in the Extradition Act 1870 and to the list of relevant offences under the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967, which provide bases for extradition with respectively foreign states and Commonwealth countries and dependent territories.
Subsection (2) provides for the Extradition Act to be applied to states which are party to the convention but with which we have no extradition treaty. A request for extradition will be considered in accordance with the usual procedures and the traditional safeguards will still apply. Subsection (3) would allow extradition to be granted under the provisions of the Extradition Act 1870 for offences committed outside the territory of the requesting state in circumstances where that state claims jurisdiction similar in scope to that provided for in Clause 1. A similar provision in relation to the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 is not needed because under that Act a fugitive may be returned for an offence committed in a third state.
Clause 6, read in conjuction with the schedule, provides the definition of nuclear material to which the legislation applies by reference to Article 1(a) and (b) of the Convention. The definition covers all forms of uranium except natural ore and any form of uranium with less than the natural proportion of fissile isotopes, and all plutonium except that which is used to power heart pacemakers. The countries concerned with the preparation of the convention decided to limit its application to material used for peaceful purposes, acknowledging that nuclear material used for military purposes is already subject to very stringent physical protection. We have accordingly followed the convention and limited application of the legislation only to material used for peaceful purposes.
The question of whether or not nuclear material was or was not used for peaceful purposes may be pertinent particularly in connection with the prosecution of an offence alleged to have been committed outside the United Kingdom. Subsection (2) of Clause 6 recognises that there may be difficulties of proof by providing that a certificate of the Secretary of State shall be conclusive evidence of the fact that the material was or, as the case may be, was not used for peaceful purposes. If the Secretary of State considers necessary he will be able to take account of views expressed by the state in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, and those of the International Atomic Energy Agency and national authorities, before issuing any certificate.
Clause 7 makes provision concerning the application of the Bill's provisions to the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, and dependencies. Clause 8 gives the short title and provides that entry into force be set by Order in Council. I hope your Lordships will agree to this Bill so that we may be able to ensure that we can co-operate effectively with other countries in the physical protection of nuclear material. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time—(Lord Elton.)
6.36 p.m.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I should like to welcome the Bill and to thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for explaining its provisions to your Lordships. It is in some respects a somewhat technical measure, and the Minister has spelt out the details with his customary clarity. The Bill is welcome because it represents, if it is not inapposite to put it in this way, one more weapon in our necessary armoury for combating terrorism and indeed other crimes which have no terrorist connection.
It is perhaps worth pointing out, too, that this measure is receiving widespread, or even universal, support, subject of course to anything that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, with his scientific interests and expert knowlege, may have to say. I feel it would be right to say here that, as I had occasion last Monday to be somewhat critical of the Government for what we on this Bench regarded as the delays in reviewing and reforming another piece of anti-terrorist legislation, the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976, it is only fair and right that the Government should be commended for the speed with which they have acted over the convention on the physical protection of nuclear material and in introducing the Nuclear Material (Offences) Bill.
We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that the United Kingdom signed the convention in June 1980, only three months after it was opened for signature, and now we have the legislation with, I believe, the Government's promise that this country will ratify the convention immediately this Bill receives Royal Assent. Perhaps while to those less familiar than some with the workings of the machinery for getting international action that might not seem spectacularly fast, in fact it is not a bad rate of progress at all. Indeed, it is highly commendable.
There is one point I should like to ask the Minister about on this particular aspect of the matter. He has already indicated that five states have so far ratified the convention and that 28 others have signed, and that it will come into force only after 21 states have ratified it. It is clearly desirable that action to counter terrorism should be as speedy as possible, and I wonder whether the Minister could tell us whether any follow-up action is being taken by, for instance, the International Atomic Energy Agency or in some other way through the United Nations; and whether, once we have ratified, the United Kingdom will be joining in any steps to try to get other nations to act quickly and to ratify the convention. I appreciate the difficulties about this, and I hope too that it is not unfair to ask a Home Office Minister about this matter as it is perhaps more a matter for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Any action which can be taken to speed up further ratifications will clearly be very welcome indeed.
There was some discussion in another place about the fact that the Bill deals with offences relating to nuclear materials used for peaceful purposes—as the Minister indicated tonight—and a query was raised about whether we needed new legislation to cover
986
offences in relation to the use of nuclear materials for defence, warlike or non-peaceful purposes. Perhaps that matter needs further clarification, We bear in mind, of course, that a main purpose of the Bill is to cater for the international dimension involved in criminal acts relating to nuclear materials used for peaceful purposes; that is, to enable us to prosecute offenders here for offences committed abroad—those would normally be our own nationals, one would assume—or to extradite offenders who had taken refuge here, having committed offences abroad.
