London Regional Transport Bill

HL Deb 12 June 1984 vol 452 cc1018-48

4.7 p.m.

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I thought that we were discussing Amendment No. 48, and I understood that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, was not moving her Amendment No. 49 to it. If I am wrong about that, I hope that the noble Baroness will tell me.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, that is correct. I thank the noble and learned Lord.

[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for outlining the provisions of these five amendments which in effect are five new clauses. I am also grateful for the issue of Notes on Clauses, which give a better understanding of the important points which are contained in the new clauses.

In general, both I and my noble friends welcome the scheme set out in the five amendments. As the Minister has explained, steps have already been taken by London Transport which have greatly reduced fraud during the past twelve months. The penalty system now proposed is, in effect, an extension of the activities which London Transport have been pursuing. I understand that the Greater London Council fully accept the principle contained in these five clauses which are the subject of the five amendments. I was pleased that the Minister made it clear that before the scheme is brought into operation on the Underground these machines will be installed to enable passengers to obtain a free deferred fare authority. This is very important, and I am glad that this point has been stressed.

The system must operate in such a way as to ensure that there are no abuses of power by those I have described as the authorised persons. In the interpretation clause, the first new clause, I find that an authorised person is "a person authorised by the person providing the service," which does not tell me a great deal. What type of rank is envisaged for this person? Will all ticket collectors be authorised persons, or will a special group or special squad of persons be appointed for this purpose?

The Minister said that the provisions would apply to any operators acting under agreements as agents of LRT. Can the Minister say whether or not London Regional Transport, when it is formed, will take special steps in those directions? It could be that their overall control will not be so strict in those areas as it will be on their own network.

There are a number of points which need clarification. I hope that the Minister can deal with them. Some are technical points, but, as these five new clauses have only been introduced on Report, our only chance of taking any action in this House will be in a few days' time, on Third Reading. I therefore hope that the Minister will be able to deal with some of these points now.

First, what will happen to someone who boards the system without the correct ticket and arrives at the destination without incurring a penalty fare? Will he simply pay the excess or will he pay the penalty? What will he the position in respect of season ticket holders? Will they be covered by the term "authority to travel"? If not, what will be the position of a season ticket holder who begins a journey in the area covered by his ticket but ends that journey outside the area? Will not some provision need to be made for that kind of situation?

Also, will someone who pays the penalty fare within 21 days have a criminal record? Will any long-term record be kept of the names and addresses of those who incur a penalty under this scheme? What will be the position in respect of persons who genuinely lose their tickets? The authorised persons should be given sufficient powers of discretion to deal with such a situation. At present, if a travel card is lost, up to one duplicate is issued free of charge—but that provision does not apply to single or return tickets. Also, has consideration been given to what might be the position of the safety of LRT staff collecting the penalties? Will they work in pairs? Has there been discussion of the whole scheme (and in particular of that aspect) with the trade unions concerned? If not, will there be such consultation before any conditions, guidelines or rules are prepared?

If fares should rise, there must surely be some provision for reviewing the multiplier. At present, the maximum single fare on the Underground within Greater London is £1.30, which would give a maximum fine of £13. But the maximum single ticket on London Transport network as a whole is £2.60, and that would produce a maximum fine of £26. It will be recognised that these fines represent a substantial amount of money—and they could rise considerably should fares increase. Where a fine is not paid within 21 days, will the court have any powers to alter the amount of the penalty in the light of the points I have just made?

Finally, I presume that the system will apply also to British Rail if the rail network should come within London Regional Transport control. Is that aspect under consideration, or is it something for the future? A great deal of work would be required before this system could be supplemented or complemented by British Rail. These are technical questions, but they are put forward with a view to assessing whether or not amendments to the scheme are required. However, in general, we welcome the proposals—including these five amendments.

Lord Denning

My Lords, perhaps I may add a word on these new clauses. When I was very young at the Bar, I prosecuted many people who were charged with travelling on the railways without having previously paid their fare and with intent to avoid payment thereof. All the contest was on the word "intent". Often, an offender would have to be watched for two or three journeys to see whether it was just a mistake that he had not paid his fare. Or he might be watched to see whether he boarded several stations before the station for which he produced a ticket. The amount of investigation and observation undertaken by inspectors and by the railway police was enormous. There was also the cost or prosecuting the individual before the magistrates.

I welcome this clause, which is designed to meet a new system of issuing tickets and the like. I welcome it because instead of there being a criminal case to answer coming before the magistrates, there simply has to be evidence that the individual did not pay his fare as he ought when he could have done so. There are exceptions where the individual could not have paid the fare. The question of intent does not come into it. The individual can pay up straight away if he likes. If he does not pay, then he is not taken before the magistrates but he will receive a summons to go before the county court judge to pay the penalty. It is called a penalty but there is no punishment attached to it: it is just for the individual to pay the minimum amount—either £5 or I 0 times the amount of the fare, whichever is the greater.

If I may say so, this is a well-conceived clause. Perhaps there are certain details which remain to be made clear, as my noble friend has mentioned, but on the whole this new system of ensuring that people pay their fares is excellent and a great improvement on anything we have seen before.

Earl Attlee

My Lords, I knew that if we waited long enough there was bound to be in this Bill something that we liked and could recommend. There has been much in this Bill that has been awful but, in our opinion, this is an excellent amendment and we are all for it. The noble Lord the Minister mentioned a figure of £25 million as being the sum being fiddled or stolen from London Transport. Personally, I believe the figure is very much higher than that.

The free deferred fare scheme is a wonderful idea because it will do away with that awful excuse: "I am sorry, but I could not buy a ticket because the ticket office was closed". The authorities then have to respond by saying, "We did a check on your station and found that the ticket office was open".

One point that worries me concerns season tickets, which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. It is a fairly well-known practice for a husband to borrow his wife's season ticket or for the wife to borrow her husband's season ticket, and to use it when the other partner does not need it. I have read through the briefing and the Bill but I can find nothing specific about the illegal use of season tickets. I should like to see some provision made in this respect because I consider that not only should the person who uses a season illegally be "done" but also the person who allows another to do so should be "done". I would ask the noble Lord the Minister to take this point into account.

Lord Teviot

My Lords, I should first like to thank through my noble friend the Minister the parliamentary draftsman for having drafted all the clauses so clearly. I would advise anyone who is studying these clauses to start by reading Clause 5, then Clauses 3 and 4, and then Clauses 1 and 2. They will all then fit into place. I have received such a good briefing that, if I was terribly "bossy", I could answer all the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill—but that is my noble friend's job rather than mine.

This provision comes not before time. We had the benefit of the wisdom of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who spoke of a former age when an inspector carefully watched an offender. Looking back on those days, I do not think that time and money can have mattered quite so much. I should like to take up the point made by my noble friend Lady Gardner. The sum of £10 is a little excessive and £5 is about the right quotient. It is an amount of money that one might hope people would have on them but it is still enough of a deterrent; £10 would be a little extreme. If one considers other places in Europe, one finds that the fine in Copenhagen is £11 and in Brussels it is £9. In Munich, Hamburg and Berlin, the fine is £11. In Athens, the fine is four times the fare due. In Tokyo, curously enough, the penalty is only twice the fare due. We are being tougher than that, but I believe that £5 is about the right figure.

I know that bus fares are by far the easier to deal with at the moment. There are not all that many people who do not pay their fares on buses. With one-man operation, passengers have to pass by the driver, and it is only if they make themselves very inconspicuous that they can avoid paying the conductor—hut it is the "over-rider" who is the one who will have to pay, and that is a very important point.

It is on the trains where massive fraud takes place. We all have to be put on our mettle. It will be tough for us all. I know that I often leave here with 15 minutes in which to catch a train at Victoria Station. I can do so in 15 minutes and sometimes in 10. But one must take the trouble to have the right change in one's pocket for the ticket machines because at this time of year at Westminster Underground station there could be 30, 40 or 50 people buying tickets with only one window open or the other window dealing with someone buying a season ticket. One then decides to pay at the other end. However, that will not be possible any more; and that is absolutely right. It will be unpleasant for many of us, but we must all grow up.

The point was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, concerning husbands and wives. London Transport passes have photographs on them. I do not think people can disguise themselves as their spouses. It is to be hoped that sort of fraud will not be possible—thank goodness! In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, referred to identity cards. London Transport have photographs on passes so that aspect should be fairly well looked after.

