London Regional Transport Bill

HL Deb 14 May 1984 vol 451 cc1156-98

4.15 p.m.

House again in Committee on Schedule 1.

Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 4: Page 63, line 28, at end insert— ("( ) One member of the Corporation shall be made responsible for ensuring that the Corporation fulfils its duty under section 2(1) in relation to people with disabilities.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment would make one member of the corporation responsible for ensuring that the corporation fulfils its duty under Clause 2(1) in relation to people with disabilities. Clause 2(1) places a general duty on London Regional Transport to provide for the provision of public passenger transport services. That duty, of course, covers disabled as well as able-bodied persons, but it does not specifically say so. A later amendment that I shall move seeks to make the duty to provide services for disabled people specific, for reasons which I shall then explain.

Whether or not that specific duty is included in the Bill, it is clear that the corporation will be faced with the necessity of taking decisions which will seriously affect the transport services as they relate to disabled people. If the corporation is to be reminded of the effect of its proposals on disabled people, particularly at the design stage, and if it is to take their needs fully into account, it is desirable that there should be one member of the corporation who has the specific responsibility for bringing up these matters or seeking within the terms of the Bill to ensure that these needs are met. I fear that if this is not the case, there is a danger that the needs of the disabled will be ignored. One has only to look at the inaccessibility of much of the present London transport system to disabled people to see what that means.

In another place the Government showed themselves sympathetic to the need for special attention to be given to the disabled. For the Government, Mrs. Lynda Chalker said that one member of the London Regional Transport Board would be required to provide the focal point for the interests of the disabled. She said that all members of the board would be expected to take an interest, but that one member would provide the focal point. This amendment would give effect to that assurance. I beg to move.

Lord Ennals

As I understand it, five amendments are being taken in this debate and perhaps it would be for the convenience of your Lordships if I were to touch on each one of them, or, rather, to cover the whole field in the remarks I make. Amendment No. 9: Clause 2, page 2, line 8, at end insert ("and this general duty shall include the duty to meet the needs of people with disabilities."). Amendment No. 17: Page 2, line 32, at end insert— ("(4A) London Transport's duty under subsection (1) above shall include where necessary the provision of special transport services for people with particular disabilities."). Amendment No. 26: Clause 3, page 3, line 26, at end insert— ("( ) ensuring that the needs of people with disabilities are met;"). Amendment No. 102: Clause 28, page 24, line 42, after ("facilities") insert ("including those provided especially for disabled people)"). It is interesting to note that these amendments, in most cases, are supported by noble Lords and noble Baronesses in all parts of the Chamber and from all parties. In this debate we are now moving on to an issue that does not, thank heavens, touch upon party politics in any sense at all. Three issues are dealt with in these five amendments. First, as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, there is the composition of the board. However, in a sense before that come two important questions: first, the duty of the new board to meet the needs of disabled people, as set out in Amendments Nos. 9 and 26; and, secondly, the special transport services for people with particular disabilities, as referred to in Amendment No. 17.

I think it should be said that the amendments which have been put on the Marshalled List have been put down after consultation with the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled, which has done a magnificent job in bringing together so many organisations of disabled people which are naturally involved. Though there are more opportunities available for disabled people, unless they can travel they cannot take up those opportunities. It is good to see that the Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus, the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association, the British Polio Fellowship, the British Rheumatism and Arthritis Association, the Multiple Sclerosis Society, the Muscular Dystrophy Group, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, the British Legion and the Spastics Society—and I have by no means mentioned all the organisations—have been consulted in the preparation of these amendments.

In my view it is essential for the Bill to state explicitly that London Regional Transport has a responsibility to provide public transport for disabled people. That is not in the Bill at the present stage. At present, London Transport has no duty to cater for the needs of disabled people, and consequently virtually all its buses and Underground systems are inaccessible to all but the least severely disabled. Amendment No. 9 would help to ensure that in the future London's transport systems will eventually be made accessible to a larger proportion of potential travellers. Public transport should be accessible to the public at large and not merely to what I call an athletic subsection of the public. In our society in Britain we are talking about roughly a quarter of a million people who live in the London Transport area but cannot use that transport. It is certainly not argued that all existing systems should be made accessible to everyone, irrespective of their degree of disability. That would be unreasonable and impracticable, as it would be excessively costly. Clause 2(2)(b) requires LRT to: have due regard to… efficiency, economy and safety of operation". I did not include the Federation of London Dial-a-Rides in the list, but it has collaborated very much in the preparation of these amendments. It provides a very significant service, and I want to say a word or two about this in a moment. The federation argues that those with a disability are denied rights to which they should be entitled in regard to the capital's public transport system. In so far as there will be subsidies, these will come from the ratepayers—from the disabled ratepayers as well as from the fit.

The federation has something to say about the way our society regards itself. We are looking at this Bill 14 years after the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act; nine years after the United Nations declaration on the rights of people with disabilities, to which Her Majesty's Government were a signatory; and four years after the International Year of Disabled Persons. The Bill provides us in this House with the unique opportunity for Parliament to begin to dismantle the barriers to integration by saying with all the force of the law that it wishes that they should be dismantled.

The Federation of London Dial-a-Rides is a very important development. It is for people who cannot use London buses and the Tube. It is this category of person who is dealt with in Amendment No. 17, which would provide public transport for people with disabilities who are excluded from London Transport. It operates an 18-hour-a-day service, seven days a week. It provides safe, reliable and efficient transport at the equivalent of the bus fare. There are Dial-a-Ride schemes in Brent, Camden, Ealing, Greenwich, Hackney, Hammersmith, Fulham, Haringey, Islington, Lambeth, Tower Hamlets and Wandsworth. Schemes are just about to start in Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster. Eventually the whole of London will be covered. At present it is funded by the GLC, together with the taxi card scheme, which will also soon be extended across London. I believe that schemes like Dial-a-Ride should be funded by the authority which funds London Transport. It should not be a separate organisation. After all, Dial-a-Ride has relied heavily on the GLC for subsidies, and, since the GLC will go, it should be recognised and seen to be part of the provision of London Transport.

As the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said, assurances were given. Let me quote the Minister of State, Mrs Chalker, at the Committee stage in another place on 2nd February. She said: We shall ensure through the written instructions of the Secretary of State for Transport under the powers in the Bill that LRT's own structure and infrastructure are developed with the needs of disabled people fully in mind so far as technology and finance will allow.". If there is to be such an instruction, why would it not be right to put it in the Bill? I submit that it would be right to do just that, if that is what your Lordships' Committee wishes. If we decide not to put it in the Bill, I do not say that I would assume, but perhaps some would assume, that instructions are enough. The time has come when there should be a legislative require-ment. This is the best time. We are, after all, creating a new transport authority. I hope that when it has debated this group of amendments, the Committee will both recognise the principles and wish to write them into the Bill.

There are two principles. One is set out in Amendment No. 9, which states: this general duty shall include the duty to meet the needs of people with disabilities". There is a later amendment to cover those with very special disabilities. That is Amendment No. 17.

I hope that the Minister accepts what I say. If he does so—and I am sure he will rise quickly to his feet to say that he does—the debate will be immensely strengthened. I find it very difficult to understand that he could have any arguments for not requiring the new London Regional Transport authority to have that responsibility, and, if it has it, to have a member of the board to ensure that it is properly fulfilled.

4.28 p.m.

Lord Mottistone

Are we taking all four amendments together? The noble Lord, Lord Banks, did not say so to start with. Alternatively, are we just debating Amendment No. 4?

Lord Banks

It seems to me that these amendments, while related, are not dependent on each other, and therefore the proper procedure is to take each amendment as it comes, although inevitably, since the same principles are running through them, there is bound to be a little overlapping between the debates on the separate amendments.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (The Earl of Avon)

Perhaps I may intervene briefly to say that my understanding was that through the usual channels we agreed to speak to Amendments Nos. 4, 9, 17, 26 and 102. I understood that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, was given that list. If I am wrong, the noble Lord, Lord Banks, will let me know. The noble Lord has moved Amendment No. 4, and that is obviously the amendment to which we shall refer at the end.

Lord Ennals

If it would be helpful to the Committee, I am of course ready to move each of those five which are the subject of this moment's debate.

Baroness Lane-Fox

I am a little surprised by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. My name also is down to these amendments and I do not wish to go the way that he is suggesting. In fact we seem to have traversed such a long way under that first amendment that I wish now to outline what that amendment actually asks for. The object of the amendments is to ensure that one member of the London Regional Transport Corporation will have special responsibility for ensuring that the transport needs of disabled people are properly met. Properly met, please note—unlike the conditions suffered under London Transport.

This really is an important matter, because, much as we value the help and advice of able-bodied people, we know that there are vital points on the travelling needs of disabled people that the able bodied simply do not comprehend. How can they, poor things? They are lucky enough not to have been through this training school of life.

As we have heard, the Minister in another place has already said that one member of LRT would be needed as the focal point for our interests. While I and many others have full confidence that the Minister will stand by her word, we feel slightly bound to provide against any related ministerial or less foreseeable Governmental changes. Therefore, we ask that this be spelt out in the Bill.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

I would hope that we could do what the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has suggested, because otherwise it is possible to get into an awful muddle when one is discussing an individual amendment.

I should just like to say that I am delighted that the noble Earl, Lord Avon, is going to take these amendments because I do believe, from other Bills, that he is sympathetic and understands the problems and the needs of disabled people. The problems are very varied and very difficult. I should like to ask, in Amendment No. 4 should it not say, "Section 1,4(1)", not "2(1)"? I just think there may be a drafting fault here. I should like the movers of the amendment to explain this.

Where the paragraph states in relation to the corporation: among persons who appear to him"— the Secretary of State— to have had wide experience of, and shown capability in, transport, industrial, commercial or financial matters, administration, applied science", would it not be good to add, "disability problems" and then go on: or the organisation of workers"? I feel that the amendment, as it stands, is not quite right.

The biggest population of disabled people are the elderly. In the years to come these problems are going to get much worse, even more serious than they are now. We have a falling population roll but more elderly people living longer. Now is the time to plan for the difficult future. In the next 10 years, when there will be more elderly people, we shall have fewer young people to look after them. Many of the Committee will fall into this category.

I think the problems and needs in transport for disabled people are very important. It is easy to forget them. One certainly needs people who understand and can put them forward to the corporation so those needs are incorporated in the general planning. I think the noble Earl might be able to come up with a better amendment that does not narrow the person to one. I am sure we need the requirements to be written into the Bill, otherwise we cannot be sure that they will not be forgotten.

Lord Mottistone

I have great sympathy with this group of amendments as such, but not particularly with Amendment No. 4. That is why I asked my question earlier on. In fact I am not sure that the better line of approach is not Amendment No. 135, in the name of my noble friends Lady Lane-Fox and Lady Macleod, which talks about the committee which is going to advise.

I am very cautious about the thought of a corporate body—because we are talking about a member of the corporation—not being thought to be wholly responsible for specific things, as opposed to having an individual who takes responsibility, which is what is suggested in Amendment No. 4. To that extent— though I should like to know what my noble friend on the Front Bench has to say—I should have thought that Amendment No. 9, for example, which emphasises the responsibility for the disabled but does not pick out one member to deal with this problem, was much more appropriate.

One can think of all sorts of circumstances where there might be other things which could be identified as being particularly important. We are only going to have a membership of, at a maximum, 11. One has got to be the wicket keeper or the captain, however you describe him. So we shall eventually get to a state where they all have a special responsibility, and then their collective responsibility will not be nearly so effective. So I personally think that this amendment is barking up the wrong tree and I hope that the Committee will not like it.

