Lords Sitting of 22 May 1984

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

Heroin Addiction
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the rising concern about heroin drug addiction among young people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, the Government fully share the widespread concern about the misuse of heroin and are determined to take all possible steps to combat it. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services have recently announced a number of measures to strengthen their fight against drug misuse generally and the matter will continue to receive their closest attention.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister consider whether there might be a need for Foreign Office intervention at a very high level and discussions with the Pakistan Government in an effort to stamp out the export of this drug?
Lord Elton: My Lords, we believe that it is proper to help governments concerned in the efforts that they are making already to fight this dangerous, damaging and illicit trade. The United Kingdom makes an annual contribution of £100,000 to the United Nations Fund for Drug Abuse Control; we made a special payment of £180,000 in 1983–84 to strengthen law enforcement in Pakistan; we have recently pledged an additional £1 million over five years towards rural development programmes in the opium poppy growing areas of Pakistan and a customs officer has recently been posted to Pakistan to liaise with the authorities there, so matters are in hand.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, will the Minister agree that the real problem lies with the pushers, and that in fact it is quite easy to get heroin? Will he ask the police what particular action they are taking with the pushers?
Lord Elton: My Lords, wherever possible they are identifying and arresting them. The number of persons found guilty or cautioned for drug offences in 1982 was as follows. For unlawful supply, 1,110 (which is 110 more than the year before); for possession with intent to supply, 822 (which is over 100 more cases); and for unlawful possession of drugs other than cannabis, 3,119.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn:My Lords, can the Minister inform us what liaison is taking place between Government departments, especially with the DES, in regard to making teachers aware, because of the large increase in the number of schoolchildren who are now taking these drugs?
Lord Elton: My Lords, there is close interest and close consultation between departments. The report of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs on the prevention of drug misuse will be published next month. Prevention programmes will be developed in the light of its recommendations and I think that they will touch on that.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept from these Benches that we welcome everything he has said? But will he also accept that there has been a truly dramatic and horrendous increase in the illegal use of heroin in this country? Does he accept the estimates that have come from very responsible circles, that as many as 50,000 people are now regular heroin users, including many thousands of schoolchildren—and I really mean children? Is he aware that facilities for treatment are woefully inadequate, and does he not see this as one of the most urgent problems facing health and social services as well as education and the Home Office?
Lord Elton: My Lords, there has been a dramatic increase. I would not swear to the noble Lord's figures, but the figures are very large. As to treatment, in February and April this year my colleagues in the Department of Health gave details of the central funding of nearly £5 million to support new local initiatives for the treatment and rehabilitation of drug misusers and a further £1 million has yet to be allocated.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, is it not the case that the Customs and Excise have lost 1,000 officers since 1979, and that it is also calculated that heroin smuggling has increased by 400 per cent? May there not be some connection between the two figures?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think not because they have not been removed from that effort. In fact, the numbers directed against drugs have recently been increased.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, will my noble friend ask his right honourable friend whether it would be possible to have a drug abuse centre in every regional hospital board area because people would then know where to go?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I shall of course take that idea to my right honourable friend. I cannot indicate what reception it will then receive.
Lord Somers: My Lords, is it possible to have rather more efficient and urgent teaching in the schools to warn Young people of the danger of taking drugs?
Lord Elton: My Lords, as I said earlier, we are awaiting the report of the advisory council and that is certainly a matter to which we shall turn our attention.
Lord Hunt: My Lords. in view of the seriousness and the increase in this problem not only in this country but in other countries in Europe and America, can the noble Lord assure the House that there is very close liaison and consultation with our allies and partners in Europe and in the United States?