Earl Attlee

My Lords, I was referring to season tickets and thinking specifically of the Underground.

Lord Teviot

My Lords, unless I am absolutely wrong, I believe that any form of season ticket from London Transport must have one's photograph on it.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, it is a new requirement.

Lord Teviot

Yes, my Lords, it is fairly new, as my noble friend has pointed out.

Earl Attlee

My Lords, I had a season ticket for a short time and I certainly did not have a photograph on it.

Lord Teviot

My Lords, the noble Earl is quite correct. If he had a season ticket which is partly for British Rail, and initiated by British Rail, it would not have a photograph on it. But if it was only for London Transport he would have to go into, say, Woolworth's, or wherever, to have his photograph taken and then stick it on the season ticket. There is not much more to say except that this is very much a new area. It is a new concept for all, although I was very surprised to see that Tyne and Wear and Manchester are already ahead of London. It is high time we followed. It will be tough but well worth it.

Lord McCluskey

My Lords, this particular group of new clauses has received a welcome from all parts of the House but there is one aspect which worries me. As the noble Minister and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, have made plain, we are moving from a situation in which criminal intent has to be proved, to a situation of strict liability. Therefore, as the Minister told us, the person who may became liable to pay a penalty fare includes the innocent "over-rider"—the person who intends to pay the correct fare but by mistake has not paid sufficient for the length of journey he undertakes. It also applies to the person who has lost his ticket.

What may happen to that person is made plain by Amendment No. 51. He can he approached by a constable who can ask him to disclose his address. If he gives his name and address to the constable but does not answer to the satisfaction of the constable questions put to him for the purpose of ascertaining whether the name and address are correct, the constable may then arrest him without a warrant. Under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, which is now awaiting discussion in Committee, I believe he may be detained for 24 hours. Therefore, it is perfectly possible that a person who boards a bus and buys what he believes is a correct ticket, but fails to get it correct, or buys the correct ticket and loses it, or simply falls asleep and wakes up beyond the stop at which he intended to get off, may be found liable to pay a penalty fare. That might be prefectly all right; but he can then be arrested by a constable even if he gives his correct name and address because the constable is not reasonably satisfied that it has been given. He can then be detained for perhaps 24 hours without immediate access to a solicitor.

It may be that that is what the Government intend, but do we really mean, for this purpose, to contemplate creating that kind of situation? It appears to me to be far too draconian and I wonder whether the Government will address themselves to that, if not at this stage then on Third Reading, and see whether they want to extend the complete powers contained in Section 25 (2) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 to this situation, which is not criminal but civil.

Lord Mountevans

My Lords, having briefly raised the subject of fraudulent travel on Second Reading, I should like to congratulate the Government on introducing these five new clauses and thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for his lucid exposition of them. I should also like to thank everyone who has spoken prior to me on these clauses because everyone has added a little to the collective store of knowledge in what is something of a grey area.

Taken as a whole the clauses go a long way to defining what I have just referred to as a grey area and I very warmly welcome them. I have one general reservation which relates in fact to their very great detail which will not be easy to convey to the public at large. London Transport has for many years enjoyed a world-wide reputation for the quality of its publicity; but I do not envy those members of its staff who have to set out to précis these clauses into a message which can be readily understood by the public at large. Explaining the new situation to Londoners will he an onerous task: as will be that of explaining it to foreign visitors—one of my own concerns—who contribute no less than £70 million per annum to London Transport's income, which is much more than the sum we are talking about in the context of fraud, almost entirely by using the spare capacity already provided in meeting the needs of Londoners. However, Londoners and foreigners will I think welcome the initiative described and taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, in this context.

As I have said, we have very detailed and specific legislation before us. It is legislation which, nevertheless, raises a number of questions. The new Clause 1(5) defines liability, in certain circumstances, to pay a penalty fare in respect of an Underground journey. I should like to ask the Minister whether this subsection applies to a traveller who surrenders his ticket at a barrier at the end of his journey with a view to paying the difference between the fare he has already paid, probably at a machine where he started his journey, and the fare due; both as defined elsewhere in these clauses. It seems to me wrong that he should be trapped in the penalty fare net and I would welcome a reassurance that he or she will not he trapped. Perhaps that is already covered by the "deferred fare authority" provisions in new Clause 1(3).

My next question relates to new Clause 1(7) and the definition of the penalty payable. This shall be "the greater" of the minimum penalty defined as £5 or a multiplier (say, 10 times) of the fare payable (say, 50 pence) for the journey. I have some faith and some doubt in lawyers. Both faith and doubt leave me to wonder whether someone will not go to the courts on the basis that the minimum penalty of, say, £5 and the multiplier option, in this case £5, are the same. Neither is the greater so neither shall be payable. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to confirm that this loophole does not exist in the subsection as drafted. To me it seems that perhaps it does.

My third question concerns travel card holders who, through human fallibility, forget their cards and thus cannot, when asked, provide evidence of an authority to travel. It seems to me to be wrong that they should fall into the penalty fares net. In this context, I believe that British Rail charge the applicable single fare for the journey concerned. The person who has lost his or her travel card is not seeking to defraud; he is simply a victim of his own forgetfulness. Will he be offered an opportunity, similar to that provided by holders of driving licences, to prove his authority by producing it within a specific period? If so, should that be written into the Bill?

Next I turn to the manpower implications of these clauses. A recent report in several London local papers quoted London Transport as having evidence that Londoners were becoming increasingly hostile to fraudulent travellers—a welcome development. Less welcome is the London Transport statement that it is recruiting more inspectors to cope with fraudulent travel. My hope is that the powers we are discussing will, by making spot checks and penalties more practical, lead to a reduction in manpower. Once the new system becomes established, it seems to me that London Transport could dispense with barriers at the commencement of one's journey.

On my last point, I come back to the welcome which I gave at the outset to these comprehensive new clauses. It seems to me that after due consideration other public transport undertakings may wish to enjoy the powers we are discussing this afternoon. If that happens, do the Government envisage a series of Private Bills to enable such other undertakings to take up the powers, or will they encourage such a development by bringing forward their own public proposals? These questions seek only amplification of the clauses before us. I feel that the new legislation is to a great extent overdue and should be speedily brought into action. I wish the Bill well and look forward to seeing its effects in practice.?

4.31 p.m.

Lord Somers

My Lords, I shall not take up much more of your Lordships' time, but I should like to ask the noble Lord one point about enforcement. I wholeheartedly welcome the clause as a whole. Especially with one-man buses becoming more and more usual, on bus journeys the driver can see that you do not get on the bus without paying something at least, but how on earth is he to check that you do not go further than the distance you have paid for? A single man cannot possibly be expected to keep a check on the distance that all his passengers go.

Baroness Denington

My Lords, I first of all apologise for the fact that I had to leave the Chamber for the past quarter of an hour. I had to attend the meeting of the Statutory Instruments Committee upstairs, which was the fastest ever and finished in record time. I returned to the Chamber to find the House still on the same clause, and I should like to say a few words about it. I welcome the fact that some action is being taken on this matter, but I think that perhaps I am alone among noble Lords here in feeling that the action is much too gentle, soft and tentative. I think I have mentioned in this Chamber before, perhaps on the same point, how very impressed I was with the system in the city of Hamburg. They do not spend any money at all on gates in order to check you as you go onto the platform. You can walk on and off freely; there is no apparatus. All those gates are exceedingly expensive. I wish we could move to such a system, where we do not have to put our money into that kind of thing.

I use the station at Clapham Common. I travel by the Underground unless I know that I can park my car, as I can when I come to the House. Young and athletic people come along, put their hand on the barrier and vault straight over it. The poor ticket collector yells after them, but they have gone and he cannot possibly catch them. They do that repeatedly, all the time. Why put our money into apparatus if we can possibly find a system that does not need such things?

With the Hamburg system you walk on and you walk off. When I was chairman of transport on the GLC I investigated it with a delegation of officers. We were trying to see the way forward in those days, when I was in County Hall. We tried every way possible to get the Hamburg people into a corner here or there, to talk to them, to break them down and to make them admit that their system was not very successful. None of us could do that. They all swore that they were certain that the number who escaped was absolutely infinitesimal. I forget the percentage, but it was point something or other—not to be bothered with.

