Lords Sitting of 7 June 1984

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Bishop of Chichester.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that, with the approval of Her Majesty the Queen, I have accepted an invitation from the President of the Folketing in Denmark to attend a conference of European Speakers to be held in Copenhagen on the 15th and 16th June. Accordingly, I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for Thursday 14th June and Friday 15th June.

British Leyland: Output and Investment
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the average output of cars per man-year at British Leyland in 1983–84 compared with 1978–79, what was the capital investment in the same period, and how much of this investment came from taxpayers' funds.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, for Austin Rover, which is the volume car division of BL, average output per man-year was 12.1 cars in 1983 compared with six in 1979. Over that period, capital expenditure by BL on tangible assets, mainly plant and machinery and special tools and jigs, amounted to £1,221 million, and additional equity subscribed by Government amounted to £1,430 million. Separate figures for Austin Rover are not available.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend not agree that these figures are very encouraging for all those concerned in the British Leyland enterprise? They show that the vast investment that the taxpayer and the Government have put in is paying off in increased productivity not least because there are now much better industrial relations and better co-operation on the production line. Will this continue so that British Leyland can regather some of the market both here and overseas? If my noble friend has figures for overseas sales, can he give these to the House?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend. We must all take satisfaction in the progress that has been made by British Leyland which is a tribute to the workforce and to the management and which also reflects substantial capital investment. The company—British Leyland as a whole—last year exported £917 million worth of vehicles. Over 94,000
766
Austin Rover motor cars were sold in Europe. More than 15,000 Jaguar motor cars were sold in the United States; nearly 4,000 were sold in Western Germany. I am sure that we all wish the company well and hope that these figures will be improved upon in the coming year.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, in view of the fact that substantial progress has been made while the company is largely under public ownership, is there any good reason to disrupt that progress by changing ownership and going through a privatisation process?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the progress has been made in anticipation of privatisation and will, we hope, continue at an accelerated rate when that happens.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, my noble friend has given the output figure of 12.1 cars per man-year. Can he give an example of how Japanese figures compare and say whether the BL figure is good on a world scale or whether there is still room for improvement?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I cannot quote figures offhand for productivity in Japan. The figure is substantially higher than that in the United Kingdom. It is important to bear in mind, however, that the Japanese motor car industry buys-in a much higher proportion of its total components than does the manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, bearing in mind the enormous success story that has just been related to us by the noble Lord the Minister, and also bearing in mind that public enterprise and public capital rescued British Leyland and the British car industry from bankruptcy under private enterprise, is it not an absurdity and is it not cheating the taxpayers of this country to suggest that all this has been done merely to return to private enterprise?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the noble Lord will be the last to expect me to agree with the views that he has expressed. Although we must all take satisfacton in the progress that British Leyland is now making, it has been a story of very great difficulty over a large number of years. The British taxpayer has now invested over £2,000 million in this company in all, and it is only just now, for the first time, coming into profit.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that it is a fair description of cheating the elector if the Government carry out what they put in their manifesto and for which they got their majority?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend that the privatisation of important parts of British Leyland was included in our manifesto.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, although this Question refers to cars it refers also to British Leyland. I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister would care to repeat to the British Leyland workers in Bathgate and in Leeds what he has just said. Could he tell us—I will understand if he has not got the figures—what is now the waiting time for the Land

767
Rover, which is such an important export to countries of the third world?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that the vehicles manufactured at Bathgate are lorries, whereas the Question relates to passenger cars. But so far as Bathgate is concerned, a Statement was made on 22nd May by by right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I repeated it in your Lordships' House, and at this stage I do not think there is anything I can usefully add to that Statement. In regard to the waiting period for the delivery of Land Rovers, particularly to the third world, I do not immediately have that information, which of course does not arise in any way out of the Question on the Order Paper. But the noble Lord will himself be well aware of the fact that great difficulties have arisen because of the problem of payment by many of these third world countries.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the past troubles of British Leyland stem primarily from the folly of the Labour Government in creating a disparate and entirely uneconomic conglomerate out of various sections of the British motor industry?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend's analysis. I was carefully refraining from going back over these historical matters, which reflect very badly upon the party opposite.
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the reason why British Leyland came into public ownership in the first place was because it went "bust" under private ownership and the Government had to step in to bail it out?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, circumstances do exist in which a Government have to bail out an industry in the way the noble Lord has mentioned. Nevertheless, this is not the right way of dealing with industrial problems of this sort. The experience of British Leyland ought to have taught everybody how totally unsatisfactory is that kind of procedure, and many years of great effort and thousands of millions of pounds have had to be invested to put the matter right.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the figures he has given us this afternoon, showing that the long-suffering taxpayer has provided some £2,600 million of new capital expenditure in order to get British Leyland off the ground, so to speak, make it plain that it is going to be greatly in the interests of the taxpayer to sell this company to the public, if the public is willing to buy it, so that in the future it will be private capital which will be provided, and not the taxpayers' money?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I agree entirely with the point made by my noble friend. But the really important issue is that experience shows that companies of this sort can be managed much more effectively and profitably in the private sector than in the public sector.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that at the end of the day it was a Labour Government which saved the only wholly British motor car firm?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the point is that at the beginning of the day it was a Labour Government which created the difficulties which later had to be resolved.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, for the record, would the Minister care to put right the statement of his noble friend and his corroboration thereof, in that in fact the unwieldy conglomerate was created under private enterprise? I well remember the statement made by the managing director of BMC when they took over Rover. He said the advantages of scale would overcome everyone else. Would the Minister not agree that that was a correct statement?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, we can spend a great deal of time going back over the history of this. The person who provided the impetus for these great amalgamations, which ultimately led to the sort of troubles we are talking about, is somebody who is now a Member of your Lordships' House.
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, would the Minister agree—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Diamond: My Lords, the Minister has endorsed the point so wisely made by his noble friend—I am talking about the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, who asked the Question—drawing our attention to the connection between investment and increased productivity. I should like to ask him whether he regards this as a good example of Government investment, wisely directed, creating additional productivity and therefore additional employment.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, it is always right and, indeed, necessary that investment should be directed wisely, and clearly that is true in the public sector as well as in the private sector.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many parts of British Leyland, such as Aveling Barford, welcome being hived off and sold to private enterprise?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, it has been the announced policy of the board of British Leyland that the various parts of the organisation should be privatised when the opportunity arises, and experience shows that this is supported by the management of the units concerned.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree—
Lord Kaldor: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Lord Molloy!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would your Lordships not agree that there was bound to come a time when I would win? Would the noble Lord not agree that, if the last answer that he gave had been included in the first answer that he gave to his noble friend, then all the acerbity that has arisen would not have arisen? The noble Lord has made no contribution whatever to either the management or the workforce of British Leyland by his inane and banal statement that the whole idea of this action was to get more money to provide an excuse not to resuscitate a great industry, but to pay off political friends. Is the noble Lord further aware that, when we hear talk of the long-suffering taxpayer being relieved, there has been no evidence yet over the past three years of the lower form of taxpayer having any relief? The relief has only been for the better off.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I do not think that any of the comments made on either side of the House deserve the kind of epithet that the noble Lord is endeavouring to apply to them. The noble Lord began by asking, "Would I not agree?" I should have thought that, after all these years, he at least would have realised that I never agree with anything that he says.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord criticised my noble friend for taking British Leyland into public ownership. But is he aware that in the House of Commons 150 of his honourable friends voted against taking British Leyland into public ownership, in which case it would have gone bust and we would have had no British car industry at all?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, it does not necessarily follow that if an industry goes—as the noble Lord describes it—"bust", we are left with nothing, because a great deal then depends upon whether the industry can be restarted. British Leyland faced a situation of very, very great difficulty in 1979 and 1980. We took at that time very difficult decisions which experience has shown were in fact the right decisions. I hope that the noble Lord will pay tribute to the wisdom of the Government in following the policy that they have followed.

Trading Codes of Practice
3.23 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the support given to proposals made by the Director General of Fair Trading for the strengthening and extension of trading codes of practice.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, in his discussion paper on home improvements in March 1982 the Director General of Fair Trading raised the idea of a general duty to trade fairly as a means of
770
strengthening and extending voluntary codes of practice. Following publication of his final report on home improvements last June, the Director General is looking further into this concept on which he plans to publish a discussion paper in due course. The Government await this paper with interest and will consider carefully any proposals from him which may result.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply which is much better than I had expected. However, would he agree that there is particular concern about the enforcement of codes of practice? Moreover, would it not be helpful in general if there was an extension of such codes of practice negotiated with trade associations? Would not that then lead to a more general consideration of the concern felt about traders who are not members of trade associations?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, both of the points which the noble Baroness has raised—namely, the extension of codes of practice to traders other than those who are members of associations and also the question of enforcement—are, we understand, both specifically matters into which the Director General of Fair Trading is looking, and we must now wait to see what he says when he produces his discussion paper a little later on in the year.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will the discussion paper to which my noble friend the Minister refers include any reference to proposals to amend the statutory definition of public interest?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my noble friend can ask that question, but I am not entirely sure that I can give the answer, mainly because we must await the discussion paper from the Director General of Fair Trading, but also because, as a matter of fact, I do not know what the answer is.

Cruise Missiles: Firing Control
3.26 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I hope that the noble Lord knows the answer!.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will quote the words of President Reagan on which they rely (col. 1015, 10th May) as confirming the Prime Minister's claim to hold an effective veto over the firing of American cruise missiles located in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, The Government do not rely on any public statements to support the Answer given by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place on 12th May last year, but upon the understanding, which, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said, had been jointly reviewed and confirmed as effective in

771
the light of the planned deployment of cruise missiles to this country. Exchanges between the two Governments on this subject are of course confidential.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord unaware that he himself in this Chamber said on 10th May that the Government preferred to rely upon the words of President Reagan rather than on mine? We are all entitled to know upon what words the Government are relying.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence made clear in another place on 24th May, the understandings between the two Governments are of course reaffirmed by letter. Let me add, in the light of the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary, that the United States Administration has confirmed to us that the President's understanding of the arrangements is entirely consistent with that of the Prime Minister.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, has the attention of the Government been drawn to the statement by General Meyer before the United States Congress in it hearings into defence appropriations for this year, that:
"The operational concept for … the … Cruise Missile … calls for a portion of these forces to be able to launch quickly at the direction of the Theater Commander"?
If so, what is the Government's comment thereon?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have to say that we have been unable to confirm that the words reportedly said by General Meyer were in fact said at all. The United States Administration has made it absolutely clear that there is no question of the United States President relinquishing his authority over any US nuclear weapons.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I am holding in my hand a copy of the United States Congressional Record which states the words as I have relayed them?
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we on these Benches are grateful for his statement which corrects an earlier statement which he made to me in the House a short while ago? Is he aware that the understandings to which he refers have never been published, and will he give an assurance that they will be published? Finally, is he aware that on several occasions President Reagan has declined to acknowledge that the British Government have a veto of the firing of these weapons, and that reasonable people are bound to conclude that he does not do this because he does not want to do it?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can only repeat that the United States Administration has confirmed to us that the President's understanding of the arrangements is entirely consistent with that of the Prime Minister. As I said earlier, the detailed communications between the two Governments on this matter are of course confidential and cannot, therefore, be revealed.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that everyone would like to believe what he says? But since the two parties concerned—the President and the Prime Minister—refuse to confirm publicly that they mean the same thing by the 1952 agreement, the public must conclude that they mean different things and that therefore, although the Prime Minister may claim a veto, she does not actually possess one?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the effect of the understandings is as described by my right honourable friend in the other place on 12th May last year, and I am content to rest on that.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, is my noble friend aware, and would he agree, that the original agreement made between Prime Minister Attlee and the American Government about siting American planes in this country was never textually published?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I understand that the 1952 communiqué by which time of course Sir Winston Churchill was Prime Minister, was indeed published. The understandings that were set out then have been reaffirmed every time a new President or a new Prime Minister comes into office, and that of course includes Prime Ministers of the Administrations of the party opposite.
Lord Hale: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there really is no dispute about what the Prime Minister says that she said? This is only one example—although perhaps the most grave of all—of an allegation being made against the credibility of the present Prime Minister, who is under investigation in industrial affairs at this moment. Is the noble Lord aware that there is grave public concern in the country about these constant contradictions?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have a feeling that the noble Lord is attempting to steer the Question on to a different topic altogether. But I can confirm again that the United States Administration has confirmed to us that the President's understanding of the arrangements is entirely consistent with that of the Prime Minister.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the noble Lord, when he has time, have a look at United States Senate hearings reference 98–49, Part 2, for 25th and 28th February and 2nd March of this year, and an answer to Senator Tower as I quoted it in an earlier question, and make a Statement to the House as soon as is convenient?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I shall be happy to look at the document to which the noble Lord refers, and write to him if I have anything to add.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the 1952 agreement does not give this country a veto and that nobody, other than the Prime Minister, in either of our two countries has ever said that it does?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not think that I can go further than to say that the understandings have been reviewed every time a new Prime Minister or a new President comes into office. It has been found satisfactory on every occasion, and I do not think there is more that I can do to assist your Lordships.
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware—
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, would the noble Lord excuse me? He had a good go earlier this afternoon. Perhaps he would excuse us from any further goes just for a short time. May we go to the next Question?

Oil Reserves
3.33 p.m.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their latest estimate of the United Kingdom's recoverable oil reserves, and what percentage of them still remain untapped.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, Table 2 of the Brown Book shows the total of proven and possible recoverable oil reserves as 1,950 million tonnes. Approximately 604 million tonnes of crude oil and natural gas liquids have been recovered, leaving 69 per cent. of reserves untapped.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging reply. Can he confirm that the total share of the business which United Kingdom companies have is 72 per cent. of a total order book amounting to no less than £2.61 billion?
The Earl of Avon: Yes, my Lords, I agree with my noble friend. The share was standing at about 72 per cent., worth some £1.88 billion in itself.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, can the noble Earl interpret the words "possible recoverable" in his reply? Does that imply that these reserves are theoretically recoverable at however great cost, or are they economically recoverable, and if so what assumptions are made about the future price of oil?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the terms used in the Brown Book at the moment are "proven, probable and possible reserves". These are reserves in existing discoveries. Most can be economically brought up at present prices.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the rising estimate of North Sea oil reserves is to be largely attributed to the effects of the Budget of last year encouraging greater exploration? Could he say whether the department are now giving any thought to recording and estimating the volume of coal reserves under the North Sea on the Continental Shelf?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I agree with what my noble friend said in the first part of his supplementary.I would need notice of his second point under a separate Question.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in the light of the new figures which have been issued is the noble Earl able to tell us the date to which the Government think.that we now have self-sufficiency in oil?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, in relation to the figures I have been giving the House this afternoon, remaining recoverable reserves so far discovered would last ten and a half years if present production rates are maintained.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the London Regional Transport Bill will be adjourned for dinner at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period, and that during this adjournment consideration of the Commons amendment to the Somerset House Bill and the Committee stage of the Juries (Disqualification) Bill will be taken.

Business of the House
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Earl of Gowrie to advance the Committee stage of the Trade Union Bill from Tuesday the 19th June to Monday the 18th June.—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill
3.36 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Read a third time.
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
("Exemption from valuation and rating of certain moorings.
. After section 8 of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland Act 1956 there shall be inserted the following section—
"Exemption from valuation and rating of certain moorings.
8AA.—(1) For the purpose of ascertaining the gross annual value of any lands and heritages no account shall be taken of any mooring to which this section applies.
(2) This section applies to any mooring—

(a) used or intended to be used by a boat or ship; and

(b) equipped only with a buoy attached to an anchor, weight or other device—

(i) which rests on or in the bed of the sea or any river or other waters when in use; and

(ii) which is designed to be raised from that bed from time to time.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I take Amendment No. 2 with Amendment No. 1.
Amendment No. 2: Page 14, line 30, after ("11") insert
("(Exemption from valuation and rating of certain moorings)").
This is a simple amendment introduced for the avoidance of doubt and to prevent future cross-border anomalies arising. The Government have introduced a similar amendment to the Rates Bill to provide necessary clarification of the law in England and Wales. This makes similar provision to existing case law in Scotland, but as there may be a few cases where different treatment could arise it seems prudent to ensure parity of treatment by making parallel provision for the avoidance of doubt.
I honestly do not expect this amendment on its own to have any significant effect immediately, but it should prevent differences of treatment north and south of the Border from arising in future. Amendment No. 2 makes this substantive provision effective from 1st April 1985. I beg to move this amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I rise to support this amendment. I am highly gratified that the Government have this immense concern for the owners of moorings, buoys, and other rare objects. It is wholly in line with their attitude throughout this Bill. They are also extremely concerned about reed beds. I understand that the popularity rating of the Government among the owners of reed beds and moorings has now risen to an extent which is unprecedented since they started doing public opinion polls. I understand that they are highly gratified and that this will be quoted in the European elections as an example of the popularity of the Government.
I should like to suggest, however, if it is relevant to this amendment, that a certain amount of concern should be translated into action—we had plenty of it in theory—about the owners of small businesses who have been in grave trouble due to many of the Government's policies, and interest rates, and so on. A certain amount of exemption like that granted to industrial premises in Scotland might have been afforded by the amendments which I moved, and which were greeted with great sympathy by the noble Lord, Lord Gray, who is, as we all know, a kind and nice man; but of action we have had none. I commend the noble Lord's support of the owners of moorings, reed beds, and other insignificant matters, but it might have been extended to a significant section of the population of small businessmen.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I too accept this particular amendment. In the short term it will probably have little effect on rating, but as a principle it shows what many of us have been saying all through the passage of this Bill both in another place and in this place, that Scottish rating and valuation needs a complete overhaul. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said, the Government have given a very little on reed beds and a little on things such as the mooring of buoys. Altogether we are finding as we go through the Bill with this Government that what seems to be happening all the time is that we have
776
occasional little adaptations made in rating valuation in Scotland. We had a very important one some time ago on oil and outside plant, and now we have had another two or three minor ones in this particular Bill. All the time the base of Scottish rating is being reduced, and therefore the householder, the small businessman and to some extent—although they are derated—industry are all carrying more and more on this narrower base. It may be very little in this instance; but put together, the base is getting narrower and narrower all the time.
We may be able to say something when we come to the question of whether the Bill shall pass, on the matter of whether the Government have really been honest, and whether the Party opposite have been honest, in the way they have tackled rates. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, spoke on this rather momentous amendment—and again it draws parallels with the English legislation with which we had a great deal of difficulty in persuading the Government that it was occasionally a reasonable thing to do—and we were speaking of course of sports stadia, and things like that. Having said that, I do not think there is anything any of us would be willing to stand out very strongly against in this innocuous and perhaps ultimately clearing up amendment.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies perhaps he could clarify my mind on one point. I think he said in his opening remarks about this amendment that it in no way changed the law, it merely clarified it. May I take it therefore that it will not affect the rating values of Orkney and Shetland to any extent? As he will be aware, there are some very large moorings for Sullom Voe and Flotta. Am I to understand that there will be no change so far as they are concerned in the rating position?
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, I am rather intrigued to know what is so much holier about moorings than about grouse moors, that they should be brought into line with the situation in England. I cannot help wondering whether it is not a question of the Government's popularity.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I welcome the remarks of all noble Lords opposite who have given such enthusiastic approval to the amendment which I have proposed. It is good to know that they are grateful even for small mercies, and of course we welcome their approval. I should just very briefly say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that I think I would weary the House if I were to reiterate what I said the last time that we discussed this matter, when I listed I think 10 very substantial contributions which the Government made towards the wellbeing of small businesses. I was sorry that I was not able to meet him on the amendments which he proposed in this Bill; but I think there were ample reasons for not doing so.
I welcome also what the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has said. He too recognises that we have tried to be helpful in this amendment, and I should also be in danger of wearying the House if I went into arguments again which I used when I answered the amendment proposed by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. I think that I enunciated some very sound

777
reasons why I could not accept her amendment, much as I should like to have done so. The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, raised the question about the effect on Sullom Voe. The moorings there are too big to be raised and remain subject to rating, so there is no difference as far as the law is concerned there. This amendment, as I indicated when I introduced it, essentially codifies existing Scottish case law and excludes from valuations moorings which are moveable rather than heritable.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Citation, commencement and extent]:
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 2: [Printed earlier.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Relief of rates in respect of lands and heritages partly occupied for a short time]:
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 3:
Transpose Clause 14 to after Clause 5.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment to Clause 14. This, along with the amendments to Clauses 16 and 17, is minor. They are minor drafting amendments to place clauses of the Bill in the most appropriate position and order. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, may I ask this? On Amendment No. 5, is Clause 17 to go after Clause 14 in its new place or its old place?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, this clause will go in its new place.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Relief of rates in respect of non-domestic lands and heritages not in active use]:
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 4:
Transpose Clause 16 to after Clause 5.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Exemption of reed beds from rates]:
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 5.
Transpose Clause 17 to after Clause 14.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Gray of Contin.)
Lord Grimond: My Lords, before we part with this Bill can I enter a small protest against the drafting of it? It was almost entirely drafted by references to other Bills. It is a matter of very great importance to every ratepayer in Scotland and it is really rather intolerable that legislation should be put out from Parliament
778
which is quite unintelligible to ordinary people and will involve the whole library of a lawyer's office to interpret it. There have been protests about this, notably by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale—who, after all, is a retired Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and speaks with some authority on these matters—in the recent debate in your Lordships' House. We have seen in a Bill proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that it is possible to draft Bills positively so that they are intelligible and ordinary people can understand what they mean. This Bill, candidly, to my mind is a disgrace to Parliamentary draftsman and I hope very much that the Minister will take it to heart and when in future he is producing Bills of the greatest importance to the ordinary people of this country he will produce them in an intelligible form.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I think also that something should be said before this Bill is finally passed. I must apologise that my noble friend Lord Ross, who has done so much work on the Bill, is not able to be with us today; but the House will perhaps be glad to know that he is recovering from his disability. We have taken a great deal of time discussing this Bill, not only in this House but in another place, and I am afraid we had very little flexibility from the Government. It seemed to me that the Minister was under orders to concede absolutely nothing, although it is a very, very important Bill for the people of Scotland.
One of the points my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock was continually trying to make was that there should be an inquiry into the Scottish rating system. I will not bore the House too long with this argument except to say that it was a very well argued case that he put. It was also a very well argued case for the necessity to look at the Scottish rating system which was put to the noble Lord's own Party conference in Perth a few weeks ago. It was also a very forceful argument put by his Party before the General Election of 1979 and subsequent to that by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in another place.
I should emphasise that the question of the examination of the Scottish rating system was a technical argument, not a political one. The politics of rates is about the level and impact on the ratepayers and the level of services, not the method by which the rates are raised. There was a suggestion that we should consider the technical basis of financing Scottish local government. It is no use pursuing the matter after the arguments put up by the Minister about the total unacceptability of all our very persuasive arguments. The system envisaged by the last amendment is becoming extremely higgledy-piggledy and we need a full consideration of it.
This is an extremely important Bill for the people of Scotland. Unprecedented powers have been given to the Secretary of State and might be the basis of great friction between the Government and local authorities. Now the Secretary of State can use these powers without even consulting the local authorities affected. All he needs to do is to consult associations of local authorities that he believes may be concerned, not the individual local authorities. If one couples the

779
power in Clause 3 with the great powers in Clause 2, when orders were going through in the other place that could affect a local authority which would not even be mentioned in the short debate. Since more than one order could be taken at one time, a local authority might have all these powers used against it without having been mentioned in the debate in another place.
A local authority that was previously represented by the Minister might be one of those authorities concerned. I can see the words he used in the debate being quoted back at him. It is an extremely heavy-handed way of handling local authorities in Scotland. I can see a great deal of trouble from now on with local authorities. In the other place my honourable friend the Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland said that it was a Bill that he would wholeheartedly give his approval and binding promise to rescind.
There is only one small point of principle with which I should like the Minister to go slightly further. When a decision is made there is still a feeling among many people in Scotland that the Association of Valuers tends to wait for court decisions before it makes an interpretation. In other words, at the last stage of this Bill, which was Report, there was the feeling that there is a tendency among valuers to use the courts as an area of first appeal instead of an area of final appeal. Although the Minister wrote to me on the point I raised about the valuation of accommodation in Scotland—and the order was passed in 1983—the assessors nevertheless have not yet got round to making their own valuations on this.
Because of the complication of the present Scottish rating system it is possible that the assessors have no time to analyse the problem. On the other hand, as has been suggested, the assessors may not be receiving enough guidance from the Government and therefore are afraid to go ahead until they have a court decision. The Minister was kind enough to write to me on 6th June; he promised he would give me more information and write to me later. I wonder whether, as this order has been on the statute book for 14 months, the Minister can give me any examples of when the assessors have made a revaluation of the type of accommodation included in this order. It strikes me as being rather more important than the removal of moorings and buoys from the valuation rolls of Scotland.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, I wish this Bill well from the bottom of my heart. I only hope that it does all that the noble Lords the Ministers have told us that it will, but I am afraid that I have grave misgivings. Both at Committee and at Report stages, as the House well knows, I moved amendments concerning the rating of shootings. While we had the pleasantest possible debates at both times, I must confess that I was rather disappointed by the somewhat wooden attitude of the Government, particularly in view of the strong support which was shown for the amendments in both Houses and which can have left the Government in no doubt that the present situation is causing great concern.
I hope to be proved wrong, but I have limited faith in the efficacy of Clause 19, as I think it has now become. Until now, assessors have considered that
780
there was material change of circumstances only if a substantial area of hill has been destroyed by fire or part has been sold or afforested. They are not given to coming out and tramping the hills to see for themselves that there is no game. If they did, I am afraid that they would quite likely think that the occupier had rounded up the grouse and locked them up in a shed, out of sight. It has been quite impossible to persuade them that there are no birds and that therefore it is not possible to let. I know of a moor in Perthshire where for seven years there have been no grouse, yet the assessors have refused to agree material change and the occupier still has to pay rates and cannot let.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, told us a similar story at Report stage. I hope that the Government will seriously consider issuing the assessors with guidelines; for without guidelines I am not persuaded that there are any grounds for believing that the Government's optimism will be justified.
I can only express a forlorn hope that the Government's hopes and intentions do not fail and that, if they do, the Government will take steps themselves to remedy the situation. Those of us who have concerned ourselves with this matter will have to see how things work out over the next couple of years, but if we are disappointed we shall have to raise the matter again.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, we have been concerned with small matters, though not terribly small, as the noble Baroness raises a real point. We have been talking about the method of valuation and so on, but on the Question, That the Bill do now pass, it is relevant to say that the Government have been enormously disappointing, not only to the Opposition but to their own supporters, because there is a real problem in local government. It is and has been exemplified by many of the Labour councils in the West and elsewhere who have driven rates to a point where they have scared away business and they have also raised the art of manipulating the grants for the benefit of a section to a fine art. Obviously local government in Scotland and elsewhere has fallen into disrepute. It has gone away from its base of responsibility to the people; it has gone away from the base of getting the best people to stand, because they will have real things to do and local councillors have become the agents of central government. The whole matter has been politicised, and local government in Scotland has deteriorated in the last 50 years. Some good things have been done, but on the whole it has deteriorated. The Conservative Party saw this; they talked about it in their manifesto and they saw the evil of the rating system as it is. Yet they have even refused to hold an inquiry into the rating system after this Bill has gone through.
In the Bill all they have done is to top up a series of measures which are designed to stop certain evils happening, but in fact can only need further measures and, ultimately, further deterioration of local government must lead to complete central control. It is very disappointing. In fact, I could say that it is wholly wrong in principle, wholly regrettable, and a thing that no responsible Government should have

781
done. If you really believe in democracy, then you must try to see that the people who represent local government are responsible. This Bill totally fails to do that. I think it is a disaster, and I think it was a disgrace for the Government to introduce it after the promises in their manifesto.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, the purpose of this Bill, as has been enunciated all the way through, is to help ratepayers by protecting them against local authorities planning high expenditure and setting high rates, and by resolving valuation anomalies. These are familiar words. Every member of the Government speaking on this subject has been at pains to make clear the central intent of the Bill. It is not—I repeat: it is not—about ending local government in Scotland, as claimed by some of its more histrionic critics.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, normally a very moderate man if I may say so, this afternoon used language not of his usual character. I would disagree with him about some of his suggestions as to why there has been perhaps a change in those who participate in local government. He suggested reasons. I would not necessarily agree that those are the correct reasons. I think that over the years there have been changes in the type of person who has involved himself or herself in local government; but I think that the diagnosis which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, has suggested is certainly not the correct one.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, as he invariably does, made some very relevant points, and he criticised the drafting of the Bill. I suppose that this is not unusual in this House or in another place. There are few Bills which go through Parliament without some criticism of the drafting here or there. May I say to the noble Lord that, for example, in Schedule 1 of this Bill there is a Keeling schedule which virtually consolidates local government finance provisions in accordance with the report of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. As well as being in accordance with Lord Renton's report, The Preparation of Legislation, the Bill contains a variety of largely separate reforms. Nearly all are separately stated as new sections, and would not be in a materially different form even if expressed in the pre-Renton way. So there has been a genuine attempt so far as the drafting of the Bill is concerned to attain a greater simplification.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, was critical of the Bill and was critical of the Government for not accepting the amendment which he moved at an earlier stage—or which his noble friend, who we are all pleased to hear is making a satisfactory recovery, moved at an earlier stage of the Bill—to the effect that we should have a general review of the rating system in Scotland. But, as I explained during the earlier stages, we looked at the whole question of review before we introduced the Bill at all. I explained that there had already been the sitting of the Layfield Committee, which was a committee composed of many very distinguished people as far as local government was concerned, and their knowledge was not disputed in any way.
We made the decision ultimately that the system which we had could not be bettered at this time; in other words, that we could not find anything with which we could replace it which would not create more
782
anomalies and more difficulties. Therefore, we decided that the best way to proceed was to make improvements. We believe that we have introduced a number of very real improvements into this Bill. I do not think that it would be for the benefit of the House for us to become too involved in the arguments which we went into in very great detail at earlier stages; I merely reply to the perfectly legitimate point that the noble Lord made. That is the view of his party, and we agree to differ on that point.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, again made her plea as far as the moors are concerned. I would thank her now, as I did on two previous occasions, for the very reasonable way in which she presented her case and invited us to accept her amendment. At earlier sittings I went into details as to why I could not accept the amendment. The only point that I would make to her is that, when she referred to the question of material changes having taken place, material changes will be taken into account in a revaluation. I would suggest, as far as the Bill is concerned, that this is helpful. I cannot really add further to the comments which I made in replying to her amendments previously.
In conclusion, my Lords, I would draw your thoughts together by suggesting that your Lordships' House has rightly directed—
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Your thoughts, not ours!
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. We have directed a good deal of attention to the valuation and rating relief measures in this Bill. We believe that these will make useful changes to a system which, although basically sound, has thrown up a number of areas where reform is merited. In 1985, there will be an all-Scotland revaluation. Difficult or contentious appeals may now, by virtue of Clauses 11 and 12, go straight to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, which will ease the burden of valuation appeals committees. In other clauses we have removed some of the anomalies which have given rise to problems; for example, caravans, shopping malls, reed beds and swinging moorings. We have had thorough debates about the valuation of sports grounds and similar subjects.
I know that there still linger some doubts, but it is our firm belief that Clause 18 will do the job where anomalies exist north and south of the Border; and, where circumstances change, Clause 19 will enable the benefits of new court decisions and changing rents, for example, to be felt. This Bill will be of real benefit to ratepayers as a whole through the measures in Part I, and to individuals and groups of ratepayers through the measures in Part II.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with the amendments.