Lord Elton: My Lords, there is both international concern and international co-operation. As to the particular area to which the noble Lord directs my attention, I am not aware of what the formal arrangements are, but I shall write to him.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, can the Minister say what his advice would be to a parent who discovered that his or her child was a heroin addict and from where that parent should seek advice, and how?
Lord Elton: My Lords, my personal advice would be to start with the local general practitioner and get into the chain there.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, following upon earlier questions relating to the availability of clinics, is the noble Lord aware of an article which appeared in the Sunday Times of 20th May in which, in particular. areas were described which are in, to say the least. a very, very difficult position? Hackney, for example, has to close its doors to the possibility of any new entrants. I shall quote merely one sentence. Has the noble Lord read it?
"He has requested more staff'—
that. is, the administrator, Dr. Mackie—
"(only the minimum recommended in the Department of Health and Social Security's advisory council's report) hut to no avail".
Is the noble Lord the Minister satisfied that there is complete co-operation and liaison between the Customs and Excise and his own department? Such co-operation is obviously essential.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as to the noble Lord's first question, I am not aware, without notice, of the particular case or the particular article, but I shall certainly have it read. As to the noble Lord's second question, the tenor of my remarks and of a recent speech by my right honourable friend make it clear that the Home Office has this matter very close to its heart and that there is more co-operation than formerly was the case between the departments.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the penalty is big enough? I believe that no penalty is too big for a drug pusher.
Lord Elton: My Lords, at present the maximum penalty is 14 years' imprisonment or a fine of, I believe, £20,000. Those are the highest determinate penalties that we have, and we believe that they are adequate. It is a question of catching the people involved and applying the penalties to them.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that there is a melancholy sense in which heroin addiction can be regarded as a self-limiting disease but that we should not derive much comfort from the fact that it is self-limiting, because heroin
138
addicts die within a very short number of years? In the light of that fact, would not the noble Lord agree that adults who wish to influence the young, whether we be parents, doctors or policemen, should focus our attention on what really matters; namely, heroin addiction rather than cannabis which, whereas it may matter. matters nothing like so much?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord's thesis that heroin addiction is a deadly killer, which to that extent is self-limiting. However, it is not self-limiting, in that the death of the addict does not break the chain. It is therefore more deadly than the noble Lord suggests. As to the noble Lord's question about whether other forms of addiction are related to it, I hesitate to come to a view. However, there is a view that addiction of one sort predisposes to addiction of a worse sort. Therefore I should be very hesitant to say that we ought to open the door to other sorts of addiction. Finally, may I return to my answer to the previous supplementary question. There is no maximum to the fine. Although I was right about the 14-year maximum term of imprisonment, the fine is without limit. I think that answer ought to satisfy the noble Lord that we have adequate powers.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, in view of the many questions which have been asked this afternoon, may I ask the Minister whether he will give an undertaking that the Government will organise a campaign by voluntary organisations. health authorities and schools, in a great effort to get the public involved in stamping out this evil scourge which is destroying so many young lives in this country?
Lord Elton: My Lords, as I have already stated, £5 million has already been allocated for new initiatives, and a further sum of £1 million is yet to be allocated. There is no doubt about the Government's commitment; nor is there any doubt about the noble Baroness's commitment. This is an effort which has to be made right throughout society, not just from the centre.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that an all-party committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Bernard Braine, was formed recently to investigate all aspects of drug misuse, and that my noble friend Lady Masham of Ilton is the vice-chairman of that all-party committee?
Lord Elton: Yes, my Lords. That is a short answer. I was under the impression that the short answers I was giving would tend to curtail the length of the questions. I wonder whether your Lordships feel that the 11 minutes we have spent on this Question is long enough.