I should like to say one more thing. That is that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said it was easy to forget the disabled. It is not. We do not get a chance to forget the disabled, not only here but all over the country; in the newspapers, every time, the disabled have made their point. Each time I take someone over the House to see it, I point out why the Hansard writers' table is put to one side and they all applaud. The disabled have made their point. Let them not overdo it and certainly they should not seek to have this special member. I do hope the Committee will not give this amendment—and I am talking about Amendment No. 4—any support at all.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

I should like to express some sympathy with the view just expressed by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. I welcome the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, from the Front Bench opposite. This is certainly not a party matter. Nor I think should it develop into a competition in sympathy for the disabled. That should be taken for granted.

I should also like to observe that I recognise that it is dangerous to say anything in days when what you say, if noticed at all, is open to be misconstrued and misunderstood. To express any opposition to a suggestion which, outwardly at any rate, is intended to help the disabled is taking certain risks.

But the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred rather briefly—and understandably—to changes to the system. I wonder what changes to the system are suggested in these amendments. I very much doubt the wisdom of incorporating a sort of bland instruction of the kind that is suggested here, in a Bill. I agree with my noble friend Lord Mottistone that it is highly unlikely, indeed quite impossible, for any of us, even if we wanted to—and certainly not a body like the transport board which is about to be set up—to disregard the needs of the disabled. But I do particularly feel that members of such bodies—and I believe that, to be effective, they should be few rather than many—should not have particular responsibilities allocated to them. The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, spoke just now with eloquence on the subject. I feel very strongly, however, that there is a real danger that, if one member of such a body as this is given particular responsibility, others will tend to ignore it, and I think that that might be very unwise and self-defeating.

I very much doubt whether it is right to put good intentions into Acts of Parliament. I believe that bodies such as this Bill is intended to set up should of course be relied upon to carry out such good intentions without being instructed line by line to do so. If I may say this to my noble friend, I think the Government, in the framing of this Bill, have brought this trouble upon themselves. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, called attention to the schedule, where it is said that, the chairman and other members of the Corporation shall be appointed by the Secretary of State from among persons who appear to him to have had wide experience of, and shown capability in, transport, industrial, commercial or financial matters, administration, applied science, or the organisation of workers.". She went on, very reasonably, to ask why the disabled should not be included as well. I think it utterly stupid of the Government to put this kind of thing into a Bill. They invite the kind of amendment now being suggested, which I do not believe will achieve anything.

It is not always possible to have the highest opinion of all Ministers although the present incumbents of the Front Bench enjoy my total respect. However, one cannot take it absolutely for granted that they will be followed by the same kind of intellectual giants. I wonder very much whether any one could possibly be so silly as to go round looking for people to sit on a board such as this who are not knowledgable in financial matters, transport, and the rest of it. It is idiotic. It is a vain hope, I know, but I hope that at some time Ministers will attempt to cure themselves of what I regard as an unpleasant complaint.

I feel reasonably confident that my noble friend will reject this amendment, or that he will advise the Committee to reject the amendment, not for any lack of sympathy with the disabled but because, as I really believe, it could well be counter-productive and actually militate against the cause of the disabled. It could well happen that whoever was nominated to represent the cause of the disabled would not do it very well. Others might then feel themselves excused from the discharge of a serious duty.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

I should like briefly to support the amendment. I had not intended to speak but I was so amazed by the words of the noble Lords, Lord Mottistone, and Lord Peyton, that I think there is a lack of understanding of the problem. We are not in any way asking for sympathy. We are not in any way asking for good intentions. That would be the last thing that we should seek to embody in the Bill. We are asking that someone on this corporation should have an informed opinion and full appreciation of the specific problems of the disabled with regard to transport.

4.43 p.m.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

I wonder whether I may add my voice in support of this group of amendments. I should like to echo what was stated by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. While the amendments are related, they are not dependent upon each other. I should therefore like to concentrate on this single amendment. I wish to speak particularly in view of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. There must be a little confusion in his mind, if I may say so with respect, because I do not think that Amendment No. 4 and the other amendment in the name of the noble Baroness. Lady Lane-Fox, conflict in any way. I believe that they are complementary. It is not therefore a case of one or the other, but perhaps of both.

The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said that one cannot forget the disabled. That may well be so in this House, and quite right too. If Parliament does not give a lead, and if each House does not provide special facilities for the disabled, how on earth can we expect the rest of the country to do so? Here, we certainly set an example, and that is right. Equally, it is right that London Regional Transport should set an example. If these amendments or something like them can be included in the Bill, it will set an example for other transport authorities.

Amendment No. 4 may not be perfect but it has at least the merit of not increasing the number of members of the corporation. There is a good deal in what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, says about not pinning responsibility on a particular member of the corporation. That may be—but I only say "may be"—covered by Amendment No. 9 where a general duty is laid upon the whole corporation to meet the needs of people with disabilities. One or the other, if not both of these, will be necessary. At this stage, I say no more than that.

Lord Seebohm

I agree entirely with the intentions of these amendments. I agree very much with what was stated by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. As an ex-chief executive, I would be furious if someone started peeling off my responsibility and placing it in the hands of some non-executive director. This responsibility must be the responsibility of the chief executive. There is no doubt that if anything goes wrong, he must be responsible. Otherwise, he can shed his responsibility on to some weak member of the board. I do not think that this foray is on.

Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone

I should like to support what has already been said by my noble friends Lord Mottistone and Lord Peyton. The fact is that members of this board are a large commercial organisation. If pressures are brought to bear, as I have experienced myself with the present London Transport, to have special interest groups represented on the board, where do you stop? You will not need a football team. You will need a rugby football team to accommodate all the people who feel that they deserve a place on the corporation. It is clear to me that the place for someone to look after the special interests of the disabled is on the London Regional Passengers' Committee where they can bring to bear all their influence in seeing that special needs are met within the financial constraints.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

I should like to oppose the amendment perhaps more than anything because of the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that this amendment narrows to one the number of people who would actually be interested in this matter. That is true. It is not a good idea. This should definitely be the responsibility of the whole corporation. If one looks at London Transport today, one must realise that the situation of those with disabilities is very carefully considered. There is the Dial-a-Ride scheme. There has also been consideration given to "kneeling" buses, which I have seen in New York. When a button is pressed, the step used for boarding the bus is lowered, enabling a person with limited mobility to board. All these matters have been considered.

Some proposals are not appropriate for London with its double-deckers. But there is no lack of thought now in the planning for people with disabilities. I believe that when control changes under the Bill, it will not be for the worse but for the better and that the interests of those with disabilities will continue to be reflected in future planning. I cannot support the amendment, because I am not prepared to have this regard narrowed to one.

Baroness Phillips

It is rather curious that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, should suggest that these amenities which London Transport offers have come from the management without any inspiration. The organisations that work with the disabled have had to work hard to achieve all the different amenities, not only on London Transport but also on British Rail and everywhere else. We have already listed every kind of interest and now know that the disabled must have special consideration. I gave a "Fit for Work Award" the other day to a firm employing a high proportion of the disabled. These are all new introductions because we have found that the needs of the disabled have to be specially considered.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

Will the noble Baroness comment on whether she thinks that this lobby, which is so satisfactory and successful now, will cease to operate once the Bill becomes an Act?

Baroness Phillips

I believe that if there is someone who is particularly concerned and knowledgeable about the interests of the disabled, there will not be the need to lobby quite so energetically. The disabled will have a direct link with someone who can put forward their particular needs.

The Earl of Avon

Perhaps I may intervene briefly between the noble Baronesses. I will talk to all the amendments and come back to that of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, more specifically. To start with, we have of course every sympathy with the spirit of the amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, says, this is not a party political matter. Let me say in support of a matter which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that it is our intention to try to get this right during the stages through which the Bill will go in this House. That will certainly be my ambition.

I was intrigued by my noble friend Lord Peyton when he produced his examples of what goes on as regards this type of Bill. It took me back to trying to work out the qualities of the board of the Science Museum, about which we had some considerable discussion in this Chamber, and we found it very hard to know what was right and what was wrong.

The question that we must answer as regards this particular amendment is whether the inclusion of a statutory duty to meet the needs of disabled people is the best way, or even a sensible way, to meet this objective. The Government have considered the whole question very carefully, and I hope that that has been borne out by our discussions. In another place there has been a long and searching look into the points. I have to say that I am not persuaded that it would be right, nor ultimately helpful to disabled people, to include the type of statutory provision which Amendment No. 4 puts forward. There are a number of reasons for that.

I wish, first, to deal with a technical objection. It would be wrong to deal with this question in legislation concerned solely with London. If such provision were justified at all, it should apply equally to all public transport operators, and this Bill, of course, would not be the vehicle for that. Of course, the public transport operators, such as London Regional Transport, can make an important contribution to the provision of such transport services, either themselves or by co-ordinating services provided by others. Equally, they should always seek to make their normal services more accessible to ambulant disabled people, including the frail and, as we have mentioned, the elderly. But the main responsibility for assessing the transport needs of severely disabled people and the financing involved should really be in the hands of those who understand these needs best; that is, the local authorities and the voluntary services.

An example of the difficulties that would occur in London in the face of a statutory duty is in the Underground. London is unique in having a major part of its public transport system intrinsically unsuitable for wheelchair-bound people. This is an extreme example of a problem inherent in a general requirement to make public transport accessible to everyone. It is true—as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, mentioned—that the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 provided that public buildings and premises should cater for the needs of the disabled. This was, indeed, sensible and right. If a similar provision was appropriate for public transport, I should be the first to welcome it. But, for the reasons I have just outlined, I believe that there are better ways of solving the problem.

The right way to deal with this problem is to see that LRT have clear instructions from the Secretary of State, under the powers given to him by the Bill, to ensure that their own vehicles and infrastructure are developed with the needs of the disabled in mind, as far as technology, finance and the other calls on their expenditure will permit. Firm undertakings about this have already been given, and noble Lords have been kind enough to quote them. It will be particularly important to identify, with British Rail, those areas where there are priority needs. Furthermore, as I have implied, LRT will be expected to co-operate with those who are financing special services for the disabled, and to provide the operating expertise, and the vehicles, where appropriate.

The Bill contains, in Clause 34, a requirement on LRT to include in their annual report a statement of the action they have taken to provide for disabled people. This is a more significant provision than it may seem to the Committee. I am sure that disabled people themselves will see it as a tangible manifestation of the undertakings that the Government have given. But, as I have explained, I do not believe it would be right to go further than this in legislation. I have explained why I think that a statutory duty to have regard to the needs of disabled people would be inappropriate, and why placing a statutory responsibility for the needs on one board member is unnecessary, as the board as a whole will have this responsibility. London Regional Transport will be given clear instructions about developing their own vehicles and infrastructure with the needs of the disabled in mind, so far as technology, finance and other calls on resources permit, and they will be expected to co-operate with those financing special services and to provide operating expertise and vehicles where this is appropriate.

The Government have also announced that they will fund the setting up and running of a London branch of the National Advisory Unit for Community Transport for a period of three years. The grant will cover 100 per cent. of capital and running costs of the branch. The National Advisory Unit is already well known and respected. They provide a national source of expertise and advice on a wide range of community and voluntary transport initiatives, such as Dial-a-Ride. In particular, they are experts in achieving the most effective service for elderly and disabled people within available resources. London will need help of this kind over the next few years of transition and development. I hope that the branch will be able to start work during the summer and make a significant impact on the London scene within a very few months.