London Regional Transport Bill
4.7 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Provision of passenger transport services for Greater London]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 7, after ("of") insert ("integrated").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, a similar amendment was brought forward at Committee, and on this occasion I am grateful for the cross-party support given to this first amendment. The principal criticism by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, at the Committee stage was about the meaning of the word "integrated". He said that it had not been explained by anybody, and means different things to different people. As I said that I would, I have consulted the Oxford English Dictionary and I find that it says:
"To combine or form parts into a whole".
The concept of this is so simple that it should not be confusing to anyone.
An integrated transport system is one which passengers can readily recognise and use as a whole, and not a collection of separate elements, separate fares, separate tickets and separate stopping arrangements, or with other various artificial barriers. In Greater London the aim must surely be an efficient and effective public transport system which is totally integrated—and I make no apology for using the word "integrated"; I think we know what it means. That is, that bus, Underground and British Rail services should be complementary to each other in a totally unified system. As far as the passenger is concerned, it should be one coherent system with quick and pleasant interchanges and with the avoidance of complex, time-consuming ticketing.
But the Bill as drafted is deficient in various ways. LRT and British Rail will each report to the Secretary of State, but each will have different objectives. There will be no inbuilt incentive for LRT and BR to cooperate; in fact, there are various provisions in the Bill which may act to the very contrary. There has been no commitment by the Government that sufficient funds will be made available to provide for the physical interchange facilities which up to now have been generously funded by the Greater London Council. The idea of an integrated service will be endangered by the encouragement for more private independent operators, each naturally out to maximise profits, because that is why they will be trying to run an independent service. The proposals are little different from the present unsatisfactory arrangements—merely the setting up of a committee to see what can be achieved in co-operation.
There is a considerable difference between cooperation and integration. I quoted in Committee the position of Tyne and Wear's Metro system, with its complete integration of rail and bus services. I think it will be agreed that the Tyne and Wear Metro system is something far more than just co-operation. The GLC has made strides in various directions. The travel cards on London Transport buses and Tubes represent a fully integrated system with common ticketing. As I have already mentioned, the GLC has invested heavily in interchange developments. I think it will be agreed that the provision of good facilities at important interchanges is an encouragement for the greater public use of public transport. Various examples could be given, but may I mention just one to show what can be achieved? At Finsbury Park an interchange is under construction. There will be a joint Under-ground/British Rail ticket office to replace the two
784
separate offices, and a new London Transport bus station is to be built. The three operators are involved. The siting involves three London boroughs, and the GLC, as the highway authority, is providing the necessary finance and is co-ordinating the project.
London Regional Transport will not have these same wide powers, and without some provision for integration a scheme such as this could well not get off the ground. My noble friends and I cannot accept that it is wrong, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggested, to put this in the Bill as a duty to be placed on London Regional Transport. To paraphrase what will be the effect if the amendment is approved, as I hope it will be, Clause 2(1) will mean that the general duty of LRT shall be,
"in accordance with principles from time to time approved by the Secretary of State …to provide or secure the provision of integrated public passenger transport services".
Parliament should make it absolutely clear that this is what it wants, and the Secretary of State shall then keep to this when determining the principles on which LRT shall carry out its duties. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I should like briefly to support this amendment, which stands in the names of my noble friend Lord Attlee and myself as well as of the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. I do not wish to make another Second Reading speech, but I think that this word "integration" goes to the heart of a lot of what we on this side of the House feel about London Transport for the future. We are, after all, trying to produce a system of public passenger transport in London which will be attractive to the consumer. It will not be attractive to the consumer if it goes down the road of disintegration, as I described it at an earlier stage.
The ability to travel by public transport in this strange maze which is Greater London and to know that, if you have to change from bus to Tube to train, facilities will be readily available and ticketing systems will be comprehensible as well as comprehensive, is an important factor, I believe, in improving people's trust in the public transport system and in getting them out of their motor cars and on to the buses and trains. For that reason I believe this word "integrated" is extremely important when we are describing the sort of public transport system that we want to see for our capital city. I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, we had a lengthy exchange on this very same amendment at Committee stage, when I thought I made the Government's position quite clear. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, indicated that he would go away and seek further advice on the meaning of the word "integration". He has today given us the benefit of his inquiries.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said during the Committee stage, if I remember correctly, that when Ministers do not have a very good reason they resort to semantics. I do not want to do that this afternoon, because that is exactly how our discussion could end—in a rather fruitless discussion on the use of this word. I have given this a very good deal of consideration, and have talked with colleagues on it.

785
My view remains that we would achieve nothing useful by inserting the word "integrated" into Clause 2.
Perhaps it would be helpful if we spent just a moment or two looking more positively at what the Bill already provides. Then, I think, we would probably agree—I hope we would—that there is really very little between us. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said that there is no incentive in the Bill for London Regional Transport to (I use his word) integrate; but London Regional Transport has a clear statutory duty under Clause 2(3) to co-operate with British Rail, and in Clause 3(3) we make it clear that the duty still applies even if LRT makes Clause 3(2) agreements with private operators. LRT has a duty under Clause 8 to determine the general level of fares and services and the general structure of routes throughout its operations, including those being carried out under the Clause 3(2) agreements. So there will be co-ordination of all the services under LRT's control. In addition, there are to be the new liaison arrangements which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will himself oversee. This is to promote specific measures to co-ordinate LRT's services with those of British Rail.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned travel cards. There is no reason at all why LRT should not continue the travel card scheme. It has obviously been very successful and has brought great benefits to travellers and London Transport alike. There is nothing in the Bill that disturbs that kind of arrangement. I say again that there is no reason why the managerial separation of bus and Underground operations should affect this in any way, or even hinder co-ordination between their respective services. I might perhaps make the point that London Transport was never itself under a statutory duty to provide integrated services. It was in fact the GLC, with its wider responsibilities, which was charged with that duty. It really would make no sense to require LRT to integrate services outside its control. For example, it has no control over roads and no control over traffic management systems, and so how, indeed, could it integrate these in its own systems?
I have tried very hard to explain it, and I see integration meaning co-ordination, which is already required under Clause 8 for the services which LRT does control. We come later, of course, to an amendment to discuss LRT's relationship with matters such as the town planning and traffic and parking policies.
We set a good deal of importance on the liaison arrangements which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be setting up. We believe that they will enable much progress to be made in getting British Rail and LRT working closely together for the benefit of the travelling public. As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, so correctly reminded us, it is the travelling public with whom we are concerned here, not with either the subsidiary companies of LRT or, indeed, with LRT as a corporate entity itself. I said during the Committee stage that we expect LRT to give early consideration to better co-ordination of time-tabling, improved through-ticketing schemes and better interchange facilities between the two systems. We have provided additional enabling powers in Schedule 2 to assist LRT in this.
786
I hesitate, as we start today's proceedings on the Bill, to use an expression such as "absurd", but I think I could fairly say that, in my view anyway, it really is absurd, in view of all that I have reminded your Lordships of, to suggest that the Bill will lead to a break-up of LRT or to disintegration or fragmentation, as some noble Lords have suggested. I do not believe that this amendment is at all necessary to avert a danger which I do not see and which I do not see emerging. I hope that noble Lords opposite will aceept the reality of the situation and will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, it is certainly my intention to recognise the reality of the situation and to stand firm by this amendment because of that. The noble Lord says that nothing useful can be achieved by putting this clause into the Bill. I should like to echo what was said and I am certain it is echoed by my noble friends who have supported the amendment: the whole purpose of this amendment is to protect the interest of the travelling public. That is what we want an integrated service for: we want it not because of a bureaucratic idea but in the interests of the travelling public. And it is not sufficient to say that efforts will be made to co-operate with British Rail in the new liaison arrangements.
There is a difference—and I think the Oxford Dictionary definition makes this quite clear—between co-operation and integration. That is why I deferred any action at Committee stage in order to get a check upon that position. It is true, as the noble Lord the Minister says, that the GLC was charged with the duty of integration, and not London Transport. It is just because of that position that we want the Secretary of State to have to observe that the duty of London Regional Transport is to carry out integration and that in determining his principles from time to time, as the Act will lay down, he will observe that duty and therefore his principles will be based upon that.
For the life of me—and I am certain that other noble Lords will agree—I just cannot understand why the Government are so troubled about putting in the word "integrated". It shows a frame of mind and it is a frame of mind about London's transport that we want to put right. I ask the House to declare its view upon it.
4.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
There Lordships divided: Contents, 87; Not-Contents, 113.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Amherst,E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ardwick, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Attlee, E. [Teller.]

Collison, L.

Aylestone, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Banks, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Beswick, L.

David, B.

Birk, B.

Denington, B.

Brockway, L.

Diamond, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Caradon, L.

Ennals, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Milford, L.

Falkland, V.

Mulley, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Nicol, B.

Foot, L.

Oram, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Peart, L.

Gallacher, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Grey, E.

Hale, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hampton, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rea, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Roberthall. L.

Hooson, L.

Rochester, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hughes, L.

Seear, B.

Hunt, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Serota, B.

Jacobson, L.

Shackleton, L.

Jacques, L.

Soper, L.

Jeger, B.

Stallard, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stone, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Listowel, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Tordoff, L.

Lockwood, B.

Underhill, L.

Longford, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

White, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wigoder, L.

McNair, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Mayhew, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Alport, L.

Ampthill, L.

Halsbury, E.

Auckland, L.

Hayter, L.

Avon, E.

Hemphill, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Henley, L.

Bellwin, L.

Hives, L.

Belstead, L.

Hood, V.

Berkeley, B.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Broxbourne, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Ilchester, E.

Caccia, L.

Kitchener, E.

Caithness, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Lawrence, L.

Cayzer, L.

Long, V.

Chesham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Clitheroe, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Cockfield, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Coleraine, L.

Mancroft, L.

Constantine of Stanmore. L.

Marsh, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Daventry, V.

Merrivale, L.

De La Wan, E.

Mersey, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Molson, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Morris, L.

Eccles, V.

Mottistone, L.

Eden of Winton. L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Munster, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Northchurch, B.

Elton, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Faithfull, B.

Onslow, E.

Ferrier, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Fortescue, E.

Pender, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gainford, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Gowrie, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Renton, L.

Grey of Naunton, L.

Rodney, L.

Gridley, L.

Romney, E.

Rugby, L.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Terrington, L.

St. Davids, V.

Teviot, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Thorneycroft, L.

Sandys, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Trenchard, V.

Stamp, L.

Trumpington, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Vickers. B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Ward of Whitley, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Suffield, L.

Wise, L.

Swansea, L.

Young, B.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

4.31 p.m.
Lord Somershad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 8, at end insert ("and this general duty shall include the duty to meet the needs of those with disabilities.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have four amendments down for this stage which all deal with the same point. But I see that that point is dealt with in other amendments and therefore I shall not move mine. I shall not waste the time of the House by moving mine and will speak to the other amendments when they are called.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 13, at end insert—
("; and
( ) all the benefits (financial and otherwise) accruing from the provision of public passenger transport services.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment contains a very important principle. At the Committee stage there was one amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and another amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Carmichael and myself; both of them sought to insert into the Bill a provision of the 1969 Transport (London) Act:
"the provision of such … transport services as best meets the needs for the time being".
I am grateful that on this occasion there is again cross-party support for this amendment.
There was at the Committee stage what I and other noble Lords regarded as a rather pointless argument about the meaning of the words "for the time being". Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, repeated the Secretary of State's comment that to include a duty to meet needs would mean that LRT would have to meet every single need. We thought at the time that that was hardly a wise statement to make, and that the Government's attitude was—to use the noble Lord's own phrase—very much removed from reality.
The present amendment does not refer at all to "the time being" or to "needs". It does not seek to interfere at all with the wording of the Bill. What it seeks is to add a further sub-paragraph to the two matters in the Bill to which LRT shall have due regard in carrying out their duty. The present drafting of this entire clause makes meeting transport needs a secondary requirement, being subject to the Secretary of State's

789
financial requirements. Ministers have emphasised that LRT will be under the control of the Secretary of State and, therefore, subject to considerable Treasury control and, without some legal restraints being written into the Bill, the tendency will be to meet only minimum requirements.
The amendment will mean that LRT must have due regard to all benefits—not merely financial—and it also introduces the principle of social cost benefit to the provision of transport services. As stressed in Committee, we must of course pay attention to the financial aspects, but if the sole criteria are to be the financial objectives it must inevitably follow that there will be a minimum service. A department analysis has shown that with adequate revenue support this could be justified in lower fares, a better service with increased users and journeys, less traffic, some relief from congestion, less demand for parking and fewer accidents.
I should like to quote just four short extracts from the report of London Transport—not the GLC—for 1983, which reads:
"The Executive has adopted the technique of Social Cost Benefit Analysis to measure the achievement of the overall objective and has received support for this approach from the Greater London Council".
It goes on:
"Social Cost Benefit Analysis takes account of the effects on both users and non-users of public transport—such as road congestion, accidents, waiting and journey times and car and lorry running costs—as well as the direct financial impact on London Transport".
It continues:
"The results strongly suggest that higher levels of financial support would be justified. The Executive uses Social Cost Benefit Analysis for the evaluation of all major strategic decisions, such as the overall fares and service levels".
The report goes on to say, dealing with fares and marketing:
"In social cost benefit terms, for every £1 lost through a fares reduction it is estimated that the benefits, in terms of lower fares, extra travel and reduced road congestion, were worth £2.30".
The amendment will help to define what we want from a public transport service for London, and we should take into consideration not only the financial aspects but also the social cost benefits. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I must say that I was happier with the amendments that we had down on the Committee stage. It seems to me that a proper interpretation of those amendments would have come nearer to saying what needed to be said, as against what this will perhaps achieve. Nevertheless, it is an honest attempt to try to achieve in the Bill a proper balance between needs and finance. When one says that, the Government tend to say, "You are exaggerating needs. You are trying to get money out of a bottomless pit", and on this side there is a suspicion that, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said, if the Bill is left as it is, finance will be so powerful and the Treasury will have such a big stick that the genuine needs of London Transport will be seriously undermined.
So I hope that the Government will accept that this amendment tries to achieve a better balance between the two, as it were, extreme views, which I think are not held on either side of the House. In fact, I believe
790
that there is on all sides a desire to have a proper balance. It is merely that we do not believe that the Bill as it is at present written really achieves that balance. Therefore, I support this amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I was tempted when I first saw the amendment to think that this was one of the few unfamiliar amendments on the Marshalled List, but in fact we are really treading some rather well-trodden ground. We have had discussions about planning and other requirements that are to be placed on London Regional Transport, and the extent to which they should be required to estimate the benefits to users of their services.
If I understood the noble Lord correctly, one of his concerns is that London Regional Transport should seek to obtain the greatest possible benefit for the travelling public within the resources available to them. If that is what he said, then I do not think there is anything between us. LRT exist in order to provide public passenger transport services for Greater London. They must meet any financial objectives set by the Secretary of State. However, subject to those objectives, their aim will be to put their resources to the best use. The Secretary of State's operating guidelines to the new chairman and hoard will undoubtedly follow those guidelines.
We do not need to include a provision of this kind in the Bill. There is no doubt that London Regional Transport will employ, as we said at the earlier stages of the Bill, some kind of cost benefit analysis when assessing the value that they can expect from grants or any other expenditure. We discussed whether we should include the words "social cost benefit" or any other wording in front of "cost benefit analysis". The use of such techniques is normally more appropriate for obtaining comparative information. London Regional Transport will certainly be bound to consider the other benefits of providing particular services in particular ways, because that is exactly their business.
Frankly, I wonder whether we need to include in the Bill a provision of this kind. However, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has received support from the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. The noble Lord said that he is not very happy about this amendment; he preferred the earlier versions. The best I could do—I say this without entering into any commitment but in order to help noble Lords—would be to take the matter away to see whether it would be possible to include in the clause a reference to benefits. If we think that we can, we shall discuss with both noble Lords how this might be achieved, and will bring forward at Third Reading an appropriate amendment.
However, I am very uneasy about an amendment of this nature. Whichever way we wrote it, it could be interpreted as requiring LRT to act outside their terms of reference; for example, as the strategic planning authority. They cannot be expected to do that. There is a limit, therefore, to what benefits they may be able to take into account. If we wrote something into the Bill, we might be giving to LRT terms of reference which would be right outside their original role, for the purpose of which this Bill is before your Lordships. Therefore, I have to say that it is entirely up to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, as to whether he accepts the offer, which is made totally without commitment

791
and, perhaps I should say, with a certain marked reserve.
Baroness Denington: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said. He is quite right: this amendment has been put down because we are most concerned that the terms of reference of London Regional Transport will debar it from considering the needs of London as a whole in the way that any transport authority ought to be allowed to consider those needs. London Regional Transport will be a transport authority. It will have to concentrate upon that job. That is the purpose of the Bill.
But London Transport, as it now is, is under the GLC. It is under the regional authority, all of whose members are elected and appointed with the duty of considering the needs of London as a whole. Some of them are also members of the transport committee. Although. therefore, transport matters are considered by them in the transport committee, they also sit as members representing the planning and social needs of London as a whole. It is this kind of situation with which the amendment is trying to deal. It is trying to enable the Minister to enable London Regional Transport to have this included in their terms of reference so that they do not consider financially only what is good for London Regional Transport but what is necessary in order to provide for the wider transport needs of London as the capital city of this country.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I never look a gift horse in the mouth. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and to my noble friend Lady Denington for their support. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, wonders whether there is any need for a provision of this kind to be included in the Bill. I would draw the noble Lord's attention to the relevant subsection. It reads:
"(2) In carrying out that duty London Regional Transport shall have due regard to—

(a) the transport needs for the time being of Greater London; and

(b) efficiency, economy and safety of operation".

The amendment would add:
"(c) all the benefits (financial and otherwise) accruing from the provision of public passenger transport services".
The amendment would therefore add a very important additional matter to which regard would have to be paid by LRT when carrying out their duties.
The noble Lord has very kindly offered to have a look, without commitment, at this point. However, he said that he is very uneasy about it. Perhaps I ought to point out to him that many other Members of this House will be very uneasy about the Bill if something of this kind is not included. The next stage will be Third Reading, our last opportunity to put into the Bill something which is absolutely essential. If the noble Lord is prepared to have a look, without any commitment, at whether the Bill should contain something about benefits other than financial benefits, I should be prepared to withdraw the amendment and put my faith in his persuasion of his honourable friends that it is necessary to put something of this kind in the Bill.
792
I do not want to go over all the debates at the Committee stage. However, some of us recall the great amount of time that was spent upon trying to get consideration of social benefits included in the 1983 Act. Our attempts were resisted every time by the Government. We believe it to be essential that something of this kind should be included in this Bill. If I can take it that, without commitment, the Minister is saying that he is prepared to have a look at whether or not it will be possible to include something relating to benefits other than financial benefits, I shall be prepared to withdraw the amendment. The Minister is not indicating that he is prepared to do so. As this is such a vital issue and a matter of principle, I must therefore ask the House to divide.
4.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 110.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kaldor, L.

Amherst, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ardwick, L.

Leatherland, L.

Attlee, E.

Listowel, E.

Aylestone, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Banks, L.

Lockwood, B.

Beswick, L.

Longford, E.

Birk, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brockway, L.

Mayhew, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Monson, L.

Caradon, L.

Mulley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Nicol, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Oram, L.

Collison, L.

Peart, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

David, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Denington, B.

Rathcreedan, L.

Diamond, L.

Roberthall, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ennals, L.

Rochester, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Falkland, V.

Seear, L.

Fisher of Rednal. B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Foot, L.

Serota, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Shackleton, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stallard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Hale, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hampton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stone, L.

Hooson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hughes, L.

Tordoff, L.[Teller.]

Hunt, L.

Underhill, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jacobson, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jacques, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wigoder, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Bellwin, L.

Ampthill, L.

Belstead, L.

Auckland, L.

Berkeley, B.

Avon, E.

Caccia, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Caithness, E.

793

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Merrivale, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mersey, V.

Cayzer, L.

Molson, L.

Chesham, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Clitheroe, L.

Morris, L.

Cockfield, L.

Mottistone, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Munster, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Northchurch, B.

Craigavon, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Crathorne, L.

Onslow, E.

Cullen of Ash bourne, L.

On-Ewing, L.

Daventry, V.

Pender, L.

Davidson, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

De La Warr, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Drumalbyn, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Dundee, E.

Renton, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Rodney, L.

Eccles, V.

Romney, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rugby, L.

Ellenborough, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Saint Brides, L.

Elton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Ferrier, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Fortescue, E.

Sandys, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Seebohm, L.

Gainford, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Shannon, E.

Gowrie, E.

Somers, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Stamp, L.

Grey of Naunton, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gridley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Hemphill, L.

Suffield, L.

Henley, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Hives, L.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Hood, V.

Terrington, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Teviot, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Kitchener, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Lawrence, L.

Trenchard, V.

Long, V.

Trumpington, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Vickers, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Ward of Witley, V.

Mancroft, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Margadale, L.