Schoolteachers' Pay Dispute
2.49 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are now prepared to use their votes on the Burnham

139
Panel to set up an arbitration board to resolve the current dispute over schoolteachers' pay in England and Wales.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the Government's representatives have only a minority vote within the management panel of the Burnham primary and secondary committee. However, the Government fully support the decision of the panel not to refer the dispute to arbitration. The offer made stretches to the very limit the employers' capacity to pay; no arbitrator could enhance that capacity.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. But does he not agree that the Minister controls 15 of the 40 votes on the Burnham panel? If they are instructed to vote one way or the other, it makes all the difference as to how the vote goes in the end. Is the Secretary of State really going to distance himself continually from this dispute, which has the support of all six teacher unions and the support of the membership of those unions?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware——
Noble Lords: Order‡
The Earl of Swinton: I can only answer one question at a time, my Lords. I must disagree with the suggestion that my right honourable friend is distancing himself. In fact, he announced his willingness in another place just the other day to meet any of the teacher unions if they wished to discuss pay matters. So far. he has received no such request for a meeting.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that it is 10 years this week since the last major review of teachers' pay was undertaken? Many sectors of the public services have been reviewed. Some have permanent review bodies and others have been the subject of more recent reviews. Is it not time that another independent inquiry into the pay and structure of the teaching profession should be undertaken?
The Earl of Swinton: Yes, my Lords. I am indeed aware of the fact that this week marks the 10th anniversary of the committee chaired by no less than the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. But the telling factor has to be what the employer can afford to pay—not comparison with other groups or restoration of past relativities. In fact, this Government believe that the attitude which led to the Houghton report was one of the stages of the decline from which this Government, and their predecessor, have had to rescue the economy.
Lord Jacques: My Lords. is the Minister aware that when a trade union takes the same view as the Government are taking in regard to arbitration, that trade union is condemned? Will the Government consider a modified form of arbitration under which both parties put their case and the arbitrator is not allowed to compromise but makes an award to one party or the other?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the way in which this arbitration would work—if it was agreed to—would be in line with normal practice. Prior to 1981, there was access to arbitration on teachers' pay at the request of either side. But to bring arrangements into line with business practice and to accord with the principle reflected in the Employment Protection Act, the procedure was changed so that the agreement of both sides was necessary.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords. surely the Minister would agree that, in the end, there is no way out of this impasse other than by going to arbitration? All the problems we are facing at present. with pupils being unable to obtain their required education, will be meaningless unless some action is taken in this direction.
The Earl of Swinton: No, my Lords. I would not agree with the noble Lord. I would agree that the teachers' action is not helping to educate children; but teachers' pay is negotiated on the Burnham Committee, and that is where this dispute must be resolved. The 4· 5 per cent. offer is still on the table and the management panel has expressed its willingness to talk.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that there is deadlock on the committee and that the deadlock looks to be continuing? Does he not consider that it is up to the Secretary of State and the department to make some move, so that this unhappy dispute, which everybody has cause to regret, need not go on for week after week? Could not some move be made?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords. I said in an earlier reply that my right honourable friend has said that he is willing to meet the teachers' leaders. So far, they have not taken him up on that offer.

African National Congress
56 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will guarantee that the freedom of action in Britain of the South African African National Congress will not be limited as a result of Mr. P. W. Botha's visit to this country.
Lord Elton: My Lords, representatives of the African National Congress are at liberty to remain in this country so long as they do not engage in unlawful or otherwise unacceptable activities.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does not the Minister know that I am perfectly aware of that fact. and that his reply does not answer my Question? I was asking the noble Lord whether he can provide a guarantee that, following the visit next week of the South African Prime Minister, freedom for the African National Congress will remain as it is now.