I hope that I have made clear to the Committee my sympathy for the ideas motivating the amendments. Equally, I hope that I have made clear my belief that this particular amendment is not the best way in which to meet the transport needs of disabled people. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, was kind enough to say on Second Reading, the Department of Transport already has a good record—in fact, an outstanding record—in recognising and meeting the needs of disabled people; and it needed no statutory duties to bring that about. I should like Members of the Committee to consider carefully whether they really believe that in this case it would be a good thing to do.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

Before the noble Earl sits down, I should like to ask him a question. In 1981 the Department of Transport held an excellent day conference and we were shown a new London taxi which had a ramp and which was specially adapted for wheelchairs. As the noble Earl knows, severely disabled people cannot use Tubes or buses, and existing taxis are really difficult to use. The mini-cabs rip you off—and I am one who has been ripped off by mini-cabs. We have not heard any more about the London taxis. I wonder what developments have taken place.

The Earl of Avon

I should like to be able to answer the noble Baroness categorically. I think that I was speaking for the department when this project was launched. My memory is that at the moment this new taxi is on trial and a number are being tried out.

Lord Banks

I should like to thank the noble Earl for the sympathy which he has expressed on behalf of the Government with the general principle behind these amendments; that is to say, they are anxious to see that the position of the disabled within the London transport system is safeguarded. But the noble Earl will not be surprised if I say that I am disappointed with his attitude to this particular amendment. Nevertheless, we have had a very useful debate.

The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, emphasised that support for this particular amendment, and, indeed, for this group of amendments as a whole, comes from different parts of the Committee and that they have the support of the organisations which are most concerned with representing the views of the disabled. There is clearly concern in the Committee that the position of the disabled should be safeguarded in this Bill, or at least in the working in practice of this Bill, though there is some doubt among some people as to whether there should be a specific duty. I must say that I find it impossible to accept the argument that it is wrong to give any special consideration in this way to the disabled because if we do that we shall have to include all other kinds of interests.

The position of the disabled with regard to transport is entirely different from that of any other section of the community and it deserves to have this particular attention. I also find it difficult to accept the argument that because we cannot deal with the whole of the country at once we, therefore, cannot deal with London. It so happens that we have been asked to deal with London, and so why cannot we make a start with London and ensure that there at least the position of the disabled is taken care of?

I was more impressed with the argument put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that this amendment narrowed the responsibility to one member—which would certainly not be the intention of those who have tabled it. I said earlier that the Minister of State had indicated that it was the intention to have one member as the focal point for the question of disability, but that all members of the corporation would be expected to take an interest in that aspect of the affairs of the corporation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked whether there could not be a better amendment. Somehow we want to get an amendment which will make clear that dual responsibility, which in one case is a particular responsibility, but which is the responsibility of all the members of the corporation. Therefore, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in the hope that, with others, at a later stage I can come back with another amendment which might meet the suggestions of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and might be acceptable to the Committee.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5 p.m.

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 5: Page 65, line 37, at end insert— (" . The Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 shall apply to the proceedings of the Corporation.").

The noble Lord said: It might be advisable if, with Amendment No. 5, I also speak to Amendment No. 146.

Amendment No. 146: Schedule 3, page 76, line 11, at end insert— ("( ) The Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 shall apply to the proceedings of the Committee.").

At present the meetings of the GLC Transport Committee are generally open to the public, and London Transport is accountable to the GLC through that committee. Under the Bill ratepayers will pay two-thirds of the cost of London Regional Transport and it would appear obvious to most people that the public ought to have a firm idea as to how that money is being spent.

In a previous debate the noble Lord the Minister said that Questions can be asked in Parliament. I believe that it is generally recognised that the amount of questioning on nationalised industries that can take place in Parliament—and, remember, that time and time again the Minister has stressed that London Regional Transport is to be a nationalised industry—will be extremely limited. When one looks at the schedule, one sees that there is no reference at all as to whether or not meetings of LRT shall be open to the public.

Amendment No. 146 deals with the London Regional Passengers' Committee, which is the consumers' body, and that will discuss matters of general public interest. The committee will represent the public as users of transport, and it must be seen to be accountable. The present London Transport Passengers' Committee's meetings are open to the public. Therefore, we have the meetings of the GLC Transport Committee generally open to the public, and we have the meetings of the present passengers' committee open to the public. There is no reason whatever why that should not apply to the new London Regional Passengers' Committee.

I should like to quote what the Secretary of State said in Committee in the other place on 8th March. I shall quote at some length from column 1017, where the Secretary of State said: What the Committee says about the committee being open to the public is in paragraph 9(4). It will be for the committee to decide whether and when to open its meetings to the public. That is the same position as at present. I have no doubt that any committee that I might appoint will want to open its meetings to the public. It would be a poor committee if it did not. But we must leave some aspects of the committee's business for the committee to decide, and that is one of them. I am sure that meetings of the committee will be open to the public, just as the present ones are, although these committees are constrained only by the power to decide their own procedure".

Paragraph 9(4) of Schedule 3, to which the Secretary of State referred, reads: Subject to the preceding provisions of this paragraph, the Committee shall determine their own procedure (including the quorum at meetings of the Committee).". Why should not the schedule make clear that meetings may generally be open to the public? If the principle is right, why not write it into the Bill, why not make it a statutory requirement? One must ask why it was necessary to have the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 at all. It was to ensure that meetings of this kind would be open to the public.

On the London Regional Passengers' Committee, the Secretary of State said that it would be up to that committee to decide and that it was covered by a paragraph in the relevant schedule. In paragraph 9(4) of Schedule 3 it says that the committee shall determine its own procedure, and the Secretary of State said that he had no doubt that the committee would want to open its meetings to the public. Is what the Minister says about the passengers' committee also what he considers to be the position regarding London Regional Transport, because in paragraph 11 of Schedule 1, referring to meetings of the corporation— that is, London Regional Transport—it is stated: Subject to the preceding provisions of this Schedule, the Corporation shall have the power to regulate their own procedure.". In one case the phrase used is "regulate their own procedure", and in the other case the phrase used is "determine their own procedure". Do they mean the same? We must ask whether under the provisions to which I have referred LRT will have the same right to open its meetings to the public, since the Secretary of State says that the London passengers' committee may itself decide.

The amendment says that both bodies should have applied to them the Act of 1960 to which I have referred. It may be argued that this does not cover bodies of this kind. However, paragraph 1(h) of the schedule to the Act refers to, bodies not mentioned above but having, within the meaning of the Public Works Loans Act, 1875, power to levy a rate (other than police authorities).". In effect, LRT will have power to levy a rate because it will fix the amount which each local authority shall pay towards its contribution of two-thirds of LRT's costs. This seems to be another step towards account-ability and one which is sadly missing from this Bill. I move Amendment No. 5, but I have also spoken to Amendment No. 146, which relates to the passengers' committee.

Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone

The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, argues that the proceedings of the corporation should be open to the public, and he brings into his argument the fact that the corporation is similar to a nationalised industry. Does this mean that the proceedings of, say, the National Coal Board are therefore to be brought into the open and attended by the public in regard to every way in which they make their decisions? The whole thing is perfectly ludicrous. One cannot run a corporation of this size with the public present at every meeting. I believe that this amendment should be rejected.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

Both these amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, have produced the discussion which I would have expected: a further discussion on another aspect of accountability—in effect, the ability of the press and the public to attend meetings of London Regional Transport and of the new consumer body, the London Regional Passengers' Committee. As the noble Lord indicated, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said that the 1960 Act will not apply to the proceedings of the passengers' committee. I shall return to that in a few moments.

First, on Amendment No. 5, perhaps I may turn to London Regional Transport itself. Your Lordships will be aware that the 1960 Act applies to all local authorities automatically, but it applies to the other bodies exercising public functions only if they are specified in the schedule to the Act. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, read that out, and as an adjunct to that he said that, as LRT will fix a rate, it should be included. In fact, LRT will not fix a rate, nor will it fix a levy. That will be fixed by the Secretary of State for Transport and will, of course, be subject to the approval of Parliament in another place. Therefore, I would suggest to the noble Lord that that negates his first proposition.

Again, as my noble friend Lord Plummer has said, none of the existing nationalised industries is covered by the Act, and again the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, reminded us that this is not a nationalised industry. We do not believe that LRT should be so covered. We know about the meetings of the GLC transport committee being open to the public and the press, at least for part of their proceedings. Of course, regarding the GLC, as an elected body, it is right that their debates should be reported. None of the meetings of the London Transport Executive as at present constituted is open to the public or the press. London Transport is basicly an executive and management body. Its proceedings are quite inappropriate for public attendance and press reporting. I have not been made aware of any suggestion for changing that in the past.

What is supposed to be different now? The GLC will not be involved. The necessary activities which they carried out will be taken over by the Secretary of State. London Regional Transport take over from London Transport, and it would be just as inappropriate to expect the press and public to attend LRT meetings as it would be in the case of London Transport. I might take one stage further the comparison that my noble friend Lord Plummer made. It is like inviting the public and press to board meetings of a major company. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is straining credibility by talking of accountability in this way.

In discussing LRT and then the passengers' committee, the noble Lord asked whether there was a difference between "regulate" and "determine" for the passengers' committee. I think that in effect they really mean the same. If read in context, one can see that that is so.

I turn now to the other amendment to which the noble Lord referred, Amendment 146. This was about the London Regional Passengers' Committee. I am sure that the Committee will be aware of paragraph 9(4) of Schedule 3 to the Bill. This gives the committee the power to determine its own procedure. It will enable it to decide whether and when to open its meetings to the public, and the Government regard this as the best way to proceed. Again none of the nationalised industry consumer councils is covered by the 1960 Act and we do not regard it as appropriate to impose that requirement upon them.

As I understand it, one of the existing consumer bodies—the London Transport Passengers' Committee—holds part of its discussions in public. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said that it held all its discussions in public. My understanding is that it holds only part of its discussions in that way. The Transport Users Consultative Committee, which deals with British Rail, does not hold any public discussion at all. As we envisage it, the newly created body will have many things to work out in organising its work. The question of how to conduct the more formal part of its proceedings will be one for it, and for that body paragraph 9(4) of Schedule 3 applies. It is for these reasons that we would recommend to the Committee that they do not accept these two amendments.

Baroness Denington

I find Lord Lucas's reply exceedingly disappointing. Referring to Lord Plummer's remarks, I cannot see that it is correct to make the comparison between the Coal Board, which he instanced, and LRT. The LTE and the GLC have joint responsibility for London transport. The GLC is responsible for policy, and its meetings, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said are open to the public. The London Transport board is responsible for the day-to-day workings, and that meeting is not open to the public. There is a clear distinction between that and policy matters, which are open to the public, to whom it is open to sit in the public gallery of the committee in County Hall.

It is proposed that that public right be taken away from the London public, which is a vast public of many millions, let alone the many visitors who come to London. They are now, under this new set-up, to be denied that right to hear the arguments. It is crucial that they should be able to hear the arguments for or against a policy proposal that is put forward for such an important public undertaking as London Transport.

The public never have been in on London Transport board meetings dealing with operational details. I would not expect them to be there, but they should be there for policy meetings. I have never been on the Coal Board or had anything to do with it, but I cannot imagine that you get the same clear split in such an organisation as the Coal Board. In both the instances that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned—the County Hall meetings and the passengers' meetings where the public can go and hear the argument, I see no case for denying the public the rights that they now have because the Government are changing the set-up. I would beg the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to take this away and have another think about it.

Lord Underhill

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, who has had the experience of being chairman of the transport committee in London, for further explaining the purposes of these two amendments. I was not suggesting that all nationalised industries should be open to the public. What we are trying to make clear is the difference in the attitude under this Bill to public transport in London from what takes place today. They are two completely different set-ups. The observations we have had from the Government side make this clear.