They have a system of inspectors. It is true that their Underground system is not as extensive as ours, but it is extremely good and was being increased. They have a band of inspectors—comparatively few—and they have different tactics. On one day they will spread out with one on each station. On another day they will descend in a body on a platform of waiting people so that they can go through the lot. On other days there will he perhaps a single inspector or more inspectors on a train. There are all kinds of different tactics. Nobody knows what the drill will be on any one day.

The inspectors demand to see a ticket, because there are tickets. There are ticket machines, but no barriers to vault over, even if you feel inclined to vault early in the morning. If the person does not have the proper ticket, or is over-riding, he is invited to pay double the fare on the spot. If he does that, that is the end of it. If he does not, he has three days, and my memory is that within three days he can go to the local police station and pay the double fare. After that the amount increases. If you have not paid within the three days, you are in for a very heavy fine.

I think I have said this in the House before. All this procedure depends on having, as they have abroad but as we do not have in this country, an identity card with one's photograph on it. I should really like to know how this scheme would work in this country, and whether it would be worth its cost. How many people will not have paid within three weeks? Surely, if they have not paid, part of the system must be that they are followed up. They really must be followed up. However much will it cost London Transport to follow them up and to try to get them to court to recover the money? I should have thought it would be very costly. All kinds of investigations will be needed if we really mean business with this clause—and to very little effect. This is what worries me about it, particularly as the fine is so very small.

I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, did not maintain her £10, at least. She has given in and dropped the figure to £5. I just do not see how this would work. I really wonder. Are we expecting people to be so very honest that they will give their true name and address? I am sorry, but I do not have that faith in human nature today.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, if the noble Baroness would permit me to interrupt her, another reason why I dropped the £10 fine is that, if the penalty fare is not paid within the 21 days and the present system is followed where the person is prosecuted—it is rather a parallel to a car-parking fine, where, if you do not pay the fixed penalty, you can be prosecuted—the fine in court could be very much greater, as it could be now. I think the present maximum fine is £200. There could be a much heavier penalty if someone did not pay. This is really a lessening of the offence, reducing it to a civil status; but if they deliberately do not pay, of course, it will be a different matter.

Baroness Denington

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation. I now understand. Really, what I am saying is that I am glad that we are trying to do something, but I personally think, if we really mean business, that after a period of time there will have to be a revision of the scheme to make it much tougher. I wish that were not so, but, society being what it is today, that is how I feel.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will realise that, although this scheme has been welcomed by everyone on all sides of the House, including myself, there are nevertheless a number of very important points that have been raised for which I am sure he will also be grateful and which he will take away. I think that practically everyone was trying to be helpful with those points.

My noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey raised something of which not being a lawyer, was not aware, but which obviously opens up an enormously wide possibility of people being quite wrongfully treated. It may be that there is a simple explanation but I think it is a question which we should all be grateful to him for having raised.

I should like to make one or two points. I accept that ticket and fare collection is one of the most expensive single areas of transport. We have played about with it in relaton to the Underground, particularly in London, for many years now. I would certainly agree with my noble friend Lady Denington about the complexity of the machinery that is used. I, too, have been to Hamburg. I saw the open platform system and was assured that there was very little fare dodging in Hamburg. On the other hand, if I may just divert for a second, they have a great deal more flexibility —something that attracts me. For instance, if I were going on the Northern line up to Hampstead or a place such as that with a single ticket, I could break my journey and get back on again. I could get off and do some shopping in the Tottenham Court Road, for example and then get back on again, which of course you cannot do in London. So everyone has different ways of operating things and perhaps a new system of ticket issuing would enable such things as that to happen.

A question that worries me greatly, thinking particularly of the Underground, is, where will the ticket checking be done? Obviously, if Lady Denington's scheme of open stations were adopted, the checking, or a certain amount of it, almost certainly would be done on the trains themselves. But does the Minister envisage that most of the checking will be done on the trains or, if we still retain them, will be done at the barrier?

Lord Teviot made a point which was one I had thought of frequently. He spoke of the 15-minute journey from here to Victoria. I am sometimes involved in this on Monday morning. One flies down from Glasgow in an hour and 10 minutes and one gets to the ticket windows on the Underground station. There is no criticism of London Transport: they have plenty of windows open, but at certain times, particularly on a Monday morning, there are enormous queues, and one realises that part of London's charm is that people are queueing up at the windows with yen, dollars, kroner and all sorts of money. One looks at the queue. One has come down from Glasgow in an hour and 10 minutes and one has had to wait a fairly long time to reach the window. I must say that on occasions I have put 50 pence in the machine and got through on that. I must also say that with great nervousness I was upholding my £1 all the time to assure the ticket collectors that I was not trying to dodge the fare as I got out here at Westminster. I do not know whether you can ever overcome this anxiety of people, but it could raise very serious problems for those, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. "whose intent was to pay".

Will there be any consideration given for people in this 21-day period, since it is a civil case, who can say, "I can prove, or assure, or convince London Transport that there was full intent to pay"? I know that that could run into all sorts of difficulties and problems of delay, and that skilful people would perhaps carry it to a great length. However, as I say, practically everyone in the Chamber has accepted the necessity for this.

The other little point—and perhaps the Minister will think it slightly frivolous—is the question of where the inspection will be made. When many years ago I came down to London to the other place, I lived for a short period with a family. There were two very bright young pre-teenage boys in the family. They and their friends during one summer tried to travel over all the London Transport underground system, which I think is quite a well-known game. I do not think they did it in any way at peak hours or anything like that. They just started off in the morning and took a note of every station they went through over the whole system.

Incidentally, it makes me think that I have occasionally taken wrong trains and gone rather long ways round. It is a bit easier now with the zonal system, but there could be points at which you could go out of your zone, either through lack of knowledge of the system or because you went past your station, as I think my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey said, because you just went to sleep.

I think these are questions that really should be looked at. We may be making a great deal too much out of them and using some of our own fears of perhaps quite accidentally falling foul of the system that we ourselves have introduced. I think there are certainly problems and questions that the Minister can answer in general just now, and perhaps at a later stage of the Bill he can come back with firmer answers to the slight worry that I think affects many people. However, the general acceptance of the scheme is obvious within the House today.

The only other point is that I suppose this will be the death of that marvellous, highly intellectual game we hear on the radio, "Mornington Crescent"!

4.48 p.m.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, may I thank all noble Lords and the noble Baroness who have taken part in this debate. Perhaps I may say at the beginning that, not particularly in response to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, I would certainly not think that any of the questions or comments that have been raised this afternoon could possibly fall into the frivolous category. These are very important matters. Again I have to apologise to your Lordships for having brought such a complex series of amendments to your Lordships at this particular stage. I shall try to answer as many questions as I can. Those that I miss I will certainly answer in writing in the next 24 or 36 hours.

I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, first of all for not moving her amendment because, as she points out, there is provision in the amendments for the Secretary of State to alter, either by raising or lowering, both the figure of £5 and the multiplier of 10. I am grateful to her also for her suggestion that the International Passenger Traffic Office might perhaps look at the desirability and worthwhileness of producing a common, universally recognised sign that would indicate that a penalty fare system operates.

I must say that, as have a number of your Lordships. I have travelled in Hamburg and Geneva and also in Paris. It has never worried me and I have always managed to recognise that there is some kind of system. Exactly what it is I have not always been sure. So one just takes a little more care over that. I will return to that when I come to answer the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans.

The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked a number of questions. I should like to say that I most grateful to him because he gave me notice some days ago of the area about which he had some cause for concern. He asked me about the authorised persons. I am not sure whether he was being specifically very serious when he quoted from page 5 of the Marshalled List: 'Authorised person' means a person authorised by the person providing the service". It is written in that way because an authorised person is not going to be an ordinary inspector or ticket collector. This will be a particular person. It could be a man or it could be a woman who will be specifically trained and will be authorised to undertake this kind of work by LRT, if they are poviding the service, or of course another operator who may be providing the service under a Clause 3(2) agreement. That is why we say the person providing the service in question. The authorised person—I can perhaps now for the sake of clarity call him an inspector, because we all know what that means—would have signed authorisations indicating the scope of his responsibility. He would have an indentity card to be shown to any passenger who so demands.