141
Does he realise that the African National Congress—whose two major leaders, Nelson Mandela and Walter Sisulu, have been in gaol for 20 years—is the major organisation combating the policy of apartheid which has already forcibly removed between 2 million and 3 million people in South Africa?
Is the Minister aware also that one of the major objectives of Mr. Botha's visit to Europe is to persuade Western Governments to clamp down on the freedoms which the ANC now enjoys in their countries? Can the noble Lord answer my Question by giving such a guarantee?
Lord Elton: My Lords, no matter who visits this country, those who are entitled to live here will continue to be free to engage in what is lawful and acceptable. I hope that that interpretation of my Answer satisfies the noble Lord. I am not a party to the agenda for the discussions which will doubtless take place when Mr. Botha comes to this country—but I do not doubt that they will be wide-ranging.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister realise that, whatever may be the Government's excuses for extending this invitation to Mr. Botha, a great many people in this country—both black and white—feel that their own freedom is undermined by his visit and not just that of the African National Congress? The visit is offensive to many tens of thousands of people—black and white—of this country, who abhor the doctrines of apartheid. Does the Minister not agree that Mr. Botha's visit will be non-conducive to the public good to the same extent, in the minds of many people, as that of the Libyans who were recently expelled?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the freedoms of this country are not curtailed by anybody's visit or anybody's conversations. The freedom of the world is strengthened where nations talk to each other regardless of their differences. We talk to many countries with whom we have differences as great as those which we have with South Africa. In that light, this visit should not he seen as offensive, even to those who find the policies of other governments offensive.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, while the Minister is not a party to the agenda, will he confirm on behalf of the Government that the policies of apartheid are repellent and abhorrent to this country, and that that will be made plain to Mr. Botha during his visit?
Lord Elton: My Lords, it will be very difficult for him to avoid drawing that conclusion.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his answer to a previous supplementary question was not quite to the point? Is there not a difference between receiving the Prime minister, who is the apotheosis of the policy of apartheid, and dealing with a Foreign Minister, say, in the course of normal diplomatic relations? I believe that this is the first occasion since the war when General Smuts was Prime Minister of South Africa that a South African Prime Minister has been received in Downing Street.
142
Can the Minister further tell the House—or can he assure me—that he will draw to the notice of his right honourable friend the Prime Minister the desire of many people in this country that the visit should be used, as it has been arranged, for the Prime Minister of this country not only to express abhorrence of apartheid but also to bring pressure to bear on Mr. Botha to release the two leaders of the ANC who have been incarcerated for more than 20 years?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord should not be encouraged to read too much into the lack of precedent or otherwise of this visit. That is the only response I can give to that point. I will certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend to the noble Lord's words. It will he for her to decide how to handle her own agenda.
Lord Oram: My Lords, when the Minister uses the phrase "lawful and acceptable" in respect of the ANC's activities, can he explain to whom they should be lawful and acceptable? Who is to judge what is "acceptable"? Is the noble Lord aware, for instance, that there is planned a mass demonstration by the anti-apartheid movement against Mr. Botha's visit? Would it be acceptable for representatives of the ANC to take part in that demonstration? Who is to judge?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am not certain that I have clear in my mind the substantive but hypothetical question that the noble Lord asked about future events, but the general answer to his question is that they should be acceptable in terms of the national interest and the interests of ordinary freedom-loving people.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that, so far as I am concerned, if they hold up the traffic on its way to the Palace of Westminster their mass demonstration will be totally unacceptable?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I anticipated the noble Earl's question in view of the fact that I have twice been called to this Dispatch Box to defend demonstrations in which I had no personal interest but which had interfered with the noble Earl's access. I do hope that they choose a suitable route.

Sizewell Inquiry
3 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they expect the public inquiry into the building of a pressurised water nuclear reactor at Sizewell to complete its work and on what date it is expected that the inquiry's report and recommendations will be received.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, this is a matter for the inspector of the inquiry. The report and recommendations will be presented to the