Young, B.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 3A:
Page 2, line 13, at end insert—
("; and
( ) the particular needs of members of the public who are disabled.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I understand that it is with the agreement of and will be to the advantage of the House that we should discuss Amendment No. 3A together with Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8.
Amendment No. 6: Page 2, line 40, at end insert—
(" (7) The reference in subsection (2)(a) above to the transport needs of Greater London is a reference to the needs of Greater London with respect to public passenger transport services for persons travelling within, to or from Greater London, including persons who are disabled.").
As amendments to Amendment No. 6:
Amendment No. 7: At end insert ("and, where necessary, the provision of special transport for those persons.").
Amendment No. 8: At end insert ("and, where necessary, including the provision of special transport facilities for people with particular disabilities.")
It is perfectly clear from the debate at Committee stage and from the number of amendments tabled today that there is a great deal of concern felt that the new authority to be established shall meet the needs of disabled people properly, fully and effectively. Concern is felt that there should be no question of disabled people in the area covered by the London Regional Transport Authority being disenfranchised from the point of view of transport. There has been a great deal of interest among noble Lords, and many amendments have been tabled for today's debate.
Secondly, it is clear that there is a great deal of concern felt by disabled people themselves. Their organisations have no doubt been in touch with many of your Lordships, as they have been in touch with me, the Joint Committee for the Disabled has rendered an invaluable service in bringing together many of the organisations representing particular groups of disabled people. They include those suffering from spina bifida, polio, rheumatism and arthritis, and multiple sclerosis, and limbless ex-servicemen. One can see from the list how many organisations have been brought together in order to examine this particular set of proposals.
The encouraging point is that the Government themselves are concerned. I want to say how pleased I am that the Government decided to table Amendment No. 6. I wish to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that he was prepared to table Amendment No. 6—at least, it stands in his name, although I have no doubt that it was negotiated by the noble Earl, Lord Avon.
He said on the last stage—and it was for that reason I withdrew the amendment—that he would look very carefully at this question. I must say how much I appreciate the fact that this has been done and that Amendment No. 6 has been tabled. One has to say—I suppose this is a little unfair—that although it is a step forward it is a step that is not far enough forward. That is why there are other amendments which appear to it. I refer especially to the amendment standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox—no doubt she will be speaking to it together with other noble Lords who support her—and to the amendment which I tabled separately and which is virtually the same. It was purely a matter of timing that mine appeared separately.
The argument that I put forward—and do so very strongly—for taking this a stage further is that it is simply not enough to "have due regard to". Clause 2(2) states:
"In carrying out that duty London Regional Transport shall have due regard to".
Amendment No. 6 adds what LRT shall have regard to and this includes persons who are disabled. It is perfectly possible that the authority we are setting up—and nobody here is a member of that authority; nor can anyone speak for it because it does not exist—may well say that other factors such as efficiency, economy, and others, which are set out in subsection (2)(b) are overriding factors and that although it has looked most carefully it has not been

795
able to come forward with particular proposals that will meet the needs of disabled people in London.
We are probably talking about a quarter of a million people who are affected in the London Regional Transport area. It is important not only that the transport authority should be able itself to take these matters into consideration, but that it should be able to take action to provide special transport facilities, as I propose in Amendment No. 8, for people with particular disabilities. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, said, there should be provision of special transport for these people.
It is important to recognise that there is a need for special transport, and there is already, but although it is heavily financed by the Greater London Council it is not provided by London Transport. Door-to-door travel for most severely disabled people who certainly cannot travel on the bus or Underground services is a service which must be London-wide. If it is not, it will not meet the needs of disabled people; nor, for that matter, will it be cost effective. One has to ask: who will fund dial-a-ride when the GLC disappears? We are told that local authorities now finance only 5 per cent. of the cost of dial-a-ride schemes and that the GLC finances approximately 95 per cent. A GLC report in November 1983 stated:
"The financial support for the eleven dial-a-ride services … agreed so far by the Council for 1983–84 is £74,965 on capital and £454,178 on revenue".
I understand that for this next year the GLC expect to spend a total of f 1.5 million on capital expenditure on the expansion of the dial-a-ride schemes with the aim that eventually they will cover the whole of the Greater London area. I believe that is what most people want to see happen. The question of how it is financed is absolutely crucial. What now remains is to ensure that London Regional Transport is explicitly given the duty to provide for the special needs of people with particular disabilities; not just to take these into consideration, but to provide services.
I recognise, of course, that it would be impracticable to make all buses and the whole of the existing Underground system accessible to people in wheelchairs, much as one would like to do that; the financial demands would be heavy. That is why it is so important to support special services such as dial-a-ride schemes and subsidised taxi services. But that is not enough, if I may say so to the noble Earl, Lord Avon. He very kindly sent me a copy of the letter that he wrote on 1st June to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, who will no doubt be speaking later, in which he said:
"The amendment which we now propose"—
I refer to Amendment No. 6—
"will make explicit that LRT's general duty extends to disabled people, and will treat disabled people in the same way as other people".
If that is all that the Government are doing—I do not believe it is, and I feel certain that the noble Earl will explain that it is not—it certainly would not be satisfactory.
What I very much hope will come out of this debate is the acceptance by the Government of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox. If that is accepted I can assure Ministers and your
796
Lordships that I will withdraw Amendment No. 3A, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Underhill and myself, and will also withdraw Amendment No. 8. Therefore, I very much hope that with the persuasion which was very effectively shown by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, in Committee, and which I am sure she will show today, the Minister will decide to accept the amendment tabled in her name. I beg to move.
Lord Banks: My Lords, the House will no doubt recall that in Committee I moved an amendment which was in the precise terms of Amendment No. 2 in the Marshalled List today in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Somers. The difficulty of the noble Earl, Lord Avon, when faced with this amendment was that the duty placed on London Regional Transport in the Bill is to provide transport services and,
"have due regard to… the transport needs… of Greater London; and efficiency, economy and safety of operation".
It is not a commitment to meet all transport needs. Therefore, to say that the needs of disabled people must be met while those of able-bodied people need not be met but should only be given "due regard" would perhaps be seen as not quite fair.
We may or may not agree with the terms of the duty laid upon London Regional Transport that it should merely give "due regard" to transport needs, but I am sure we are right to seek to make it clear that the needs to be given "due regard" include those of disabled people. The Minister offered to discuss the possibility of agreement on an amendment with that purpose and so I withdrew my amendment. In the event, there was no discussion. I think the Recess and the postal strike put paid to that. However, the Minister tabled Amendment No. 6 and he circulated it beforehand. I welcome this recognition by the Government that the needs to be given "due regard" by London Regional Transport in providing transport service:, should include the needs of disabled persons. That was the point we wanted to establish and I am grateful to the noble Earl for his co-operation in achieving it.
I would have preferred a specific commitment to meet the needs of disabled persons; but, as I have explained, I see the difficulty of including that without including a specific commitment to meet the needs of the able-bodied. Through this amendment we are making sure that the needs of the disabled are to be given "due regard" equally with those of everyone else. Of course, the needs of the disabled are not the same as the needs of everyone else. Therefore, it might well be that in giving due regard to those needs one would have to do more than one would expect to do for the ordinary traveller. That, I think, is implicit in what we now have. So I think that this is an important point again.
But we are left with one very important concern, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has referred. That is the position of special transport for the disabled, such as the dial-a-ride and subsidised taxi services, which we discussed in Committee and to which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has referred this afternoon. I share the concern that these are not specifically covered by the new clause. We want to make it clear that LRT should be involved in this field in the same way as the GLC now is. For that reason, while

797
welcoming this Government amendment, I support Amendment No. 7 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox. I hope the Government will be prepared to accept it and/or to introduce a further amendment to achieve the end which that amendment seeks.
So far as Amendment No. 3A is concerned, I think that that is really another way of achieving the same result as Amendment No. 6, but perhaps it is a better and neater way of doing so. However, I do not suppose that the Government will move beyond Amendment No. 6.
To sum up, I think that Amendment No. 3A is probably a better way of expressing what is in Amendment No. 6. Nevertheless, I welcome Amendment No. 6 as a step forward. I support Amendment No. 7, and I hope that it, or something very like it, will be accepted by the Government.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I support this amendment very strongly. I think that possibly some of us who are perfectly able to transport ourselves from one place to another are a little bit apt to forget what it is like to be entirely at the mercy of other people if one wants to move about. There is no public transport at the moment that is suitable for wheelchairs. Buses are not suitable, and even trains are not suitable, as the height of the platform very often varies. The Underground is quite impossible. One cannot imagine a wheelchair getting down the escalator.
What are we to do if we are in a wheelchair? The only hope is the service mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, of dial-a-ride. It seems to me that that is an essential service to keep going. One may say that the number of disabled in comparison with those who are not is very small—they are a small minority—but that does not reduce the need to give them full consideration.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I have to be careful as this is the Report stage, but I think that now I shall in a way be speaking to my Amendment No. 6 and explaining what it is about, which I think will ease the discussion of the House when we come to Amendment No. 7. I am grateful to noble Lords for what they have said about the Government's amendment.
I undertook at Committee stage to look again at the very real concern that disabled people should be referred to explicitly in the Bill. I was greatly impressed by the debate on that occasion, and we have considered very carefully the points which were made. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Banks. I was abroad last week, and it was not possible to have a discussion on the timings of draftsmanship. The amendment would not have been technically compatible with the rest of Clause 2, but we believe that we have been able to propose our own amendment, and I hope that the House will accept it. It makes it absolutely clear that LRT's general duty extends to disabled people, and this point is important in relation to some of the other amendments which we are discussing today.
I should like to say something first about the meaning of the term "public passenger transport
798
services". LRT will have a duty under Clause 2(1) to provide them or secure their provision. In addition to covering those people who can use the buses and the Underground with difficulty in the normal way, it covers those people who are slightly disabled or who have some difficulty in using the buses and the Underground. But—and I think this is a key point—I would like to make it clear to your Lordships that the term also applies to those who need wheelchairs and ramps in order to travel; in other words those who cannot use the usual public transport services at all. So LRT will have a general duty to have due regard to the needs of all those people, including those who depend on special services such as dial-a-ride.
I hope I have made that point clearly. I can then assure the House that I believe that amendments like Amendments Nos. 3A, 7 and 8 are unnecessary if our amendment is agreed to. The Government are quite satisfied—and I hope I may convince the House to be, too—that Amendment No. 6, backed up by provisions of Clause 34, which requires LRT to include in its annual report to the Secretary of State a specific statement of the action it has taken in relation to public transport provision for disabled people, will ensure not only that needs of disabled people are not overlooked but, much more positively, that LRT will have a clear remit to work towards developing and improving those services.
I can well understand that noble Lords who spoke on this point in Committee were concerned not only that public transport in London should be made more generally and readily available to as many disabled people as possible, but that there should be some undertaking beyond that to ensure provision for more severely disabled people who need special provision like such as dial-a-ride services. The Government's intention is clearly that both of these aims should be pursued. We have made it clear that the Government amendment as drafted will cover those services like dial-a-ride which are specifically provided for disabled people, as well as the general run of public transport provision. We believe that it is right that these are seen as complementary parts of transport provision for severely disabled people who need service—literally—from door to door.
As the House is aware, firm undertakings have already been given in another place that in addition to specific references to disabled people not in the Bill, LRT will, as well, be given clear and specific directions by the Secretary of State to work to improve the provision of transport services for disabled people.
My amendment, which may perhaps have looked slightly innocuous, I believe the House will agree with me after that, is fairly wide-sweeping. I hope, therefore, that I have satisfied the movers of Amendments Nos. 3A, 7 and 8—if not, I am sure they will let me know—that the Government consider that they have met, and are reading now clearly on to the record of Hansard, the points which have been mentioned.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend the Minister for what we have just heard. This explanation goes very much further than I had been led to believe from his original amendment. However, I would say this. Many people

799
in the Federation of Dial-a-Ride are concerned and feel extremely sensitive in that many of the organisations have just started. They have the vehicles: they do not want the volunteer committees or the vehicles to get rusted up by lack of provision now. They wish to see written clearly in the Bill, or somewhere, the actual fact that the provision of special vehicles will not be overlooked by the Government in exactly the way that my noble friend explained. I suggest at the moment it is not spelt out clearly enough for them to be satisfied.
I am wondering whether, with his flexible and clever way of getting round these difficulties, my noble friend can think of a way, for instance, to satisfy Sir Peter Baldwin, the late Permanent Secretary at the Department of Transport. He spoke to me this very morning. He was in office while such strides began to be made by the department in absorbing the full portent of our transport needs. At present he is chairman of dial-a-ride at Westminster, which is one of his many jobs in his retirement. He tells me that he considers this amendment to be vital to the practical future of the scheme. I know that my noble friend will realise how practically he deals with such subjects, and I am wondering whether those weighty words will have any effect on what he has just told me. I should be very grateful if he would reply to me on that.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, this is Report stage, and I should not really be popping up and down. However, with the leave of the House, I should like to make some points. If it is the case that Sir Peter Baldwin has said this, all I can do is to ask his successor whether he agrees. To be more serious, I have tried to say that I thought this matter was covered. If my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox, on reading my words, feels that it is not, I shall go back myself to make sure that it is. If it is not, I shall return with something at the next stage.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I should like to support what has been stated by the noble Lord, Lord Somers. I doubt whether those in your Lordships' 'House and elsewhere who are able bodied have any idea of the number of people unable for many years to get anywhere around our capital city. Being housebound, they cannot savour all the delights enjoyed by many people in our capital city. I have not been able to travel by Underground or bus for 30 years. I do not think that I have missed anything because I drive a fast car, or I drive a car fast, which is a different thing. In my view, these people will suddenly have a new lease of life. By putting forward this one amendment, the Government have brought forward a wonderfully imaginative proposal. I should like them to know to what extent the lives of many people will be enhanced by it.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I wish to brief. I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Avon, for explaining his Amendment No. 6. It may interest the House to know that we have recently started in Barnet a Dial-a-Ride service. We have been promised a grant by the GLC to cover the adaptation of two vehicles, the appointment of two full-time drivers and co-ordinator.
800
Unfortunately, we have now heard that it is likely that we shall only be allowed to lease vehicles, and when the GLC is no more, we do not know what will happen. Our worry is that unless something specific goes into the Bill, the hard work of dedicated volunteers will come to nothing. There is a need for something, not specifically related to Dial-a-Ride or the black cab scheme, which shows that the new organisation will support and help Dial-a-Ride and other systems.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like to add a few brief words to support what has already been stated. There is, in fact, little that I can say. To be realistic, I believe, like the noble Lord, Lord Banks, that the Government amendment gives us as much as we can possibly expect from public transport. I was delighted to hear the explanation of the noble Earl, Lord Avon. I welcome it most warmly and thank him for producing it.
I appreciate what he said about it including the special services. However, if they are to be included, I do not see why this cannot be spelt out in the Bill. They are so vital for those who cannot use public transport but who would be able to use properly adapted public transport systems. As we know, however, public transport is not door to door. Those who have difficulty walking or propelling themselves any considerable distance may not live near this ideally, we hope, accessible metro. There is a need therefore to provide special services at either end just as the able bodied Londoner needs a mix of the Underground and the bus perhaps to reach a destination. This is why I welcome Amendments Nos. 7 and 8. I find Amendment No. 7 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, particularly attractive in view of its impressive all-party support.
I should like to ask the Minister a question which he may not be able to answer now. I would, however, be grateful if he could write to me with the answer. What arrangements are being made by the Government to secure the funding of the existing Dial-a-Ride scheme in London? I understand that the GLC is unable to permit any funding after 31st March. I should be grateful to hear the answer to that question at some stage. I warmly welcome the Government amendment but I feel that it is essential also to have Amendment No. 7. If, by any chance, the services did founder one day, then disabled people, who have escaped from the four walls of their homes, would be once more left stranded, and this would be a very severe step backwards.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, having been the mover of the original amendment, may I say, like the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, that I welcome enormously the statement that was made by the noble Earl, Lord Avon, when he said that Dial-a-Ride schemes, and I presume that this also means the black cab schemes, could be financed under the terms of the proposed amendment and also under Amendment No. 6, which will obviously be approved. Clause 34(3)(b) states:
"for the purpose of securing, provision for disabled persons in the public transport services and facilities provided for Greater London (whether by London Regional Transport or any subsidiary of theirs or by any other person)".

801
What I find difficult to understand is why, if the noble Earl is able to give the confident assurance as a Minister that an authority which has yet to be established will, in fact, do what Amendment No. 7 asks should be done, he cannot accept the amendment. I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) and also with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. If it is the case, reassuring as it is to all of us, that a ministerial statement says that the Bill and this amendment will ensure Dial-a-Ride schemes, which have still to be developed across the whole of London, then why cannot the amendment be accepted? If the amendment was accepted, this would affect not only Dial-a-Ride but also the people whom Dial-a-Ride serves and also those served by the black cab scheme, who sometimes will pay £ I for what may be a £6 journey.
The noble Earl, despite all his generosity, skill and kindness, did not say why he was not accepting the noble Baroness's amendment. If he was able to to do that, or to say that the wording was not entirely satisfactory, as he did last time, and that he would come back at the next stage to see if something similar could be written into the Bill, that would be one thing. I feel, however, that ministerial assurances, whether given by one party in government or another, do not cover other ministers following elections. When it has not happened, it is not good enough to say that the Minister stated this five years ago. If it is to happen—the whole purpose of the amendment and the debate is to see that it does happen—then we have to write in the provision that it should happen. I hope that the noble Earl, when he replies to what has been a short but positive debate, will give that sort of assurance, so that we do not need to divide the House.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, by leave of the House, I believe that I have now spoken to Amendments Nos. 3A, 6, 7 and 8. The point that I tried to make in my opening remarks was that we actually cover in this amendment what the noble Baroness wants in Amendment No. 7. I was hoping that she would study what I have stated to see whether she agrees that this covers what she wants, in which case she would be happy. Alternatively, if I find that I have not covered everything that she stated in her remarks, I shall have another word with her to see what we can produce by the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, under those circumstances, if there are to be these further discussions to try to improve and, I hope, perfect the Government's amendment, then it would be churlish of me to press my amendment. But I must give the noble Earl warning that if at Third Reading we have not reached a satisfactory situation it may be that the matter must be taken again. I hope that that will not be the case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 3B:
Page 2, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) It shall be the duty of London Regional Transport to submit to the Secretary of State for his approval written proposals for the provision of transport services for Greater London for disabled members of the public who are unable to travel by bus or underground railway.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can move this amendment with great rapidity. It follows from what I have just said in relation to the earlier amendment. We are stating here, or seeking to state, that,
"It shall be the duty of London Regional Transport to submit to the Secretary of State for his approval written proposals for the provision of transport services for Greater London for disabled members of the public who are unable to travel by bus or underground railway."
That means two things. It means that it places upon the London Regional Transport Authority a responsibility to work out the best ways in which they think the needs of disabled people unable to travel by bus and underground railway can be met, and that they should submit them to the Secretary of State. It seems right that the Secretary of State should be involved in satisfying himself that the needs of disabled people are met.
This follows on naturally from the previous amendment. It may be that, in looking at Amendment No. 7, which we have proceeded beyond, the noble Earl will think that this one could be looked at as well, because the natural consequence of anything that says that London Regional Transport shall do something is that they should submit a proposal as to how they are going to do it. I beg to move.
Lord Banks: My Lords, very briefly, I should like to support the idea behind this amendment—namely, that there should be some obligation on London Regional Transport to give specific consideration to, and to produce proposals in relation to, transport services for those who are unable to use buses and the underground railway. Something which would make certain that there will be some step forward is important.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think this is a slightly more particular amendment than the one we have just had. As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said, at Committee stage we discussed the general question to which this amendment relates—that is, whether it is right for LRT to be under a statutory duty to provide services for severely disabled people, those who are not able to use the normal bus and Underground services. I might point out that this amendment would not actually require LRT to provide the services; it would merely require them to submit to the Secretary of State proposals for their provision. However, I have no doubt of the noble Lord's intention in tabling the amendment.
I hope I made it clear in Committee that we did not believe it appropriate to impose a duty on LRT either to prepare proposals or, in point of fact, to give effect to them. As I said on that occasion, it is the local authorities who should have the responsibility for identifying the need for such services and for organising and financing them as part of a more general provision which they make to help severely disabled people. It is not a duty which the Government believe we should place on a body charged with providing public transport services for the capital.
I fully accept that LRT may be able to assist with technical and other expertise; indeed, I hope they will do so. We have already given an assurance that LRT's vehicles and infrastructure will he developed with the

803
needs of disabled people in mind. That would help to extend the access which disabled people will have to LRT services, but we believe it to be another matter entirely to place LRT under a statutory duty to prepare, and submit to the Secretary of State, written proposals for the provision of special transport facilities for severely disabled people. We believe that services such as Dial-a-Ride, which, as the House well knows, we welcome, fall properly within the responsibility of local authorities in a general context; and we believe that that is where they should remain.
My Lords, I apologise if I have been rather in and out of this amendment, but my speaking note arrived only about three minutes ago. I should welcome the noble Lord's comments on my remarks.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I ask the permission of the House to enable the noble Earl to find his notes. The point that is really difficult—it will be touched on in two other amendments, which no doubt we will discuss briefly—is that, if the London Transport Authority do not have upon them any obligation (I believe that is what the noble Earl said) I do not know how we can be satisfied that the needs will be met. This is why at a later stage I shall propose that there should be a company which will help to deal with the fact that often people cross local boundaries. That comes under Amendment No. 12A.
The noble Earl said that local authorities would finance these things. But in their journeys people move from one borough to another and criss-cross London to visit their relatives or go wherever their journeys take them. As I indicated when I spoke on the last amendment, at present only 5 per cent. of Dial-a-Ride is paid for by borough authorities. It is paid for as to 95 per cent. by the GLC, which will not exist if the Government have their way. Many of those boroughs will not be able to raise extra money if the Government have their way on rate capping. So we are still creating a position of uncertainty.
I honestly think the noble Earl has to go further and give an assurance which will really satisfy people who are dependent on Dial-a-Ride that the resources will be found. It is not good enough for him simply to say that the local authorities will be able to pay the money. If they cannot pay the money and do not pay the money, then Dial-a-Ride does not continue and does not expand. It is this point I am trying to get over to the noble Earl.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, by leave of the House, may I just say that I hope that when the noble Lord reads what I said about the previous amendment he will find it more reassuring than what he has just said.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I shall not proceed with the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 33, leave out from beginning to ("to") in line 34 and insert ("In carrying out their duty under subsection (1) London Regional Transport shall have due regard").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, although this is in a somewhat different context, the arguments will cover much of the ground which we dealt with in referring to social cost benefits. After discussion with my colleagues who kindly put their names to the amendment, I beg leave not to move it.
[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 6:
[Printed earlier: col. 793.]
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment, and I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): My Lords, there are two amendments to this amendment, and before this amendment is discussed we must take the two amendments. The first is Amendment No. 7.
[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, Amendment No. 6 is as it stands.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [General Powers]:
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 15, at end insert ("provided always that the financial consideration attaching to any transfer of property shall in no case be less than the greater of market value and modern equivalent asset replacement cost.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am conscious of the desire of your Lordships' House that we should not repeat arguments which have already been gone into at some length in Committee. This amendment attacks the same problem as Amendments Nos. 28, 44, 79 and 80 which were moved in Committee. But I venture to suggest to the Government and to the House that this amendment meets the principal objections put forward by the Government to the previous amendments and is, at the very least, a step forward towards something which I believe that most Members of your Lordships' House would wish to achieve.
The issue which we are considering here arises in Clause 3 and concerns the power given to London Regional Transport to enter into agreements with companies or persons:
"for the purpose of carrying on any activities which London Regional Transport have power to carry on".
As part of that possibility, Clause 3(5) provides that:
"London Regional Transport may…enter into arrangements…for the transfer…of any property, rights or liabilities of London Regional Transport".
The issue that we discussed in Committee was: how are we to secure that when property is transferred the benefits of the property are secured in the public interest? I am not raising here the issue as between taxpayers and ratepayers. I believe that that led to a good deal of sterile argument in Committee which ought not to be repeated now. But I suggest that the amendment which I am now moving secures, first, that there should be a proper value placed upon the

805
property which is being transferred. We suggest that this proper value should be:
"no…less than the greater of market value and modern equivalent asset replacement cost".
In Amendment No. 23—which we are not considering now but to which I do need to refer in order to complete my argument—it is proposed that the benefit of that payment should be retained by London Regional Transport as a central reserve and the balance should only be used:
"to defray gross charges to capital account".
I think that the intention is fairly obvious. We are trying to overcome the argument which was put forward by the Government in Committee about windfall benefits being frittered away. We need not repeat the "oil in Osterley" argument which took place then.
But the intention here is to secure first, that there is a proper price—that is the purport of Amendment No. 10—and secondly, that that proper price is only used so that the benefit defrays capital costs and therefore remains for the benefit of London Regional Transport and of course the travelling public who use it.
I hope that the Government will feel that there is something new in this amendment to which they ought to give serious consideration and which does the best that can be done—within the possibilities of the framing of amendments other than by Parliamentary draftsmen—to solve the problems which were raised by Government Ministers in Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's fears that Clause 3(5), without the protection of the amendment, would permit LRT to dispose of assets too cheaply, with a resulting loss to the public purse. Critics of this part of the Bill—although the noble Lord did not use these words today—have described it in terms of asset-stripping for the benefit of LRT's competitors, and have talked of hidden subsidies to the private sector.
Such criticisms overlook a salient feature of the way in which LRT will work—indeed, in which any public company works. LRT's assets will, for the great part, be vested in their subsidiaries. These assets will form part of the capital structure of the subsidiaries, and if the assets are sold for less than they are worth, the subsidiaries will incur liabilities unmatched by income. They would quickly go bankrupt under such circumstances and I can assure your Lordships that we have no intention of seeing that happen.
We do not envisage that Clause 3(2) agreements will normally involve disposals of LRT property. The agreements are not necessarily long-term in relation to a particular operator, and LRT will need to be able to recover their property if they wished to resume providing the service themselves, or to enter an agreement with a different operator. Using property is an obvious possibility, but buying it is a different matter entirely.
Nevertheless, the amendment is unduly restrictive. There may be circumstances where it will actually benefit the taxpayer, the ratepayer and the traveller for some assets to be transferred at less than book value. Suppose, for example, that a contractor came along
806
who offered to run all the services in a particular area for less subsidy than LRT's subsidiaries required themselves. And suppose that that contractor made it a condition of the deal that some assets—say a bus garage or some buses—were transferred to him at below the market rate. The calculation of advantage for LRT would be a complex one, but there might just be cases in which the capital losses were more than offset by the savings on LRT's revenue account. This amendment would prevent such flexibility to no one's benefit and I hope therefore that the noble Lord will not wish to proceed with it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, to an extent, in the opening of his speech the noble Lord the Minister put up an Aunt Sally. I did not use the words "asset-stripping" and I did not use the words "asset-stripping" quite deliberately because I was not so foolish as to think that London Regional Transport would deliberately engage in any transfer of property which would cause its subsidiaries to go bankrupt. I do not think that that was at all the issue in the amendment and it was certainly not my intention that it should be the issue.
The problem here is that the word "transfer" itself is imprecise. If we were using the words, "sale of properties" we would all know what that meant and we would all know that proper compensation ought to be paid for the sale of properties. But if the word "transfer" also means a licence for the use of a bus garage—as the noble Lord suggested—then I quite see that a deal which balances the benefits of a lower cost transport system against the disbenefits of a less than economic rental or purchase price for the particular property, might require something other than the full modern replacement asset cost as the appropriate payment for the property.
It is a complicated issue and I shall have to read the noble Lord's words carefully before considering what my position may be at Third Reading. In the meantime. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Duty to establish companies to run London bus and Underground services]:
5.49 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 5, line 8, leave out from beginning to ("submit") in line 11 and insert ("London Regional Transport may").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 11, and it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if we also deal with Amendment No. 12, because both amendments cover the same principle.
Amendment No. 12: Page 5, line 15, leave out from beginning to ("submit") in line 17, and insert ("London Regional Transport may").
These amendments are similar to the amendments proposed at the Committee stage and I must briefly explain their purpose and then deal with the arguments which were put up against them at the Committee stage. Clause 4 requires that LRT must submit proposals to the Secretary of State for the formation of separate subsidiaries to run the bus and

807
Underground services. The effect of these amendments is to remove the compulsion on LRT to submit the proposals.
The amendments will still leave power to LRT to set up the separate companies if they should so desire. In other words, the amendments propose that these decisions should be left to management. It is a commercial type of decision and should not he a matter for direction by the Secretary of State. Surely this is the type of decision for the board which will be established to run LRT.
Looking at the arguments put against the amendment by the noble Earl, Lord Avon, he said that separate companies would, as Companies Act companies, remain under LRT control, LRT would appoint the board, and LRT would be able to control all major decisions. But the noble Earl did not deal with the point that I made. The Minister of State said in Standing Committee that LRT would have a majority shareholding in both organisations. I said at the Committee stage that if there is to be a majority shareholding, there must surely be minority shareholders. That is logical. I asked who would they be, and I ask again who will they be, because the explanation was not given to me. If there are minority shareholders this must indicate that it is envisaged that at some stage there will be some disposal of either the subsidiaries or parts of the subsidiaries to the private sector.
Is the basic reason for the separation not just to secure efficient accounting but to be a prelude to disposal? It is true that the noble Earl said on 14th May, at column 1242:
"It is true that once the bus and Underground subsidiaries are established under Clause 4 it will be possible for LRT to sell an interest in them, or to sell parts of them. But that is not the object of setting up these subsidiaries".
I must remind the House of what my noble friend Lord Ennals said on an amendment with which he was concerned. He said that statements of Ministers can be accepted today, but statements of Ministers may not apply to another Secretary of State. Therefore, it could be that setting up the separate subsidiaries could be used as a prelude to disposal.
I would ask the noble Earl what is meant by what he said at column 1242:
"We regard Clause 4 as an essential element in our restructuring of London Transport, and we expect to see the operating subsidiaries established next year".
Why is the establishment of separate subsidiary companies considered to be so vital? Surely it is possible to achieve proper accounting without that.
I find it difficult to believe that it is not possible to obtain the required information without actual physical separation. The noble Earl made the statement that London Transport has already created six bus districts and four railway divisions, but that is very different from actual separation by forming separate subsidiary companies.
We reached this item at about 10 o'clock at night at Committee stage. There was strong feeling in the Committee on this matter, but in view of that late hour we did not divide the Committee; but I intimated that possibly we would come back to this matter on
808
Report. I would leave the House and the noble Earl, who I presume will reply again, with this question: why is it not to be left to a managerial decision of this board? We are told that the Secretary of State will appoint the board partly because of their managerial capacity. Why not leave this matter to them?
The amendments, if your Lordships approve them, are not taking away the power to have separate subsidiaries if the board considers that desirable on managerial or commercial common sense grounds. What we criticise is that in advance of even setting up the board the Secretary of State, by this clause of the Bill, has given a mandatory direction to the board that they must set up these separate companies within a certain period. That seems to be taking away from a competent board a decision which ought to be theirs. I hope that the Government will see that aspect and will accept these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: Again, my Lords, I added my name to this amendment, along with my noble friend Lord Attlee. I cannot embellish much on what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said. It seems to me that the Government have made a management decision here. They have pre-empted the decision of London Regional Transport. What we do not know are the bases on which that management decision has been made. The Government have given no clear indication as to why this decision should be made at this stage of the game, before London Regional Transport has been set up. They are saying to London Regional Transport before it is created, "You must split the bus and the other undertakings".
Surely the time to do that is after the new transport authority has had a chance to look at what it has within its bailiwick and to come to some sensible decision. If it is necessary to split up this amalgam there may be other ways of cutting the cake; but the Government have given no clear indication of the criteria on which this decision has been made by them which, as I say, preempts London Regional Transport's management decision. I support the amendment.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, may I try to answer some of the questions and set the noble Lords' minds at rest. The effect of these amendments would be to relieve LRT of the duty to bring forward proposals for setting up operating subsidiaries for their bus and Underground services. LRT would simply be left with a discretion to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has suggested that we should rely on LRT's managerial judgment in this matter. May I first confirm that we shall be anxious to back LRT's managerial judgment wherever we can. But I hope he will recognise that the Government must be able to provide for what they regard as the best initial structure, and then allow LRT to develop it.
I explained at Committee stage that the Government made their intentions quite clear in this respect when they said in the White Paper published last July that the London Transport Executive would be,
"reconstituted on the pattern of a small holding company, with its bus and underground operations established as separate subsidiaries".