I was asked also about what would happen to a passenger who arrives at a destination without being caught. If someone boards the system without the correct ticket, the measures provide that if he fails to produce that proper ticket to an authorised person, he shall be liable to the penalty fare. It will perhaps make it more clear if I say that the authorised person need not necessarily be travelling on the train. He could be present at the ticket barrier or in a ticket office. Naturally, if no authorised person is available to issue a penalty fares notice, as the noble Lord suggests, the traveller will he liable to pay only the normal fare and the excess as he does now.

I was asked about season tickets being an authority to travel. I can confirm that the season ticket falls within the definition of an authority to travel. In the short term, since it will not be possible for season ticket holders to pay for the excess portion of their journey in advance, they will be able to do so on completion of their journey without incurring liability to a penalty fare. In the longer term, when the new Underground ticketing system is fully operational—it is hoped that this will take a much shorter time than the five years suggested by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes—it will be possible for season ticket holders to buy a pre-excess ticket at the start of their journey to cover the intended over-ride portion.

There is no question that the penalty fares provision involves a criminal record. As I explained, or thought that I had explained, in introducing these amendments, the measures are not criminal sanctions but a new extension of a civil liability. Naturally, each case would be dealt with on its own merits. I suppose, however, that London Regional Transport may very well maintain a record of cases in the interests of good husbandry and good administration.

The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, also asked about loss of tickets and cited a travel card. Frankly, I have to say that if people lose their tickets, I am afraid that they may have to bear the consequences of the loss. Naturally, the authorised persons will be able to exercise discretion where they are satisfied that this is justified. It is true that travel cards of one month's duration or more may be replaced. This is possible because individual records are maintained. That does not apply to an ordinary ticket. Again, we have to bear in mind what my noble friend Lord Teviot had to say. My noble friend suggested that we may very well have to change our travelling habits. I think that that is so.

I have dealt with the point regarding the multiplier. To try to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, we felt that a multiplier of 10 was not an unreasonable starting point in relation to the fare avoided. Certainly in Paris there is a multiplicity of multipliers, if I can use that expression—12, 24 and 36 times. In Hamburg the penalty fare is 40 deutschemarks, about £10. There, the multiplier is 40 because they have a flat fare system. We are not suggesting that. Again, one takes the point that is made. I know that London Regional Transport will be interested to read and consider the suggestions that the noble Baroness has made.

The safety of London Transport staff was properly raised. I agree that one has to take this into account. I can give the assurance that London Transport has this point very much in mind. In the first place, the staff involved will be specially trained in dealing with people under these circumstances. Secondly, it must be remembered that the special team will be additional to the ordinary conductor or ticket collector. Normally, therefore, one would not anticipate their being placed in situations of having to act alone. So far as I am aware, there have not as yet been formal trade union discussions. I understand, however, that before these provisions are introduced, such discussions will take place.

I was also asked about special steps on non-London Regional Transport services. London Regional Transport will not be directly responsible for penalty fare arrangements on non-LRT services. The conditions of operation will be laid down in the Clause 3(2) agreements. I am sure that London Regional Transport will want to monitor its operation on those services.

I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for the welcome he gave to the amendments and also for reminding us that the provisions are not an extension of criminal law. This is a civil liability. It should not only make its impact on the travelling public, who will be encouraged by these provisions to pay their proper fares, but may also mean some lessening of the workload in magistrates' and other courts.

The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked about the £25 million, suggesting that it was perhaps a low figure. Certainly in 1982, we know that the figure was of the order of £40 million. I did say that the reduction to £25 million in 1983 was an estimate. He also asked whether a season ticket exchanged between a husband and wife would attract the penalty fare. I am sure that noble Lords appreciate that season tickets are not transferable. Therefore, it would be an offence at present for such tickets to be used by other persons. If season tickets are used in this way travellers will he liable probably to a penalty fare but, again, taking up the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, this might be construed to be an intent not to pay. Of course, London Regional Transport would then have the opportunity to proceed to the court in the normal way.

My noble friend Lord Teviot gave a general welcome and emphasised the multiplier variation. That was interesting. What one wants in this system, of course, is to keep it simple and as readily understood as possible. No doubt, in the time ahead, some refinements in ticketing and in giving notice to passengers will be adopted. I should like again to underline his point about changing habits. I know that it is frustrating to have to wait in a queue. It is equally frustrating to have to stop pedestrians on a pavement to see if they have change of a pound note to put into a parking meter. But, we have to change our habits and we have to go with something approaching the right money and realise that perhaps travelling may take a little longer. That is one of the penalties that we have to pay and it is one of the restrictions that I outlined in my opening remarks.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, raised an interesting point, and as I am not a member of the noble and learned Lord's learned profession I am sure he will appreciate that I am not absolutely qualified to answer it. But I understand that there is nothing new in the reference to the power of arrest in the third new clause since these powers currently exist under Section 25 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 in respect of non-compliance with existing regulations. The power of arrest applies when a passenger fails to give his name and address. Such provision is clearly necessary in respect of the penalty fares provisions.

Lord McCluskey

My Lords, will the Minister allow me to intervene? I was suggesting to the noble Lord that under the previous law, as I understand it—I may be wrong—the police were arresting a person who was guilty or who might be guilty of a criminal offence. It is no doubt right that in certain circumstances the police have power to arrest without a warrant where a person may be guilty of a criminal offence. What this Bill does is to give the police the right to arrest without a warrant somebody who is not committing a criminal offence but somebody who, for example, has had his wallet stolen containing his ticket and who cannot therefore produce either the ticket or any other means of identification and who gives the police a funny name like "John Smith", which happens to be his name. It is possible for the police to disbelieve even the most honest people. It is well known that on one occasion when the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk of the Court of Session—and they did not look like the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk because one was small and round faced and the other one was tall and bucolic—announced to a policeman that that was who they were, in order to get past a police barrier, the policeman said "Well, I am King Kong!" That can happen to almost anyone; it can happen in the situation that I have outlined. Can the Minister not understand that?

5.2 p.m.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for explaining that to me. The short answer is that I do not know, and I might just as well say so here and now. If the noble and learned Lord will allow me, I will look into the matter and I will be in touch with him within a day or two, certainly before we return to the subject on Third Reading.

I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, for having given me notice of some of the points which he wanted to raise. If I understood him correctly, he asked about the position of a person who intends paying the difference at the end of a journey. The relevant provision is contained in subsection (5) of the first new clause. As I indicated in my response to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, when he raised a similar point, the purpose of the penalty fares provision is to ensure that people do not travel without having first obtained the necessary ticket. If they do so, they may become liable to pay a penalty fare. I appreciate that there may be many honest people currently travelling with every intention of paying the excess at their destination. But the fact is that this practice also provides an easy route for those intent on defrauding the system. That is why we need to take this action. However, I did mention that the system will not be introduced on the Underground until the Secretary of State is satisfied that adequate facilities are provided.

The noble Lord asked whether there was perhaps a loophole in the provisions in the event of the minimum and the multiplied fare being equal. I can assure the noble Lord that it would not be possible for a passenger to avoid payment of a penalty fare even if both amounts produced under the formula are the same. A payment of either the minimum or the fare times the multiplier will be required. So I do not think that there is any cause for concern there.

The noble Lord also asked about the travel card holder who forgets his travel card. I think that I have given an answer to that point, but perhaps it might be helpful if I repeat it. So far as I know, under the present arrangements if a person realises that he has forgotten his card he is supposed to purchase a ticket before the beginning of his journey. The cost of the ticket can then reclaimed. The same conditions will apply under these provisions. If a traveller arrives at his destination without any ticket he may be liable to a penalty fare payable within 21 days. No doubt if within the 21 days the traveller proves to London Regional Transport that he is the possessor of a valid travel card, they will take that factor into account.

I am sorry to learn from the noble Lord that he felt that Londoners were becoming increasingly hostile towards paying their fares. I think that that was what the noble Lord meant.

Lord Mountevans

My Lords, I am sorry, but I meant to convey that they were becoming increasingly hostile to those who sought to avoid paying the fare.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining that. We must make sure that we do not provide as many opportunities as there are at present for people to avoid paying. London Regional Transport regard the introduction of the penalty fares provision as an important step in their overall plans. The noble Lord asked specifically: if other authorities want to introduce penalty fares what should they do? The answer is that, if they so wish, it will be up to them to seek the necessary powers.