143
Secretary of State by the inspector when he has assessed all the evidence gathered throughout the inquiry.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does not the noble Earl see that Answer as being as unsatisfactory to himself as it is to me? Will he confirm that the main inquiry opened on 11th January 1982—I am sorry, 1983–16 months ago, and that its duration and the escalating cost of over £10 million are giving grave cause for concern? Under these circumstances, is it not desirable that, if we are to have a continuing nuclear power programme, we should in the country's best interest go along the AGR fast reactor road. as was implicit in our own Select Committee's report?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord corrected himself on the date of the inquiry because it actually started two days after I reached the department and I shall not know what to do when the inquiry is over. I should correct the noble Lord's figures. The overall cost of the inquiry is just over £1 million at the moment. Obviously, now that the inquiry is running it would not be for the Government to do anything but await the just verdict of that inquiry, and we must do so. Therefore, I cannot comment on the AGRs.
Baroness Airey of Abingdon: My Lords, may I ask how much of the taxpayers' money has been spent on services and parts in anticipation that the PWR will be chosen? What will happen about this money? How much will have been wasted if the AGR is chosen, as I hope it will be?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am well aware of my noble friend's predilection for AGRs and, again, I cannot comment on what she says at the moment. The amount of money so far spent by the board is about £89 million. The bulk of that expenditure is on design and development work. As my noble friend is aware, an additional £12 million was spent on the ordering of long-lead materials.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that the current uncertainties about the future of the mining industry argue for pushing ahead with the nuclear power programme?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, again I must go back to what I originally said. This is one of the issues which the inquiry is considering and I do not think it would be right for me to comment.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, can the noble Earl give some assurance that, before pushing ahead, an independent assessment will be made of the adequacy of the provisions for material movement throughout the district which at the moment depends entirely on the Ministry of Transport?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I very much hope that the aspect raised by the noble Earl is being considered by the inquiry.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, as regards the costs of the inquiry, is it not a fact that the;£1million mentioned by the noble Earl relates to his department alone and not to the parties to the inquiry? If all the costs, including the costs incurred by the CEGB, are taken into account, is it not a fact that they will exceed £10 million?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the difference between the noble Lord and myself is purely on what one means by the inquiry. So far as the overall cost of the inquiry is concerned—and not the CEGB's other costs—those are the figures I am giving. The noble Lord is quoting what the CEGB itself is involved in.

Business
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords. at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Cockfield will. with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is to be made in another place on British Leyland.
It may also be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available at the usual time of 7.30 this evening. Subject to progress of business, the Committee stage of the London Regional Transport Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour. During this adjournment the Third Reading of the Trade Marks (Amendment) Bill and the Second Reading of the Cycle Tracks Bill will be taken.

Capital Transfer Tax Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill is a pure consolidation measure. Capital transfer tax was introduced by the Finance Act 1975 in place of estate duty but there have been amendments to the law concerning the tax in nearly every Finance Act since then. The time is, therefore, ripe for consolidation.
If your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading it will be referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, it is convention. if not a rule, in your Lordships' House that on a Motion such as this your Lordships do not debate the substance of the matter sought to be consolidated but merely the desirability of consolidation. But that involves priorities. I have no objection—rather the contrary—to the consolidation of this particular branch of the law. However, I should like to ask my noble and learned friend what has happened to what I understood was the promised consolidation of some matter in the National Heritage Bill, the drafting of which was objected to so much last Session? I was given the impression—and I have

145
confirmed it with other noble Lords—that that was going to be in the consolidation programme this Session. Can my noble and learned friend give us any prognostication?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think that in the rules of order I can only discuss the Bill before the House. When I heard that there was a possibility of my noble and learned friend putting a question of this nature, I made inquiries of the most rigorous kind. No undertaking to include the National Heritage Bill appears to have been made from the records in my possession, whatever may have been the misunderstanding, or understanding, of my noble and learned friend. I can only regret that. If I am to give him a more definite and lengthier answer I think I shall have to write to him. I am grateful to him for raising the matter.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Food Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Road Traffic Regulation Bill [H.L.]
Report received.