It must also be recognised that, through the GLC and through its transport committee, the public have the opportunity to cast their views of the moment upon the work of the London Transport Executive. We want to ensure that that takes place. In various other parts of the Bill we shall be pressing for consultation on various aspects to ensure that that takes place. The purpose of putting down Amendment No. 5 was partly that we thought that this should be done, and to indicate clearly the difference. But when one comes to the London Regional Passengers' Committee, surely that ought to be laid down. It will have the right to take certain matters into non-public sessions if it so desires, but it ought to be laid down that its meetings are open to the public. I prefer on both these occasions not to ask for a vote, but I do not propose to withdraw them and I shall ask for them to be negatived in the usual way.

5.19 p.m

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Nugent of Guildford)

The Question is that Amendment No. 5 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content". To the contrary, "Not Content". I think the Contents have it. Clear the Bar.

Tellers for the Contents have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 51. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the Not Contents have it.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 [Provision of passenger transport services for Greater London]:

Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 6. Page 2, line 7, after ("Board") insert ("and the National Bus Company Ltd,").

The noble Lord said: In addition to Amendment No. 6, I should like to speak to a number of other amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Attlee and others down in the names of members of the Labour Party Front Bench. These are Amendments Nos. 11-15, 29-35, 58 and 65. Amendment No. 11: Page 2, line 15, after ("Board") insert ("and the National Bus Company Ltd"). Amendment No. 12: Page 2, line 16, leave out ("one another") and insert ("each other"). Amendment No. 13: Page 2, line 25, leave out ("one another") and insert ("each other"). Amendment No. 14: Page 2, Line 29, after ("Board") insert ("and the National Bus Company Ltd"). Amendment No. 15: Page 2, line 30, leave out ("one another") and insert ("each other"). Amendment No. 29: Page 4, line 21, at end insert ("and the National Bus Company Ltd"). Amendment No. 30: Page 4, line 23, leave out first ("the") and insert ("each"). Amendment No. 31: Page 4, line 23, leave out second ("the") and insert ("each"). Amendment No. 32: Page 4, line 25, leave out ("the other") and insert ("another"). Amendment No. 33: Page 4, line 29, leave out ("the other") and insert ("another"). Amendment No. 34: Page 4, line 35, after ("Board") insert ("and the National Bus Company Ltd"). Amendment No. 35: Page 4, line 39, after ("Board") insert ("and the National Bus Company Ltd"). Amendment No. 58: Page 7, line 23, after ("Transport") insert ("and the National Bus Company and its appropriate subsidiaries"). Amendment No. 65: Page 7, line 31, at end insert—("( ) the National Bus Company and its appropriate subsidiaries;").

Amendments Nos. 12, 13, 15 and 30 to 33 are consequential drafting amendments to the other amendments.

Amendment No. 6, and the subsequent amendments, draw attention to the importance of the National Bus Company and particularly to London Country Bus Services in relation to transport in Greater London. It seems unfortunate at first sight that they are not included in the Bill, because they have a specific role to play in Greater London's transport. This amendment and its successors are designed to mention the National Bus Company and its subsidiaries in the Bill.

The need to include the National Bus Company is evidenced by its specific mention in the 1969 Act, which imposes a duty on London Transport, British Rail and the National Bus Company to co-operate with one another in the exercise and performance of their respective functions. I should have thought that the sense of that would be clear to the Committee. In view of its importance, we feel it strange that the Government have not mentioned it specifically in the Bill.

What we hope to do is to elicit a response from the Government on their thinking in relation to London Country Buses, which depend on the county councils for their support and which will fit in to the pattern of transport operations of London Regional Transport. Clearly the cross-boundary services are of interest both to London Regional Transport and the surrounding districts, and there does not appear to be adequate provision for consultation in the Bill as it stands.

There is a slightly different matter on Amendment No. 27, which is not included at the moment but to which I shall refer later in the Committee Stage.

Specifically on Amendments Nos. 58 and 65, it seems to us that it is necessary to include consultation with the National Bus Company and its subsidiaries on the planning of services, otherwise it is left entirely to London Regional Transport as to whether it should discuss these matters with the National Bus Company. Proper planning must clearly include people such as the Green Line services. I hope that the Government will give a favourable reply to this amendment. If they are not prepared specifically to accept this amendment, perhaps they will put down something at a later stage. I know that the noble Lord the Minister has the interests of the National Bus Company at heart, though I am not today encouraged by the fact that he is not wearing his National Bus Company tie, which he sometimes does, but I hope that that is not an indication of what his reply may be. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

I note that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is also not wearing his National Bus Company tie.

Subsection (1) provides that it is to be the general duty of LRT in accordance with principles from time to time approved by the Secretary of State and in conjunction with the British Railways Board to provide or secure the provision of passenger transport services for Greater London. It will be for the Secretary of State to define the broad lines on which LRT are to operate. As the noble Lord has said, unlike the corresponding provision of the 1969 Act, this subsection does not require London Regional Transport to act in conjunction with the National Bus Company. In the omission of any explicit reference to the NBC there is no sinister motive involved. In fact it was done quite deliberately. When I say that, I should not like to imply that either I or the Government have anything but regard for the services provided by NBC, particularly by London Country in the Greater London area. These are provided under agreements with the London Transport Executive.

Under this Bill, London Regional Transport will have as many powers to enter into agreements with London Country as London Transport does at present. I have no doubt that they will use these powers, but the Government believe that there can be an important role for other private sector bus operators as well as for the more recognisable public sector ones. In these circumstances we have not felt that it would be right to give NBC a particular special status in the Bill. If one attempts to make a comparison with the 1969 Act one must say in all honesty that, while there was provision for them to be consulted, it was more of a formality, more window dressing, to put it into a Bill, because, if they want business and want to compete for business, as we hope they will, with other private sector companies, they will want to consult. Thus, in our view there is no necessity for them to have this special mention which the amendment seeks to include.

I am not attempting to minimise the value and importance of NBC, but I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that to set them apart would not be helpful either to them or to the general purpose of the Bill in terms of attracting other private sector contractors to compete and to tender for business with London Regional Transport.

Lord Underhill

Before the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, replies, can the Minister let me know whether or not the wording of subsection (1) of Clause 1 affects the position? The 1969 Act refers to transport in Greater London. It was dealing only with the Greater London Council and its relations with the London Transport Executive, whereas we find here that it deals with the position of transport in and around Greater London. Surely, as London Regional Transport is to cover an area for which they are responsible beyond the Greater London area, we ought to consider the position of the NBC and should not be treating the NBC as just another operator. It is a public operator for which Parliament and the Secretary of State has considerable responsibility.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

Certainly the London Country Bus service is NBC's largest regional operating subsidiary. In 1982 it had a £50 million service. It operates 43 million bus miles. It operates in the home counties around London, serving Harlow, Stevenage, Hatfield, Hemel Hempstead, Crawley and places of that kind. But there is no difference between whether London Country Bus is a subsidiary of National Bus Company or whether it is run by London Regional Transport itself. Again, we envisage in the Bill that London Regional Transport may very well break themselves into separate subsidiary operating companies, of which London Country Bus might be one. This is for NBC to determine. They will no doubt determine that in the light of their contractual obligations with London Regional Transport. London Regional Transport, in its turn, will be inviting tenders for one or more differing contracts, of which National Bus may be one participant. They may do it centrally or through a subsidiary company.

Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone

I must say that I am disappointed in the answer given by my noble friend the Minister. If we are going to work towards an integrated public transport system in London, surely there is no harm in inserting the words of the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Denington, will remember the difficulties that we had with what I think were then called the Green Line buses which criss-crossed London and lacked co-ordination with the remainder of the transportation system. I should have thought that it was almost essential for this to be put into paragraph 2(1), if only to obtain the degree of co-ordination which is absolutely necessary to an integrated public transport system in London.

Lord Teviot

I am also in sympathy with this group of amendments, and agree with my noble friend Lord Plummer. The National Bus Company, through the London Country services, took over the old Green Line London Transport country service and did a great job. In fact, my noble friend has mentioned services in places like Hemel Hempstead, Hatfield and Crawley. What we are really talking about are the services running into places like Croydon and those from the north, and, equally, the Green Line services which they have taken off. As has been said, the National buses are no ordinary operators. I should very much like my noble friend to look into this and perhaps discuss it at another stage.

Earl Attlee

I do not have an NBC tie, unfortunately, but I support my noble friend in his amendment. As has been said, how can there be an integrated transport system in Greater London when there is one chunk of it which the Government do not even accept should be consulted?

Lord Tordoff

I do not think that any of us doubt the respect with which the noble Lord the Minister views the National Bus Company, but I must say that what he has said today will cause very considerable disquiet in their ranks.

The noble Lord, Lord Plummer, very properly pointed to the problems of running an integrated service. Again, that begins to take us into later clauses of the Bill to which we shall come in due course. I really am very torn on how to proceed at this stage. It seems to me that without any mention in the Bill—and particularly since we now know that its omission was deliberate, if not sinister; and I accept that it was not sinister, but deliberate—we have a further recipe for fragmentation here. I think that I have to take it away, think about it, read what the Minister said and perhaps have consultations with a number of people to see how we can best proceed on this. I think it may be that your Lordships' Committee may have a clearer idea of the direction in which this Bill is taking us in terms of integration or non-integration when other stages have been debated. Therefore, it may well be better to think about bringing it back at a later stage. I see that the noble Lord the Minister wishes to add something.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

If the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, would not mind, I am grateful to him for his suggestion. I may have been remiss and perhaps not explained the matter as clearly as I might have done. I wonder whether, in that consideration, he will take this into account.

The Bill really provides even more freedom for NBC than NBC currently enjoys because, if it wishes to, it can operate quite independently of London Regional Transport. As I said earlier—perhaps not clearly— NBC will continue to be able to work with London Regional Transport under the similar agreements and the additional ones which I have just outlined. Ministers have made it quite plain that they will be expecting London Regional Transport to make considerable use of the powers in Clause 3 to buy in the services, which NBC can contract for tender for or can compete outside if it is able to obtain a road service licence from the Traffic Commissioners. So I do not think that there can be any reason for NBC to think that it cannot enjoy a similar working relationship with London Regional Transport as it has done in the past decade.

Lord Tordoff

I am grateful to the Minister for that but I am not sure that it really helps very much. If anything, it tends to make the position worse. The degree of fragmentation and the degree of instability that one can see if the present arrangements with London Country Bus Services are put on a tender basis seem to me to be horrendous, nevertheless, I will read what the noble Lord the Minister says and will take further advice on this matter.

Lord Teviot

I am heartened by what my noble friend the Minister has just said: that London Transport can come in and tender for services. I should like quickly to take as an example the services running between Croydon and Crawley. Would it be possible for the NBC to run a service between Streatham and Crawley? Will the co-ordination allow new and better services to tie up places, inner going to outer? I think that my noble friend grasps what I am trying to say. If that is what my noble friend says this will achieve, I feel very much happier.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

What I have been trying to say is that it is the responsibility of London Regional Transport to provide a service having due regard for the needs of the user. On how they arrange it, whether they arrange it with themselves as the running operator, so to speak, or whether they contract part of it with a different operator, whether there is a transfer point on a longer route, I cannot answer my noble friend. This is exactly why London Regional Transport's board has to have members who have the detailed kind of knowledge that enables them to come to the right solutions. I very much regret to tell my noble friend that I do not have that detailed kind of knowledge.

Baroness Phillips

I feel that each time the Minister explains the situation, it makes it more horrendous. As a consumer, I can recall using the Green Line before we had the advent of the National Bus Company and what appeared to be a tidying up. There used to be a mysterious operation where one went a certain distance on one bus and transferred to another outside London, which is what the Minister is now suggesting will happen. He used the words "a transfer of services". One of the great advantages about having the operation that we have now is that the customer—surely that is who we are talking about—the passenger, has the least inconvenience in using one of these services. Fragmentation frightens me to death. I have a feeling that it will be like the days of the pirate buses, which the Minister will not remember, with everybody rushing about the streets and, half the time, the passengers not knowing what was happening. What we want in London is a service that we can recognise. Another great advantage is that the buses are all the same colour now. They used to be different colours, using different stops. Anybody who has experienced that does not want to go back to it.