809
We proposed that LRT should,
"be responsible for the strategic control of their operating subsidiaries and for securing the cost-effective provision of bus and underground services from these and other operators".
This is our firm policy.
I explained at Committee stage the view of my honourable friend the Minister of State that there was no way in which realistic targets could be set for the different parts of LRT unless the information was to hand from the subsidiary parts. In subsections (1) and (2) of this clause we seek to ensure that bus and Underground subsidiaries have separately identifiable costs and income. We believe that it is good commercial practice that their performance should be accountable in that way.
The creation of subsidiary companies under this clause would surely be a logical development of what is already taking place in London Transport's organization, They have already created separate businesses for their bus and railway operations, and as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned they have gone on further to create bus districts and railway divisions. All we are trying to do is to take this process a step further.
I recognise the force of the point which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, made, but we have a difficult course to steer between devolution and integration. But we are confident that we have successfully done so. The separate subsidiaries will, as Companies Act companies, remain under LRT's control. LRT will have the power of appointment to the boards of the subsidiaries and will be able to control all major decisions. At the same time, LRT's general duty will continue to apply to the services which LRT in effect provide through their subsidiaries. We regard Clause 4 as an essential element in our restructuring of London Transport, and we hope to see the operating subsidiaries established on 1st April next year.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked specifically about the minority shareholders. At the moment we would envisage this company at the outset being probably with the LRT as the sole shareholder, but if there were one, there could perhaps be local authorities and/or perhaps joint users and perhaps owners of, say, a garage or other facilities. But, my Lords, we are not anticipating that any more than we are anticipating—which I think the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, did give me credit for rejecting the previous time—any form of privatisation of the subsidiaries. I do not think the noble Lord and I are going to agree on this, but that is our position.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, we have to keep in mind that the respective subsections of this clause start with the words,
"Before the end of such period as the Secretary of State may specify".
He will give the directive for a separate company to be set up for buses and a separate company to be set up for the Underground. It does seem amazing, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, endorsed, that in advance of setting up the board this important managerial decision is taken. The noble Lord referred to this being made clear in the White Paper, but was there not made clear to the Government the sound criticism of the
810
proposal in the White Paper? But the Government just went ahead as if nobody had criticised it.
To take a decision of this kind, a whole restructuring—because that is what it means—in advance of a board being set up seems to be taking a decision out of the hands of a competent board which the Secretary of State himself will appoint. We have debated this in the Committee stage. He will appoint all the members of the board, yet he is not prepared to trust them as to whether or not they should have this decision. He said that the targets will require information. As I said in my opening remarks, I cannot believe that with the structure which London Transport Executive has now it is not possible to get the information. The board of LRT will be in authority and the information can be obtained.
The noble Earl had to admit at the Committee stage that with the travel card now there would have to be a certain estimation of revenue because with it you can travel by bus, you can travel by rail, and it is a further step away from what I think the House wants—a move towards integration.
We did not divide the House at ten o'clock last time, but there is a principle here. I do not want to keep dividing the House, but I would like the House to make its view clear as to whether noble Lords believe it is a decision that ought to be taken away from the board or whether we should leave it to the managerial competence of the board to make this very important decision.
6.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 102.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hampton, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hanworth. V.

Attlee, E.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hayter, L.

Barnett, L.

Hooson, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Bernstein. L.

Hughes, L.

Beswick, L.

Hunt, L.

Birk, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jacobson, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacques, L.

Caradon, L.

Jeger, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Collison, L.

Kaldor, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

David, B.

Lawrence, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Leatherland, L.

Denington, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Diamond, L.

Lockwood, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Longford, E.

Ennals, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mayhew, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mishcon, L.

Foot, L.

Molloy, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Mulley, L.

Gallacher, L.

Nathan, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.[Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Oram, L.

Grimond, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hale, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

811

Prys-Davies, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Rochester, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Seear, B.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Sefton of Garston, L.

Underhill, L.

Serota, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Shackleton, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Stallard, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

White, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Wigoder, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Stone, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Avon, E.

Mancroft, L.

Bauer, L.

Margadale, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Bellwin, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Belstead, L.

Boothby, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mersey, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Molson, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Morris, L.

Caithness, E.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Munster, E.

Cockfield, L.

Norwich, Bp.

Coleraine, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Onslow, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Craigavon, V.

Pender, L.

Crathorne, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Daventry, V.

Davidson, V.

Rankeillour, L.

De La Warr, E.

Renton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rodney, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Romney, E.

Eccles, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

St. Davids, V.

Elton, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Fortescue, E.

Shannon, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gainford, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Gowrie, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Suffield, L.

Gridley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Halsbury, E.

Teviot, L.

Hanson, L.

Teynham, L.

Hemphill, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Henley, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hives, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Holderness, L.

Trenchard, V.

Hood, V.

Trumpington, B.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vickers, B.

Kitchener, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

Lane-Fox, B.

Westbury, L.

Long, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
6.12 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 12A:
Page 5, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) Before the end of such period as the Secretary of State may specify for the purposes of this subsection, London Regional Transport shall submit to the Secretary of State for his approval written proposals for the formation by them of a company for the
812
purpose of providing passenger transport for disabled members of the public who are unable to travel by bus or by underground railway.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, following the last speech of the noble Earl and the Division that took place, I shall have no difficulty in securing the passage of the first of these two amendments. He was taking a very strong line indeed in answer to my noble friend Lord Underhill that it was his objective that the Government should set out the structure that they wanted to see; they were not prepared to leave the discretion to the London Transport authority and the decision would be taken in advance. Therefore it follows naturally and logically from this that he will accept Amendment No. 12A. We are back to the problem of those disabled people who are unable to travel by bus or by Underground railway.
I should have said that it has been agreed through the usual channels that Amendment No. 18A should be taken at the same time, since it covers issues that are similar.
Amendment No. 18A: Page 11, line 5, at end insert—
("; or
(c) in making payments to any other person or company providing services for disabled members of the public who are unable to travel by bus or by underground railway.").
Amendment No. 12A would require London Regional Transport to submit written proposals to the Secretary of State for the formation by it of a company to provide transport services for disabled members of the public. Once again this would allow for the provision of a service similar to that provided by the Dial-a-Ride scheme, though it would no doubt embrace the whole area covered by London Regional Transport. The example I give from my own experience of the organisation that might be established is that of Motability. When it was decided some years ago to phase out the tricycles for the disabled, the decision was taken to establish an organisation called Motability which, with the sponsorship and backing of the Government and some financial assistance, provides vehicles linked with the mobility allowance. It seems to me that that was a good pattern for an organisation and it has done marvels for disabled people. This is a clear way in which London Regional Transport could carry out its obligations.
Amendment No. 18A concerns the making of payments. The wording is:
"to any other person or company providing services for disabled members of the public who are unable to travel by bus or by underground railway".
This amendment would enable London Regional Transport to give grants to people providing services for disabled members of the public. Naturally we are concerned about the status, as I mentioned earlier, of the GLC black cab scheme, following the introduction of the new transport board. I welcome the involvement of the Department of Transport in the development of the new CR6 taxi and we look forward to its arrival on the market.
However, for the vast majority of disabled people the cost of a taxi is way out of their financial reach and at present the GLC black cab scheme enables disabled people who are members of the scheme to travel at a cost of 1 for a journey that may be worth up to £6; but the taxi-driver is refunded with the difference. Once

813
again it is important that such a scheme is continued and organised centrally. Taxi drivers may understandably feel very disinclined to take disabled passengers if they have to apply for a refund from individual local authorities, if there is no one central authority in existence. I hope that there will be a central authority; that is the purpose of Amendment No. 12A. But if there is no central authority, the London Regional Transport authority should be given the powers to make payments for these people who are unable to use the normal facilities provided by London Transport.
I hope that as a result of these two amendments the Minister will give his thinking on how he sees both Dial-a-Ride and the GLC black cab scheme being organised and financed. As I said, the Minister was so very clear on the last amendment that it was the job of the Government to set the pattern clearly, so much so that he determined to insist it remained in the Bill in spite of the arguments of my noble friend Lord Underhill. I should like the Minister to explain his thinking about how the organisation and financing will be set up for disabled people unable to use the normal facilities of London Transport.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I should like to support this. I do not want to go through once again all the various difficulties that lie before the disabled, but I should like to remind the noble Earl—though I do not think he needs it—that disabled people literally have no alternative. If they do not have these special services, then they are fixed and stay at home. That is all there is to it. I sincerely hope that the noble Earl may see fit to accept this.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, when he introduced his amendment. I can see that he is drawing on an impeccable precedent, and I rather expected to have my leg pulled in that way. Perhaps he would not be altogether surprised if I said that I still cannot recommend it to the House.
In this case the amendment would anticipate decisions yet to be taken on the organisations concerning services for severely disabled people. It would commit LRT to a form of organisation which might, in the event, prove not to be the most useful.
I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Somers, said and I hope he will take some comfort from the words that I shall give him. It is not necessary to take firm decisions at this stage on this issue. I can assure the House that the Bill contains all the powers that are needed for LRT to co-operate in providing services for the severely disabled. LRT's general power under paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to carry passengers applies to carrying severely disabled people, and its power under Clause 3(1) to establish companies also applies to the organisation of services for them. Moreover, the Secretary of State has power in Clause 32(7) to require LRT to set up a company for the purpose. I do not dispute in any way the value which attaches to services such as Dial-a-Ride, and I believe that I made this evident in my earlier remarks.
As far as concerns the second amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, spoke—and I am grateful to him for explaining it—our view is simply that the
814
amendment is not required. As I have said on earlier amendments, the effect of our amendment to Clause 2 is to confirm that the LRT's general duty extends to disabled people. It will be for the LRT to determine what provision they consider they ought to secure for disabled people, including the severely disabled, having due regard to their needs.
Any such provision is likely to be secured as a result of LRT entering into a Clause 3(2) agreement with another operator or company., It will therefore be covered by the provision already made in Clause 12(2)(h), which enables LRT to apply grant for the purpose. Indeed, they are required to apply grant in so far as it appears appropriate to do so in discharging their general duty. I believe that LRT will therefore already have the powers to do what the amendment would require. For instance, they would be able to support such schemes as the GLC Taxicard scheme for the disabled which the GLC has recently extended London-wide.
I hope that with those explanations of these two amendments (which the noble Lord will appreciate we have not had very much time to look at) he will feel that to some extent we cover what he is asking for.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the extent to which he accepted the arguments that I put forward. I, myself, feel that to set up a very clear pattern in advance would not be wise. I will therefore stop pulling his leg and now come back to agreeing with my noble friend Lord Underhill, whose support I always wish to have and always will have. I think it still remains to be seen what is the best method. I think that by now, if the noble Earl did not realise before, he does perceive that there are some major problems of financing and of organisation; and I think that as a result of this brief exchange, even, and of the reply that he gave—and, if I may say so with a little more leg pulling, I think the chap who writes his briefs on this subject is certainly better than the chap who writes his briefs on some of the other subjects—there will be a greater understanding by the London Transport Authority when it comes into existence that it has got to tackle these problems very seriously. With the assurance that has been given by the noble Earl, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Obligation to invite tenders]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 6, line 25, at end insert—
(" ( ) In subsection (I) above "other persons" shall include the present employees of London Regional Transport.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, whenever words such as those in the amendment are inserted—words which suggest that "other persons" should include the present employees of London Regional Transport—there is a tendency, particularly in your Lordships' House, in another place and perhaps even wider, towards a polarisation of attitudes. Immediately, direct works are looked upon either with starry eyes or with very deep suspicion. I think that both these attitudes are quite doctrinaire. There is a place within such an organisation, or within a

815
subsidiary of it, particulary an organisation as vast and as long-established as London Transport and with the experience of London Transport for having groups of people who carry out specialised work for them.
This was the historic origin of many of the direct works organisations; but it is actually more than that now. Because of modern accounting systems, London Transport Builders—just to instance one group of London Transport employees who work for the organisation—have been set up and have constituted one of the so-called profit centres within London Transport. It is now required to tender in the face of private competition for a range of work which would previously have been allocated to it internally and administratively.
I understand that a considerable amount of basic work has been done on this profit centre. A schedule of rates for work for London Transport Builders has been established, and a basis of pricing for outside tendering has also been established along with a sophisticated accounting system. These are things that we should surely welcome and recognise as safeguards for the taxpayer and the ratepayer within the organisation of London Transport Builders. A fully independent trading account system has not yet been established; but this is coming. I know that there has been a number of instances where they have tendered higher than the lowest tender, and in some cases a fair amount higher. These are teething troubles. I would think that gradually, as more experience is gained—not in their work but in their pricing and in costings—London Transport Builders will be able to compete very successfully (not exclusively, but very successfully) with outside bodies.
What I am concerned about is that in a large and complicated organisation like London Transport there should be, in addition to the purely administrative and organisational arms of the business, a technical and practical arm to enable it to keep pace with the rest of the world. The House may allow me to make a slight amendment to something I said earlier on the same subject, in column 1596 of the Official Report of 17th May, when I said that,
"people will tell you that they [London Transport] sell 150 yews of mistakes all over the world".
I should say that it is actually London Transport themselves who are proud of the fact that, having been in business for so long, and having made so many mistakes, they can tell the rest of the world about these mistakes. Until fairly recently, until their capitalisation was cut back, and until the rest of the world began to spend many more millions on public transport than is the case in this country, London Transport were way ahead of the world. As they put it jocularly, but very truly, they said that they sold mistakes and said, "Please, do not do this!"
I should hate to think that they would not be able to continue to benefit the rest of the world, not from their mistakes (because the mistakes were a small part of it) but through the very great work that they have done in the past and hopefully will continue to do in the future. For instance, I should like to see London Transport being allowed to maintain a small tunnelling force all the time; a constant tunnelling force which could be easily built up and perhaps augmented when
816
necessary, but learning all the time and using the new techniques all the time.
I think that this amendment would be an improvement to the Bill. With all the safeguards in it that I have tried to indicate to the Minister, I hope that he will feel that an amendment such as this, or approximately such as this, with the intention behind it that I have tried to explain, is acceptable. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for his further explanation, and indeed for his little talk on how to sell our mistakes. We debated this (admittedly at rather a late hour) the other day. I am sorry if my answer on that occasion did not wholly satisfy the noble Lord. I am afraid that, even with his further remarks, I remain in some doubt. Let me try to explain why. We fully accept that any LRT employees should be able to tender in response to invitations made by LRT; but the fact is that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent them from doing so. Indeed, it has already become accepted practice for employees to be invited to tender in addition to outside companies. It is, we believe, in LRT's interest to act this way since it allows them to compare the cost of having a job done in-house against the cost of contracting out. This seems a basic principle which does not need to be given statutory force.
If the noble Lord had cited examples of where the absence of the statutory requirement had given rise to practical difficulties, we might wish to reconsider but we are not aware of any such problems. Clause 6 of the Bill as drafted follows Section 8 of the Transport Act 1983, which currently applies to passenger transport executives as well as to London Transport. We see no need to depart from the tendering arrangements as they have already applied under the 1983 Act.
I do not know whether that will satisfy the noble Lord, but perhaps I could also say that we have worries in that to accept the amendment would only cast doubt on the position which applies to passenger transport executives or indeed in other spheres where no specific requirement of this kind is made. As the noble Lord will understand, we agree that what he suggests should happen but do not think that his amendment is necessary.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that very full explanation. There was just the possibility that, by including the amendment as I moved it, it would have given encouragement to employees of London Transport. However, I am very glad that the Minister has made the position so clear and that it is on record. I am very pleased to be able to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 6, line 44, at end insert ("provided that such tender would be carried out in accordance with recognised wages and other conditions of service.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an extremely important amendment. It is vital that if there is to be

817
proper competition, as the Government wish within the tendering process, the basis of the competition should be correct and equal. It is well known that the direct labour organizations—or those which are the offspring of London Transport—provide training, good and reasonable employment and working conditions, and, perhaps rather importantly, they keep people for a fairly long time within their organisation. They tend to have fewer people moving in and out of the organisation and therefore they have a greater stability.
Sometimes, because of the better conditions they offer compared with many private concerns—not all, by any means, but many of the private contractors —they are hampered by the costs involved when competing with these outside contractors who do little training. This, of course, is true of private industry as well; some seem to do all the training and take on all the apprentices while others come along and cream them off.
As well as the training aspect and the better conditions, many outside groups use "labour only" contracts. They have the very minimum health and safety provisions for their employees; there is no necessity for them to guarantee the payment of national insurance for their employees, and there have been many instances in which firms have collapsed owing a great deal of money in national insurance contributions, which of course reverted back to their employees who found themselves short of the necessary qualifications, perhaps for unemployment benefit and ultimately for a pension. In addition, personal accident insurance was not taken out by the employers for their employees and frequently the standard of work was not as high as it would be now.
I emphasise that I am not by any means saying that this applies to all private employers or even to the majority; I am concerned about a rather small number of private employers who periodically manage to acquire contracts with public bodies. I feel it is vitally important that the minimum on which we should insist from these organisations, as I have suggested in the amendment, is fair conditions for their employees so that direct labour or direct works can compete on the same basis.
I believe that the fairly innocuous words,
"provided that such tender would be carried out in accordance with recognised wages and other conditions of service".
will not at all harm the vast number of good employers but would be a great safeguard for the employees of some of the much less scrupulous ones. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, although I have not got my name on this amendment I do support it. The problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, has alluded are ones which worry a great many people as privatisation becomes more and more a fact of life these days. A concern that one hears raised on many occasions, when local authorities are privatising their dustbin service, when health authorities are privatising laundry services and so on, is that this should not be a charter for the cowboys. I am sure that the Government would not wish that to be the case, but I do think that something needs to be written into the Bill.
818
I am not sure that the Government will not say that the phrase "recognised wages" is perhaps too widely drawn, but if they are not happy with the wording perhaps they could give some assurance that they themselves will come up with some appropriate wording. I am sure that it is not in the Government's interests to give the impression that they want these situations to arise other than with the greatest care not only on wages, as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has said, but in matters of health, safety, training and all the other general conditions of work. This is a very genuine worry for people even if they are on neither side of the dogmatic divide.
As noble Lords will be aware, on these Benches we do not take a dogmatic view on privatisation or nationalisation; we try to take a more pragmatic view than is taken in other parties, particularly in another place. Nevertheless, it is necessary to ensure in those cases where parts of enterprises are being privatised that the competition is fair and that the cowboys are not allowed to undermine the sensible practices of people who may be forced to tender at a higher level because they are doing the sort of things that are good industrial practice and are providing reasonable wages.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I appreciated a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said, and indeed I appreciated what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said. I should like to try to allay their worries and say that we do indeed agree with fair competition and would not wish the kind of cowboy operations which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, described to come into operation.
First, perhaps I should emphasise to the House that, as I said on an earlier occasion, Clause 6 is not a blanket provision. It already provides a discretion for LRT to decide when it is appropriate to invite tenders. Having done so, LRT are not then required simply to accept the lowest tender. The two tests provided in the clause are that acceptance of a tender should result in the relevant activity being carried out satisfactorily and more cheaply—in other words, LRT are required to satisfy themselves that accepting a particular tender will fully present value for money and will not result in handing over to a cowboy operator, as the two noble Lords feared.
It would make for unnecessary complexity, believe, to require LRT to take account of recognised wages and conditions of service. Indeed, I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, for his explanation of what it did actually mean because I think it is a fairly wide-drawn phrase and his explanation was very useful.
However, I am not at all convinced that it would be helpful and our main objection is that we believe the amendment would tend to frustrate rather than encourage competition. For that reason we would prefer the noble Lord not to press it. I fully appreciate the worry behind the speeches of both noble Lords, and I should like to assure them that the Government in no way wish to encourage cowboy operators. We believe that Clause 6 is drawn in such a way that LRT would be able to prevent this.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I can understand what the Minister has said in explanation and I have great personal faith in his good intentions, but I am not sure that, as time goes on such intentions are always interpreted in quite the way that was intended when put forward by a Minister at such a time as this. It is perfectly possible for a job to be done satisfactorily and more cheaply by "cowboys". I am not saying they are incompetent but all the other things I have suggested such as health and safety, and so on, may not perhaps be carried out and therefore that would be unfair competition, although the standard of work might he perfectly reasonable. In fact, it could very well be that, because they do not pay all those expenses there is something in an envelope on a Friday night for the workers—as happened not very far away from this Palace some years ago. That became quite a notorious case. Therefore it is perfectly possible to get a good job and a cheap job and, hence, unfair competition, because all the basic things are not done.
I feel rather unhappy about this and I hope that the Minister, before the next stage, will look at this again and perhaps at the next stage will be able to tell us if there is any way in which the wording can be tightened up to allow the intention to be shown in the Bill. I know that it is a terribly difficult thing to write intentions into a Bill but I am sure that the Minister has sufficient ingenuity to be able to do that. In that hope, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Planning of passenger transport services for Greater London]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 7, line 32, at end insert—
("; and
( ) any agreements which London Regional Transport have made or propose to make with the Railways Board under any section of this Act with respect to the provision of integrated level and structure of fares, common ticketing facilities and co-ordinated route planning by London Regional Transport and the Board for public passenger transport services provided by them both within Greater London and other arrangements.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it would be helpful if I dealt with Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 together.
Amendment No. 16: Page 7, line 32, at end insert—
("; and
( ) arrangements London Regional Transport have made or propose to make with the local authorites in the area to which the statement relates so as to integrate their services with the town planning, traffic and parking policies of the local authority concerned.")
I would point out that Clause 7 imposes a duty on LRT to prepare from time to time statements setting out their policies and the action taken or proposed to be taken to implement those policies. I think there is general agreement that these statements could be extremely helpful. Subsection (2), to which these amendments relate, lists three matters with which in particular the statement shall deal. If I may paraphrase, these are the policies and plans of LRT's subsidiaries and any major changes or developments and arrangements made between London Regional
820
Transport and the Railways Board to secure co-operation. Also included are details of arrangments made with BR or other persons in the provision of transport services.
In the two amendments which I am putting forward are other matters with which any statement should deal. Amendment No. 15 seeks to include details of agreements made with BR with respect to the integrated level and structure of fares, common ticketing facilities and co-ordinated route planning. Your Lordships will recall that on a previous amendment all these were considered to be desirable things. They are important, and they are matters which ought to be included in the statement of policy so that we can see what progress is being made and what plans are proposed for the future.
Amendment No. 16 proposes to include in the statement details of arrangements made or proposed to be made with local authorities in the area so that LRT shall integrate their services—I am sorry to use the word "integrate" but I think we have proved that it is really the only word that can be used—with the town planning, traffic and parking policies of the particular local authority. I think it will be agreed that these are very important matters of public policy.
It will be recalled that at the Committee stage I also submitted a third amendment, which proposed that the statement should set out the financial position of LRT, together with its financial prospects and a summary of the financial position. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, expressed some sympathy at the time with the aims of the amendment and asked for a withdrawal so that consideration could be given to bringing forward an amendment at Report stage. That was most encouraging and I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, because he will be proposing his Amendment No. 17, which carries out that promise which he made at Committee stage.
However, the arguments put forward against the other two amendments were rather strange. With regard to what is now Amendment No. 15 the noble Lord said that it was better to avoid putting in a statute provision,
"for details which ought to be matters either for common sense of the parties concerned or for specific directions to the LRT Board, if necessary".—[Official Report, 14/5/84; col. 1257.]
If one worked on the basis of leaving out things that are "common sense", I think it might make rather a mess of a lot of legislation which we feel we have to have. I note the different attitude taken on these directions to the direction being given, in advance of the Bill being passed, to set up subsidiaries. That is the very thing we discussed on the previous amendment.
The second objection which was put forward by the Minister was to the effect that the amendments proposed matters which were not defined in the Bill. I find it very difficult to appreciate that the questions we had in mind are not defined anywhere in the Bill. The integrated level and structure of fares, common ticketing facilities and co-ordinated route-planning seem to be fairly obvious things which do not require interpretation, but if they are considered proper to be put into the statement, I cannot believe it is beyond the wit of the parliamentary draftsmen to put in an interpretation clause, saying exactly what these items refer to. These are all important questions.
The argument against Amendment No. 16 which was put forward on Committee stage, frankly, I found even less understandable. The noble Lord said at col. 1258:
"We do not believe that it would be sensible to impose this requirement on LRT when they are formulating their Clause 7 statement."
The Minister argued that the Bill contains provisions that the LRT shall consult with local authorities and others during the preparation of the statement, but he claimed that it was unrealistic to set out in that statement the ways in which planned services may have to take account of their knowledge of local authorities' development plans.
It must be stressed that, if London Transport were to continue under GLC general policy, those matters would be considered by the GLC; they would be generally available to the public and also open to public scrutiny. But then the Minister said a rather amazing thing. He said that this would entail weighing down the statement—and I give his words—
"with a great deal of detail, of interest to a very few,".
I cannot believe that matters dealing with the integration of services, town planning and the traffic and parking policies of a particular local authority are of interest to a very few. I should like to feel that the Minister, having been so kind in taking back the amendments I proposed last time and bringing forward a new amendment this time, would see the point and would either accept the two amendments I am now proposing, or bring those forward in a different form at the Third Reading stage. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for taking these two amendments together. I have to say at the outset that, while I have some sympathy with the spirit of the first, hake not been able to find in what he has said to your Lordships just now, anything different from what he said during our earlier consideration of this matter, apart from his critical comments upon the arguments I advanced during that stage. I fear that I have no new arguments to offer, so I will reiterate with a few embellishments those which I advanced before.
This Bill provides for close co-ordination between both LRT and British Rail. One purpose of requiring this close co-operation is to improve-just the kind of things that form the subject matter of both amendments—such things as common ticketing facilities and the avoidance of costly duplication of services. It is this sort of issue which my right honourable friend the Secretary' of State has in mind as among some of the first matters to be discussed through the liaison arrangements which he himself is to oversee.
Nevertheless, as I said when we discussed these matters before, we do not feel able to accept the amendments. We have serious doubts about the drafting. If I said that it is difficult to frame in legislation some of the concepts mentioned in the amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, would say—I think he did say—that it cannot be beyond the imagination of the parliamentary draftsmen. But for example what does "integrated level of fares" mean? It does not seem to make perfect or readily
822
understandable sense. In any case, do we really want that? Surely, "common ticketing facilities" is easier to understand and appreciate; and it is this itself which implies the need for co-ordination of fares structure. It does not necessarily imply the need for an integrated level of fares. Again, the phrase "co-ordinated route planning" offers similar difficulties and problems. I think that this would lead to argument about the precise meaning, as I said on an earlier occasion.
I made the further point in Committee that the more we try to mention specific matters in Clause 7, or indeed anywhere, the more uncertain it becomes whether the matters which are not mentioned are still relevant for inclusion. This is a constant difficulty. It is for this reason that I do not believe it would be helpful to add to the matters that we have already referred to in the clause.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, was kind enough to comment—perhaps a little in advance of our consideration of Amendment No. l7, which I shall move quite shortly—that we have made that concession. We have, I believe, met the undertaking that we gave. As regards the second amendment in this small group, I thought that, when we discussed it before, I had made it fairly clear that we had some sympathy with the spirit of the amendment. We agreed, for example, that in formulating their policies and their longer term plans London Regional Transport should be aware of the plans of the local authorities concerned. That is why this clause requires consultation with local authorities.
It was also agreed in another place that London Regional Transport should have regard to the development plans of the local authorities, and the Bill has been amended to take this into account. We further provide in Clause 43 for LRT to consult with local authorities over changes in bus services. As I said before, if we burden the Clause 7 statement with a good deal of detail, it will not be helpful. The Clause 7 statement is essentially a broad statement of strategy and policy objectives. It is not a detailed account of all LRT's actions over the period in question. I invite your Lordships to recall that we have spent a long time discussing those clauses which deal with planning. The more detailed matters of which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, spoke this evening will be in the annual business plan under Clause 29 of the Bill. This provides for an annual progress report on all LRT's business and on the extent to which they are on course for their longer-term strategy.
Finally, there is a more specific objection on our part to the terms of these amendments, particularly in so far as they refer to arrangements to integrate LRT's services with the policies of local authorities. We have already discussed the general question of integration earlier this afternoon and I explained then some of our reservations. But in this case Amendment No. 16 refers to the town planning, traffic and parking policies of the local authorities. It will be for the Secretary of State to ensure that a co-ordinated transport policy will be developed for Greater London, in which the boroughs and the transport operators will be free to carry out their activities within clearly established guidelines.
I do not believe that it would be right to give London Regional Transport that role. They will have to take