The noble Lord, Lord Somers, asked who would enforce the penalty fare. It would be enforced by the authorised person—this special kind of inspector. Only those authorised personnel would carry the necessary forms and have the authority to make a penalty fare charge. It would not be within the province of drivers, conductors or ordinary ticket collectors so to do.

Lord somers

My Lords, Presumably there will not be one of those on every bus?

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

No, my lords, there will not be one on every bus. The present system that is used on buses is that inspectors make spot checks. This is back-up by a small squad of plan clothes officials who are used, among other things, to follow passengers previously reported by staff as suspected of fare evasion. On the Underground the normal method of detecting fare evasion in through the use of traveling ticket inspectors checking passengers on trains and at barriers, and plain cloths staff are also used there.

I think that it was the noble Baroness, Lady, Denington, who said that surely on a one-man operated bus people could not get in.

Baroness Denington

No, my Lords, it was not me.

Barness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, it was the noble Lord, Lord somers.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

Yes, I beg your Lordships' pardon: it was the boble Lord, Lord Somers. The noble Lord said that people could not get past the driver. It has not been unknown, in the crush of people getting out, for passengers to get in through the exit door, when it is open. So people can get on buses without going through the right door.

In answer to the noble Baroness, let me say that we expect a greater degree of honesty, particularly as London Regional Transport are going to provide the right kind of ticketing machinery and the right kind of barriers which will encourage people to behave lawfully. I have more faith than perhaps the noble Baroness.

The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael—and I am grateful to him for his general acceptance of these amendments—again described a number of different methods in different cities, and of course we will take note of what he had said. The noble Lord mentioned the long queues, and I think that in general terms I have probably answered his query. I do not think that he raised any other specific matter.

London Regional Transport is generally looking for a quite dramatic change in the method by which people buy tickets. There are co-ordinated ticket, different machinery and different system. At this moment in time I do not think it would be right to attempt to describe all the kinds of development that are currently undergoing evaluation and which may come about in the next few years. I very much regret having taken such a long time. This have been a very important debate in this Report state. Therefore, I hope noble Lords will forgive me for having been so long. With that, I beg to move Amendment No. 48.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Renton)

My Lords, I understand that Amendments Nos. 50 to 53 have been discussed and, unless any noble Lord objects, I propose to put those amendments together.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth Moved Amendments Nos. 50 to 53:

[Printed earlier]

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 64 [Initial membership of London Regional Transport]:

[Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 not moved.]

Schedule 1 [Constitution and proceedings of London Regional Transport]:

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No.56: Page 63, line 12, at end insert ("of whom not less then one-third in proportion to the total number, shall be appointed from persons nominated by the Greater London Council and bodies appearing to the secretary of state to represent local authorities in Greater London.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords may remember that a fairly similar amendment to this one was moved at an earlier stage in the Bill. In fact, we felt so strongly about it that we insisted on going to a Division on it; a vote was taken and the amendment was defeated. Therefore, this new amendment, which is on similar lines and has a similar purpose, nevertheless reduces from two-thirds to one-third the proportion of those who we believe should be representative of the Greater London area generally. Noble Lords may remember that we suggested that the board should be composed two-thirds of those nominated by London boroughs, the GLC and boroughs outside London where Transport operates. We suggested the figure of two-thirds because that was the proportion of the cost which had to be contributed by the ratepayers of those boroughs towards any London Transport deficit.

Having listened to the Minister with care, we decided—and I said this on the last occasion—that perhaps two-thirds was rather a high figure. Two-thirds of a maximum of 12 would leave four people—one from each corner of London. But the Minister declined the figure of two-thirds, which would have meant eight out of 12. Therefore, we are suggesting that one-third of the membership of the board should not be appointed by the boroughs in London but should still be appointed by the Secretary of state from names given to the Secretary of State by those London boroughs or those areas where London Transport operates and by bodies which appear to the Secretary of state to represent Local authorities in Greater London.

I must emphasis that we are not suggesting that anyone other than the Secretary of State Should ask for a list of names from which he can appoint up to a maximum of one-third of the total membership of the board.

On the last occasion when we discussed this matter, a number of points were made. It was said, for instance, that someone who was dissatisfied with the operation of London Transport could always write to his Member of Parliament. But the Minister must be aware that in almost all cases when a Member of Parliament raises a particular point with a Minister concerning a nationalised industry, the Minister is able to say that he has no control over operational matters, and he usually declines to discuss the matter.

Therefore, we believe that it is very important in a city the size of London that there should be some people on the board, at the critical decision-making point, who have an intimate knowledge of the needs of London generally and particularly of certain areas within London. It is possible that every member of the board appointed by the Minister could live outside London. It would be unlikely but, under the terms of the Bill as it now stands, it could be possible. We believe that there is always that possibility. There should be some safeguard to the London ratepayers who will pay such a very large amount of the difference between the fares collected and the total running costs; we believe that there should be some representation of these Londoners not purely on financial grounds—although because they are paying, they should be represented, and that is not unimportant—but because an input is required from the people of London who will be using the system and who, if things do not go well, will be the victims of the London Transport system.

I hope that the Minister will look more favourably on this suggestion that one-third instead of two-thirds of members should he nominated from names submitted by London boroughs and the GLC, than he did last time. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords as, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said, we had a lengthy debate on a similar amendment at the Committee stage. Of course, we have noted that the noble Lord's present amendment now provides for at least one-third of the board to comprise local authority nominees instead of at least two-thirds. In no other respect is this amendment different.

I made it clear at the Committee stage that we were not prepared to accept an amendment on these lines, whatever the figure. I said then that LRT were to be a nationalised industry and that it would be answerable to the Secretary of State and, through him, to Parliament. It will not be answerable to local authorities. The board is to comprise individuals appointed by the Secretary of State who have the relevant qualifications and experience referred to in paragraph 4 of Schedule 1. They will need to be able to manage a multi-million pound business which is one of the country's biggest employers of labour.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State must be free to appoint the person who he regards as most suitable for the job, without the sort of constraint which this amendment would impose. It would be quite inappropriate for his hands to be tied in any way, particularly by a requirement to appoint a proportion of local authority nominees.

More fundamentally, there is no reason why local authorities should have a privileged position in this respect. I would remind your Lordships that the Committee voted against this amendment, or a similar amendment, last month. It would be strange if this evening your Lordships changed course and required at least a third of the appointed board to be nominees of those authorities. As I have said on a number of occasions, we have specifically provided elsewhere in the Bill for local authorities to be consulted, or in some case informed, by LRT about matters which would affect them. The planning regime provided for LRT in the Bill is probably more elaborate and more open to public scrutiny and comment than that in any other nationalised industry. The Bill requires Parliament to approve an annual ratepayer levy order which will show clearly the level of LRT's grant and the contribution to be made by London ratepayers. It establishes a powerful new consumer body to represent the interests of users of both British Rail and LRT services.

I listened carefully to what the noble Lord. Lord Carmichael, said, but in all honesty I could not hear anything that was new to the arguments put forward last time. I think that the noble Lord will realise that we start from different viewpoints, and frankly there is no prospect of our reaching agreement on this issue. I hope your Lordships will also recognise the extent to which we have already sought in the Bill to make special provisions for local authority interests where appropriate. We acknowledge the important role which the local authorities will continue to have in influencing LRT. Where we differ is over the point where to draw the line. On the question of appointments we maintain that the Secretary of State must have complete freedom of choice.

Lord Carmichael of Kielvingrove

My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will realise how disappointing his answer is. I agree that there is nothing new in the arguments I put forward, it is just the strength of feeling that we have towards this matter. It is true that we approach these things from the opposite ends of the scale. The noble Lord said that he did not see why local authorities should have more rights than other people to make these suggestions to the Minister. Our point is that the right they have as against other people is that they are paying a lot of money towards the upkeep of this transport. Therefore, it did not seem to us to be wrong, and in fact absolutely correct, that there should be some recognition of this and of the importance of their role in the whole matter.

I emphasise once more, as I tried to do last time, that there is no suggestion that local authorities should appoint people directly or in any way curb the Secretary of State's power. He is the one who invites names from local authorities under the amendment we have put down. He could invite 20 or 30 local authorities to submit names and it would give him a great deal of choice. I am disappointed. We may find at a later stage a way of raising the matter again. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.23 p.m.