Lord Tordoff

I thought that I had a series of very simple amendments, but I seemed to have stirred up a hornets' nest. Reverting to the words that were used in relation to another earlier amendment, when noble Lords were talking about the necessity of giving London Transport some idea of how it could proceed quickly when we were talking about the appointed day, we were told that London Regional Transport needed the assurance that this day would be soon and that it could get on with it. It seems to me that what has been said today means that the National Bus Company will be in turmoil if it reads today's debate in Hansard—which I am sure it will. With the leave of the Committee, I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Listowel)

Before I call the next amendment, I should point out to the Committee that if this amendment is agreed, I cannot call Amendment No. 8.

5.45 p.m.

Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 7: Page 2, line 7, leave out from ("of) to end of line 8 and insert ("such public passenger transport provision as best suits the needs for the time being of Greater London.").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 7, I would speak to Amendment No. 40 and to Amendments Nos. 10 and 42, which are to be moved by the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Carmichael. Amendment No. 10: Page 2, leave out lines 10 to 13 and insert ("provide or secure the provision of such public passenger transport services as best meets the needs for the time being of Greater London having due regard to efficiency, economy and safety of operation."). Amendment No. 40: Clause 4: page 5, line 18, at end insert— ("( ) Any proposals submitted to the Secretary of State under this section must provide for or secure such public passenger transport services as best meet the needs for the time being of Greater London."). Amendment No. 42: Page 5, line 27, after ("section") insert ("(subject to his being satisfied that the proposals meet the transport needs for the time being of Greater London)").

We are now moving into one of the most important aspects of the debate in your Lordships' Committee: the duties of London Regional Transport. The Bill as at present written merely lays a general duty on London Regional Transport: in accordance with principles from time to time approved by the Secretary of State … to provide or secure the provision of public passenger transport services for Greater London".

The purpose of these amendments is to strengthen the Bill to ensure that the prime objective is not merely to provide any old passenger transport service but that which best suits the needs of Greater London; that is to say, that it goes wider than just passenger transport needs and includes (as many of us suggested on Second Reading) the wider needs of Greater London. These will, again, come into question when we come to debate integration and land use planning at a later stage of the Bill.

The Bill as it stands leaves no room for the social needs of London. The 1969 Act lays a duty both on the authority and on the Secretary of State in terms similar to this amendment. Our suspicion is that the present Bill weakens that duty and leaves the Treasury in the driving seat. We recognise from these Benches the need to balance what is desirable and what can be afforded. Let us make no mistake: we do not advocate from these Benches an open-ended demand for services without reference to the amount of money which can be made available to fulfil the needs. But we fear that the Bill as it presently stands will lead to an inflexible financial control which will reduce greatly the services if the overall needs of Greater London are not a prime, if not the prime, concern.

It seems particularly dangerous if Clause 2(6) is carried into the Act; if, in other words, there is no appeal to a court. We have an amendment down on that subject at a later stage, but it seems to me that in Clause 2(6) of the Bill as at present worded there I no room for an appeal and that, therefore, consideration of this Part of the Bill is even more important than would otherwise be the case.

Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone

It would be helpful to me if the meaning of the words "for the time being" were explained. Do they mean that we are only expected to have a transportation system which best suits the needs of Greater London "for the time being"? Surely, what we want is something for the future as well. One would hope that this new body would be working towards this. Frankly, I find the wording of the Bill rather better than the wording of the amendment, but that opinion is subject to what explanation can be given.

Lord Tordoff

If I may respond to that, "for the time being" means at any particular moment in time in the future, as needs change. That is inherent in the amendment, but perhaps not so clear in the Bill. That, certainly, is the intention of the wording. It may be that the wording is defective, as so often amendments from non-Government sources are defective. Doubtless the Minister will tell us about that. The intention is that the needs of London as a whole will change from time to time, so we are not trying to put in a rigid requirement which is immutable for all time but one that responds to the needs not merely of passenger transport but of Greater London as a whole over a continuing period of time.

Lord Underhill

I wish to support the principle of Amendment No. 7 in the terms moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. I say "the principle" because your Lordships will notice that I am also speaking to Amendment No. 10 and taking into consideration Amendments Nos. 40 and 42. Amendments Nos. 7 and 10 both have the expression, "for the time being", as do the Government in their own clause. We are all using the term "for the time being". It does not mean that we are having it for evermore without change: it means that we will change according to needs and demands.

I have said that I support the principle of Amendment No. 7. I do so because I believe that the amendment in my name and in the name of my noble friend is the better one—not simply because we have put it forward but because it changes the Bill in a better way. Amendment No. 7 will delete the words, public passenger transport services for Greater London and put in the words, such public passenger transport provision as best suits the needs for the time being of Greater London". It then goes on in Clause 2(2) to say: In carrying out that duty London Regional Transport shall have due regard to— (a) the transport needs for the time being of Greater London". I draw your Lordships' attention very carefully to Amendment No. 10, which would take out part of Clause 2(2). Our amendment would make it read: provide or secure the provision of such public passenger transport services as best meets the needs for the time being of Greater London having due regard to efficiency, economy and safety of operation". There is a difference in emphasis. I would draw attention to the fact that there is a complete difference between the words put into the Bill and the words in the 1969 Act. The 1969 Act, under which London Transport operates, says: with due regard to efficiency, economy and safety of operation to provide or secure the provision of such public transport services as best meets the needs for the time being". Therefore there is a difference in emphasis between the 1969 Act and the words in the Bill.

Moreover, the change is not accidental. The Secretary of State has said that it has been made deliberately. When I tried to find out why it has been made deliberately, I found in col. 224 of the Committee proceedings in another place for the 2nd February this explanation: The phrase 'need' means that every need throughout the whole of Greater London is a need. It is not possible to meet all those needs. At present the law states that London Transport must meet the needs of Greater London. However, LT must be in conflict with that duty in millions of instances, where the precise needs of a Londoner travelling somewhere within the boundaries of Greater London are not being met. Rather than continue that slightly dishonest situation, we decided that it was better to amend the legislation to coincide with the reality. I hope that is not going to be the argument upon which the Minister is going to reject any or all of the amendments now before us because on Second Reading we discussed very carefully what we meant by "needs". As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, says, we must have regard to finance, to efficiency, to safety and economy. But let us remember what the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said from the Government Front Bench, that LT continued running buses regardless. I recall what I said in reply—that there is sometimes a need in an area where the bus has to be run regardless of the cost, because there is need: otherwise you leave old people or disabled people stranded. That is why we have cross-subsidisation and that is why every concern which runs services in the public interest, be it LRT, the PTE or the National Bus Company, has to run on the basis of cross-subsidisation. Public transport is not merely a business: it is a business that should be there to meet the needs of the public according to what we, the public, believe we can afford to pay (a) from the fare box and (b) from public funds, to assist a public service. Unless we do that, we not only hurt those who want to travel but we hurt the whole of the city, because we have more congestion, we have more demand for parking facilities and we make it less easy for people to get to work so that employers are affected as well.

I hope it will be held that it is the needs of the travelling public that we are concerned with, and the needs of the non-travelling public also have to be met. The Secretary of State has said that the answer to all this is that the financial duty overrides all other duties. Frankly, I challenge that. If we say that financial duty overrides all other duties then we will cut off every single service that does not pay at a time when it does not pay. We must say to the Secretary of State, "What you have got to do with the LRT is to carry one or other of these amendments, and preferably Amendment No. 10."

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

All these amendments concern the way in which the transport needs of Londoners have to be taken into account by London Regional Transport as part of their general duty. The Bill uses the phrase "have due regard to". The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, responded to my noble friend Lord Plummer regarding the phrase "for the time being", and the inclusion of those words in the Bill are almost identical. My understanding is that "for the time being" in the Bill means that London Regional Transport should be responsive to the needs of Greater London at any particular time. I interpret this to be exactly the same as the noble Lord's inclusion in his amendment. The change we have made is quite deliberate and quite simple. The wording in the 1969 Act—that of "best meets the need"—really implies that London Transport and its successor, LRT, has to meet every single transport need, from wherever to wherever, by whomsoever it is demanded. I would find it hard to believe that London Transport has been able to comply with that requirement. Indeed—

Lord Underhill

Would the noble Lord give way? Would he appreciate that there are the words "best meets"? Therefore it does not mean that everyone's need has to be met one hundred per cent. It says "best meets the need".

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

Of course I appreciate that, but it does mean that every need has to be satisfied in one way or another "as best meets". That is how I interpreted what the noble Lord suggested.

If I could return to this meeting of needs, it was the GLC themselves who, in their medium-term plan for 1983, admitted that the question of unmet needs was difficult because transport need was something that defied precise definition. Whichever way noble Lords opposite prefer to put it, the point is that it has been impossible in the past and it would be impossible in the future to define this need. I suppose there are probably thousands of instances in which the precise needs of an individual Londoner travelling somewhere are not being met. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, quoted what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State had to say. I would put it in a rather different way, but it has to be put again. We have decided that it would be more honest to amend the legislation to match reality. We have retained the reference to need, which makes clear the public service dimension of London Regional Transport's duty, to which of course we attach importance. But we cannot see why London Regional Transport should be required to do the impossible and meet all needs, however they may be defined. That is what the amendment seeks to do. Such an objective could give rise to all sorts of pressures for the provision of a service which, while of benefit to specific groups, is impossible to square with the concepts of economy and efficiency.

The noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Underhill, both spoke about the financial duty. Further throughout the Bill, we have used words which put in rather better terms the importance of London Regional Transport's financial duty. This is imposed in Clause 2(5). The priority is right. Finance has to determine expenditure: it cannot be the other way round. One of the great troubles in the past has been that it has been the other way round. The service has been deemed to be reasonable and then somehow the money has been found to run it. We have got to decide. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill said this: We need to meet the needs of the public", and then he went on: bearing in mind what we can afford. That is what the noble Lord said: whether he got it wrong or not does not matter.

Lord Underhill

May I interrupt the noble Lord? I said that; but I also continued: whether by way of the fare box or money that the public and ourselves, through our institutions, are prepared to pay.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

Yes. Perhaps the noble Lord will let me finish, because I was going on to say that the amount of money which the ratepayer and the taxpayer can afford, and marshalling that together with the fare box contribution, will determine the sort of service that we can have. That does not mean that there shall not be regard to the needs of the travelling public, and that is what the Bill says.

One of the difficulties that we have faced in the past 10 years is the fact that finance has not determined expenditure. We have to have a budget; we have to have priorities; there has to be an allocation of these budgeted funds among a multitude of differing demands. When the funds have been allocated—and it will be the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to allocate those funds—then London Regional Transport will have to provide the services, having due regard to the needs within that budget. It is just not possible to do it in any other way.

Baroness Phillips

Before we return to the general principle of the amendment, I wonder whether the Minister could explain to me what we are talking about. This is the first reference to Greater London. The definition of "Greater London" in the Bill is: 'Greater London' means the administrative area of Greater London as for the time being constituted". As I understand it, the administrative county of Greater London is to be abolished. What are we talking about? Will this Bill deal with one section, and then, within a year, will another Bill come which will make some of this completely unworkable? Where is the Greater London that we are talking about?

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

We are talking about the London Regional Transport Bill that is before us, not about any area that may come about by virtue of other legislation that is placed before us. The Bill states: or secure the provision of public passenger transport services for Greater London". Greater London, in the context of the debate this afternoon, is, as I understand it, that area covered by all the London boroughs.