823
account, as necessary, of the individual plans of the local authorities. But, as I have said, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will lay down the strategic guidelines to ensure that roads, traffic management and public transport in London are developed within a common framework. I have added slightly to what I said at the earlier stage. That is the explanation of why we feel, first, that these amendments are unnecessary and, secondly, that they will do nothing to advance the objectives of London Regional Transport. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw both amendments.
Lord Underhill: My Lord, I am sorry that the Minister takes that general view on these amendments, but I shall not argue the point. I could explain exactly what is meant by "integrated level and structure of fares". Such a simple explanation could easily be put into the Bill. The only comment I would make, before begging leave to withdraw, is that when I listened to the Minister it occurred to me that the Secretary of State will be a very busy man. He will take the place of all the authorities, he will take over all the consideration given by the Greater London Council committees, and he will be in the hands of the department, and of the Treasury, as to what he is to do. I am sorry that the Minister takes that view, because these are commonsense proposals. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
6.58 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 7, line 32, at end insert—
("( ) Any statement prepared under this section shall deal with the financial prospects of London Regional Transport and any subsidiaries of theirs for the period to which the statement relates, having regard to any financial objectives determined for them by the Secretary of State under section 16 of this Act which, at the time when that statement is prepared. apply in relation to that period or any part of it.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can be fairly brief here, because we have mentioned this amendment earlier. It is our response to the amendment which the noble Lord. Lord Underhill, moved at Committee stage. I said at that time that we had no objection to the spirit of his amendment and we agreed that the Clause 7 statement should contain some financial information. Indeed, we would think it strange if it did not do so.
This amendment requires London Regional Transport's statement to deal with the financial prospects of LRT and any of their subsidiaries for the period to which the statement relates, having regard to any financial objectives set by the Secretary of State. It is true that the wording of our amendment differs somewhat from the noble Lord's earlier amendment. We refer to London Regional Transport's financial prospects, rather than their financial position, and I suggest that our amendment is more in keeping with the nature of the Clause 7 statement which is, as I have just said, intended as a strategy document. LRT's financial position will of course be set out each year in
824
their annual report and statement of accounts. I do not think there is any difference of substance between us and I hope that the noble Lord will find that this amendment fully meets his points. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, does the noble Lord rise?
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I refrained from rising because, having jumped the gun. I had already thanked the Minister for this amendment. But I readily do so again and I think that this is a very helpful amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 7, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) the National Bus Company and its appropriate subsidiaries;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that at the Committee stage I moved a number of amendments specifically to incorporate into the Bill the National Bus Company. At this stage I have not repeated all those amendments but have tried to focus on what I believe to be the most important aspects of the relationship between the National Bus Company and London Regional Transport.
The reason why I withdrew the amendments is that at that time we had not gone into the long argument about integration and planning. During the Committee stage (at col. 1175 of Hansard) the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, was good enough to refer to the difficulties he had encountered throughout his long experience of this matter, with, as he said, Green Line buses criss-crossing London, and lacking coordination with the remainder of the transportation system. The noble Lord was good enough to suggest that this matter ought to be referred to specifically in the Bill.
As I have already said, I have restricted myself to mentioning the National Bus Company only in relation to Clause 7, which refers to the duty of London Regional Transport to prepare statements of the policies they intend to pursue and the actions they propose to take in carrying out those policies. Subsection (3) states:
"In preparing any statement under this section London Regional Transport shall consult with—(a) the railways board; (b) the local authorities concerned; (c) the Passengers' Committee; and (d) such other persons (if any) as London Regional Transport may think fit".
It seems to me that the National Bus Company, in particular the London Country services of that company, do not come under just any other category. They are a very substantial and specific part of the total transport system of Greater London and the hinterland of Greater London. There should be integration with London Transport (I shall withdraw the word "integration" because I see a frown on the noble Lord the Minister's face and instead will say "co-ordinated") and proper consultation between these two large organizations. The Minister referred at the Committee stage to the size of the NBC undertaking, to the very large number of bus miles that it undertakes and to the fact that it carries a very large number of passengers—not so many, by a factor of five

825
or so, compared with London Transport but nevertheless a very substantial slice of the total passenger movements in the south-east of England and across the borders of the Greater London area. I believe it to be important that the National Bus Company should be mentioned in this context. There should be a definite obligation for the NBC to be consulted before these plans are drawn up, otherwise, as sure as night follows day, there will be a mismatch.
Now that I have restricted myself to this specific point, I hope the Minister will be able to give an undertaking. I suggested at the Committee stage that the National Bus Company would be somewhat shaken by some of the things which were said then. It is my impression, from discussions that I have had with the NBC, that they were somewhat shaken—"alarmed" is perhaps too strong a word— by the way in which these amendments were dealt with at the Committee stage. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, we discussed at the Committee stage a very large group of amendments relating to the National Bus Company. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for his opening remarks on this point. I appreciate that he feels fairly strongly about the matter—hence this amendment. I shall try again to reassure the noble Lord that the omission of a specific reference to the National Bus Company from the Bill implied no adverse comment on the company or their operations or, indeed, their management. The noble Lord knows better than anybody else in your Lordships' House that I, too, know the chief executive and the chairman. The noble Lord has, I feel, slightly exaggerated the feelings of the management of the NBC about this matter. Our view is that the NBC should not be singled out for special reference from among other operators who may be either providing services on LRT's behalf, under agreement, or independently of LRT under road service licences.
It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said in Committee, that the NBC is a public operator for which the Secretary of State has responsibility. Nevertheless, we believe that it is right that the NBC should compete on equal terms with other private operators for services in the Greater London area, whether or not these are under LRT's control. We cannot accept that this arrangement would provide the mismatch which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, seems to feel would follow. In practice, LRT will have as many powers under the Bill to enter into agreements with the NBC, and specifically with the London Country subsidiary, as London Transport have at present. I have no doubt in my mind that they will use these powers to the full. I have no doubt in my mind, either, that the NBC will co-operate over providing services for LRT.
Turning specifically to the amendment, I must say that, given the remarks I have just made about our general approach in the Bill, we do not believe that it would be appropriate to add the NBC or their subsidiaries to the list of bodies which LRT are required to consult, particularly over their strategy statements. They really do not come into the same kind of category as local authorities, or the passengers' committee, or British Rail. I am sure that LRT will be
826
in close contact with them, in so far as they have operating agreements with each other.
Clause 7 provides for LRT to consult other people, as appropriate. It must be virtually certain that in practice the NBC will be consulted. But we do not believe that a statutory requirement for the NBC to be consulted would sit at all happily with the general principles which I have outlined. I do not think I can add anything further in terms of setting out the general and specific objections to this amendment, which I invite the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, to withdraw.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, the Minister said he felt sure that the London Transport Executive and all those involved would be in full agreement with and would have full cognisance of what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, had said and what the amendment calls for. Since that is the case, one would have hoped that the Government would incorporate it in the Bill. That would have been the sensible course to take. Clause 7 is vital, since it relates to the planning of passenger transport services for Greater London. One sees immediately the need to consult British Rail. British Rail trains pour into the great London railway terminals. However, those of us who have lived in London for the majority of our lives know that there are other great termini. The bus termini are just as important. Therefore it seems to me to be right and proper that, as the Bill states, London Regional Transport should consult the Railways Board. Of course, it should consult also with local authorities and with the passengers' committee, and with such other persons as London Regional Transport may think fit.
I believe that it was in that particular respect that the noble Lord the Minister endorsed everything that the amendment said and expressed the hope that, because of the good sense of the amendment, London Regional Transport will have such consultations. This is surely not a massively destructive amendment. It ought to be accepted by the Minister on the same grounds and for the same sensible reasons as those which the Government have incorporated in the Bill, in saying that London Regional Transport should consult with British Rail. That would make it a neat, good and tidy job. I ask the Government most sincerely to include the amendment in this clause.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I support fully what my noble friend Lord Tordoff has said, but I should like to add one suggestion. The new organisation has to discuss matters with various bodies, including British Rail. Does not the Minister feel that there is a chance that LRT will discount the importance of the National Bus Company because the Government have persistently refused to include them? I feel also that the general public may well say, "The National Bus Company and all its subsidiaries cannot be very much, because the Government have not included them in the Bill".
Lord Underhill: My Lords, may I say from these Benches that we support the amendment as being common sense. Although this is Report stage, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. Does he see no difference between the position of a nationalised

827
industry, which is what LRT will be, and a nationalised public undertaking such as the National Bus Company? Surely we ought to look at that point. The Secretary of State is responsible for both. Are the Government not ignoring completely the position of the network of the National Bus Company? Surely it is common sense that they must be consulted. I hope that the Minister will see the logic of this.
7.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 18) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 73.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kaldor, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Attlee, E.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lockwood, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bernstein, L.

Meston, L.

Beswick, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Birk, B.

Mishcon, L.

Brockway, L.

Molloy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L

Mulley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos. L.

Nicol, B.

Collison, L.

Oram, L.

David, B.

Phillips, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Denington, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Ennals, L.

Stallard, L.

Ewart-Biggs. B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Falkland, V.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Stone, L.

Hanworth, V.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jacques, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Wigoder, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Abinger, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Avon, E.

Halsbury, E.

Bauer, L.

Hanson, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hayter, L.

Bellwin, L.

Henley, L.

Belstead, L.

Holderness, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hood, V.

Birdwood, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Broadhridge, L.

Kitchener, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Lawrence, L.

Caithness, E.

Long, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mancroft, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Margadale, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Craigavon, V.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Merrivale, L.

Davidson, V.

Mersey, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Morris, L.

Eccles, V.

Mottistone, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mountevans, L.

Elton, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Gainford, L.

828

Pender, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Teviot, L.

Renton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Rodney, L.

Trenchard, V.

Romney, E.

Trumpington, B.

Saint Oswald, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Sandford, L.

Vickers, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wards of Willey, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Westbury, L.

Suffield, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.19 p.m.
[Amendment No. 18A not moved.]
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it has been agreed through the usual channels that we should discontinue consideration of this Bill now. I therefore beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned, and that we should not return to this Bill until ten minutes past eight. I beg to move.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Somerset House Bill [H.L.]
7.20 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bellwin, I beg to move that the Commons amendment be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendment be now considered.—(Lord Skelmersdale
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[References are to (Bill 90) as first printed for the Commons]
Clause 1, page 1, line 15, leave out ("desirability of preserving") and insert ("preservation or).
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their amendment. Since the Somerset House Bill was last considered by this House one amendment has been made in another place. I therefore seek your Lordships' approval to the Bill as amended. Rather than read out the amendment, I hope it will be helpful if I rephrase Clause 1(3) with the amendment included. It reads:
"In determining whether, and on what terms. to lease any part of Somerset House the Secretary of State shall have regard to the architectural importance of the building and to the preservation of public access to its courtyard";
rather than the words on the face of the Bill, which refer to,
"the desirability of preserving public access to its courtyard.".
The one amendment proposed to the Bill by another place concerns, as will now be obvious, public access to the courtyard. Your Lordships may recall that Clause 1(3) as originally drafted required the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of preserving public access to the courtyard. The word "desirability" was originally included in the Bill to show that although the Government wish to preserve public access to the courtyard, there could well be circumstances in which it would not be practicable to

829
maintain such access; for example, major stuctural work might be needed on one or more of the wings of the building and to the surface of the courtyard itself. In such cases the Secretary of State has a duty to protect the public from danger, and it might therefore be necessary to restrict access or prevent it altogether for a period. The amendment does not endanger that point of principle.
A number of most useful points have been raised during the various debates on this Bill, both here and in another place. I believe it offers us the opportunity to enhance the protection of our national heritage in the widest sense. I therefore commend the Bill, as amended, to the House and beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Skeltnersdale.)
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I do not intend to oppose the amendment, but it is more cosmetic than substantial. Given the choice I would have preferred the words "desirability of preserving" public access. On my reading of it, "desirability" is more positive and would also allow for the hazards which the Minister has pointed out. Nobody would think, in those circumstances, that access had to be given. This has been precedented in other places and other Acts.
However, it is not worth arguing about. I thank the Minister for his help and co-operation throughout the somewhat lengthy proceedings we have had on the Bill in this House. The promises that he made, which are not on the face of the Bill, have been recorded in Hansard. I hope that in the future a note will be taken of them.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, the Commons amendment seems to be baffling, if nothing else, because the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, seems to think that it slightly weakens the situation and I think that, if anything, it slightly strengthens the situation. I like it my way. I think we are all reasonably contented. I should have thought that, on the whole, it is a good amendment, and the Bill certainly is a very good Bill. We welcome it.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I certainly support the Motion moved by the noble Lord the Minister, but he will forgive me for saying that I have never heard such a spurious explanation in justification of an amendment. I do not recall hearing at any time during the various stages of this Bill about access to the quadrangle at Somerset House being temporarily interfered with by works and reconstruction.
We had considerable debate about this question of the courtyard at Somerset Houe, especially in relation to the war memorial in it. Various amendments were attempted to fortify the claim to access to the courtyard, and especially to the war memorial. I suspected that the reason for the word "desirability" was to avoid a commitment on the part of the Government to keep it for access by the public. I have not had an opportunity of refreshing my mind, but it is pretty clear on this matter. I was worried because I thought that the Government had at the back of their minds the possibility that they might want to erect
830
something different altogether on the site of Somerset House, especially on the Strand side of the building, which might interfere with access to the courtyard. After all, it is a very valuable site. Did I not say that, with a Government who are privatising anything they can lay their hands on, Somerset House was in peril, and that I wished that the Bill should make the safety of Somerset House much more certain?
Of course I support this amendment, because the words inserted in the Bill in another place are stronger than the words in the Bill as it left this House. Therefore, after all the debates we had on this in this House—and they were not inconsiderable having regard to the size, length and in some respects the importance of the Bill—we come back to where we were. When will Ministers learn to have minds of their own and not follow the guidance given on these matters by the staff behind them who want the maximum elbow room for future Ministers to do anything they want on matters which are the subject of legislation? Flexibility is the keynote of all the advice that is given to Ministers on legislation. I have had it; I have been there. It requires firm determination on the part of Ministers to insist on what they want. If this aim of preserving the access to the courtyard at Somerset House was not in the Government's mind, it should have been. They have no ideas, no convictions, and certainly are anxious to avoid any commitment on this matter altogether. I am sorry that, after so much scolding that I had to indulge in during the night, I have to repeat it again this afternoon.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this short debate exactly proves the difficulty. We have one idea on the wording from the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, another from the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and yet a third from the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, who does not trust either them or me. I thought this might happen, and I took the trouble to take legal advice on this point. I am advised by lawyers that in law the words make absolutely no difference as amended now from when they were originally on the face of the Bill and as discussed by your Lordships' House. However, the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, feels that it is stronger and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, feels that it is more in keeping with his way of thinking means to me that the public relations value (if one may be allowed to have a public relations value on the face of an Act of Parliament) has made this operation well worth while.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Juries (Disqualification) Bill
7.29 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee,—(Lord Renton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AYLESTONE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Disqualification for jury service of persons who have served or had imposed on them certain sentences]:
Lard Mishcon Lard Mishcon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 15, leave out from ("detention") to end of line 17.
The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will remember that this Bill has as a background the existing position where, if someone is sentenced to a term of imprisonment—and I am talking in broad terms—for five years or more, he is disqualified from jury service for life: and if he be sentenced to a period of imprisonment of between three months and five years, he is disqualified for a period of 10 years. Very sensibly, your Lordships may feel—and that was the general view on Second Reading—that has been regarded, on the one hand, as being too severe, and therefore there are amendments down with regard to life disqualification: and, on the other hand, it has been thought that categories of those who have offended against the criminal law should be included within the disqualification not at present included in our law.
The first respectful submission that I make to the Committee is this—and I am supported by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and would have been very ably supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones: indeed, I would be in the position of supporting him. While some of the categories can be defended, there are two categories—and this amendment deals with one of them—where it is wrong to have any period of disqualification, save in the second one which I shall be dealing with in a moment and that should be merely for a certain period.
We are dealing now with the category of those who have against them community service orders. Whereas it may be said academically—and I assure the Committee that this is academic—that community service orders are made by our courts only as an alternative to a term of imprisonment (in other words, were the community service order not available as a penalty, there would be a term of imprisonment), that is not the practical situation. The only statistics that I have been able to get hold of—and it may very well be that the noble and learned Lord can give the Committee later or amended statistics—are the Home Office probation statistics for the year 1981. Those statistics show that 10 per cent. of community service orders were made against those who had not had any previous conviction whatsoever. Your Lordships will realise from that statement and that percentage that community service is really used as an alternative to a non-custodial sentence, because one cannot envisage that in regard to 10 per cent. of first offenders there would have been a custodial sentence.
Indeed, examples of community service orders being made include possession of cannabis. There is certainly one case of a pensioner who was guilty of shoplifting goods not worth more than £20. It seems wrong in those circumstances that there should be any disqualification from jury service made against somebody who merely has a community service order from a court.
I am going to take in advance, if I may—and I know he will forgive me for it, and it will save some time—an
832
argument a ced by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at Second Reading. His arguments are always treated with the respect that they undoubtedly deserve. With that characteristic smile, which indeed was accompanied, as it normally is, by something quite vocal in regard to his merriment, he talked in terms of the people who would be relieved if they did not have to serve on juries. Therefore, to pretend that people would mind being subjected to disqualification from jury service was somewhat risible. I venture to suggest—and as he knows, I always do this with respect—that that ought not to be a line of argument which he should pursue with the Committee on this or on the next amendment.
One finds terribly often that we have rights, and we are not terribly proud of them, and nor do we value them, until somebody tries to take a right away from us. Then we realise that we are a special sort of citizen, and either we are aggrieved because it has been taken away unjustly, or we feel that the penalty that has been imposed in withdrawing that right, however much we may not have valued it at the time we had it, puts us into a wrong category. I think that that is the position in regard to community service orders. I beg to move.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I take considerable umbrage at the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in which he indicated that I might be able to offer some support to his argument, whereas the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, had he been here, would have been able to offer very able support!
I support this amendment, although I say at once that I think that this amendment, unlike the other one we are about to come to, raises an issue which is really rather marginal. I imagine that your Lordships will agree without difficulty that in general terms people who have been sent to prison ought not to serve on juries, partly because they are unlikely to approach cases with a sufficient degree of fairness and partly because they are rather more susceptible, perhaps, to jury nobbling than their colleagues who have not been in previous troubles. I can of course see the force of the argument that, as new forms of punishment have developed which are regarded as alternatives to imprisonment, so the provisions for disqualification now in force should be amended to cover those new forms of penalty. Therefore, I would agree that we are right to include in this Bill—which I very much welcome in general terms—suspended sentences.
The real issue that arises on this amendment is whether community service orders are in practice imposed as an alternative to imprisonment. If that is the fact, I think that it is logical to include them in this Bill. I accept that it ought to be the practice. I accept—and it has been made fairly clear in various ways—that community service orders should only be imposed as an alternative to imprisonment. Those of us who have experience of the courts know that this is not what happens. In fact, community service orders have developed in such a way that they are regarded by the tribunal, certainly in most cases, as being a very much less severe form of penalty than the deprivation of liberty, particularly when, as often happens, a comparatively small number of hours of community service is ordered. It is therefore not regarded by the

833
courts as being an alternative to imprisonment. It is not regarded as being a severe sentence. It is regarded as being a sort of half-way house between a custodial sentence and a fine or conditional or absolute discharge. It is not appropriate in those circumstances to treat it as an alternative to imprisonment and therefore to bring it into the Bill.
I believe that the consideration on this amendment is marginal. The general attitude that we should take towards the Bill is that, where there are marginal areas, people should not be included, should not be disqualified and should be left free to serve on juries. I therefore support the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
Lord Renton: This amendment would have the result that a person subject to a community service order would be required to serve on a jury if summoned to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, with his usual kindness, ability and, I dare even say, charm, has tried to persuade your Lordships that this amendment should be accepted. I fear that I must put forward a contrary view to the Committee.
There are, I think, two main arguments against the amendment. I shall deal with those and then come back to what has been said by the two noble Lords. First, in answer to both noble Lords, I should point out that the advice that I have received from the Home Office is that there is no demand on the part of people who have been previously sentenced to community service orders or in any other way to be given the right to be summoned to sit on juries. Indeed, the evidence, so far as it is obtainable, is to the contrary.
There are two main arguments; first, there is the argument of principle. As conceded by both noble Lords, a community service order is an alternative to prison. It is not something that is awarded merely for trivial offences, but can be awarded for fairly serious offences. That being so, it would not be right or sensible, in my view, for people who have committed those offences to sit on juries while doing the tough work involved in a community service order, or, indeed, for a good many years thereafter. I say that because—and I hope that I may be allowed to repeat the argument that I put forward on Second Reading—they would not be likely to be impartial or objective in their decisions as jurors. Indeed, having them as jurors could bring our system of justice into disrepute just at a time when we should be strengthening it.
Then there is a practical argument which I concede applies only while the community service order is running. It is this. Jury service, especially for those living in rural places, nearly always means travelling some miles each way each day. A community service order will also often involve a good deal of travelling. I invite your Lordships to consider the hypothetical case of a young man who has been out of work but who has managed to find a job, perhaps involving night shift work. He has committed an offence before or after finding the job, and he comes before the court. The court might have sent him to prison, we may assume. But they want him to keep his job, and therefore they make a community service order requiring him to attend, where directed, for work for some hours a week for some weeks. Let us assume that he can just about fit that in with his night shift work,
834
although perhaps with difficulty. Perhaps I may have the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, because I am anxious to convince him.
Lord Mishcon: I immediately rise only so that the noble Lord shall never think me discourteous. My noble friend was merely asking me to expatiate on something that the noble Lord had said. I therefore did so in order to help him. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will forgive me if he thought me discourteous.
Lord Renton: Most certainly. I am grateful for that apology. We assume that this young man in that position suddenly gets summoned to serve on a jury in a different town from that where he lives and a different place from that where he is doing the community service order. The mind boggles at the chaotic position in which he would find himself. It is no answer to say that he could apply to the court to be exempt from jury service. I say that he should not be placed in that difficult position.
So much for the practical difficulty, which I concede arises only during the currency of the CSO. But then there are the several problems to which the speeches we have heard draw attention. It would be right, I think, for me to quote some more recent Home Office statistics, although with a slightly different purpose from those that I mentioned earlier. Dated 6th October 1983, a Home Office statistical bulletin was headed "Reconvictions of those given community service orders". This is particularly relevant to the position that arises when the orders have been completed. We find that of those given community service orders in January and February 1979, about half were found to have committed an indictable offence within two years of starting the community service orders. It is estimated that a further 8 per cent. were reconvicted in the third year, making an overall reconviction rate within three years of nearly 60 per cent. Surely it does not need to be argued—it must be common sense—that we would be taking a risk with the system if we said that those who have been sentenced to community service orders should be free to serve on juries as soon as the community service orders are finished or, indeed, as the amendment would mean, during their currency.
I would ask your Lordships seriously to consider that it would be an upsetting alteration of the Bill if this amendment was accepted. The only other point that I have to mention is one in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, who suggested that this really is something in the nature of a soft option for less serious offences—a halfway house between prison and perhaps probation. To those noble Lords who may hold that view, I would just give this reminder—that the prisons have been overcrowded for years, that Parliament introduced community service orders as a way of relieving that overcrowding, that magistrates have had it brought to their notice that the prisons are overcrowded, that there are alternative ways of dealing with offenders, and that therefore for the most part community service orders are not the soft option. Generally they are awarded for pretty serious offences. In those circumstances I hope that your Lordships will not accept the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I oppose this amendment, and by leave of the Committee I should like to make a brief intervention in the debate. Surely it is of consequence to the due administration of justice that persons who have committed crimes of sufficient gravity not to warrant a fine or a discharge should not man juries within 10 years of the commission of such offences. The quality of disposal as between youth custody, as it is now, or borstal, as it was, detention, suspended sentence and the community service order, as such affords no guide to the gravity of the offence but is a guide to the mitigating circumstances such as age, employment considerations and so forth, even medical and psychological considerations—a point made by my noble friend Lord Renton.
It is the commission of the criminal offence, not the method of disposal, other than the fine or absolute or conditional discharge disposal, which is relevant to the spirit of disqualification—a point not only well made by my noble friend Lord Renton but wholly supported by the Home Office statistics which he quoted.
Lord Mishcon: I look round this Chamber and I find that in number we are little more than one jury. In those circumstances, it seems to me wrong, if I may be allowed to say so, that a matter of this importance should be decided at this moment. It is for that reason that I propose to ask the Committee's leave to withdraw the amendment and to raise this matter again, when I hope that it will be discussed rather more fully, although I appreciate the attention which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, paid to the arguments that were advanced.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 18, leave out from ("who") to ("has").
The noble Lord said: I need not advance to the Committee—and the Committee will be relieved to know it—all the preliminary remarks and submissions that I made when I was addressing it on the last amendment. We are dealing now with the question of probation and those put upon probation, which under the provisions of the Bill as it stands would mean a disqualification for a period of five years from the date of the probation order.
This amendment (I hope your Lordships will think sensibly) acknowledges the fact that it would be difficult to have serving upon a jury somebody who was actually under probation. In the way in which we have presented this amendment we deal with the point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in regard to the person serving a community service order and the difficulties that might apply in that connection during the period of service. I submit that it would be quite wrong to prevent from serving on a jury for five years somebody who was subjected to a probation order.
Again, I cannot present the Committee with very up-to-date statistics, but I have done my best. The best that I have been able to procure are the Home Office probation statistics for 1981. From these I culled the fact that 40 per cent. of probation orders are made in regard to those between the ages of 17 and 20 and 50
836
per cent. in respect of those under the age of 29. So we are dealing with young people who may have committed one offence, for which it was thought suitable that they should be put on probation.
Those of us who are interested in the young, especially the young delinquent, know of a great many examples of where a youngster has been pulled up on commission of the first criminal offence that he has committed and has never come before the courts again. Again, I say that it would be so wrong to put—I almost said the category of second-class citizen upon a young person of that kind by making a disqualification subsequent to the probation period.
I venture to say—I am tempted to do so because of the noble and learned Lord's reaction to my last remark—that again it is not a question—the noble Lord. Lord Renton, mentioned this point in his own remarks of listening, if one likes, to somebody who laughingly regards jury service or even would wish normally to be exempt from it. I repeat to your Lordships with great respect that there is a great deal of difference, a great weight of difference, between somebody who has a right and values it little, it may be, until that person is put in the special category of not being entitled to exercise that right at all. I beg to move.
Lord Wigoder: I doubt if it is helpful to talk about the rights of people to serve on juries, because, frankly, 90 per cent. of the community would disclaim the opportunity if they had the chance of doing so. What it is I think is a duty, and this is relevant to this amendment for this reason. It is an arduous duty. It is time-consuming. Particularly with women jurors, it may impose a considerable strain on their family life, on the way they look after their children. Very often it gives rise to real financial hardship.
Therefore, recognising that it is an arduous duty, surely it is sensible to try to arrange it that members of the community have to serve on juries as infrequently as possible. That means that the pool of potential jurors must be as large as possible. One of my concerns about this amendment is that, on what seems to me to be a wholly arbitrary basis, one is removing many thousands of people from service in that potential pool of jurors.
Probation has absolutely nothing to do with the criteria we talked about on the preceding amendment. I have no doubt we are all agreed that where people have committed serious offences or where they have long criminal records there is a strong case to be made, one way or another, for excluding them from jury service. We do not need to go into that argument. But probation is not a way of judging whether or not a person comes into that category. Sometimes he does. We are all familiar with the old lag's chance—the man with a vast array of criminal convictions for very serious offences and with whom a merciful court takes a risk and puts him on probation. I can well see it being said that perhaps it is not sensible that that sort of person should serve on a jury.
Equally, very frequently people are put on probation for the most trivial of offences which no one in their right mind would say ought automatically to exclude them from jury service. The problem with this Bill is that by going by the sentence that is passed by