It has also been made clear that the Bill creates new offences hitherto unknown to our domestic law, enabling us to deal with offences committed in this country. The question which arises out of that, but which was either not spelt out in this way or not dealt with in quite this form in another place, relates to acts involving nuclear materials used for defence purposes; namely, whether we need legislation enabling us to deal with offences committed here under our domestic law.
In another place it was stated that so far as defence or warlike materials were concerned, the existing law would need to be used to cope with any offences committed. But it looks on the face of it a trifle paradoxical if our domestic law is adequate to cope with materials used for defence purposes yet is not adequate to cope with some crimes—I am talking of those committed here and to be tried here, so having no international dimension—relating to materials used for peaceful purposes. Let me make it clear that I am not asking about offences committed abroad in relation to defence materials. For one thing, it would hardly be realistic to expect other countries to provide evidence about their defence uses of such materials anyway, especially when there would be obvious difficulties about obtaining from them evidence to be adduced before our courts here about the materials used peacefully. No doubt there is a simple answer to that question.
We need to be satisfied that we have at our disposal all the means necessary to deal with offenders involved in acts relating to all kinds of such materials, defensive as well as peaceful, and I take the Minister's point when he says, in relation to materials used for defence purposes, that there are very stringent physical controls to keep them safe; but they do not necessarily protect us from all kinds of acts to get hold of those materials. Therefore, I join the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in supporting the Bill and in hoping that your Lordships will give it a speedy passage, and so make one further contribution to the battle against terrorists and other criminals.
6.44 p.m.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for the clarity with which he presented this technical Bill, and I am happy to speak following the noble Lord, Lord Boston, because the measure is an unfortunate necessity and therefore we on this Bench also support it. I wish I could simply stop there; your Lordships would be pleased for once by my brevity. There remain, however, some cautionary remarks with which I feel I must detain the House, and a question to ask the Minister.

987
I think it is understood in your Lordships' House that I am a proponent of nuclear power, albeit a cautious one. My caution has little to do with the technology. It derives from the fact that the nuclear industry, when it meets with a problem which lies outside its competence, sometimes behaves as if the problem does not exist. For many years it behaved as if the dangers from the illicit diversion of fissile materials were negligible, even to the extent of relaxing physical controls over their storage and movement. They protested forcefully when it was said that international trade in fissile material might soon become an important part of our economy, and that existing safeguards might prove inadequate for its proper control. We know from the Sizewell inquiry that this trade is already under way.
For many years the nuclear industry denied that nuclear weapons could be made from civil grade plutonium, even though for a decade it had been known that they could. I think they honestly believed that terrorism could never be sophisticated enough to represent a threat to their industry or to create from its products a threat to the public. They argued that there were easier games for terrorists to play, such as blowing up tankers of chlorine or messing about with botulin. They were right. But it is precisely because so many people have an exaggerated fear of all things nuclear that a nuclear threat might seem to attractive. To the deranged mind of the terrorist, seeking maximum publicity might be more important than taking the easy route.
In the mid-1970s some of us in different parts of the world expressed concern about that, and physical security is now very much better, in the United Kingdom at any rate. However, it is not enough to trust one's own industry. Fissile material can be stolen in one country, fabricated into some kind of device in a second and used to threaten a third; or at least that chain of events can be simulated and sufficient threat created thereby. It is, in other words, an international problem, now recognised as such by many countries. The Vienna Convention of 1980 is the result and this Bill is intended to enable us to ratify that convention. I welcomed the convention, and I therefore support the Bill.
There is one respect on which the noble Lord, Lord Boston, thought the Bill might be said not to go far enough, and I am inclined to agree with him. I am concerned with another matter where perhaps the Bill does not go far enough, and it is on that that I have a question for the Government. In the schedule to the Bill the phrase "nuclear material" is defined, in accordance with the convention, to mean plutonium or uranium, enriched or otherwise, or some mixture of those. There are, of course, other nuclear materials not covered by that definition which might seem more or less attractive to a terrorist. Remember, the terrorist is concerned to play on the public perception of danger; he may himself share that perception.