Baroness Phillips

But the Bill talks about the administrative county of Greater London, and the Government are to abolish the administrative county of Greater London.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

I do not know where it says that. But never mind what the Government may do tomorrow: what we are concerned with is what the Government are doing today.

Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone

I must say that what my noble friend the Minister has just said makes very good common sense. When holding some responsibility for London Transport the special needs of various areas for heavy loss-making bus lines, and so on, were constantly pressed upon one, and one has to deal with the best needs of the whole area. If some particular locality requires a special bus or some form of transportation to meet its special needs, then I am sure it can be arranged for that borough to put forward the finance to meet the needs that it has in that area.

For example, when we were putting through the Victoria Line to Brixton, Westminster City Council came to us and said, "We want a station at Pimlico". We said, "You cannot have one; there are not enough people there to make it pay". But they said, "We think it is necessary; there is a need for it in that area". So we said, "Okay; if you want a station there you must pay for it". They did, so there is a Pimlico Station today. That is the way to meet special needs: not to impose some specialty loss-making product on the whole area. In that way, everybody can be satisfied.

Lord Tordoff

I thought that we would come to a fair confrontation on this point. This is where, philosophically, the two sides of the Committee divide. May I say first to the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, that I am delighted to hear that Pimlico is still there, because I use it most mornings and I thought for a minute that he had abolished it. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, summed up the position when he talked about the other needs that exist. Of course, we are not, as the Minister suggested, expecting that London Regional Transport will be able to cater for every single need on every occasion throughout the whole of Greater London. But unless we have within the duties of London Regional Transport some reference to the needs other than the narrow passenger transport needs, then we shall not have the sort of London that we want to see.

I do not want to get back into the discussions about the disabled, but this again bears on their position because, unlike the case of the City of Westminster, the disabled in London will not be able to fund special activities on London transport. It is needs of that kind that we are talking about. That is why we are trying to widen the position and that is why I believe that this should be written into Clause 2(1), because it is a primary duty, though not the primary duty. That is why I should like to see it go into Clause 2(1), as I suggest in Amendment No. 7.

However, I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, says, and I also hear what the noble Lord the Deputy Chairman of this Committee says about Amendment No. 8 falling if Amendment No. 7 is carried; and I would not wish to deprive your Lordships of an opportunity to discuss integration in a more specific way, as you will be able to under Amendment No. 8. Therefore, with the assurance that I shall advise my noble friends to support Amendment No. 10 in the hope that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will press that on your Lordships' Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.7 p.m.

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 8: Page 2, line 7, after ("of) insert ("integrated").

The noble Lord said: I appreciate very much the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, on the previous amendment, and I assure him and the Committee that, when the Deputy Chairman calls Amendment No. 10, I shall demand a vote upon it, because it is an important question of principle; and I hope that noble Lords will keep in mind the discussions we have just had on Amendment No. 7.

The purpose of Amendment No. 8 is merely to insert the word "integrated". Again, I must refer to the provisions of the 1969 Act, because that uses the words: will promote the provision of integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities and services for Greater London".

There is no reference to "integrated" in the duties laid down in Clause 2.

One must ask: why was it right for the duty of integration to be placed on the GLC and London Transport, but not on London Regional Transport? Is it because of the explanation which appeared to be given by the Secretary of State at cols. 225 to 226 of the Official Report for 2nd February? I shall not quote what he said, except to point out that he said that the word "integrated" can mean different things to different people. Yet I understand that the Secretary of State has mentioned presiding at meetings of LRT and BR to secure integration or co-ordination. I am not sure which word he used, but there is a lot of difference between co-ordination and integration. The Secretary of State said that it would be wrong to insert the word "integrated" into the duties of LRT, as that duty falls upon the Government. Admittedly, LRT will have to carry out their duties according to principles determined from time to time by the Secretary of State, but surely Parliament should make it clear that it is a duty of LRT to provide integrated services.

We have had examples only this afternoon of why this is necessary. We are told that the National Bus Company will have the freedom to operate as an independent contractor, either in agreement with London Regional Transport or as a licensed contractor. Most sensible people are asking for an integrated service, not for pirate buses tearing down the road in order to get to the bus stop first, with consequent danger and heaven knows what else. We need a planned, integrated service. The noble Lord, Lord Plummer, said that we should meet special needs by buying in services. How does one buy in a service to run from, say, Hainault to Aldgate? It will run through a number of different London boroughs, not just one. If transport needs are to be considered according to the needs of every single London borough and every district council outside London without integration being the prime object, the result will be an utter shambles. That, we fear, will be the effect of the Bill.

During the past 12 months there has been integration. The travel card has been introduced. Arrangements are now being made between British Rail and the London Transport Executive whereby through-ticket booking will be available at many stations. A great deal of integration is already taking place, but it is not sufficient. Travel cards have increased the use of London Transport facilities by 16 per cent. The use of cars by commuters to Central London has been reduced by over 10 per cent. Whereas only 450,000 people held period or season tickets prior to the introduction of the travel card, 600,000 people now hold such tickets. This is an example of integration between Underground and bus services to which we shall turn when we deal with later amendments. If there is to be an efficient transport service for London it must be on the basis of integration. It is a travesty that this simple word has been left out of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

I wish that somebody would tell me what "integrated" means. I recall that in 1981 we had a debate in your Lordships' House about inland transport and that the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, called for an integrated policy. He was asked what he meant, and he described what he meant by an integrated policy. Other speakers then described what they meant by an integrated policy. The word "integrated" means many different things to many different people.

If these amendments were carried, they would introduce into London Regional Transport's general duty an obligation to provide or secure the provision of integrated services. The omission of the word "integrated", which does not form any part of the London Transport Executive's current duties under the 1969 Act, was deliberate. There were two major reasons for it. As I have said, first, it is not clear what the concept of "integration" means. We do not believe that it would be sensible to include such a vague word as part of London Regional Transport's duty.

Secondly, to the extent that "integration" has any clear meaning at all, it is difficult to accept that LRT would be in a position by itself to secure that integration. A body which is responsible for "integrating" the public transport services in its area can do so only if it has full control over the various parts of the system. LRT will not have full control over the whole of the system because it will not have full control over the services provided by British Rail in London. It will have no control over the services provided by independent operators outside any agreement with LRT.

Both the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, have referred to the race down the street. They remember the buses of various colours. I do not know how they can imagine that the practices of those times can possibly be repeated today. We now have licensing control. It is the function of the traffic commissioners to ensure that this does not happen. There is no point in overburdening a service. Integration, as I see it, and as was spelled out by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is better known as co-ordination and co-operation—co- ordination of through tickets and co-operation in terms of transit movement between stations. An integrated system from point "A" to point "X" is a physical impossibility. People may have to change modes, which involves co-ordination, using the best modes available to suit the need at the time.

The 1969 Act recognised this in its lack of any reference to "integration" when it set down the obligations which it placed on London Transport. It was the GLC, with its wider responsibilities, which was charged with the duty of securing "integrated, efficient and economic" transport services. Noble Lords may have their own views as to whether or not the GLC has been successful in carrying out that duty.

If the Bill becomes law, it will be for the Secretary of State to take over the role currently played by the GLC. He will be in a much better position than the GLC ever were to secure better integration of services, if we interpret that phrase to mean better co-ordination between the services provided by LRT on the one hand and those provided by British Rail on the other. Indeed, this is one of the principal objectives in taking back control of London Transport from the GLC. Both British Rail and LRT will in future be responsible to the same political master. It is much more realistic to strive for closer co-ordination in such circumstances. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State fully intends to ensure, through the new liaison arrangements, that co-ordination is significantly improved in future. It is the Secretary of State who will be responsible for this co-ordination. It is neither sensible nor realistic to introduce the concept of integration into LRT's duty.

It is even less sensible to require LRT's subsidiaries to have regard to the need for an integrated transport system as the amendment to Clause 3 would have us do. Since the subsidiaries will be responsible only for a part of LRT's overall activities, they will be even less qualified than LRT to consider the need for transport "integration". They may not even be transport subsidiaries. For example, LRT could set up a separate subsidiary to handle its property development programme. It would be for LRT to ensure, by control of its subsidiary, that what the subsidiary does is consistent with LRT's overall plan. To place such a duty on its subsidiaries—whether it is that duty or the duty to provide a specific service—does not seem to me to be realistic. This is why I fear that the noble Lords who put down the amendment have failed to appreciate how, realistically, this word can be interpreted. In our view, it is far better that it should not be written into the Bill.

Baroness Gaitskell

May I make a small intervention? I do not understand a great deal about the Bill. I have listened very carefully to what has been said, but the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench has utterly confused me. He has made the word "integration" into something which nobody can understand, which is not very helpful.

Lord Pitt of Hampstead

I hope that your Lordships' Committee will accept the amendment. I have been listening to the debate, and I have read the Bill. Certain points occur to me as a consequence of this Bill. The Government have admitted that they omitted the word "integration", quite deliberately. I can understand that, because I believe that the Government intend that we should have separate services for the Underground, bus, and British Rail facilities serving the people of London. What is more, the Government contemplate that there should be several bus services competing with each other.

That is the direct opposite of what we believe. There is a tripod arrangement in London's transport services. There is the Tube, there are the buses, and there are the London services of British Rail. What we need is that they should be integrated. It is my view that the buses and the Tube are not integrated. What we require is some attempt to bring the London services of British Rail into this triangle. This Bill provides the direct opposite.

After listening to the debate on the previous amendment, I believe it is the Government's intention that the financial element should be the main guide to the provision of transport services. It is typical of the difference in philosophy between the two sides that Conservatives are always more interested in the cost of a service than they are in its value, and that we are always more interested in the value of a service than in its cost. What is required is that the two should come together, with serious consideration being given to both the value and the cost.

Even at the proposed level, the new arrangement will be dangerous, because if we are to use finance as the main guide and control, and if there is no effort to bring the services together under one roof, then the attempt to save money by having competitive services, at least in respect of buses, will create the situation where some of the services will be milked off, because they are paying well. We will be left with bus services at least, which will be unsatisfactory. Then we shall, in London, be back to the difficulties I experienced while at County Hall, in trying to keep the roads clear and always being only one step ahead of the city grinding to a halt. That has been the situation for several years.

I hope that your Lordships will bear all this in mind. The Government have not given the kind of consideration they ought to have given to this Bill when they drafted it. They are approaching the question of London Transport very much in the wrong way. Whatever anybody may think about the meaning of the word "integrated", the inclusion of that word would have some effect on the further consideration that must take place. It would serve to place a restraining hand on the division which I see as being the plan for London Transport, and which I am sure would make London the worst-served city in terms of its public transport.

6.23 p.m.

Lord Tordoff

It seems to me that when Ministers resort to semantics in attacking an amendment, they have not got a very good case. We all know what we mean by integration. We all know that there is a difference between integration and mere co-operation. As I said when withdrawing the previous amendment, Amendment No. 8 has our support from these Benches, and it would have been a pity if the amendment had not been debated. However, I should like to spend a brief moment speaking to Amendment No. 22, which we are debating at the same time. Clause 3(1) states: London Regional Transport shall have power to form, promote and assist, or join with any other person in forming, promoting and assisting, a company for the purpose of carrying on any activities which London Regional Transport have power to carry on". We wish to add the words: provided that such company will have due regard to the need for an integrated transport system". I should have thought that the greater the number of people coming into this Bill, the greater the degree of privatisation, and the more different sectors there are, the greater is the need for them to be integrated.