837
the court it makes it a little difficult to see whether the offender necessarily comes within the category of people who ought to be excluded from jury service.
I suppose that many of the noble Lords who are present at the moment have experience in a legal capacity of the courts and of the making of probation orders. In general terms I ask your Lordships to consider why probation orders are made. They are made (are they not?) very, very frequently—one cannot say invariably, because one must not seek to generalise—totally irrespective of the offence that has been committed and its gravity or triviality. They are made totally irrespective of whether the defendant happens to be a person with a long criminal record or a person of good character. They are made because of a recommendation in a social inquiry report that, for one reason or another, help is required by a particular defendant. It may be his domestic circumstances; it may he his housing difficulties; it may be a whole series of problems such as those which detemine a court to make a probation order rather than to grant an absolute discharge, a conditional discharge, or a £5 fine. Nobody has suggested that people who have had those type of penalities imposed upon them should be disqualified from jury service.
Because the making of a probation order does not in itself reflect in any way upon the gravity of the offence or the criminal record of the offender, because it reflects upon something quite outside what we are considering in this Bill—and that is, an offender's domestic or social circumstances—it seems to me that it is totally inappropriate to include this form of disqualification in the Bill. It is quite unnecessary to narrow the pool—if that is the right expression—of potential jurors in this way.
I anticipate that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, may perhaps in due course take the same view about how to proceed with this amendment as he did on the previous one. However, I hope that before the Report stage the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor might reflect upon the position and might consider whether including the recipients of probation orders in this Bill is not going to bring the whole concept of the Bill into disrepute.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I oppose the amendment. Surely a crime of sufficient minimal gravity which warrants probation, in all the circumstances should exclude people from jury service for five years? I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that there is a problem with the young on the commission of the trivial offence. But probation is also awarded for some very, very serious offences. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that this is no way in which to judge. That is certainly true. Disposal affords no yardstick to gravity. This however is a reasonable—and indeed requisite—safeguard. For those reasons, I support the Bill in its present form.
Lord Renton: First, let me say that it has been extremely helpful to have had this amendment moved. The effect of Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 combined is that a person placed on probation could be summoned for jury service as soon as the probation order had been served or discharged, as sometimes happens. But
838
I must say, having listened very carefully to the arguments that are being used by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that I cannot advise your Lordships to accept this change in the Bill.
I should point out that, not only has the Bill been through another place with some discussion, but a vast amount of thought and expertise has gone into its preparation. Those of us responsible for the Bill, including Home Office Ministers, feel—as with other items in the Bill—that those people who have been on probation cannot be relied upon to make good, unbiased jurors as soon as probation ends. There needs to be an interval of some years, as the Bill envisages, in order to see whether the offender has truly reformed. Alas! too often offenders have not truly reformed after being put on probation.
I do not have precise or recent figures for "the success rate", but I have clearly in my mind and I am advised that over a number of years there has been only a 40 per cent.-plus success rate. In other words, nearly 60 per cent. of those on probation have committed other offences within a few years.
1 should point out—especially in view of what has been said by both noble Lords—that we are in some difficulty because we have to legislate in fairly general terms in a matter of this kind although we are dealing with circumstances which vary greatly, as has been pointed out so vividly by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. The noble Lord pointed, on the one hand, to the case where the court gives an opportunity to an old lag with a string of convictions. On the other hand, as both noble Lords have pointed out, the court may think that the right thing to do with a young first offender is to place him on probation perhaps for a serious offence or perhaps for a less serious offence. In any event, he is placed on probation.
I should also point out that a very high proportion of probation orders are made for serious offences, and in this connection I can give some fairly recent and accurate statistics. For example, in 1982 17 per cent. of probation orders were for burglaries—breaking into people's homes at night—and 58 per cent. (in addition to the burglaries) were for theft or fraudulent handling. In all those cases guilt rested upon dishonest intent, and that is a bad quality in a juror.
Surely we in Parliament have a duty to strengthen the administration of justice. In my view this amendment would weaken it. But the Bill is surely not stringent on this point. We do not say that being placed on probation should disqualify anyone from jury service for 10 years but only for five years, of which two years will have been taken up with the serving of the probation order. So in effect this could be said to be a moderate provision and I think that it would cause some dismay among the informed public if we were to alter it.
So, while having listened with great concern and sympathetically to what has been said, I hope that the noble Lords who have put forward the amendment will feel that their case has been answered.
Lord Wigoder: I should like briefly to make two observations. First, I should have indicated that the old lag case where a person is put on probation will

839
almost certainly be caught by the other provisions in the Bill or in the present Act and will therefore be disqualified in any event. Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, attempted to raise the question of the reconviction rate for people put on probation. I wonder whether that is really any more relevant to our considerations than the reconviction rate of people who are fined, which is no doubt just as high, but nobody is suggesting that a person who has been fined should be disqualified from jury service. Therefore, the reconviction rate in itself is not an argument (is it?) unless you are dealing with a person who it can be shown has committed a serious offence.
Lord Renton: Superficially, I think that the noble Lord has put his finger on quite an interesting point. It is true that the Bill does not deal with those who have been fined, although it might well have done so; but the logic of what the noble Lord is saying is that at the Report stage I should consider moving an amendment to include those who have been fined! I am sure that that is the last thing the noble Lord would wish me to do.
Lord Mishcon: May I put something right, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for his very able support on this amendment, as indeed on the last one? I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, would not wish to attach too much seriousness to the last observation that he made. It is a relevant consideration not to include those who have had fines administered by the court against them. He would be in a grave difficulty to fix the amount of the fine that would be caught.
But, really, it is totally unreasonable to talk in these terms about the average youngster who is put on probation, and to find that exempted from this disqualification provision are those who might have fines of £100,000 awarded against them. I think I am right in saying—and I shall be corrected if I am wrong—that if the sentence imposed was £100,000, or in the alternative in the event of non-payment imprisonment for six months or 12 months, that would not amount to a sentence if the fine were paid. That obviously registers for everybody a very serious offence indeed. In many cases of fraud, involving the very persons that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said he would not want to have on a jury, substantial fines are imposed and not a custodial sentence.
I am going to follow the same procedure that I thought I ought to adopt in regard to the last amendment. Having regard, obviously, to the quantity of your Lordships' attendance but not the quality, I think it proper for me to ask leave to withdraw the amendment and to bring the matter up at a later stage of this Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think it would be appropriate for the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to move that the Report be now received.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received,— (Lord Renton.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would permit me to raise a point of order and ask for his assistance. What he has just asked the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to move would not exclude the Report stage of this Bill, would it?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think it does, actually.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, did not intend to have that effect, because one would not take that step in the case of a Bill in which there was anything controversial still to be debated.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I certainly did not intend it to have that effect. I was bowing, as I always do, to the superior wisdom of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I was reading my brief. My brief says that in these circumstances Lord Renton may move that the Report be received, after which I should put that Question. Perhaps the noble Lord will not move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

London Regional Transport Bill
8.15 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 13 [Contribution from London ratepayers to expenditure on grants under section 12]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 12, line 10, leave out ("two-thirds") and insert ("55 per cent.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I understand that to assist the House it is considered desirable to take Amendments 19 and 20 in the same debate.
Amendment No. 20: Page 12. line 21, after ("such") insert ("lower").
Both these amendments deal with the maximum levy of two-thirds on the local authorities towards the cost of LRT. A similar amendment to reduce the two-thirds to 55 per cent, was put forward at the Committee stage. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, was unable to accept that amendment and he gave some figures to explain why he could not do so. I had avoided giving figures. I think I said there were few people in the Chamber who would understand what I was talking about. That makes it even more difficult to deal with it at this stage.
Local authorities are having all authority for the policy of the LRT taken away from them. The view

841
could be held that far from paying two-thirds it is open to question whether they should pay anything at all. I know it is argued that that would put them in a different situation from other parts of the country, but of course that does not apply because other parts of the country have not had transport taken away from local authority control.
It is worth setting out the present position. The GLC meets the operating deficit by revenue grants. The Government pay transport supplementary grant on the revenue support accepted in the annual transport policy and programme, and the net cost, after deducting TSG, forms part of a council's net revenue expenditure for that year. London Transport's capital investment is almost wholly funded by capital grants from the Greater London Council. The Government again pay TSG based on the amount accepted in the TPP, and the net cost is met from the council's capital fund. The revenue costs of capital are met through debt charges on the council's transport programme budget.
Normally the Council would be entitled to rate support in the form of block grant on the net revenue expenditure after the transport supplementary grant and on debt servicing costs of capital grants. But because of penalties the Greater London Council received no block grant in 1983–84 and I understand they will receive none in 1984–85. A few figures are important. The Minister claimed that the two-thirds levy maximum proposed in the Bill will be lower than the proportion currently paid by ratepayers in London. I am advised that for a number of reasons that is incorrect.
First. the Secretary of State used the estimated figure for revenue support in 1983–84, which was £235 million, and not the actual expenditure, which was £183 million. The Minister said that the GLC cannot ignore the £25 million deficit carried over from the previous year. But I must make the point that the figures are being used to justify the actual year's expenditure and revenue support in order to fix on the two-thirds maximum ratepayers' contribution in the Bill.
Also the council currently incurs penalties that would not apply under LRT because the Secretary of State will not penalise himself; that is obvious. If allowance is made for all these factors, then the percentage for total support actually met by ratepayers in 1983–84 was 55 per cent. I am advised that if the GLC had provided revenue support in line with the Government's plans for that year, it would have been only 41 per cent. The Secretary of State refers to the position expected in 1983–84 and it is agreed that this could be a two-thirds contribution. But we ought to take 1983–84 as a base year because 1984–85 is a transitional year and the figures are only estimates. Further, the point I made at the Committee stage is that the TSG for 1984–85 has been reduced from 70 per cent. to 55 per cent. and that resulted in a substantial reduction in TSG for the Greater London Council.
The Government is changing the procedure on capital investment to a self-financing basis, as I understand it. If, say, a new bus is required, the cost will fall on one year with no spread over a period, as at present, on which the GLC pays interest. I am
842
informed that the GLC officers have met department officials on a number of occasions to discuss the matter. It has been difficult for each to convince the other, but the point must be emphasised that the GLC would have to be wrong on every single point to arrive at the figure of two-thirds, and that cannot be accepted.
I would hope that the least the Government can do is to look carefully at 1983–84 as a base, not 1984–85 which is only estimates. They should look at 1983–84, see exactly what took place, and if they cannot accept the suggestion for 55 per cent., they will at least take that as a base year and make their decision accordingly.
On the other amendment, No. 20, we are still dealing with the levy on the rating authorities and the amendment refers to subsection (8). I would remind the House that this empowers the Secretary of State to substitute the maximum of two-thirds contribution to ratepayers with any other maximum contribution, as he thinks fit. I did make the point that this can only be a variation upwards, it cannot be downwards because the Bill provides a maximum of two-thirds. The purpose of subsection (8) can only be to give the Secretary of State power to increase the proportion upwards, if he should so desire—in fact, as the Bill says "as he thinks fit".
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will I am sure not mind my saying that he came to the Dispatch Box on three occasions, but made no reference to the principle of this amendment except in his final words, which are in column 1528:
"I am afraid I have to take a similar line with respect to No. 85 as I do with Amendment No. 84. I do not think it would enhance this Bill at all. We certainly want to keep the option open for my right honourable friend, but as he has made clear in the other place, he hopes very much indeed that he will not have to use it."—
[Official Report, 17/5/84; col. 1528.]
In other words, there is no argument against the principle of the amendment which was trying to ensure that while the Minister has powers he will have power to amend the levy; he should only do it downwards; he should not have any power to limit it upwards.
I believe that if there is any suggestion by the Government that they want to go beyond the two-thirds, bearing in mind that the authorities are having no policy control whatsoever over the LRT, there ought to be new primary legislation for that purpose, and it should not be done by means of an order. I do hope the Minister will see that point, because I know there will be emphasis concerning the affirmative procedure. The order has to be accepted or rejected, and in this House, of course, we never reject an order which has gone through the other House. Therefore, the scrutiny by Parliament is extremely limited, and I hope the Minister will be able to take the view I have advanced on the first one.
At least, if he cannot accept the amendment he should agree to look at the base 1983–84 again to determine the figure which I think you will find will be below two-thirds. On the question of the lower figure, I hope they will accept the amendment here. If the Minister has the power, if the Government have the power and if the Secretary of State will have the power

843
to alter the figure, it should be downwards; it should never have the power to go beyond two-thirds.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, rising, as I do, to the deafening silence from behind me, may I say that, as I explained to your Lordships during our discussion of an identical amendment at Committee stage, the Government's starting point is that the ratepayer contribution is necessary to ensure that London's ratepayers should not be differently treated from those in the rest of the country. Ratepayers elsewhere will continue to subsidise their local transport and there is no good reason why they should not continue to do so in London.
The Government's objective has always been first to establish a system for the ratepayers' contribution which is simple in principle and easy to understand in practice; second, to set the ratepayers' contribution at a level which recognises that recently London's ratepayers have suffered because the spending policies of the GLC have resulted in there being no central Government grant.
We also wished to set a contribution which recognised the national importance of London's transport system. As I explained in our previous debate, the ratepayer contribution in 1983–84 was about 70 per cent. of the total subsidy to London Transport. This year we expect the ratepayer contribution to be even higher. It was on this basis that we set the maximum ratepayer contribution in this clause at the level of two-thirds. The noble Lord's amendment suggests that the figure should be 55 per cent. This is a figure which I believe emanates from the GLC.
We simply do not agree with the basis of the GLC's calculation. As I explained before, the GLC arrived at a figure of 55 per cent. on the basis of a revenue support figure for 1983–84 which the Government do not accept represents the facts. It also overlooked the fact that the proportion of the Government's transport supplementary grant is provided for expenditure by the boroughs and not the GLC. The Government believe that the two-thirds contribution by the ratepayer is reasonable and fair. Furthermore, the Bill prescribed that this is to be the maximum contribution by ratepayers. In fact, we hope this proportion will come down as LRT is able to bring its costs, and hence its subsidy requirements, under control. Undertakings to this effect have been given repeatedly during the passage of this Bill, both here in your Lordships' House and in the other place.
It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, pointed out, that the Bill does in principle allow this maximum currently set at the two-thirds to be increased, but this could only be done by order, subject to the affirmative resolution in Parliament. I confess that I can see no reason at this particular moment why the Government should want to do this. But circumstances change in ways that we cannot always foresee. It may be, for example, that under some different regime ratepayers in other parts of the country might one day pay a far greater proportion of the costs of their local transport than they do at present. In these circumstances, one might wish to look again at the maximum of two-thirds set in this Bill.
844
I repeat that we cannot envisage such circumstances at the moment, but we should not tie our hands needlessly in this legislation. The more inflexible we are, the more we invite the need for further legislation when circumstances change. I believe that it is better to leave the Bill as it is in this respect, knowing that if ever there were a case for the Government to bring forward proposals to increase the maximum proportion of two-thirds, then it can be done by the will of Parliament.
On the earlier amendment, I have a whole sheaf of figures in front of me which show that what I said earlier about the difficulties of the GLC calculations is the case. But it may be unduly wearying for your Lordships if I read them all out. Nevertheless I hope that I have said enough to persuade the noble Lord that the Government's proposal is the right one and I hope he will see fit not to press his amendments.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the only thing that the noble Lord. Lord Trefgarne, has done is to convince me that it is not much good to try to pursue the matter further. With all the hordes outside he would not have heard a single figure that I have quoted and, undoubtedly, if he quoted them we would not hear his figures.
Also there is the fact that if the officials of the GLC and the officials of the department cannot convince each other then I have grave doubt whether the Minister and I can convince one another. However, I am hoping that there will be some common sense in both departments to ascertain agreement on figures because it is desirable that there should be an agreement—even though there may be disagreement about the principle—that this is the right basis of assessment. The GLC says "No" and advances figures and the department advances figures which the GLC contradicts and says are based on the expectations of the forthcoming year and not what happened in the previous year.
On the second amendment the Minister said that we must be ready for any eventuality, but is the situation visualised that the Government with the Secretary of State acting, as the Bill says, "as he thinks fit" can levy a figure of 70, 80 or 90 per cent. (he has the authority) without any local authority input at all, without any local authority control? If the Government were to accept representations to the board from nominations made by the authorities, most probably I should not be arguing this because there would be a certain amount of authority. But the Minister says that there should be more flexibility. I only wish the Government were a little more flexible. It is clear that we shall not see eye to eye on this aspect. I can only withdraw the amendment; but the figures I have given are on the record and so is the Minister's reply.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 21:
("After Clause 13, insert the following new clause:
Levies outside Greater London.
.—(1) The Secretary of State may in any year make a levy on rating authorities for rating areas outside Greater London in which there are transport services and facilities provided by London Regional Transport for the purpose of recovering a

845
contribution from the ratepayers of those areas towards his estimated expenditure under section 12 of this Act to the extent that such expenditure is intended to benefit those areas.
(2) The provisions of subsections (2), (3), (4), (7), (9) and (10) of section 13 shall apply to this section.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this proposes a new clause and it is a principle that has not been debated in the Committee stage. Therefore it is entirely new.
The Bill provides that the Secretary of State shall, by order, make a levy on the local authorities up to a contribution of two-thirds as we have already said. The rating authorities as described in the Bill are those in the present administrative area of Greater London. But as noble Lords are only too well aware, London Transport operates services in the Home Counties beyond the boundaries of Greater London. London's Underground services, as well as the bus services, operate outside the area of Greater London. The purpose of the amendment is that the Secretary of State should be empowered to impose a levy on those rating authorities outside Greater London in which London Regional Transport will provide services.
The principle of this cannot possibly be wrong. In proposing the amendment, I appreciate that I may not be popular in my area because I am a ratepayer in the area affected. But I can see the common sense principle of what is advocated in this amendment. I reside in the Epping Forest district of the Essex County Council. There are many London Transport bus services in the area. In addition there is the Central London line which has been the subject of controversy for a number of years. It has been difficult to persuade Essex Councy Council to contribute towards the cost under the present voluntary scheme of the Central London line and it has been threatened with closure a number of times at the point where it reaches the Greater London boundary.
For the current year the district council stepped in and for "once only" decided to make a grant towards the cost of the Central line. It is essential that the services should continue and it must surely be wrong that Greater London ratepayers are expected to subsidise transport services provided for the out-county residents for whom these transport services are absolutely essential. It would be an impossible situation if the Central London line to Epping was closed down, never mind the difficulty between Epping and ongar which is a subject of controversy.
I appreciate that this will be an added justification for the claims made both by my district council and by the Essex County Council. If they are to pay, they ought to have representation or at least be consulted about representation. But that issue was settled by the House: it was rejected. I hope that the Government will see the common sense, the fairness and the justice of what I propose even though as a ratepayer I may be penalised as a result.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I merely want to say that the necessity for this amendment underlines a point that was made by several of us at Second Reading which is that the area being considered is too small. The fact is that London Regional Transport should be part of a metropolitan transport authority which goes outside the present bounds of the Greater London Council. But in the absence of that, and the absence of
846
the Government recognising the fact that Greater London is larger than "Greater London", it seems that this is a matter of equity and I support the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend's arguments are impeccable and his altruism in advocating something from which he would financially suffer is admirable. I wonder whether he also realises how much this has been a bone of contention in recent years between the various administrations in the GLC: those of Sir Reg Goodwin and Sir Horace Cutler, but possibly not that of the noble Lord, Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone—I would yield to his knowledge of it—as well as the present administration.
Every single year when the GLC transport budget comes up for consideration it is pointed out by London Transport Executive that the services outside the Greater London area are being provided on a basis which, if they were provided within the Greater London area, would be supported and subsidised by the ratepayers. There is a constant battle (which is usually in the end won) with the county authorities in the Home Counties, to make some sort of contribution towards the transport facilities in their area provided by London Transport. It is won because in the end the counties recognise that this is the right thing to do. It is recognised that it is necessary to provide those services even when they are not making a profit, and it is right that the ratepayers outside Greater London should be treated on the same basis as the ratepayers inside Greater London. I hope with that practical experience, which comes from 10 years' service on the GLC, that the Government will feel that the amendment of my noble friend ought to be considered seriously.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I recall in our earlier debates that noble Lords opposite were strongly opposed to the idea of a levy on rating authorities in Greater London towards the cost of LRT. But they are now asking that we extend the concept to non-London ratepayers as well. Having said that, I understand why this amendment has been tabled. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said, it is to ensure that the ratepayers in the Home Counties will pay towards LRT services in their area just as ratepayers will do within Greater London. I hope that the noble Lord will not be surprised to hear that we support that view in principle, but we see no need to amend the machinery of the ratepayers' levy to achieve that end.
Regarding the Underground, my honourable friend the Minister of State made the position clear in a Written Answer on 21st December last, replying to a question about how Underground services outside Greater London would be financed under LRT. She said that LRT would be responsible for the whole Underground network both inside and outside Greater London and that her grants to LRT from the beginning of the financial year after enactment would take this into account.
But I am bound to agree that the arrangements for financing the outer sections of the Underground have not worked happily in the past and we believe that it is sensible to treat the network as a whole for the

847
purposes of financial support. Of course, the taxpayer will be meeting at least one-third of the subsidy costs for LRT so that there will be effectively a contribution from ratepayers or, at least, those living outside Greater London. On the buses, the position remains unchanged. Bus services outside Greater London receive out-county support at present and they will continue to do so, so that no change is needed in the Bill.
Noble Lords may feel that the approach which we have taken in this Bill offers fairly rough justice; but it is not always easy to determine precisely where the benefits lie. We must remember that London ratepayers themselves will benefit from services which extend beyond the boundary, so that it would be wrong to think of these purely in local terms. We do not believe that the machinery in Clause 13 for the ratepayer levy could be applied fairly to rating authorities outside Greater London, some of whom are scarcely served by LRT. We believe that we have struck a resonable balance to ensure that, while the main burden will fall, quite rightly, on the ratepayers of Greater London, a contribution will be made by ratepayers elsewhere either directly, in the case of LRT bus services, or indirectly, through the contributions made by the taxpayer.
Your Lordships may be anxious about the possible financial effects of bringing into effect the reserve powers of Part II of the Bill. I should remind your Lordships that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State gave an assurance in Committee in another place that the percentage of the ratepayer contribution in that event would be adjusted accordingly. There is no intention to impose an additional burden of extra expenditure on the ratepayers if LRT became responsible for the allocation of subsidy to British Rail under Part II of the Bill. I hope that, in the light of these explanations and clarifications, the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful for the support from the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. I do not know where he lives but he may have the same porblem as I have. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said that the ratepayers outside will be indirectly assisted by the taxpayer. The ratepayers in Greater London will have the problems of the taxpayers of helping to pay for the one-third as well as of the ratepayers in helping to pay for the two-thirds; so they are being charged both ways. I always find that when I try to move anything, the talk is about rough justice. But when we talk about rough justice, we find that that never operates from the Government side. It is rough justice. We should not, in a Bill of this kind, have rough justice. There ought to be principle, equality, commercialism and fairness about the whole principle.
There is a problem, too, as I know to my cost, living where I do; that once you get over the Greater London boundary the tendency is for the fares to be higher. I quoted previously what is happening to the pensioners. One must remember that the pensioners' area covers only inside the Greater London area. I am fortunate in that I have a British Rail pensioners' card
848
which allows me to travel at child's fare on the London Underground. People who do not have that card and who decide to have a trip out on the London Underground going to Essex, will find that their charges are fairly heavy. It is very, very rough justice.
While I understand that the Government cannot accept my amendment as it is, I hope that they will keep this matter in mind. The trouble is that, once we pass the Bill, it will require other legislation. I hope that there may be a possibility of looking at this before Third Reading, because we should not rely on rough justice; we ought to rely on what is fair to the people outside London and fair to the people inside London—which is not the case at the moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 [Financial duty
8.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 15, line 3, leave out from ("account,") to end of subsection (7) and insert ("any such surplus shall be taken to a reserve to be applied in the following year").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I started to refer to Amendment No. 23 in moving Amendment No. 10; but they are logically separate and it is necessary to make the argument for Amendment No. 23 separately. The House will recall that Amendment No. 10 would have provided (if it had been persisted with and agreed) that a proper price was paid for any property transferred under the powers of Clause 7. Amendment No. 23 does something slightly different. It seeks to ensure that any receipts, whatever they may be (whether they are the kind of proper payment that I should have thought ought to be made or possibly a lesser payment which the Government would be prepared to accept) are for the benefit of London Regional Transport itself and restricted to its capital expenditure. It is important, in view of the argument that has taken place on the possibility of windfall profits and of their being used improperly to reduce revenue expenditure for a short time. to insist that it is only a capital reserve which is being proposed in the amendment and that there is no way in which the money could be used for revenue expenditure in the short term.
The amendment is therefore much more restrictive than anything which was moved in Committee. But it does not, I believe, fall foul of the arguments used by the Government at the Committee stage amendment. I do not believe that it has the same technical defect as was pointed out by the Government at that stage. I hope that the Government will feel that this is something in accordance with the long-term interests as well as the shot-term interests of London Regional Transport: that capital receipts should be ploughed back into the business over such a period of time as may be appropriate; that this is in accordance with good business principles as applied whether in the private sector or the public sector; and that it is appropriate to signify some measure of assent at least with the objectives of the amendment in order that we may perhaps find agreement about it by the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, although I understand the noble Lord's point in moving this amendment, I am afraid that the amendment is founded on a misconception. The assumption is that there will be gross charges to the capital account which will be offset by the proceeds of any disposal of assets to contractors. I have to remind your Lordships that LRT themselves will not have a conventional capital structure. There will be no shares in LRT, they will not have any commencing capital debt which generates an interest charge and their only capital costs will arise where they borrow for a profitable investment. But in such circumstances the investment should pay for itself and should not benefit from a cross-subsidy from the sales of other assets. Therefore, there are no gross charges to capital account to be offset. Indeed, there will be no capital account in the usual commercial sense of the term. I should also like to return to the point which I made when we discussed Amendment No. 10 on Clause 3. We do not envisage that they will normally wish to sell assets to private operators in connection with Clause 3(2) agreements.
We just do not share the opposite forecast of a rush to dispose of LRT's assets but if LRT do sell or lease any assets (whether to contractors or to anyone else) the proceeds will be available to fund further investments, provided of course that there is further and justifiable investment needed. This amendment would prevent that. It would require the proceeds of asset sales or leases or rents to be used to reduce these non-existent gross charges to the capital account. I hope therefore that, in the light of the difficulties I have described, the noble Lord will not wish to proceed with his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I acknowledge immediately that the Minister has identified a defect in the drafting of my amendment. I accept that I have misinterpreted the capital structure of London Regional Transport and that the use of the phrase "gross charges" is inappropriate for the purposes of the amendment. Therefore I shall have no alternative in due course but to withdraw the amendment.
However, in doing so, I must say that I think the Minister is significantly over-confident if he thinks there is likely to be no rush to dispose of assets. The experience of other nationalised industries—that is what London Regional Transport will in effect become—and the experience in particular of British Rail is that they do seek very much to dispose of capital assets and they go to the extent even of arousing considerable controversy, for example, among the users of Marylebone Station. In that case, British Rail seek to dispose of a capital asset such as Marylebone Station even at the expense of the interests of the commuters using those lines. I am not saying that that argument applies entirely to London Regional Transport, because I appreciate that the Clause 3 provision for the transfer of property is designed for agreements about the continued services to be provided by London Transport in conjunction with other companies or persons. I may misunderstand some things but I think I understand that reasonably well.
I do think that the Minister is being somewhat sanguine in his assumption that there will not be a
850
temptation to dispose of capital assets. But, in view of the undoubted defects which the Minister has kindly pointed out, I do not think I have any alternative but to withdraw the amendment in its present form.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 [Control by Secretary of State of objectives.]:
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Clause 23 [Accounts.]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 20, line 31, at end insert ("subject to their accounts being no less informative than they would be if the Companies Acts applied to London Regional Transport or than in the former accounts of the Executive.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 25, I would seek also to speak to Amendments Nos. 26 and 27.
Amendment No. 26: Page 20, line 35, at end insert—>
("( ) Without prejudice to the provisions of subsections (1) to (4) above, the appointed auditor or auditors appointed under subsection (5) above shall each year conduct an extended audit of London Regional Transport dealing with such matters as the Secretary of State shall from time to time determine but including—

(i) compliance with their statutory duties under this Act and directions made by the Secretary of State,

(ii) effectiveness of internal management and financial controls;

(iii) methods of appraising capital investment, including priority assessment;

(iv) control of contracts and tendering procedures;

(v) periodic monitoring of expenditure;

(vi) unit costs and other efficiency and productivity measures;

(vii) forward financial and service planning;

(viii) revenue and cash flow control:

(ix) manpower control and planning;

(x) internal audit arrangements;

(xi) control of debtors, creditors, stocks investments and borrowing.")