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 58: Page 70, line 18, after ("may") insert ("manufacture and").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I speak to Amendments 58 and 59 together.

Amendment No. 59: Page 70, line 20, after ("of) insert ("manufacturing or").

These two simple amendments refer to the insertion of a couple of words, but they are important. Sub— paragraph (1) of paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 provides that LRT, may manufacture and repair any spare parts and components or other supplementary machinery or equipment". of theirs or their subsidiaries. Subparagraph (2) gives LRT power to repair their own vehicles and other equipment, and to do this also for other people, and for that purpose they may supply parts and components.

The purpose of the two amendments is that what LRT can manufacture for themselves and their subsidiaries they should be able to do also for other persons in addition to undertaking repairs for those other persons. In addition, it would give power to LRT to manufacture vehicles. Similar amendments were before us at Committee stage. At that time the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, expressed apprehension about these additional powers being given to LRT. I must draw attention to the fact that the following two subparagraphs in the schedule give considerable powers to the Secretary of State to approve proposals under subparagraphs (1) and (2), to modify them, or to lay down conditions, or to direct LRT to discontinue such activities.

The noble Lord made two other main points. I quote from column 1239 of 14th May when the noble Lord said: The present management of the London Transport Executive have accepted the restriction written into the Bill of their present manufacturing powers".

I know that the noble Lord would not wish to mislead but I am certain that he has been wrongly advised on this matter.

I have received a letter from the solicitor to the London Transport Executive. He had been asked—that is, the solicitor—by the board to send me a copy of a letter sent to the Department of Transport dated 5th June. That letter to the Department of Transport, after referring to the statement I have read and my amendment at the last stage, goes on—and this is from the solicitor of the executive of the London Transport Board to the Secretary of the Department of Transport: I have been asked to inform you that the London Transport Executive have never been of the view that London Regional Transport should not have power to manufacture for third parties. They believe that it is in the interests both of London Regional Transport and the third parties that such power should be available subject always to the constraints currently imposed on the Executive. That belief was discussed at a Board Meeting of the Executive this morning"— that is 5th June this year— and confirmed unanimously. I have been instructed to write so to inform you".

The department was told that a copy of the letter was being sent to me. I would emphasise the words "unanimous decision".

The other argument of the Minister was that LRT's principal role is to run buses and trains and not to make them. But there was no argument advanced as to why what was proposed in the amendment should not be agreed, and from what I have just read out it is clear what not only political figures but the professional men of London Transport want to see in this Bill.

The statement made by the Minister was contradicted by a subsequent point. He said at column 1239, where it will be more efficient for LRT to manufacture particular items, either because they can do it more cheaply or because there are no other suppliers".

Then he advanced the case of escalator chains which, he said. "are not readily available elsewhere". The effect of the Bill as drafted is that if a market for the production of escalator chains should arise LRT would be unable to take advantage of it with a view to making its own production more profitable. That would he in direct conflict with the Government's own philosophy of increasing competition and efficiency in the public sector. LRT, with its still substantial transport engineering capacity, would be well placed to take advantage of new markets. I think it would be agreed that the line between manufacture and repair can be a fine one. The arbitrary exclusion of manufacture by the main public service operator in London will simply result in a less efficient use of engineering capacity.

At the Committee stage I referred to the fact that until 1967 London Transport found it necessary for buses to be specially made to meet London's particular conditions. It had been pointed out to me that the purchase of standard vehicles has caused a number of engineering and operational problems in the past. London Transport has a long history of undertaking manufacturing for outside bodies and of producing and adapting equipment and vehicles as required. No real argument has been advanced why the power to manufacture in the future should be ruled out.

The exclusion of the manufacture and sale of vehicles and parts to outside parties is an unjustified restriction on the ability of LRT management to use their engineering capacity in the most profitable way possible. If LRT are given this power, as suggested in the amendments, they would have to compete for outside jobs. This is something that should be written into the Bill and then left to the commonsense commercial decision of the LRT management as to whether they wish to utilise it or not at any particular time, bearing in mind all the while that the Secretary of State has power, and will retain that power, to refuse any particular approval of any proposal the board may wish to make. I beg to move.

Lord Teviot

My Lords, I must confess that I was slightly in sympathy with this amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has put forward. I think that, before one goes too far, I should like to ask my noble friend when he replies to explain absolutely what manufactures are permissible by London Transport, because I gather the number is fairly small. One in particular is a cream which will wipe off graffiti. They patented and market, and I think distribute, that themselves. That seems entirely permissible and absolutely sensible, and should be allowed to continue.

I also agree with him that their purpose is really to transport people, and not particularly to make vehicles, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, there is a thin line between manufacture and repair. I shall be grateful, when my noble friend speaks, if he will outline all these points in some detail.

Baroness Denington

My Lords, I too should like to support this amendment as strongly as I can and to endorse every word that Lord Underhill has spoken. I remember going round and meeting the men of London Transport; the drivers in particular and the people in the works. They were always emphasising how much better were the old buses that they themselves had made than any other buses they had to use. They had to use them; they were not allowed to go on manufacturing. There was always a search for better buses. In the early days when I became chairman and we had such trouble trying to get more buses on the roads, again the complaints came about the buses. They brought out some of the old buses that they themselves had manufactured because they were still so much better than the modern ones they could buy.

I do not know what the noble Lord's brief says he should say in answer to this, but I hope that he will not turn it down. If he is inclined to turn it down, I hope that he will take it away and have another think about it, because this is economically very important to the London Transport industry in London.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I can tell the noble Baroness exactly what my brief says. It says "resist", and that is what I shall do. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, we considered the matter quite briefly at Committee stage and I made our position quite clear. I explained then, and I repeat now, that we regard London Regional Transport's principal role as one of running buses and trains and not making them. That is why we have deliberately narrowed down in the Bill the wide powers which London Transport have at present. The powers in paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 enable London Regional Transport to engage in any necessary manufacturing or repair activities for their own purposes short of actually being able to manufacture vehicles. This will permit them to make sensible use of their resources to carry out repairs for third parties. We believe that these powers are fully sufficient for LRT and quite consistent with their main function, which, as I say, certainly is not to carry out manufacturing processes for themselves or for outsiders but is to get on with running their own services.

The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, drew at some length on what I said at Committee stage when I stated London Transport's position on the manufacturing proposals. I stand today by what I said on that occasion. During the preparation of the Bill, London Transport officials had discussions with the Transport Department on a number of proposals about which they were then unhappy or of which they wanted clarification. These proposals included the manufacturing powers because of the important change which was then being made. It was made clear to London Transport that the proposals represented firm ministerial policy, but the officials were asked to confirm that little use was made of the present powers, and in particular that the reduction in manufacturing powers would not put at risk significant activities which were currently being undertaken. London Transport was able to tell us then that the proposals as they appear in the Bill would not cause any serious problems.

These proposals have been in the Bill ever since it was first published. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned that London Transport had written to the department on the subject. I do not quarrel with him on that. Of course I, too, have seen the letter. I note the view which has now, after this time, been expressed by the board, but I still say that my own remarks were wholly justified at that time.

My noble friend Lord Teviot asked me if I could elaborate on what kind of manufacturing LRT could undertake under the provisions of the Bill. Spare parts, largely; things which they use for its own. or perhaps its contracted companies where they are not readily available. So far as this special cream that has been developed and marketed is concerned, I imagine that that would be perfectly allowable under the manufacturing provisions.

I have listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said and to what the noble Baroness said. We obviously do not share the same views about what is appropriate for LRT. Frankly, I do not really expect to be able to convince noble Lords opposite at this stage. We believe that LRT's powers are quite adequate to enable it to carry on their operations efficiently and to give other people the benefit of repair facilities. We certainly do not want this nationalised industry, supported by public funds, setting up a manufacturing base for third parties. It is as simple as that. I can do no more than say that we see its role as running buses and trains and not making them.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I am very disappointed, particularly in view of the support given to these amendments, that the Minister is not moving on this. The fact that his brief says "resist" may mean that somebody decided to resist before even hearing any arguments. I hope that the arguments may have made the Minister appreciate that there is a case to be met. Paragraph 9(1) states: London Regional Transport may manufacture and repair any spare pans and components or other supplementary machinery or equipment that is very widespread—but only for itself or its subsidiaries. Why should it not do it for somebody else and use its engineering capacity—that is what we are really saying—in a commonsense business managerial exercise by the board?