We have already raised this question of integration. In fact, it was the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, who raised it when we were discussing the National Bus Company. I hope that he will be reinforced in his view of this particular amendment by what he has heard in this debate. The danger is that the Government may force upon London Transport not its integration, but its disintegration. I firmly support Amendment No. 8.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

There is no question here of disintegration. In fact, the word "integrated" has not been explained by anybody. It means different things to different people. The noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, was quite right. She said that she is confused by this and that explanation. She is confused because none of us has a common understanding of the word "integrated". I cannot help noble Lords, and the fact that the Government cannot help noble Lords is one of the reasons why we have removed that word.

The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, always makes some very interesting comments. However, I fear that this evening he has made some comments which are not quite right. He spoke of "separate services" in respect of, for example, the Underground and the buses. I do not know what he meant by "separate services". I believe that he was referring to their operation being in separate subsidiary companies. If that is his understanding, it is absolutely sensible. Each of those two subsidiary companies can be regarded as profit centres—centres of efficiency which are peculiar and particular to their very nature.

By virtue of the umbrella which London Regional Transport will have there will be the opportunity for each to co-operate with the other. The noble Lord spoke about other companies. Other companies will be suppliers, and suppliers will not have to be within LRT itself. They can be outside, contracting suppliers. The noble Lord spoke also about the financial considerations. It is indeed a fact that there is a primacy of financial consideration under the same, single umbrella of LRT. That will enable the services to be brought together to the very best advantage, so that there can be exchange, co-operation, and co-ordination. It makes for a complete service.

The noble Lord spoke also of competitive services, but I did not speak about competitive services. I was speaking about what the Bill provides for, which is that there shall be competition to provide the service and that London Regional Transport will say, "We require X service and we invite you to bid for and to supply that service". That is where competition will come in. As I say, that word alone is meaningless.

However, if we are talking about co-ordination, the liaison arrangements to be set up by the Secretary of State will ensure close co-operation between London Regional Transport and British Rail. The things we envisage are co-ordinated time-tabling, the improved ticketing that we have talked about, interchange facilities between the two systems and, perhaps, other systems—who can say? The future in transport is so exciting.

Schedule 2 provides additional powers which are highly relevant here. They include powers for London Regional Transport to provide amenities and facilities and to construct works for the purpose of making them available for use by operators who enter into agreements with London Regional Transport. This might include, for example, the use of garages, fuelling centres, cleaning centres, and so on, that other operators might want to use. It might be for the provision of car parks and other amenities and facilities which are convenient to anybody who might use part or all of the services provided under the umbrella of London Regional Transport. That is what we mean by co-ordination. I am not persuaded that the further explanations that have been given mean any more than we have in the Bill.

Lord Pitt of Hampstead

The Minister has just illustrated my point. What the Government are proposing for London Regional Transport is that there will be a separate accounting system for the Tube and a separate accounting system for the buses, and that the financial objective of LRT shall be the paramount objective. He says that I misled him. He himself pointed out that the National Bus Company can become an independent competitor by getting a licence from the traffic commissioners. He pointed that out on a previous amendment. I listened carefully and drew my conclusions. I want the Committee to draw the same conclusions; that in passing the Bill as it stands we are, in fact, giving the Government the right to break up London Transport.

Lord Underhill

The Minister said that there is no clear definition of the word "integrated". We know what we mean. Those of us who have been to Tyne and Wear realise what happened before we had the Tyne and Wear metro and what we have now, and can understand what "integration" means. We cannot put that into the Bill. Therefore, what I propose to do is to seek advice on whether we can put something in the Bill which conveys exactly what we mean by "integration" because it is something far more than "co-ordination".

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred to the traffic commissioners. There have been occasions under this Government when decisions by traffic commissioners have been the subject of inquiries, with the Secretary of State putting in an inspector and then ignoring and turning completely overboard the inspector's recommendation. I can give a couple of instances of that. That can happen even with the licensing commissioners, to which the Minister referred.

The Minister said that for London Transport there is nothing in the 1969 Act about integration. There is a reason for that. London Transport has to carry out its duties according to principles approved by the Greater London Council. The GLC has a duty to ensure that there are integrated services. LRT will carry out its duties according to principles laid down from time to time by the Secretary of State. Therefore, when we come to look at the Secretary of State's duties on Report, we shall see that the Secretary of State has to have, as one of his principles, the provision of integrated (or whatever word we can find to convey that meaning) services as one of his duties. According to the Minister it is the Secretary of State who will lay down the principles on which LRT will operate. That is why we need to put this into the Bill. We shall, therefore, ask leave to withdraw the amendment; first, to get firm advice on the meaning of "integration", and, secondly, to ensure that we give clear instruction to the Secretary of State that his principles must be according to "integration". I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 9:

[Printed earlier: col. 1157.]

The noble Lord said: The object of this amendment is to ensure that the Bill states explicitly that London Regional Transport has a responsibility to meet the needs of disabled people. As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said earlier, at present London Transport have no specific duty to provide for the needs of disabled people, with the result that London Transport's bus and Underground services are inaccessible to all but the very least severely disabled. This amendment expresses the principle to which all the amendments dealing with the position of the disabled this evening are attached. It lies behind them all. This is the principle iself.

If the amendment is passed it will help to ensure that the London transport system becomes increasingly accessible to disabled persons. I use the word "increasingly" because this must be a progressive development. As I mentioned earlier, the important thing is that the needs of all disabled people should be considered at the design stage whenever new systems or extensions to existing systems are being considered. London Regional Transport will, of course, have to have regard to, efficiency, economy and safety of operation. Those words are in the Bill. It may not be possible always to ensure accessibility for every type and degree of disability, but the duty to do so wherever possible will have been established.

As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, reminded the Committee earlier, during the Committee stage in another place the Minister gave the following assurance: First we shall ensure through the written instructions of the Secretary of State for Transport under the powers in the Bill that London Regional transport's own structure and infrastructure are developed with the needs of disabled people fully in mind so far as technology and finance will allow". That means that the Government have the intention to do what this amendment seeks to ensure should be done. In those circumstances, why not write the duty into the Bill? I beg to move.

Baroness Lane-Fox

I have been told that it would be as well to speak now since I put my name to this amendment, but, presumably because there were four names to it already, it was not included. The amendment deals with the present predicament and future aspirations of those of us who are potential travellers and whose requirements on public passenger transport have been, for so many years, conveniently overlooked. Today the wonders of medical science enable growing numbers of disabled people of all kinds to take part in the community. Therefore, we need to use public transport services. While the Department of Transport, British Rail, the National Bus Company and other municipal and private operators demonstrate their acceptance of our plight, London Transport remains virtually blind or oblivious to all who are not so agile as to be able, for instance, to scale high steps and stairs or to skip on and off crowded trains and buses. It will now be even less possible to rely on the valuable hoisting power of the conductor, because he is vanishing.

No wonder this amendment has the full backing of the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, of which I am a vice-president, of the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled and of the Federation of London Dial-a-Ride, as well as many more organisations. But never mind that; it is because I have a wealth of personal experience of attempting and failing to use London passenger transport as a disabled person since 1932 that I feel so strongly about this matter.

We want to be reasonable and to be integrated—I ask the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to excuse me—and to be integrated by our reasonableness, so we do not expect all existing systems to accommodate everyone immediately, irrespective of degree of disability. Indeed, we appreciate that the Bill very rightly requires LRT to: have due regard to … efficiency, economy and safety of operation". We say, however, that whenever new systems or extensions to existing systems are considered, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, mentioned, at the design stage the needs of all disabled people should be remembered and provided for. I speak here of the design of transport itself, of bus and rail stations, of bus-stops and shelters, of seat design, of installation of Tannoy systems for blind passengers and of the development of visual information for deaf people. Many disabled people manage to hold down jobs and careers and thereby pay their whack to the taxman, but their transport troubles can make theirs a very cruel struggle. It is very hard, too, for others in wheelchairs who need to travel just in London. One has had to regard the system as out of bounds.

I want to tell the Committee how we tried to manage in the days before my specially adapted van. We had to settle for finding a strong, kindly taxi driver. Then our method was to sit me on the floor of the cab while the taxi driver hauled me up by my very dicky shoulders on to the little seat, assisted by a muscular friend who shoved me in from the knees while, I may say, the sharp edge of the running-board removed the skin off the back of my legs. I am sure that more sensible people would not have subjected themselves to such rigours, but the devil was driving very hard! Imagine with what delight I heard of the special services such as Dial-a-Ride, the new CR6 taxis and subsidised taxi schemes. My feelings, I know, are echoed throughout the length and breadth of the metropolis. Door-to-door travel for us is like a dream come true. It is almost like freedom granted to a wrongly convicted prisoner when he is serving a life sentence.

Now the Federation of London Dial-a-Ride is extremely worried because the GLC has been helping to fund and finance Dial-a-Ride and the subsidised taxi schemes. It fears that with the abolition of the GLC such encouragement and support will vanish. The Federation of London Dial-a-Ride and the Joint Committee on Mobility see central funding and the overall control of London's Dial-a-Ride schemes as essential.

It was encouraging when in another place at the Committee stage on 2nd February the Minister of State said: we shall ensure through the written instructions of the Secretary of State for Transport under the powers in the Bill that LRT's own structure and infrastructure are developed with the needs of disabled people fully in mind so far as technology and finance will allow". It was further encouraging when the Minister stated in another place at Third Reading that LRT should have clear instructions to work towards the development of its own vehicles and infrastructure, with the needs of the disabled fully in mind. Such assurances are most welcome. Many of us have every confidence in the present Secretary of State. Since, however, changes of Secretary of State are not unknown, and even—though less foreseeable—changes of Government, disabled people feel compelled to protect their future by seeking to have this pledge included in the Bill.

I see the risk that disabled people are pressing too hard, but they cannot take the chance that in future public passenger transport in London will again be unusable for nearly everyone seriously disabled. My noble friend the Minister is well known to me for his constructive kindness and consideration for our well-being, so I believe he will be seized by our concern here. I hope so. I need hardly remind him and your Lordships that persons who do not now require these provisions will most likely do so during some period of their lives. Without this amendment, I believe that the Bill is short-sighted and obsolete. It will not be recognising the travelling requirements of the millions of us who, often through no fault of our own, are not so physically agile as our able-bodied peers at a time when the emancipation of disabled people is widely accepted. For those reasons, I support this amendment.

6.45 p.m.

Lord Ennals

I think that we would all want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, for what was a very moving argument and, I think, totally convincing. I do not think that any of us would say that disabled people were pressing their case too hard. Perhaps one noble Lord did earlier. I find that an appalling statement. I think that we all have to press on behalf of disabled people to ensure that they get the rights they are not getting at the present time.

The noble Baroness referred to action in another place, as did the noble Earl, Lord Avon, who drew attention to Clause 34(3)(b). It was an amendment made in another place, and it states: London Regional Transport shall… include a statement of any action taken during that year by London Regional Transport and any subsidiaries of theirs in relation to, or for the purpose of securing, provision for disabled persons in the public transport services and facilities provided for Greater London". No other particular group was mentioned in the list where a report was demanded as to what action, if any, had been taken. The logic is absolutely overwhelming. If we say in Clause 34 that any action that LRT has taken should be reported, we should also say that it has a responsibility to take action.

I believe that Amendment No. 9, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and so movingly supported by the noble Baroness, is quite the most important of all the amendments dealing with the disabled. I was quite happy to see the first amendment withdrawn, perhaps for presentation at a later stage; but I believe that this amendment is crucial. I cannot believe that this House, which has within it so many disabled people and so many people who understand the problems of the disabled, could do otherwise than wish to put a responsibility (as we can do at this moment) upon the new authority to give attention to the needs of disabled people. Like the noble Baroness, I, too, am a vice-president of the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation. I hope that the Committee will decide that this amendment, if no other, should be carried.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

I wonder whether I may follow the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, if only to say that he has really taken the words out of my mouth. I am very glad indeed that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, withdrew Amendment No. 4, if only because, as drafted, it clearly did not command support from all sides of the Committee, but Amendment No. 9 is a different matter altogether. It seems to me to be the key amendment in this package of related amendments. Moreover, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said, it is an essential and logical complement of the provision in Clause 35(3)(b) to which the noble Earl, Lord Avon, referred.