Amendment No. 27: Page 21, line 19, at end insert—
("(9) At each audit by an auditor under this Part of this Act any persons interested may inspect the accounts to be audited and all books, deeds contracts, bills, vouchers and receipts relating to them and make copies of all or any part of the accounts and those other documents subject only to protecting the commercial interests of London Regional Transport.
(10) At the request of a local government elector in Greater London, the auditor shall give the elector, or any representative of his, an opportunity to question the auditor about the accounts.
(11) Subject to subsection (12) below, any local government elector in the Greater London area, or any representative of his, may attend before the auditor and make objections on any matter relating to the activities of London Regional Transport which come within the auditors' remit to report.
(12) No objection may be made under subsection (11) above by or on behalf of a local government elector unless the auditor has previously received written notice of the proposed objection and of the grounds on which it is to be made.")
Amendment No. 27 is really the most important of the three amendments. The only reason for reinstating in the Marshalled List for Report Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 in their original form from Committee is because they lead up to, and provide for, Amendment No. 27. I still think that Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 are correct, and I think in particular that the detailed setting out of the requirements for an annual report by the auditors, which is in Amendment No. 26, is a very useful and necessary safeguard not only for London Regional Transport itself but for the Government and the general public. I confess that I still do not

851
understand the arguments that were used in Committee against the inclusion in the statute of provisions which the Government themselves agreed were not irrelevant or unsuitable conditions. The only disagreement was that it was considered not appropriate for them to be included in the Bill.
I am bound to say that the arguments used by the Government against what was then Amendment No. 97 and is now Amendment No. 27 struck me as quite peculiarly weak. Here we have a business enterprise which it is commonly recognised will not make real profits. It may have an excess of income over expenditure after grant in a given year, but it will be a substantial draw on the resources of the taxpayer and, above all, on the ratepayers of Greater London.
In all other circumstances where it is envisaged right from the outset that an enterprise will not make profits and will draw on the taxpayer and the ratepayer—I talk in particular of local government services because they, after all, have income and expenditure but have inevitably an excess of expenditure over income—it has been universally agreed that there should be a proper audit procedure and that that audit procedure should be open to the public. Indeed, the objections to the office of district auditor have come more often from my side of the political spectrum than from that of the Government. It has been the Government who have defended the position of the district auditor: the right of the district auditor to ask detailed questions about local authority expenditure, and the right of individual ratepayers to raise matters with the district auditor and to have a detailed answer and access through the district auditor to the books of the local authority. If that is right for one part of public sector activity which is paid for in part by the ratepayer and by the taxpayer, why should it not be right for London Regional Transport?
There is here no possibility of the efficiency of London Regional Transport being diminished. There is no threat to the confidence which the Government say they wish to place in the business acumen of the board of London Regional Transport; it will presumabley still do its business best to run an effective undertaking. But, surely, under these circumstances the people who are paying for it—the taxpayers and the ratepayers of Greater London—have the right to inspect the books through the auditor. It must be so that the auditor sees that the books are available and that persons interested may inspect the accounts to be audited and may question the auditor about the accounts, as is provided for in subsection (10) of the proposed amendment.
This amendment has not been as adequately argued as it should have been. I do not believe that the Committee stage discussion of it was as good as it should have been, partly because I myself, in moving the amendment en bloc with other amendments, did not appreciate its full significance. I take responsibility for that myself, but I believe that on this particular point the House deserves a better answer than it received at Committee stage. I believe that the principle of open access to audit ought to be more fully recognised, and I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said, we discussed identical amendments at Committee stage. Before I turn to the substance of the amendments, it may be helpful if I repeat briefly the description which I gave of the arrangements for auditing LRT's accounts in the future. The basic system is set out in the early part of this clause. LRT's auditors will undertake annually an audit of LRT's books. This audit will follow standard and up-to-date accounting practice. The auditors will examine samples of LRT's records, look at the accuracy of their documents and investigate LRT's cost and cash control system, to see how far they secure value for money. We, like any commercial sponsors, place great weight on these procedures, and I should like to emphasise them to your Lordships. Modern accountancy is much more than just a matter of adding up figures. These days, it goes a long way to embrace the type of special audit that the GLC have just commissioned.
Noble Lords opposite have said how essential it is to make sure that LRT publish as much information as possible; and that this would enable Parliament to carry out as effective a scrutiny of LRT as the GLC did of London Transport. We on the Government side have a lot of sympathy with that point of view. It is in the Government's own interests, since they must account to Parliament for LRT's grant, to see that they are kept fully in the picture about LRT's management practices. But we do not wish to be tied to the detailed terms of the special efficiency audit set out in these amendments. While we agree with the idea of greater information being published, we want to reserve the right to choose to ask the auditors to look at different issues from those chosen by the GLC, to employ different auditors and. if necessary, to set a different pattern for audit examinations if the annual cycle required by the GLC means wasteful re-examination of issues such as investment appraisal techniques, which will probably not alter at all from, one year to another.
Generally, there should be no reduction in the amount of information available, but what is published may well be different from what is available now. I can assure your Lordships, however, that it will certainly be relevant to their task of watching over LRT and calling it to account for its public expenditure.
I agree with noble Lords opposite that we are not very far apart over the substance here. As I explained at the Committee stage, it is a question of how we achieve our aims. Noble Lords have presssed for the continuation of the present right of challenge that ratepayers can exercise in relation to the LTE's accounts. That has been urged in the name of accountability, but it is important to be clear that in future LRT will be accountable, through the Secretary of State, to Parliament. It will no longer have anything to do with local government finance. The machinery of accountability must therefore reflect parliamentary standards, and indeed there will be many new opportunities for investigating LRT's finances. For example, there will be an annual debate on the ratepayer levy order. The National Audit Office will be able to investigate the Secretary of State's payment of grant to the LRT, and the Monopolies and Mergers

853
Commission will continue to be able to look at LRT's efficiency. Obviously, there will be the full range of normal parliamentary occasions, such as Questions, debates and Statements. In fact the machinery for ensuring accountability will be more comprehensive than it is now. But LRT cannot serve two masters, and the present arrangements for ratepayer challenge cannot therefore be part of the new system. I hope, in the light of these considerations, the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not constitutionally very much in favour of moving the same amendments on Report as I moved in Committee and I have, on the whole, tried to avoid it. But one does so in the hope that the Government, in the light of a debate in Committee, might move some small way towards a closer identity of view with those of us who move amendments: that is what we are here to do.
I have to say that the degree to which the Government have moved towards the intention behind these amendments, despite the Minister's protestations of almost identity of view, is very small indeed—so small as to be virtually unnoticeable. I am disappointed by the Minister's reply. I think he misunderstood the amendment and I do not think he clearly saw that the amendment says that the extended audit should deal with
"such matters as the Secretary of State shall from time to time determine".
I do not think that his point about wishing to have the freedom to introduce new matters into the extended audit would have been made if he had fully appreciated that aspect of the wording. I accept that the wording does include the possibility of having different auditors for an extended audit, but that is really a very minor point and could have been put right if the Government had really had a greater identity of view.
Above all, I do not think that the Minister in his reply has made any significant move towards the principle, which is proposed in the amendment, of having a wider degree of inspection of the books. I certainly do not think that the kind of parliamentary scrutiny which he proposes is going to be anything like as effective as the scrutiny by the ratepayers and the taxpayers who do indeed exercise that scrutiny now over London Transport, as ratepayers do over local government expenditure, where necessary through the district auditor. As I said, these amendments were intended to see whether we could make any progress. Clearly, the degree to which we have made progress is extremely limited and I have no option in the circumstances but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 not moved
9.5 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 24, line 6, at end insert—
("(2A) Without prejudice to section 46 of this Act and subject to subsection (2B) below, a transfer scheme may provide that any
854
functions of the transferor under any statutory provision shall be transferred with the property, rights and liabilities affected by the scheme, if and so far as that statutory provision—

(a) relates to the part of the transferor's undertaking, or to property, to be transferred by the scheme; or

(b) authorises the carrying out of works designed to be used in connection with that part of the transferor's undertaking or the acquisition of land for the purpose of carrying out such works.

(2B) Subsection (2A) above does not apply to any function of London Regional Transport, or of London Regional Transport or any subsidiary of theirs, under any provision of this Act or any other statutory provision specifically amended by any provision of this Act.
(2C) A transfer scheme may define any functions of the transferor to be transferred by the scheme in accordance with subsection (2A) above—

(a) by specifying the statutory provisions in question;

(b) by referring to all the statutory provisions (except those mentioned in subsection (2B) above) which relate to the part of the transferor's undertaking, or to property, to be transferred by the scheme or authorise the carrying out of works designed to be used in connection with that part of the transferor's undertaking or the acquisition of land for the purpose of carrying out such works;

(c) by referring to all the statutory provisions within paragraph (b) above, but specifying certain excepted provisions.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, may I first apologise to your Lordships because my explanation is rather long; but your Lordships will note that the amendment itself is rather long. This is a technical amendment and it applies to the transfer schemes under which property can be transferred from London Regional Transport to any subsidiary or from one subsidiary to another. It would make it possible to transfer with property certain very limited powers and duties which LRT have under statute. The powers and the duties which can be transferred are those which relate to the part of the transferror's undertaking or to property transferred or which authorise the carrying out of works designed to be used in connection with the part of the undertaking transferred. The types of statutory powers and duties which can be transferred are limited by the important qualification contained in subsection (2)(b), and I shall return to that in a moment.
The reason for the amendment is to put beyond doubt that any subsidiary of LRT can take over any necessary statutory powers and duties which LRT have. This is particularly important in the case of the Underground. I believe it is true to say that the power has been obtained in the past under a local Act when every part of the Underground was built. So there are in fact a very large number of local Acts and they range, for example, from the Metropolitan Railway Act of 1873 to the London Docklands Railway Act of 1984.
These Acts between them have authorised the contruction and working of the Underground, and they form the statutory basis on which it is now operated. This statutory basis may still be important in that it gives protection from legal actions for nuisance, which might otherwise be brought merely because the railways run.
It may also be important in that the local Acts, under which the Underground was constructed, imposed on the railway company certain obligations, some of which—for example, the obligation to fence railways—may still be important today. The second half of the amendment would enable a subsidiary—in practice, the Underground subsidiary—to take over

855
any works powers which have been taken by LRT under any local Act and to complete the works themselves. I hope your Lordships will readily agree that the amendment is sensible. If property is transferred from LRT to any subsidiary, it makes sense for the subsidiary to have the statutory powers and duties which go with the property.
I think that this is the right point to draw your Lordships' attention to subsection (2B). This specifies that functions of LRT or of LRT and any of their subsidiaries under the Bill itself, or any statutory provision specifically amended by the Bill, cannot be transferred under a scheme. As an important example, the general duty of LRT under Clause 2 of the Bill cannot be transferred.
Your Lordships will see that Schedules 4 and 6 contain a very large number of Acts which have been specifically amended so as to refer either to London Regional Transport alone or to London Regional Transport and any subsidiary of theirs. None of the powers and duties conferred by these Acts can be transferred by a scheme. In fact, it will almost certainly only be powers and duties under local Acts which can be transferred.
This is a detailed amendment and I felt that it was important to describe the details as accurately as I could. If I may suggest it to your Lordships, it is a sensible tidying-up of the powers which will govern the structural relationship between LRT and their subsidiaries. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, one can only express gratitude to the noble Lord for his lucid explanation of what is undoubtedly a complicated business. But if the necessity for such an amendment is so obvious now—and I can see that it must be—it makes one wonder whether the Government were as far-sighted, as has been claimed earlier in this debate, in their intention to have London Regional Transport purely as a holding company, with all the effective administration being carried out by the subsidiaries: in particular, the bus and Underground subsidiaries. Surely, if that had really been the intention from the outset, somebody in Government would have thought about the implications for the various Acts under which the Underground system, in particular, was constructed.
But that does not, of course, affect the necessity for the amendment. It is simply a lack of judgment by the Government to leave it to this very late stage to produce it. I only express a slight regret, in that my rapid perusal of Schedules 4 and 6 did not reveal any reference to my favourite among these Acts—the Military Tramways Act 1887. I am sure that some excuse could have been found to introduce it into the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 [Provision of extra transport services and facilities]:
9.12 p.m.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 24, line 43, at end insert ("but this power shall not be exercised until consideration has been given to any representations received from the Passengers' Committee.'').
The noble Lord said: My Lords. I am slightly ambivalent as to whether this amendment should be applied to subsections (1) or (2), but if the Government are in agreement perhaps we can consider at a later stage precisely where it should go. On balance, I think that it should be where I put it. Under Clause 28, agreements can be made between local authorities and London Regional Transport for the provision and financing of services and facilities,
"which would not be available apart from any such agreement".
When we look at Clause 40, which is the clause dealing with the passengers' committee, we see that these special services are not covered by that clause, since it refers only to the services and facilities provided either by London Regional Transport or any subsidiary, or by any other person in pursuance of an agreement under Section 3(2) or by the Railways Board or their subsidiary. But it does not cover the special cases of agreements with local authorities under Clause 28. Therefore, there is no obligation on local authorities to consider the views of the passengers' committee at any stage.
There has been some correspondence between the current London Passenger Transport Committee and the London Borough of Hillingdon, on a specific instance of a service where the London Passenger Transport Committee sought to make representations. They were given a very firm brush-off and were told by the chairman of the works committee:
"We have no other purpose than to satisfy the user's need within the obvious budgetary constraints which exist. I would hope that we would be responsive to suggestions for improvements to the service but do not consider that meetings could take place within the statutory framework of your constitution".
This was subsequently taken up with the honourable lady the Minister of State. In a letter to the secretary of the London Transport Passengers' Committee, she said she hoped that, however much it might be argued that there is less need for their involvement in the service financed by local authorities, authorities would be receptive to constructive suggestions made in the spirit which accepts that it is for the authority to decide how to spend its money.
It seems to me that that is not good enough and that local authority agreements operating under Clause 28 should be brought within the remit of the passengers' committee. However, rather than put it into Clause 40, it seems to me to be appropriate to put it into Clause 28. It is with that in mind that I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for his explanation of the amendment. He referred in particular to the London Transport Passengers' Committee having been in correspendence with my honourable friend the Minister of State on the matter in connection with the discussions they were seeking on the No. 128 bus route, which is supported by the London Borough of Hillingdon.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred to my honourable friend's response. I hope he does not think that that response was any kind of a brush-off. Indeed, I cannot think that he would. My honourable friend made quite clear the Government's position. There is no existing statutory requirement for such discussions,

857
nor does the LRT Bill include such a provision. It is important to recognise that entering into agreements with LRT under Clause 28 would mirror the arrangements under which the service now in question is being financed by Hillingdon. However, under Clause 28 local authorities will be providing services which would not be available, apart from any such agreement.
In deciding to make resources available to buy in the extra services from London Regional Transport, a local authority will be making a judgment about the special needs of travellers in its area for which it is clearly answerable. We do not believe it would be appropriate to place local authorities under a new obligation to consult the consumer body on services which they themselves have elected to provide and which do not form part of LRT's general provision.
It is also true that any service provided by LRT, their subsidiaries or other operators under Clause 3(2) agreements, however financed, will fall to be considered by the passengers' committee under Clause 40. This can then be the subject of recommendations to LRT, either at the committee's discretion or following representations. There is no reason why the committee should not make their views known at the same time to a local authority, where that is appropriate. So it would be wrong to suggest that the passengers' committee will be unable to offer their views on such matters.
In addition, under subsection (9) of Clause 40, London Regional Transport will be obliged to let the committee know about the decisions they have reached on any representations made to them. As I have already said, however, the passengers' committee must recognise that under Clause 28 LRT will be providing extra services at the request of the local authority and in order to meet a specific request from them. These services will not be part of LRT's normal services provided in fulfilment of their general duty under Clause 2. Clearly the sphere of influence of the passengers' committee must be rather different in those circumstances. We do not believe that they should be given a special function in relation to Clause 28, as the amendment suggests. I apologise to all noble Lords for that rather lengthy response which I hope will enable the noble Lord not to pursue his amendment.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I accept what he said about it being a different case from the Clause 40 case. That is why I sought to move the amendment in relation to Clause 28 specifically. The Minister might like to think at some later moment about what this amendment actually says—that the power,
"shall not be exercised until consideration has been given to any representations received".
The Hillingdon case is perhaps a slight distraction—I merely raised it to show the tone of the relationship at the moment. But it seems to me that there are matters concerning the interface between the special cases of local authority services under Clause 28 and the generality of London Transport services, where the Passengers' Committee might wish to make a comment in the initial stages. The amendment only suggests that the powers to make the agreement should
858
not be exercised until such considerations, if any, have been given. If such representations have not been received, then the question does not arise.
I was interested by the point which the noble Lord made regarding Clause 40(9), which does go some way to offering a reassurance. I should like to consider what the noble Lord has said, and I am most grateful for his full answer. I hope that the Government will look at what could be a point of friction between the passengers' committee, London Regional Transport and the local authorities in future and will themselves consider whether the clause should not go a little deeper than has been suggested. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Clause 29 [Annual business plans]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 25, line 8, leave out from ("proposals") to end of line 16 and insert ("for the next three years (hereinafter referred to in this section as "the relevant period") with respect to:—

(a) the general level of transport services and facilities to be provided by them or, by agreement with them, by other persons; and

(b) the general level and structure of the fares to be charged for those services, and the general level of charges to be made for those facilities, so far as they are to be charged, made or otherwise determined by the Executive.

(c) the extent to which the plan is in compliance with the statements prepared and published under section 7(1) of the Act.

(2) The proposals shall be such as to enable the Executive to discharge their duty under section 2 above in the relevant period; and the plan shall contain particulars of the Executive's financial position and their financial prospects for that period together with an estimate of what would be their annual revenue and expenditure if the proposals were implemented.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe it might be convenient if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 32 and 33.
Amendment No. 32: Page 25, line 19, leave out from ("plan") to end of subsection (3).
Amendment No. 33: Page 25, line 20, at end insert—
("(4) The plan shall be accompanied by estimates of—

(a) the cost to the Executive of providing, or arranging the provision of, the services and facilities described in the proposals;

(b) the level of demand for those services and facilities; and

(c) the benefits to potential users of those services and facilities.

(5) Where the Secretary of State gives London Regional Transport any guidance under subsection (3) above he shall cause any such advice to be published in such a manner as appears to him to be appropriate for informing persons appearing to him to be likely to be concerned.
(6) London Regional Transport shall, in preparation of a plan under section 29(1) above, consult with the local authorities concerned and with persons or bodies appearing to them to be representative of industrial and commercial ratepayers in Greater London on the contents of that plan.
(7) For the purposes of subsection (6) above, the local authorities concerned are—

(a) the Greater London Council;

(b) the councils of the London boroughs;

(c) the Common Council; and

(d) the council of any county or district any part of whose area appears to London Regional Transport to be affected to a significant degree by the plans mentioned in that subsection.").

These amendments all relate to Clause 29, which requires LRT to prepare an annual business plan. Noble Lords will recall that this clause was inserted on

859
Report in another place because it was appreciated that the strategy statement was not a regular business plan. At Committee stage, I brought forward four related amendments, but in the light of consideration they were withdrawn. Your Lordships are asked to consider the limited amendments now before you as Amendments Nos. 31, 32, and 33.
The main criticism of this whole clause as drafted is its vagueness as to the contents of the annual business plan. Reference to the clause will show what I mean. It refers to
"a plan containing their proposals with respect to the conduct of their undertaking",
and to the fact that,
"the plan shall give such information relevant to their proposals, and deal with such other matters, as London Regional Transport consider appropriate".
It states also:
"In preparing the plan London Regional Transport shall have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State".
Amendment No. 31 sets out that the proposals should cover a period of the next three years. I would remind your Lordships that that was exactly the period determined in the Transport Act 1983—which, I will also remind your Lordships, we spent a considerable number of hours in debating that it should cover a period of three years. Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the amendment list the subjects which must be dealt with in such a plan. These are highly desirable subjects for consideration and amplify the position and what is required far more than do the limited and vague provisions of Clause 29.
Amendment No. 33 seeks to provide that the plan shall be accompanied by estimates of:

"(a) the cost to the Executive of providing, or arranging the provision of, the services and facilities described in the proposals;

(b) the level of demand for those services and facilities; and

(c) the benefits to potential users of those services and facilities".

The actual words of Amendment No. 33 are, word for word, those set out in the 1983 Act for the annual plan, which was considered so essential. Therefore, I hope the Minister will accept that those requirements should be included in the annual business plan for LRT.
Another important point is that it is proposed in subsections (6) and (7) of these amendments that in preparation of a plan LRT shall consult,
"the local authorities concerned and the bodies representative of industrial and commercial ratepayers".
In Committee the main objection of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to that point was that it would be implanting provisions of the 1983 Act where really they do not work in the context of a nationalised industry. What I hope the Government will appreciate (but they do not seem to from that comment) is that we are not dealing with a normal nationalised industry. We are dealing with a nationalised industry in which the Government will levy up to two-thirds on the ratepayers without their authorities having any consideration whatever in the policy of LRT. That is why it is so essential that in the annual business plan the local authorities and commercial and industrial representative bodies should be brought into consultation.
It will be seen that in the light of consideration in Committee we have considerably changed the scope, size and length of the amendments. I hope this is taken by the Government as being helpful and that they will at least accept the general principle of the points advanced in these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords. I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for his explanation of this series of amendments and I am also grateful to him for taking them together. I explained at some length in Committee why we do not think it appropriate to superimpose on London Regional Transport the planning process laid down in the Transport Act 1983. The noble Lord was good enough to acknowledge that. From what he said I do not think it is necessary to go over that ground again except perhaps to remind your Lordships that the 1983 Act dealt with very different circumstances in which the Secretary of State was obliged to assess the subsidy needs of London Transport alongside those of the passenger transport executives. It was clearly necessary in those circumstances to provide for a rather more elaborate system to ensure that they could be examined on a common basis.
I have noted—and again I am grateful—that the noble Lords who have tabled these amendments have shortened them by removing in particular the provisions dealing with the Secretary of State's function of approving the plan and determining the level of grant. Of course, LRT will have to submit corporate plans to the Secretary of State just as the other nationalised industries do. He will determine their grant largely on the basis of that plan: but it is not customary for such plans to be published or available publicly. Whichever way the noble Lord cares to describe LRT—as a nationalised industry or as a different or particular nationalised industry—that fact still applies.
There are three main aspects which are the focus of the amendments. The first, in Amendment No. 31, requires the annual plan to cover a three-year period. It introduces a specific list of matters which shall be contained. I said in Committee—and I can only repeat it—that we can see no merit at all in fixing a period to be covered by the plan. I would imagine the plan will normally concentrate on the year ahead, but it certainly is intended that LRT shall present its proposals. Subsection (2) provides for that in the context of their past and present performance and that of their subsidiaries. Equally, I have no doubt that there will be aspects on which LRT may wish to look much further ahead—in some cases more than three years.
I simply do not believe that it would be helpful to introduce a rigid period into the Bill: nor indeed—and we have talked before on related matters—of specifying those matters which should be referred to in the report, because it implies almost automatically the exclusion of others. We certainly want the annual plan to include as much as is relevant to the business.
Both Amendments Nos. 31 and 33 would prescribe a good deal of detail. As I have suggested, I think that it is probably a matter of judgment. If one spells various details out at length, one implies the absence of others. I think that LRT can be relied upon to interpret