We have brought in the point about the vehicles because it is felt that there may be times when in the future it may be desirable for LRT to do this in view of the special needs for special types of vehicles to cope with London conditions. The noble Lord says that there is no need to change the view expressed at that time. He mentioned discussions with the executive. I can only quote what Mr. I. E. King, solicitor to the executive, says in this letter to the department, of which, as I said, I have a copy: London Transport Executive have never been of the view that London Regional Transport should not have power to manufacture for third parties. The decision which they made recently, as of 5th June, to confirm that view was unanimous. The political members of the executive and all the professional staff of the executive want LRT to have this power. That is not to say they will use it. That will depend on their managerial capacity and decisions. We have been told that there will be a board with great business experience and capacity. Let the board take the decision, but for Heaven's sake give it the power.

I do not think that at this hour on a matter of this kind I ought to divide the House, but there is here a deep principle of commercial judgment which the Government are refusing to allow to the board of LRT. I ask the Minister to take this back and consult the London Transport Executive, in view of its letter of 5th June, and discuss its views about this. If its view is really as set out in the letter—I think it must be—and it can give sufficient justification then the Government themselves may feel that they ought to bring forward an amendment at the Third Reading stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]

Schedule 3 [The London Regional Passengers' Committee]:

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 60: Page 76, line II, at end insert— ("( ) The Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 shall apply to the proceedings of the Committee.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, again this is an amendment that was moved at the last stage of the Bill. I make no apologies for it. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said in his reply that it was merely a further discussion upon another aspect of account-ability.

I do not think we on this side of the House are at all apologetic about trying to get accountability into any publicly-funded body or organisation. Our purpose in this amendment is that the public should have a right to attend these meetings. I emphasise that these are meetings of the London Regional Passengers' Committee, not the London Regional Transport Board.

If one looks at the principal part of the Bill to which the schedule refers, one sees that copies of minutes shall be sent to a certain number of people, but there shall be no publication of the minutes. Local authorities in the London area, which will be responsible for meeting a large part of the costs of the passenger transport, will not even be given a copy of the minutes. All the public will know about the procedures of the passengers' committee (which presumably is a committee to look after the interests of and provide services for the public) is that once a year an annual report to the Secretary of State shall be laid before each House of Parliament. I feel that this is quite inadequate and that something a bit more informative for the general public and the boroughs, who will be supporting the purpose of this committee and the purpose of the existence of the committee to provide transport for London, should be given.

We ask that the proceedings of the committee should be open to the public as under the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960. The Minister must know that laying a copy of a report before each House of Parliament in practical terms is not giving quite as much information to the public as my friends and I and noble friends in other parties believe they should have. I make no apology for once again trying to have a further discussion, as the Minister described it, on another aspect of accountability. I think accountability in a field that touches so many people's daily lives is absolutely and vitally important. Therefore, I beg to move.

Lord Molloy

My Lords, I should like to support what my noble friend on the Front Bench has said, particularly when one bears in mind the history of the 1960 Act. Many of us who were active in local government at that time were involved in it. Many of us were apprehensive at the beginning, but many of the merits and attributes that came from it and many of its encouragements made it permissible and possible for ordinary people to enter committees of certain councils to see what was going on. It was not merely a check up to see what councillors and officers of councils were doing. I should have thought it highly desirable that this should apply—as my noble friend has said, bearing in mind that this one amendment has been quoted in a number of places—to the London Regional Passengers' Committee. That is what the schedule is headed. When one sees a heading like that—people have spoken about it in other places both inside and outside Parliament—one realises that it is one of the great bulwarks of democracy when the passengers, the Londoners themselves, can go into a meeting to see what is going on.

Someone has gone to the trouble to remind the Government that this ought to be done, so the Government ought to be pleased. It was not the intention to debar the ordinary Londoner or anyone else concerned with London passenger transport—mostly ordinary Londoners who are not necessarily councillors—from seeing how this committee functions. To do so is naturally right and proper.

There is a further aspect that I ask your Lordships to consider. Those of us who have been active in politics for 40-odd years, in local government as well as national government, know full well that there are so many people whose first introduction to the idea of democracy in action—whether the local authority, the local council, the district council or the county council, or even Parliament itself—was in our famous public galleries. They can sit, watch and listen to what is happening. One of the proud things about our Parliament is that anyone can come into our Parliament. They do not have to be British. Nobody asks who they are, what they are or from whence they came. All that is said is that if there is room they can go upstairs, sit down, behave themselves and listen.

I have read so many autobiographies and biographies of well-known politicians who have claimed that their first introduction to the British political system was going with mother or father, uncle or aunt, to the local authority to watch the great council in action—it might have been Swansea council or some urban district council. I believe that wherever we can we should make it possible for people to see committees in action, what we are really talking about is British democracy in action. Even if the Minister cannot say yes immediately—I understand the difficulties that confront Ministers in this House—I hope he will say that he believes that the Government think this is something worth looking at and that they will do that.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove and Lord Molloy, for explaining their support for this amendment. I am not surprised that we have had another debate under the general heading of accountability. Frankly, there is little I can add to what I said at Committee stage. I explained at that time that Schedule 3(4) paragraph 9 gives the passengers' committee the power to determine its own procedure to enable it to decide whether and when to open its meetings to the public. We regard this as the best way to proceed. None of the nationalised industry consumer councils is covered, incidentally, by the 1960 Act and we do not regard it as appropriate to impose a requirement on them.

I also explained at Committee stage that one of the existing consumer bodies, the London Transport Passenger Committee, holds part of its discussions in public but that the Transport Users' Consultative Committee for London which deals with British Rail, does not hold any public discussion at all. The two organisations have developed in slightly different ways over the years and it is inevitable that when the newly-created body comes into existence it will have to consider quite afresh a large number of questions affecting the organisation of its work. Undoubtedly among those questions will be how to conduct the more formal part of its proceedings.

I recognise the force of the noble Lord's argument. It may be helpful if I rehearsed again how we envisage the operation of the passengers' committee. Certainly we would not see it as a policy forming authority. We would see it as dealing with complaints and representations, commenting on London Regional Transport's plans and proposals. It will spend much of its time in detailed discussions with LRT and British Rail, and I have no doubt that both of those bodies will continue with the valuable liaison arrangements which exist at present. If the passengers' committee find that some of their work lends itself to formal discussion in public, I am sure that they will arrange their business in that way.

I cannot see that the proposals in the Bill in any way deny people their rights. Obviously, the committee will be able to arrange their public meetings with users, and so on. I do not think that it is really necessary to impose a statutory procedure on them. I have no doubt, since we have discussed this on more than one occasion, that views have been put forcibly and that I have expressed views. I shall expect them to take due note of that, and I have little doubt that they will in fact do so. Perhaps, while on this subject for the sake of completeness, I should make the point about the public proceedings of this committee. When the committee are conducting a hearing about a rail closure proposal they will be required under Clause 41(2) to do so in public. This merely continues the existing law. Nothing, therefore, has been added, and nothing taken away. With that explanation, I would invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, the answer that the Minister has given today is perhaps warmer than the answer which he gave last time, in that he suggested that the London Passenger Transport Committee would no doubt read the proceedings in this Chamber and would know that there was a certain feeling about it. I should have preferred the noble Lord to have made reference to the minutes of the meetings being made slightly more widely available, and to the fact that, unlike in the case of most of the other committees, the London boroughs are going to pay a certain amount of money towards the upkeep of public transport in London.

With the points that the Minister has made and the general reception that he gave, although far from totally satisfactory, I believe that, considering that we both look at the problem from opposite ends of the spectrum, he went a little further, at least in empathy than before, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 5 [Transitional provisions and savings]:

5.52 p.m.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 61: Page 89, line 15, after ("sections") insert ("8(a), 30(1)(a),").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor drafting amendment to paragraph 11(4) of Schedule 5. It provides that the references in Clause 8(a) and Clause 30(1)(a) to agreements between LRT and private operators under Clause 3(2) arrangements are not to be treated as including agreements or consents for London bus services which were made under existing powers and are continued on a transitional basis alongside the new form of agreements.