If it is the statutory duty of the LRT to report on the disabled—that is, the facilities which have been made available by that authority for the disabled—then it is a prior necessary condition that a general duty should be laid on that body in terms of Amendment No. 9. I should just like to add that my noble friend Lord Bancroft very much wished to be heard and has asked me to say that he personally wished to support this amendment. He would have said, and I should like to say it for him, that it is a good working rule that, when dealing with a Bill, one should rely on the text rather than the context and that what the disabled need—and what we should have—is to find, on the face of the Bill, these words, rather than to rely on assurances. However much we may respect the Minister, which I am sure we do, of course she cannot speak for her successors. So, for all these reasons, I very strongly support this amendment.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

I live in North Yorkshire and I also live in Greater London. I am severely disabled. I can assure the Committee from personal experience that getting around in London as a disabled person is extremely difficult and very expensive. Unless the needs of disabled people are met, there will be a great many disabled people who will not be able to combat and survive these difficulties. If they cannot get out of their homes they will become depressed from loneliness and they will need expensive services, such as meals on wheels and social work support and even institutional care, which is very expensive and not the answer.

Can the Minister give an assurance that these schemes which help disabled people to circulate in London and to look after themselves will further develop? Something vital is needed to overcome the growing problem that disabled people have in not being able to park their cars. To give an example, last Tuesday, the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, parked his wife's car at a meter so that she could attend a trust meeting which I also attended. Having found the meter, the noble Lord left the car so that his wife, who is disabled, could drive home. Lady Cullen kindly offered to give me a lift to your Lordships' House. When we came out, the car had a parking ticket on it.

Lady Cullen has been campaigning for parking places for years, far longer than any of us. She was disabled by a bomb in the war. On that day, the director of the trust, also disabled, also got a parking ticket. In no way were these cars obstructing. They were on meters. I ask the Minister, what are disabled people to do? They need consideration and help. They cannot jump on and off buses and tubes, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lane Fox, has said. The average disabled person cannot afford to use a taxi. Some taxis do not even accept people who use wheelchairs. If Dial-A-Ride schemes are not continued, many people will be very badly off.

Where is the grant going to come from? At the moment, the schemes running get grants from the GLC. Will the grants continue? Will this duty be given to a particular Minister? There are many disabled people waiting to hear what the Government are going to do. There are also schemes developing and these need co-ordinating so that all the special problems can be overcome. For the future, perhaps London Transport will look at the Metro scheme of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. It has done a lot to integrate disabled people. London does not have such a facility. A great deal has to be done in this great city of London to make it more humanitarian. I support this amendment.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

I should like just very briefly to support this amendment because I think it is very important that those who are not too severely disabled to use public transport should be enabled to do so. Noble Lords, and I think particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, have been so eloquent in the case they have made that I can be extremely brief. But, as you have heard, RADAR and the Federation of the London Dial-A-Ride Schemes and the joint committee on mobility for the disabled, of which I am a member, all feel it necessary to write this duty into the Bill.

I should just like to say one thing that has not yet been said. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, touched on it but I think it is so important that I should like to stress it. I want to allay any fears that may have arisen that we want to make every bus accessible to wheelchairs or convert the entire existing transport system. We are really not trying to do anything like that. I think there has been some misunderstanding over this. We are not asking for anything that is impractical or unreasonable or that is out of line with Clause 2(2)(b), which requires LRT to have due regard to, efficiency, economy and safety of operation". All we are trying to do is ensure that in future the public transport system is accessible to a greater proportion of disabled people than it has been to date, but we accept that it is never going to be accessible to everyone. It would seem sensible to have this written into the Bill and I hope the Minister will look kindly upon this really very modest amendment.

The Earl of Avon

This has been a most impressive short debate. I want to say right at the beginning that what we have to discuss here is the right way to do it. We all have the same aim; there is no doubt about that. We all want to press this; yes, I agree. The question is, which is the right way? I agree with what my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox said in a very forceful speech, but what we are arguing about is how best to do what she wants to do. I am not trying to hide behind assurances. If you feel it is right to put it in the Bill, that we will do, but let us just make quite sure that that is the right way to go ahead. I say the right way to go ahead because the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, talked about parking places in Westminster. Of course this Bill would do nothing about that. So we want to be careful about the way we are going to go.

In the Bill at the moment, the subsequent paragraph states that the existing duty is to have regard to needs. Of course, as the Committee will understand, this includes the needs of people with disabilities. If there was an explicit duty to meet the needs of the disabled, there could perhaps be some problems of definition.

I have already stressed that it would be unreasonable for London Transport to have to provide for people regardless of how disabled they may be. The noble Baroness produced the example of Newcastle and the new Metro. I, too, have seen that and I admire it very much, but their advantage, of course, is that they were starting from something new, whereas we are trying in this particular case to look at a system which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, says, is terrible. Similar remarks would apply to cost, but I do not want to mention that.

However, there is one other thing I should like to put before the Committee, and that is examples of developments which have benefited disabled people. The noble Baroness has mentioned the new London taxi. There is also access for wheelchairs to British Rail's inter-city trains. There are improvements to help passengers with sight and hearing difficulties. There is London Transport's new fleet, with its colour contrast and hand rails to bell pushes. We could also perhaps mention the introduction of loops in order to help people use the ticket offices. I use these examples purely because all these have been done without any statutory duty.

We have had quite a long debate and I spoke for some time before, but I should just like to mention again the National Advisory Unit for Community Transport which the Government have said they will set up for a period of three years. I believe that this is already well known and respected. It will provide a national source of expertise and advice on a wide range of community and voluntary transport initiatives. It is expert in achieving the most effective service for elderly and disabled people within available resources.

I should be unconcerned indeed if I did not understand the feeling of the Committee about the disabled but the words at Clause 2, page 2, line 8 at the moment say: It shall be the general duty … to provide or secure the provision of public passenger transport services for Greater London. I must ask you all to consider if there is really a need or indeed if it is appropriate to put in the words in this amendment. I would suggest that it is not and that, between now and the next stage, I should discuss with the movers of the amendment whether we could not put it in the lower paragraph and whether we could not just tighten up the words because, frankly, I do not believe that, as they stand at the moment, they would be acceptable to the lawyers.

Lord Banks

We have had an impressive short debate on this important issue, and the Committee as a whole was clearly impressed by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, who spoke of the wide support that exists for inserting this specific duty into the Bill. The noble Baroness spoke from experience, as indeed did the noble Baronesses, Lady Masham, and Lady Darcy (de Knayth). The noble Baroness said that the Bill would be short-sighted and obsolete without this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, described it as the key amendment, and I think that he is right. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) pointed out that we were not seeking anything impractical or anything unreasonable, as I had already explained in proposing the amendment. But of course what we say here will be governed by the terms of the Bill itself, which she went on to explain.

The noble Earl, Lord Avon, has put the Government's position with great sympathy. The noble Earl did say, if I understood him aright, that if your Lordships felt it was right to put it into the Bill, we shall do so. Although he had some reservations about that, I gather that he is prepared to discuss between now and the next stage of the Bill the possibility of including a direct duty. However, he wants to discuss the possibility of putting it somewhere else in the legislation. I am encouraged by that. I think that we must have the discussion. In order that we can have the discussion and be able to return to the matter at the next stage of the Bill, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 10:

[Printed earlier.]

The noble Lord said: Noble Lords will recall that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, withdrew Amendment No. 7 so that a decision could be taken on Amendment No. 10. I formally move it, and hope that the Committee will declare its support.

7.2 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 68; Not-Contents, 99.

DIVISION NO. 2
CONTENTS
Airedale, L.	Lockwood, B.
Attlee, E.	Longford, E.
Aylestone, L.	Lovell-Davis, L.
Banks, L.	McGregor of Durris, L.
Beswick, L.	McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Birk, B.	MacLeod of Fuinary, L.
Boston of Faversham, L.	McNair, L.
Bottomley, L.	Mais, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.	Milner of Leeds, L.
Buckmaster, V.	Mishcon, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Molloy, L.
Collison, L.	Mulley, L.
Darling of Hillsborough, L.	Northfield, L.
David. B.	Ogmore, L.
Dean of Beswick, L.	Oram, L.
Denington, B.	Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Diamond, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.	[Teller]
Donnet of Balgay, L.	Seear, B.
Ennals, L.	Shackleton, L.
Ewart-Biggs, B.	Stallard, L.
Gallacher, L.	Stedman, B.
Gladwyn, L.	Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Stewart of Fulham, L.
[Teller]	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Hampton, L.	Stone, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Hatch of Lusby, L.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Hooson, L.	Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L.	Tordoff, L.
Jeger, B.	Underhill, L.
John-Mackie, L.	Wells-Pestell, L.
Kilmarnock, L.	Wilson of Langside, L.
Kirkhill, L.	Winchilsea and Nottingham,
Kissin, L.	E.
Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Airey of Abingdon, B.	De La Warr, E.
Allerton, L.	Denham, L.
Auckland, L.	Denman, L.
Avon, E.	Digby, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Drumalbyn, L.
Bellwin, L.	Elliot of Harwood, B.
Beloff, L.	Elton, L.
Belstead, L.	Faithfull, B.
Bolton, L.	Fanshawe of Richmond, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Feversham, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Fortescue, E.
Bruce-Gardyne, L.	Gainford, L.
Buckinghamshire, E.	Gardner of Parkes, B.
Caccia, L.	Gibson-Watt, L.
Caithness, E.	Glenarthur, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L.	Gray of Contin, L.
Cathcart, E.	Gridley, L.
Cockfield, L.	Grimston of Westbury, L.
Colwyn, L.	Halsbury, E.
Cork and Orrery, E.	Harmar-Nicholls, L.
Cottesloe, L.	Hemphill, L.
Craigavon, V.	Henderson of Brompton, L.
Craigmyle, L.	Hylton-Foster, B.
Crawford and Balcarres, E.	Inglewood, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Kilmany, L.
Davidson, V.	Kinnoull, E.

Lane-Fox, B.	Orr-Ewing, L.
Lawrence, L.	Pender, L.
Lindsey and Abingdon, E.	Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Long, V. [Teller]	Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.
Lucas of Chilworth, L.	Portland, D.
Lyell, L.	Rankeillour, L.
McAlpine of West Green, L.	Renton, L.
McFadzean, L.	St. Davids, V.
Macleod of Borve, B.	Saltoun, Ly.
Margadale, L.	Shannon, E.
Marley, L.	Skelmersdale, L.
Maud of Stratford-upon-Avon,	Soames, L.
L.	Spens, L.
Merrivale, L.	Swinfen, L.
Mersey, V.	Swinton, E. [Teller]
Molson, L.	Teviot, L.
Morris, L.	Thorneycroft, L.
Mottistone, L.	Tranmire, L.
Munster, E.	Trefgarne, L.
Napier and Ettrick, L.	Trumpington, B.
Norfolk, D.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Nugent of Guildford, L.	Vickers, B.
Onslow, E.	Ward of Witley, V.
Orkney, E.	Whitelaw, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

7.10 p.m.

Lord Skelmersdale

In moving that the House do now resume, I should say that it is not proposed to return to the Committee stage of this Bill until 8.10 p.m. I beg to move that the House do now resume.

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