861
the spirit of Clause 29 and produce the plan which, as we have said all along, will provide a regular up-dating on the progress that it is making towards its long-term objectives. I am sure that your Lordships will recall that the Secretary of State has powers to give guidance on the form and content of the plan, and indeed the period to be covered, if that is needed. I do not believe that that is necessary in this case.
Lastly, we come to the question of consultation. I made it clear when we discussed this last time that we have sought to provide in the Bill for consultation with the local authorities where we think it is appropriate. I am afraid that I must refer again to Clause 7 on the strategy statement and Clause 43 on the variation of bus services. Consultation with local authorities on LRT's annual plans would be very difficult to fit in in the very tight timetable which LRT will have for its annual planning processes. I recall that I spelt that out the last time that we debated the matter. We have to strike a balance between the need for LRT to plan and manage the business as it thinks best, and, on the other hand, the requirements for consultation. We believe that the Bill provides the right balance. We do not believe that it would be right to add a requirement for consultation in Clause 29.
That is a very full explanation. The way we felt when we last discussed the matter has not changed materially. I hope that it has helped the noble Lord to understand the reasons why I invite him to withdraw his amendment.
9.32 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I agree that the Government have not changed the reasoning that they put forward at Committee stage. We on this side of the House are the ones who listened to the reasoning and greatly changed the scope of the amendments we submitted.
The noble Lord referred to the supply of information. I wonder whether our amendment has been read carefully. It states that:
"the Secretary of State…shall cause any such advice to be published in such a manner as appears to him to be appropriate for informing persons appearing to him to be likely to be concerned".
Therefore, he will decide for whom he is publishing the information. It is not suggested that it should be published and issued to all and sundry. The power is with him. It would appear that the Government have not appreciated that point in subsection (5) in the amendment.
The noble Lord has suggested that there is no merit in fixing a period for the plan. I can only repeat what I said last time, and I think that other noble Lords supported this view. It was good enough for London Transport and the metropolitan county areas to have a period of three years laid down for their plans. That was insisted on and debated in the House. The Ministers were emphatic, and we spent time on it. LRT covers the same area as London Transport, yet it is now not considered helpful to bring in a rigid period. It appears that the Government want to be flexible whenever they feel like it and that we wasted our time in debating the 1983 Act in that way.
It is suggested that there should be no provision for consultation. This is an annual business plan and it
862
will cover the points which I read out in the two subsections of Clause 29.
One would have thought that it would be helpful for them to consult these bodies. Some of the bodies are paying two-thirds of the cost. They would like to have some idea of what proposals are going into the annual business plan which the noble Lord says could cover a period even beyond three years. I do not accept that a great business institution could not find it possible to fit into a timetable consultation of this kind. I just cannot accept it. Where there is a will, it could be done. We have endeavoured to be flexible, but the Government have not moved. I can only beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 not moved.]
Clause 30 [Information and publicity with respect to plans as to services and fares]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 25, line 27, after ("Act") insert (", and the general structure of routes of those services").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am more than delighted to come to the Dispatch Box particularly at this time of the evening to demonstrate to noble Lords opposite that they have not been wasting their time in debate, and that indeed we are flexible. This amendment meets an undertaking I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, when we discussed the clause in Committee. The amendment would add to the matters about which LRT must provide information to local authorities and the London Regional Passengers' Committee each year.
At present, the requirement applies to LRT's current plans for the general level and structure of fares and charges. The effect of the amendment is that LRT will be required to give information on the general structure of routes as well as on the general level of services. I should make clear that the amendment applies to routes to be provided for London Regional Transport by private operators as well as those to be provided by their own subsidiaries.
I am more than grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for pointing out this gap in the Bill. The amendment fills the gap. I am sure that the local authorities and the passengers' committee will find the clause all the more helpful as a result of his debating and arguing powers, which have led to the amendment that I move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 34 [Annual report]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 28, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) include a statement of any action taken during that year by London Regional Transport and any subsidiaries of theirs for the purpose of co-ordinating the public passenger transport services provided by, or by any subsidiary of, the Railways Board and those provided by London Regional Transport, any subsidiary of London Regional Transport, or any other person under an agreement entered into by London Regional Transport by virtue of section 3(2) of this Act;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall not preface my remarks quite as lengthily on this amendment, but again it meets an undertaking that I gave to my noble friend Lord Teviot at Committee stage. I am pleased to move it. Noble Lords on all sides have agreed with the importance that the Government attach to cooperation and co-ordination between LRT and British Rail. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will, as I have said before, be establishing liaison arrangements between them as soon as LRT are operational.
Once the institutional barriers to full co-operation and co-ordination are removed, LRT and British Rail are under the same policy and financial direction and we shall be able to make progress towards service and fares co-ordination. We have, as I think I have made clear, a strong preference to rely mainly on non-statutory efforts, at least to start with. I am sure that there will be a great commitment on all sides to make the most of the new opportunities.
The Bill contains a small number of vital general provisions to underpin the liaison arrangements. The main one is contained in Clause 2(3) which refers to co-operation and co-ordination. Our amendment relates directly back to that key subsection. I mentioned in Committee that an amendment is not strictly necessary because LRT would in any case be required by the more general wording in Clause 34(1) to report on their co-operation and co-ordination with British Rail. However, I think that the whole Committee was impressed with the welcome that my noble friend's amendment received at that stage from noble Lords opposite, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Tordoff. It is right therefore that we should underline the importance that we attach to this duty by referring to it specifically in Clause 34, which this amendment does. I beg to move.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for moving this amendment. I thought that the amendment I produced at Committee stage was very good, but his is much superior because it takes in not only British Rail but all the other people, including the National Bus Company, who might come into this situation. The amendment is particularly important to give teeth to the Bill. One could look at it as a sort of individual in the annual report, but it proves accountability. I am very pleased that my noble friend thought fit to amend this part of the Bill and I am quite sure the amendment will be useful. I am very grateful and I should like to thank my noble friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Clause 40 [The London Regional Passengers' Committee]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 34, line 25, at end insert—
("; or
(d) by any other person operating a London Bus service as defined by section 43(6) of this Act under a road service licence granted under the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, as amended by section 44 of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are now dealing with Clause 40, which deals with the establishment of the passengers' committee. Subsection (4) of this clause details the services and facilities which it is the duty of the committee to consider and on which it will make representations. These are given as any representations made by LRT or any of its subsidiaries, other persons with whom LRT have made agreements, and the Railways Board or any of its subsidiaries.
Other operators providing a bus service will be neither a subsidiary of LRT nor operating under agreement with LRT. These are the operators to whom the traffic commissioners may have granted road service licences. The amendment seeks to add these services to those which the passengers' committee is empowered to consider under the Bill.
When a similar amendment was before a Committee of your Lordships' House the noble Earl, Lord Avon, said that the consumer council system was not intended to apply to private sector operators who supplied services independently of LRT. He said it would be open to the passengers' committee to make objections or other representations to the traffic commissioners about any application for a road service licence to operate in competition with LRT's bus services. The noble Earl said he would look into the detailed arguments and would let me have a note on the matter. In view of that kind offer I withdrew the amendment.
I am grateful to the noble Earl for the very detailed letter he sent subsequently, but I must say that in no way does this justify the refusal to accept that particular amendment, which is now resubmitted this evening. If I may, I should like to quote one part of the noble Earl's letter. It said:
"If operators, whether large or small, are willing to take the risks involved in running bus services in competition with those of LRT they will be subject to the disciplines of market forces. They will not, like LRT, be providing services in fulfilment of a statutory duty but rather in response to what they believe the public want and are willing to pay for. To the extent that public transport services are operating in a fully competitive market the public have a genuine choice and there is no need to provide for user representation through a consumer body."
That assumes, and the debate assumed, that independent operators would be private sector operators and therefore not properly within the realm of consideration by a consumer council. But experience is that this is not the case. Half the commuter coach services are provided by National Bus Company subsidiaries and there is no reason why a similar trend should not emerge within London.
Why should not the passengers' committee consider complaints about all the transport services being provided in the area? It is not a question of these independent operators being subject to the discipline of market forces. Are the services adequate? Are they failing to provide a satisfactory service in a particular area? These are matters at which the passengers' committee should be entitled to look. They will not be in a position to look into representations about London's public transport service if these operators are to be excluded.
In no way am I asking that the passengers' committee should become involved in what some may

865
feel are political issues. The committee must, however, be empowered to give consideration to all services by whoever they may be provided, and not exclude one section which, if certain provisions of the Bill are carried into effect, could be an increasing section. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, we did of course discuss an amendment on these lines at the Committee stage, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said. I think that the noble Lord managed to read out the letter which I sent to him, which I thought was extraordinarily dry, in a manner which I found more interesting.
It will certainly be open to the passengers' committee to make objections or recommendations to the Traffic Commissioners on any application by a private operator for a road service licence to operate in competition with LRT, in accordance with Clause 43 (not with Clause 42 as, I think, the amendment has it). At a more general level, the passengers' committee will be entirely free to comment on the effect of competing services on LRT's own operations. They can do so in the annual report which they will make to the Secretary of State. Or they can comment on such matters if they arise in connection with more specific matters being considered by them.
But we do not believe that the passengers' committee should be given a statutory remit to examine and make recommendations on bus services provided independently of LRT's own operations. The consumer council system is designed to provide a consumer voice in relation to services provided by public sector industries, often in something of a monopoly position. In most cases LRT's passengers will not have a genuine choice. And it is right in those circumstances for them to be able to air their grievances and make representations to the passengers' committee. We do not believe that it is appropriate to carry this over to the private sector, where the full force of the commercial market operates. I hope that the noble Lord took my point that they can make recommendations on bus services provided independently, if they so wish.
Finally, we must not forget that the role of the passengers' committee is essentially to represent the views of users of LRT's services. I am sure we should be wrong to encourage them to stray beyond this to the point where they begin to offer judgments to the Secretary of State on what are basically political matters. I believe that they do have enough freedom. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will agree that they have enough freedom to comment where they so wish.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am very disappointed in the noble Earl's reply. As I have already mentioned, he did carry out his promise and wrote me a letter which I still do not think meets the arguments put forward in Committee. I agree that representations can be made—as the noble Earl rightly said—to the commissioners if an application is made for a licence. But that is not what we are asking for: we are asking that the passengers' committee should have the right to consider the operations of any transport services within the LRT area whether they are supplied by
866
LRT: supplied in agreement with LRT, or supplied by the independent operators.
As the noble Earl says, it is the users with whom we are concerned. If the users think that there is an unsatisfactory service, then the passengers' committee ought to have the right to consider it. The Government are apparently inflexible. I will read carefully what the noble Earl has said, but it would appear that we are completely at cross-purposes as regards what should be the voice of the consumers as expressed by the body of the passengers' committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 35, line I, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is the pooling together of a group of amendments that were moved on the last day of the Committee stage. It suggests the removal of the whole of the subsection which takes away the powers of the London Regional Passengers' Committee to look at fares, and services as regards the railways. The Minister in his replies last time admitted that it was rather important that there should be at some future date a role for the consumer bodies. In fact the noble Earl quoted his honourable friend the Minister of State in another place by saying that she accepted that there was a role for the consumer bodies in relation to the structure and relativities of fares, and that the Government intended to deal with the matter for the country as a whole when a suitable legislative opportunity permitted.
I think we are entitled to ask whether there is any idea when a suitable opportunity is likely to arise. But in the meantime while dealing with this Bill for London—and it was said in the earlier part of the discussions on the Bill that London is a special case—why not at least attempt to get some way of allowing the consumer to have a voice in both the fares and the level of services generally in the London area as perhaps a pilot scheme for the rest of the country?
The noble Earl said the last time he spoke that it would not be helpful in this particular Bill whose scope is limited to London. But London is such a big place, and transport is so vital, important and all pervading in London, that it would be a perfect place to have a pilot scheme. There is no possibility that the Regional Passengers' Committee, whether officially or unofficially, will not discuss any changes in fares in London. It is too vital a part of the make-up of London transport and of the economy of most of the people who use London Transport. Although the fares may not relatively be much different from the rest of the country, because of the much larger distances on average that people in London travel, fares are a much bigger item than in most other parts of the country.
Therefore, it is inconceivable that the Regional Passengers' Committee will not, officially or unofficially, deal with, or discuss, fares. As the noble Earl said, the chairman of British Rail had agreed that his board would consult both the Central Transport Consultative Committee and the London Regional Passengers' Committee about fares. Why not make it

867
official? The Consumers' Council are quite anxious about it. They believe that the fares and charges for all public transport services and British Rail services should be discussed and should be included in the remit of the Passengers' Committees.
The Minister may be aware of the fact that the Department of Trade's paper, The Nationalised Industry Consumer Councils, in an article called "A Strategory for Reform" identified the main functions of the nationalised industry consumer councils as,
"monitoring the industries' standards of service and pressing for improvements; providing a consumer input in decisions on costs and prices; and pursuing individual consumers' complaints which have not been satisfactorily resolved by the industries themselves."
These are the minimum demands that the travelling public would expect of a consumer or passenger committee.
I hope that the Minister will give it serious thought and tell us whether there is any possibility in the fairly near future of getting legislation countrywide. If that were the case, it would perhaps be all right to withdraw this amendment. If it were not the case and it was going to be a long time, then I suggest that it would be sensible to look on London as a test area to see how the legislation could ultimately be framed.
If it was going to be a couple of years or more before a slot for legislation could be found, or the draftsmen could be found for it, perhaps it would be a good idea to take this out in London and let the London Regional Passengers' Committee be given their head and see how it works, so that when the time comes to prepare the countrywide legislation there would be some background, some knowledge, and some experience of how the consumers could be represented. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said, we discussed at Committee stage the question whether the passengers' committtee should be able to consider fares and charges, and at that time I was trying to satisfy the noble Lord when I said that the Government intend to deal with this matter for the country as a whole when a suitable legislative opportunity permits. The noble Lord has tried to tempt me out of this by saying, "Why can we not have a period with London, if it is going to take a long time?" I wish I could tell him when it was going to start, but I am afraid I cannot because that is one of the things that is not in my remit; and, anyway, I have made a lot of promises about things starting which I have had to chase up and which never seem to happen.
We are reluctant to disturb the present statutory position and put the new passengers' committee for the London area out of step with the consultative committees for the rest of the country; but we have obtained the agreement of the chairman of British Rail that his board will for the time being consult both the Central Transport Consultative Committee and the London Regional Passengers' Committee about fares and charges on an informal basis.
While I am on my feet I should also like to say that the question was asked why the passengers' committee should be prevented from considering the discontinuance of LRT or British Rail service. Here,
868
the answer is that they are not prevented, but since the Bill applies the separate statutory porcedure on rail closures by virtue of Clause 41, it is necessary to avoid a confusing duplication of powers in Clause 40. As the noble Lord will see, subsection (6) of Clause 40 is said to be without prejudice to Clause 41; and if I may direct the attention of the House to subsection (2)(c) of Clause 41 it will be seen that the passengers' committee are to be treated as an area transport users' consultative committee for the purpose of the rail closure provisions in Section 56 of the Transport Act 1962. Clause 42 makes a number of detailed consequential changes, and I can assure the House that the new committee will have the same powers as the present London TUCC to consider railway closures, whether by LRT or by British Rail.
I think I might explain before I sit down why the committee are not able to deal with reductions in British Rail Services. I accept that we have a slight untidiness here, because the present London Transport passengers' committee are able to consider reductions in London Transport services, whereas the London TUCC are not able to consider reductions in British Rail services. Again, in order not to put the new committee out of step with the other TUCCs we have concluded that it would be better for the moment simply to perpetuate the existing difference and put the matter right in the national legislation. I am sure this will not make the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, much happier, as he would like us to act now; but I hope that with this rather lengthy response he will at least realise why we should like to wait a little while now.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I have listened with interest, and I am grateful for part of the statement by the Minister, particularly when he quite correctly pointed out the reference to Clause 41 of the Bill. However, I do feel that he has perhaps missed a great opportunity to gain some experience. Obviously he is not going to grasp the opportunity, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 35, line 22, leave out ("under subsection (7) above") and insert ("from the Passengers' Committee")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to explain that under the existing legislation in Section 14 of the London Transport Act 1969 the GLC may give directions to London Transport with respect to matters dealt with in any recommendations received from the London Passengers' Transport Committee. The recommendations which the passengers' committee can make to the GLC can cover any matter falling within their remit which, firstly, has been the subject of representations to the committee by or on behalf of users; or, secondly, has been referred to the committee by the GLC or London Transport; or, thirdly, appears to the committee to be a matter to which consideration ought to be given. It is this third category which I would emphasise in this amendment.
Under Clause 40(7) and (8) of the London Regional Transport Bill the Secretary of State, who replaces the

869
GLC as the political authority responsible for public transport in London, may give directions to London Regional Transport or British Rail concerning recommendations of the passengers' committee only if the matters dealt with in the recommendations were referred to the committee by the Secretary of State in the first place, which seems to be a strange little complication. In other words the passengers' committee cannot request the Secretary of State to issue directions on matters which have been the subject of representations from users or matters which the passengers' committee itself considers to be important. They can only act in this way if the Secretary of State has initiated the matter by referring it to them. This would mean a considerable weakening in the positon of the passengers' committee compared with its present position. It also creates an anomaly in the powers of the passengers' committee in relation to London Regional transport compared with its powers in relation to British Rail.
Clause 56 of the Transport Act 1962 sets out the framework under which the Central Transport Consultative Committee and the areas transport users' consultative committees, which represent British Rail's passengers, operate. Under this clause the Central Transport Consultative Committee may request the Secretary of State to give direction to British Rail on any matter which falls within its remit and it is open for the area transport users consultative committee to make representations to the Central Transport Consultative Committee.
So while existing legislation allows both the London Transport Passengers' Committee and the transport users consultative committee for London to seek directions on any matter within their remits, this new LRT Bill only provides this power for a new passengers committee in relation to British Rail's services, not in relation to the Regional Transport Authority.
This reduction in the powers of the passengers' committee is not, in my opinion, acceptable. The London Transport Passengers' Committee has found this power useful in the past in discussions with London Transport. A recent example is the success it had in persuading LT to restore the peak hour Bakerloo Line service north of Stonebridge to Harrow and Wealdstone which was to have been withdrawn late in 1982. This was the instance where the passengers' committee was convinced that this part of the Bakerloo Line was dealing with a large number of passengers and was an essential to retain. But LT was convinced that the British Rail services covered the area and there was no need for the LT services to continue.
When the threat, not the actual giving of the direction, but the warning or the pressure put on by it saying it would seek a direction in this matter spurred LT into action to institute research immediately, that proved what the passengers' committee had said was quite right. As a result it was not necessary to seek a direction, but simply to use this as a warning and in that way it produced the desired effect.
The amendment I am proposing is simply designed to restore the status quo. I hope that the Government will be persuaded to accept the amendment. During the passage of this Bill through the House of
870
Commons the Minister introduced an amendment to Clause 40(6) to correct an error in drafting to ensure that the new passengers' committee had no lesser powers than the two existing committees. I hope that that point will be taken into consideration by the Minister when he replies. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I have listened with interest to the remarks of my noble friend in moving her amendment, and I know that the London Transport Passengers' Committee has written to my honourable friend the Minister of State on the matter. I am sure that my noble friend will be aware that the clause has been deliberately drafted in a way which requires the passengers' committee to send copies of its minutes, conclusions and recommendations to the operators, that is LRT and British Rail as appropriate.
An exception is made, in subsection (7)(c), where they are responding to the Secretary of State on a matter which he has himself referred to them for advice. This follows common practice on the nationalised industry consumer councils. Our firm view is that the consumer bodies should normally deal direct with the industry concerned on the range of matters which they consider. It would not be appropriate for the Secretary of State to become involved in the wide range of detailed management and operational matters which the consumer councils consider. It would be inconsistent with the relationship which all Ministers try to maintain with the industries which they sponsor, and of which I know my noble friend would be well aware.
Naturally, it is appropriate for the committee to send him directly any conclusions and recommendations on matters on which he has specifically sought their advice—which, of course, he can do. But that exception is already provided for in subsection (7)(c) of Clause 40. Equally it is appropriate for him, when he receives any such recommendations, to be able to direct LRT in respect of these matters, if after consultation with them he believes it to be right to do so. But I must stress that we regard that power as very much a reserve power; and it is likely to be used only rarely.
Indeed, such is the case at present. The fact is that, at present, the arrangements for London Transport differ from those for British Rail. The GLC have had a wider power to give directions to London Transport following a recommendation of the London Transport consumer body than the Secretary of State has had in relation to British Rail following a recommendation of the London TUCC. Indeed, the Secretary of State can only become involved in following up a recommendation about British Rail if the Central Transport Consultative Committee were to take up a matter on behalf of the TUCC and use their right of access to the Secretary of State to make a recommendation to him on the subject. This would indeed be a tortuous process and I doubt whether it is likely to be appropriate to use this process in practice. But even where London Transport are concerned, I understand that only on very few occasions have the London Transport Passengers' Committee sought the GLC's agreement to direct the London Transport Executive on matters dealt with as a recommendation of that Committee.

871
And on no occasion have the GLC ever issued such a direction to London Transport.
I have no doubt that both LRT and British Rail will continue to discuss willingly and constructively with the new passengers' committee. If for any reason they consider that they are not getting the satisfactory service they feel entitled to expect, I have no doubt that they will draw this to the Secretary of State's attention in their annual report. That report must of course be laid before Parliament in accordance with subsection (10) of this clause.
We are amalgamating two consumer councils which have had slightly different functions. Our aim has been, as far as possible, to create a consumer body on the lines of the other nationalised industry consumer councils without diminishing its powers. I am confident that the new passengers' committee will have enhanced powers compared with those of the consumer councils which they will replace. Apart from the power to make an annual report to the Secretary of State, which will be laid before Parliament, the passengers' committee will be involved in consultation on LRT's strategy statements under Clause 7. in the annual provision of information under Clause 30 and, if a later amendment is accepted, in considering the withdrawal of LRT bus services. We take pride in the strengthening of the consumer arrangements which are provided for in the Bill, and we are confident that the passengers' committee will have sufficient status to make their representations forcefully and persuasively to LRT and British Rail.
I shall read the details of what my noble friend has said and perhaps she will do me the same courtesy. If we feel at the end of that that there is something we can do, by all means I hope that we can get together about it.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply and would confirm that in the 131/2 years of existence of the London Transport Passengers' Committee they have only 10 times sought a direction from the GLC and the GLC, I might add, have never acceded to that request. So it is rather a case of having a big stick to wave rather than actually being able to beat anyone with it. Nevertheless, I think it is worth considering and I am very grateful to the Minister for saying that he will read this matter later and consider it in great detail.
I think the passengers' committee would be very pleased to feel that their powers were enhanced and would be very sorry to see them weakened. That was the reason for my putting down this amendment. If, when the Minister has read all this, he finds that there is something in what I am saying, I should be very grateful if he could look into it and see what could be done about this at a later stage. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 [Exemption of London bus services under control of London Regional Transport from requirement of road service licence]:
10.10 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 39, line 33, at end insert—
("( ) Where—

(a) London Regional Transport or any subsidiary of theirs propose to discontinue a bus service currently provided by them which is being operated wholly or in part as a London bus service; or

(b) London Regional Transport propose to discontinue, or to agree to the discontinuance of, a bus service currently provided by any other person in pursuance of an agreement entered into by London Regional Transport by virtue of section 3(2) of this Act which is being so operated;

then, before deciding to discontinue, or to agree to the discontinuance of, that service London Regional Transport shall, so far as the service is provided in Greater London, consult with the Greater London Council, with any of the following councils, that is to say, the councils of the London boroughs and the Common Council, in whose area any part of the route of the service is situated, with the Passengers' Committee and with any other person they think fit.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, perhaps I should explain that it may not immediately be obvious from the text that this Government amendment to Clause 43 seeks to honour an undertaking which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, when we discussed Clause 30 in Committee. The noble Lord moved an amendment on that occasion which would have required LRT to consult local authorities before major variations of routes or withdrawals of public passenger transport services. I explained to your Lordships on that occasion that it derived from a direction by the Greater London Council to London Transport. I did point out some difficulties in the amendment but undertook to see what we could do to meet the spirit of it.
I will not dwell on the previous amendment because I do not think there is really any difference on this topic between the Government and the noble Lord opposite. What we have done is to consider what requirements proposed in the previous amendment are in practice absent from the Bill. The only point which the Bill did not cover was consultation over withdrawals of bus services. That is what we now seek to deal with by this amendment.
The amendment builds on the existing arrangements in Clause 43, which already provide that LRT must consult local authorities, including the GLC, about proposals to provide new bus services in Greater London and about proposals to vary the route of an existing bus service. The requirement applies whether LRT operate the service directly or do so under a Clause 3(2) agreement with a private operator. The amendment provides that, where a bus service controlled by LRT Greater London is proposed to be withdrawn, LRT must consult the GLC and any of the London boroughs in whose areas the route runs. Once again, this requirement will apply whether LRT propose to discontinue a route which they have been operating themselves, or whether the service to be discontinued is one which has been provided by a private operator under a Clause 3(2) agreement.
In one important respect our amendment goes further than the proposal that was discussed at the Committee stage.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords—
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Perhaps it may be helpful if I speak a little more slowly, my Lords. In one important respect this amendment goes a little further than the proposal which was discussed at Committee stage. Under our amendment, LRT will be required to consult the passengers' committee as well as the local authorities about withdrawals of bus services. This will be a further enhancement of the committee's powers as a result of the Bill. The amendment does not provide for any period of notice but in this respect it follows the arrangements already in Clause 43. In practice, withdrawals of services are not proposed at short notice or in isolation, and any withdrawal will normally he part of a package of proposals. By their very nature, changes of this sort do require some months of detailed preparation and they will in addition be foreshadowed in general terms in the information to be provided under Clause 30.
With that explanation, which, as I say, is a further enhancement of the committee's powers, I invite your Lordships to accept the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am most grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for putting down this amendment. I must apologise to him for my slight inattention. Even lowland people like myself are occasionally momentarily swept into the current of the normal channels of communication in this place. There was a slight distraction. I will, however, read with great care the very full explanation the Minister gave. In the meantime I thank him very much for having given attention to the amendment which I moved on an earlier occasion.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 44 [Application of Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 in relation to services in Greater London]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 40, line 24, at end insert—
(" ( ) In subsection (2) of section 31 (grant of road service licences) the following sub-paragraph shall be added before paragraph (a):
"(aa) shall, in respect of any application for a licence to operate a London bus service as defined by section 43(6) of the London Regional Transport Act 1984, send copies of that application and supporting information to the London Regional Passengers' Committee;"
( ) In subsection (3) of section 31 (grant of road service licences) the following sub-paragraph shall be added after paragraph (c): "and
(d) in respect of any application for a licence to operate a London bus service any representations made by the London Regional Passengers' Committee." ")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a completely new amendment which has not been before the House previously. It relates to the application to the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 in relation to services in Greater London. It might be to the advantage of the House if I say that this amendment has the support of the National Consumer Council. They hold the view that the passengers' committee should be able to
874
represent the interests of all public transport users in London. We debated the previous amendment, which I moved, which urged that the passengers' committee should consider all transport operations, including those of independent operators who were functioning under road service licences.
As we have heard, the passengers' committee is precluded from considering bus services licensed by Traffic Commissioners. The consumers' council were in support of the previous amendment, but the Government did not accept that. At the very least the consumers' council take the view—and we on these Benches support it—that the passengers' committee should have a statutory right to be consulted by the Traffic Commissioners when applications to provide stage carriage services are being considered. That is the purpose of the two subsections in this new clause. They propose amendments to the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 to ensure that the passengers' committee will be consulted by the Traffic Commissioners when they are receiving applications. This seems to be a very good channel for the use of the passengers' committee. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has explained, this amendment really would give preferential treatment to the passengers' committee in respect of applications made to the Traffic Commissioners by independent operators for road service licences to operate London bus services. The amendment would require copies of the application to be sent to the passengers' committee, and it would require the Traffic Commissioners to have regard in particular to representations received from the passengers' committee.
I think it was made clear to the noble Lord when we responded to Amendment No. 37, and also in a letter which my noble friend wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, following discussions in Committee, that we saw no grounds for giving the passengers' committee a particular role in relation to independent operators. The committee's role is to represent the interests of the users of services provided by a nationalised industry. It is not meant as a national consumer watchdog to comment on passenger transport provision at large.
I explained that the committee will be free to make objections or representations to the Traffic Commissioners in the normal way. They can, like local authorities or any other interested bodies, subscribe to the publication, Notices and Proceedings. This is the standard means of publicising applications received by the Traffic Commissioners.
We believe it would be quite wrong to put the committee in a special or privileged position, both in terms of receiving copies of applications and of requiring the Traffic Commissioners to have particular regard to any representations which they may make. The Traffic Commissioners are required under Section 31 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 to have regard to any objections or representations made in the prescribed manner which in their opinion are relevant. So if the passengers' committee representations are considered to be relevant, regard must be had to them. We do not believe that there is any case

875
for requiring more than that. I hope that the noble Lord will agree and will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I think that when the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made that suggestion he realised that it was rather optimistic. I will withdraw the amendment because of the lateness of the hour, but not for the reasons which the noble Lord has advanced. I ask your Lordships to bear in mind that this is not just the view of the Opposition; it is the view fully accepted and advanced by the National Consumer Council, which is a very important body acting on behalf of consumers.
The noble Lord said that they can make representations in the normal way. If the passengers' committee are to represent—as we all know they will—the users of public transport, they are not being put in a privileged position. They will have information from the Traffic Commissioners, so that they can see whether or not the applications are ones on which they on behalf of the users, should pass views. We shall be in the situation that, if the proposals in the Bill are carried to their logical conclusion, then, as the years go by, with more independent operators coming into being and being given road service licences, the passengers' committee will find themselves in a weaker position to represent the users.
876
This is a new approach which has not been before the Committee, and therefore what I shall do is to read very carefully the report of what the noble Lord the Minister has said. I will seek further advice on this, but I shall not be surprised if on Third Reading we come back in some form with this very important principle, which is in the interests of transport users. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 not moved.]
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords. I understand it has been agreed that we should go no further this evening. Accordingly, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Agricultural Holdings Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past ten o'clock.