I do not want to suggest that a terrorist stands much chance of acquiring fissile material, but if he did, he might represent a serious threat. The Bill, if enacted, will, therefore, declare him to be a particulary dangerous sort of criminal. Nor do I think it likely that he
988
would be able to acquire any dangerous amount of nuclear waste or, if he did, that he would know how to use it as a threat. What concerns me is that if a terrorist acquired some nuclear waste, he would not be a criminal under the Bill because nuclear waste is not defined as nuclear material in the schedule. I presume he would be a criminal of some kind, but not under the Bill because not under the convention.
Is the Minister satisfied that sufficient powers exist to deal with someone who possesses, or purports to possess, nuclear waste and uses that as a threat? The effect on the public of a threat to use nuclear waste in some kind of weapon might be just as great as the threat to use fissile material. The public might at least be reassured to know that both were regarded with similar disapproval.
The Vienna Convention is quite unusual, as the Minister explained, because it defines a new class of international crime; namely, crimes for which the criminal is denied safe haven wherever in the world he may be, wherever he has committed his crime and whatever his nationality. Nuclear crimes as here defined, are therefore similar to war crimes, to genocide, to piracy on the high seas, to the hijacking of aircraft and to the kidnapping of diplomats; I believe to no other.
I make no complaint if that is what is required to deter the illicit diversion of nuclear materials, but I do confess to sadness that such measures should be required to safeguard something as fundamental as energy supply. Can one imagine what life would be like if such extraordinary measures had to be imposed to safeguard oil or coal? Nobody would doubt that it would seriously affect some aspects of our ordinary lives.
In nuclear materials we are dealing with commodities that have not yet become commonplace, and that probably never will be commonplace in the sense of being handled by any but a few highly trained people; so we are not sure whether we are approaching a slippery slope or not. The nuclear industry in seeming to present a threat to our way of life is not unique. Your Lordships have recently been debating the Data Protection Bill—and what a minefield that is proving to be. Nor is it the first time that the issue of civil liberties has been raised in the struggle between energy and the environment. According to the Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, speaking in this House in 1892, to administer a smoke-control law which covered domestic fires would require an extension of the inspectoral system,
"which would frighten the most enthusiastic advocate of modern legislation. Conceive of an inspector going to every house in London and seeing that the grate was properly fitted in order not to emit smoke. The burden of itself would be worse than the London fog".
Even Prime Ministers, it seems, sometimes exaggerate.
The point I want to make—I hope without exaggeration—is that the implications for our civil liberties of the legislation required to safeguard us from the misuse of nuclear materials are beyond the competence of the nuclear industry to pronounce upon; and we should therefore beware when they behave, as they do, as if the problem did not exist.
It was in the Sixth Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Nuclear Power and the Environment, that public reference was first made in

989
this country to the possible conflict between nuclear power and civil liberties. In the course of a chapter devoted to security matters we said in paragraph 335, the following:
"We are confident that the security hazards associated with the present level of nuclear development in the United Kingdom are now fully appreciated by the Government…and that the security measures…are adequate for present circumstances. We have no doubt that these measures will be periodically reviewed, and if necessary strengthened.…However, a flexible response to security risks in the light of events is one thing; it is quite another to question whether the hazards of nuclear development in the future could become so great that adequate security could not be ensured, or alternatively whether the implications of the security measures needed could become unacceptable to society.".
We concluded:
"We cannot see that the present system by which decisions are reached on nuclear development allows us to address ourselves to such questions".
That was published in 1976 and we were roundly condemned at the time; but I see no reason to retract one word of it, or of the chapter, in which it occurs, which was entitled "Security and the safeguarding of plutonium". By putting forward this Bill, the Government have acknowledged the reality of some of the physical risks associated with nuclear developments. I congratulate them on having done so. But they have yet to examine in any serious way the implications for our civil liberties—which may be large or may be small—of the measures required to safeguard us against the prostitution of nuclear power. The Bill before us may be worthy of study from that point of view also.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, may I join noble Lords who have spoken earlier in this debate in supporting this Bill. I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, in congratulating the Government on the speed with which they have dealt with these important national and international matters on the basis of the convention. Also I ought to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, because I was not in my place when the debate started; although I arrived at the Palace of Westminster at 9.15 this morning and had no idea that things were moving with such speed.