The Clause 3(2) agreements referred to in Clause 8(a) and in subsection (1)(a) of Clause 30 are agreements relating to services which are under the control of LRT. Many of the existing London bus agreements and consents under the 1969 Act relate to services which are quite separate from London Transport's own services; and those services will not in practice be under LRT's control during the transitional period. It would be confusing if the drafting of the Bill gave the impression either that LRT would control those services or that LRT should act as if they controlled them. The amendment therefore seeks to avoid any doubt on the subject. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]

Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 63: Page 91, line 7, leave out ("2nd December 1983") and insert ("the passing of this Act").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment stands in the names of my noble friend Lord Tordoff and myself. It is a very simple amendment. It intends to substitute for the words "2nd December 1983" the words "the passing of this Act". It is in respect of capital expenditure. I was very nice to the noble Lord the Minister about his penalty fares: I should now like to be kind to him. I am sure that noble Lords opposite, like noble Lords on these Benches, do not like retrospective legislation. This particular clause is retrospective. If there is a very good reason, I think that it can be accepted, but I do not think that there is a good reason to do this.

We understand that up to today, the middle of June, there has been no significant capital expenditure by the GLC, and, as I understand it, the date 2nd December 1983—retrospective—was inserted in order to stop hasty, ill-considered and unwise expenditure. That has not happened to date, and I do not see why it should happen in the short time which would elapse between now and the passing of this Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I shall briefly give my support to this amendment. It will be noted that I have not moved my Amendment No. 62, which was similar to that which I moved at the Committee stage. This amendment puts in the words "the passing of this Act", whereas my amendment used the words "the appointed day". The reference to the passing of the Act seems more common sense than one to the appointed day. I said at the Committee stage, in reply to the Minister, that I would get a list of all the capital schemes which may be affected. I am assured by the GLC that they have now agreed to fund a large number of British Rail schemes which otherwise could have been affected by this provision because they want to ensure their continuity in the short term, and that it will be possible for them to fund most other BR schemes through alternative powers. There is the principle of retrospection to which the House should give attention, and for that reason I support the amendment.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister to clarify whether this is a case of retrospection or whether that date was merely the date placed on the Bill at the time it was published so that people therefore knew it was as from that date?

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for moving this amendment, because it gives me the opportunity to clarify the intentions of our own proposal. Paragraph 15 of Schedule 5 makes it clear that LRT are to be required to take over certain commitments entered into by the GLC for public transport investment with British Rail or operators other than London Transport. It makes equally clear that the requirement is not to apply to commitments made by the GLC after 2nd December 1983: that is, after the publication of the Bill. I would emphasise that nothing in the paragraph has been intended to prevent the GLC either from entering into new commitments after 2nd December 1983 or from making payments after that date, whether under old or new commitments. We are not in that sense constraining the GLC in anticipation of Parliament's approval to the Bill.

All that we have been saying—and I think this is what my noble friend Lady Gardner has in mind—is that, once the Government's intentions were made public, it seemed only reasonable that any further contractual commitments entered into by the GLC should remain their responsibility and should not be handed over to LRT at the appointed day. It would have been irresponsible if we had offered the GLC a blank cheque by providing for LRT to pick up any and every GLC commitment made after the publication of the Bill. I should add that legally enforceable contractual commitments to pay grants are not affected by the repeal of the GLC's powers to pay grants for public transport purposes. The obligations will remain, and expenditure by the GLC in fulfilling any such obligations will be lawful expenditure. This is because of Section 16 of the Interpretation Act 1978. At the same time, it would also have been irresponsible if we had repealed the powers which enabled the GLC to pay grant for public transport purposes, but had made no provision for commitments to pay grants which were entered into before the publication of the Bill but which might not otherwise be legally enforceable.

I hope therefore that the noble Lord will be able to accept paragraph 15 of Schedule 5 as a modest and straightforward provision setting limits to the commitments which will pass statutorily from the GLC to LRT. We do not believe that it carries the constitutional overtones that may have been implied when we discussed this matter during the earlier stages of our consideration. As I said during the Committee debate, this was designed to secure fair arrangements for the funding of sensible schemes in the run-up to the new system.

Earl Attlee

My Lords, I thank the Minister for what he said. I accept his clarification although I think he will admit that when one read the Bill it looked like restrospective legislation. I accept that it is probably not. I should like to read carefully what the Minister said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Jacques)

Amendment No. 64. Here there is a correction to the page number. It should be page 97, not page 47.

Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 64: Page 97, line 49, at end insert—(" . Section 35 (which relates to the grant of road service licences for certain excursions or tours) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 shall have effect subject to the following amendments—

1. (a) in subsection (1), at the beginning, there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsections (1A), (1B), (1C), (1D) and (1E) below"; and
2. (b) after subsection (I) there shall be inserted the following subsections:—

(1A) If it relates to a service which would involve picking up or setting down passengers on any road in Greater London an application for a licence for a service of a kind described in subsection (1) above shall be treated as an application to which this subsection applies and subsection(1) above does not apply. (1B) As regards an application to which subsection (IA) above applies the traffic commissioners shall grant the licence unless they are satisfied that to do so would be against the interests of the public on the grounds only that the use for the taking up or setting down of passengers of any place which may be so used would be prejudicial to the safety or convenience of the public. (1C) In relation to an application to which subsection (1A) above applies and to any licence granted on it, section 33 of this Act shall not apply and sections 31 and 32 of this Act shall have effect as if section 31(2) to (4) and, in section 32(1), the works "and in particular to the matters mentioned in section 3 1(3)(a) to (c) of this Act" and paragraphs (a) and (b), were omitted. (1D) In considering under subsection (1B) above whether the grant of a licence would be against the interests of the public or whether in accordance with section 32 of this Act it would he in the interests of the public to attach conditions to the licence, the traffic commissioners shall have regard to any objections or representations, which they consider relvant, which are made in the prescribed manner by the Greater London Council, any London Borough Council, the Common Council of the City of London and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and, where the proposed service involves any place within the City of London which may be used for the taking up and setting down of passengers, the Commissioner of Police for the City of London. (1E) Notwithstanding subsection (4) of this section, section 50 of this Act shall apply to applications to which subsection (1A) above applies.".")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, at this hour, and right at the end of the Bill, I am not going to repeat what I said in Committee because it is exactly the same amendment. I hope my noble friend will confirm that he is going to do something about this on Third Reading. Briefly, the amendment amends the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, allowing bodies such as the police to object to licences being given on grounds of inconvenience or safety. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, before I speak to my noble friend's amendment, I wonder whether your Lordships will permit me, since we are in Report Stage, to correct something I said earlier in response to my noble friend Lord Teviot, when we were discussing the manufacturing clauses. I said, if my memory serves me right, that an example of LRT's manufacturing allowance was spare parts and things of that nature. I also suggested that the cream which they have manufactured for their own use would probably be allowed. However, I am advised that the type of things are certainly spare parts for buses, but also things such as escalator chains, as an example of an incidental item to the repair and service of their equipment, because these are not normally made. The narrower manufacturing powers which LRT will have will probably lead to the cessation of production of certain chemical products such as cleaning solvents, which they manufacture and sell in small quantities at present. I am afraid that I may very well have mislead my noble friend. I would envisage of course that London Regional Transport will no doubt sell the manufacturing rights or patents to an outside body. Under the provisions in paragraph 19 of the schedule, LRT will be able to complete any contracts entered into by the executive.

With regard to this amendment, I recognise my noble friend's concern which is shared by London Transport: notably that there is sufficient kerbside space for the potential operators of excursions and tours. We welcome the principle behind the amendment as I thought I had made clear when we considered it in Committee. Our discussions at that stage were mainly concerned not with the merit of the proposal but with the question whether it was necessary to anticipate Clause 44 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill, which of course as my noble friend pointed out, contains an identical proposal. I repeat that in our view there is no reason to fear that Clause 44 of that Bill will fail. However, in view of my noble friend's concern and the support that was expressed for the amendment at the earlier stage by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, we have given this matter further consideration as I promised and have decided to deal with it in the present Bill rather than leave it for the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill. If my noble friend will accept from me that we will bring forward an amendment for that purpose at Third Reading. I hope he will feel able to withdraw his own amendment this evening.

Lord Teviot

My Lords, first, I must thank my noble friend for coming back on the manufacturing amendment. I shall read all that he says very carefully before considering what to do. On this present amendment, I am very grateful to him for taking this back. All I can say is that I look forward to his amendment on Third Reading, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.