As the noble Lord, Lord Boston has indicated, I was at first a little troubled about whether the Bill would be adequate for the purposes of dealing with misuse of nuclear material in the course of defence. The basic theme of the convention is to deal with nuclear material in the course of its peaceful use. I examined rather carefully the extent of Clauses 3, 4 and 5 and it seemed to me that the Government had gone a long way in amending the Internationally Protected Persons Act, the Suppression of Terrorism Act, adding to the schedule of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 and also amending the Extradition Act 1870 and the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967.
Perhaps there is a lacuna in the use of the material for defence purposes, but the Government are to be congratulated on expanding our law to such an extent. These offences relating to nuclear material are of grave national and international concern. I do not propose
990
to follow the interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, and therefore I will only say that from these Benches we strongly support this Bill.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I should like to start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, for his generous recognition of the basis on which we have approached this matter and to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. It is nice to see him with us supporting this Bill. If I may be brief, I would respond to Lord Boston's first point by saying that, although this Bill will put us in a position to ratify the convention, we shall be able to do so only when our partners in Euratom are also ready. Therefore, we have been consulting with them in an effort to ensure that the process of ratification is as rapid as possible. The IAEA itself will monitor progress by member states and we hope that our example will encourage other countries to take action.
The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, spoke to us with the authority which his distinguished career and specialist knowledge confers upon him—as chairman, among other things, of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution but also in other respects. He has noted that the definition of "nuclear material" in the Bill excludes nuclear waste. I would hesitate before venturing into a subject in which he has such expertise, but I am assured that, while nuclear waste is highly toxic, it is no more dangerous than many other materials which can be readily obtained such as the chlorine to which he referred.
For the sake of completeness, however, I should mention that the Bill covers spent or irradiated fuel from nuclear power reactors. This category of material is often referred to (erroneously, I believe) by laymen as nuclear waste. What I said does not in any way gainsay what he has said about the reality of public perceptions of the dangerousness of material. The scope of the Bill is limited by the convention which it will implement. As I shall explain, I do not think that there are any significant gaps in our law which would justify us asserting jurisdiction beyond that provided for in the convention, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has said, is already extensive.
My explanation will I hope give the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, the assurance that he asked for as his second point, that our domestic law is adequate to deal with an offence in relation to material used for military purposes. If a person does any of the acts referred to in Clauses 1 and 2 of this Bill in this country in relation to or by means of any nuclear material not covered by the Bill, he will almost certainly be committing a criminal offence.
So far as the acts referred to in Clause 1 are concerned, these are already offences when committed in this country. Thus, if a person steals any nuclear material he will be committing an offence under the Theft Act. If he injures someone or damages property by means of such material he will be liable to prosecution under the Offences Against the Person Act or the Criminal Damage Act. There is therefore no loophole here so far as acts committed in this country are concerned. The only difference is that Clause 1

991
gives our courts jurisdiction to deal with offences committed outside the United Kingdom. Such jurisdiction will not exist in relation to offences connected with nuclear material outside that defined in Clause 6. Again, however, this does not really represent a loophole since all of the offences in Clause 1 are extraditable. If someone commits one of these offences outside the United Kingdom, therefore, and then comes here, we will generally be able, in accordance with our usual practice, to extradite him to the country where he committed the offence so that he may be prosecuted there.
Turning to Clause 2, most of the acts covered here are not at present criminal offences in this country, and it is true, therefore, that if, for example, someone holds nuclear material intending to injure with it, or being reckless as to whether injury may be caused, he will not be committing a specific offence. It is, however, I think, almost inconceivable that he will have come by the nuclear waste lawfully, and he will almost certainly therefore be liable to be prosecuted for theft and for any related offences which he may have committed in the process of obtaining the material. As for the making of threats, it is already an offence to threaten to kill or to do damage, so again it will not matter whether or not the nuclear material comes within the definition, although there is at present no general offence of threatening to cause serious injury.
I hope I have said enough to demonstrate to the noble Lord, Lord Flowers—as he wished—that the Government regard those who misuse nuclear waste with a disapproval similar to that expressed in this Bill in relation to those who misuse the materials described in its schedule—at least sufficiently to persuade him and the rest of your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether the Government will consider giving wide publicity to this Bill? As the convention points out, offences relating to nuclear material are a matter of very grave concern. In view of the width and care with which this Bill has been prepared by the Government, it seems to me that in the public interest it may be a good thing, from my insular way of looking at matters, if good publicity were given to this Bill so that the public understands the kind of extensive steps that the Government are taking in dealing with this matter of such grave concern.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. It is our intention to see that this Bill is well known.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at five minutes past seven o'clock.