London Regional Transport Bill
3.9 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Corn mittee.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clauses 45, 46 and 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Grants by Greater London Council for year including appointed day]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 149:
Page 45, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) It shall be the duty of London Regional Transport at the end of the initial accounting year from the period of the appointed day to calculate any excess payment by the Greater London Council of the amount required by London Regional Transport to carry out their financial duty under section 15 of this Act and if there is any excess payment the Secretary of State shall direct London Regional Transport to pay the said amount to the Greater London Council.").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if with this amendment I speak to Amendment No. 150. I understand that that meets the view of the Minister.
146
Amendment No. 150: Page 46, line 11, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
("(6) It shall be the duty of London Regional Transport to ascertain the use to which the Greater London Council had intended to put any sums received by virtue of this section and to apply such sums received to those uses.").
The amendments deal with Clause 48 which relates to the grants payable by the Greater London Council for the initial year of the formation of London Regional Transport. It empowers the Secretary of State to direct the GLC to pay revenue and capital grants to LRT for the remainder of the year in which London Transport becomes LRT. The Secretary of State has said that he would wish that the appointed day be as soon as possible after Royal Assent. The Bill provides that these grants shall not exceed the revenue grants determined for 1984-85 and the sum of £170 million, less of course any sums paid prior to the appointed day. Should the money for items for which the GLC had budgeted not have been used for 1984–85, what is to happen to any surplus that there may be at the year end?
On 15th March in the other place the Secretary of State (at column 1114) said:
"The GLC having determined both the revenue and capital amount, we shall expect it to pay us that amount for the full year."
He went on to say that he hoped that the matter could be agreed sensibly and that we must be careful that the Government did not demand too much from the GLC nor the GLC give too little to LRT. Later he reaffirmed that if there was an operating surplus it would be left in the business and made available to reduce the subsidy in the following year. If my memory is correct, a similar statement was made by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, when he was dealing with an amendment concerning any surplus in any year.
We are dealing in Amendment No. 149, and in this clause, with grants payable in the initial year. It is not clear whether the surplus in the initial year would be retained to offset charges next year—if that is the position, both the Government and the ratepayers would benefit—or whether, on the other hand, any surplus will be used only to reduce the contribution from ratepayers in the following year. The amendment would ensure that any surplus will be returned to the GLC which originally paid the grants for the remainder of the first year. There is no guarantee that the grants provided by the GLC will be used by LRT for the items for which the GLC intended the payments.
That leads me to the second amendment, Amendment No. 150, which relates to subsection (6) of this clause, which states:
"The Secretary of State may by notice in writing to London Regional Transport make the application by London Regional Transport of any sums received by them by virtue of this section subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit"
In other words, the GLC having decided and approved its budget and decided what it wishes the money to be used for in the initial year, the Secretary of State nevertheless has complete freedom to tell LRT to use the money as he thinks fit. The point of the second amendment is that LRT shall ascertain the use to which the GLC had intended its money to be used for the first year. I do not know whether one can use the word "morality" when dealing with this Bill, but that appears to be a good sound moral argument.
The Secretary of State has said that the appointed day will be as soon as possible after Royal Assent. He has also said that he wants LRT to start at once to effect changes. If the LRT service is to be varied by the Secretary of State giving instructions, without his having any obligation to take account of changes in the budget for 1984–85 which was approved by the GLC, including the items on which it wanted the money spent. that seems to be totally wrong.
In Committee in the other place the Secretary of State opposed an amendment such as this one on the grounds that, although the Government will take over LRT in the summer—that is what he is hoping—in effect, if the amendment was carried, the GLC would continue to control LRT until 1st April 1985. But all that the amendment is seeking is that LRT should ascertain proposals and the purposes for which the GLC allocated the money in a budget which it approved for the current year, before LRT was under consideration. The GLC has always regarded its approval of capital and the budgets for LTE as a contractual obligation on the executive to deliver a service in accordance with those decisions. The amendment wishes to ensure that LRT will continue to do that for the current year. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): The clause as presently drafted provides arrangements analogous to the present GLC/London Transport arrangements. At present the GLC makes a revenue grant determination and approves a capital programme. It cannot under the Transport Act 1983 make a revised determination. so any surplus or deficit would normally be carried over by London Transport and taken into account in the following year's grant determination. For example, in 1982–83 a deficit of £25 million was carried over into 1983–84. The same principles are proposed for LRT in 1984–85. Obviously it is impossible to forecast correctly to the nearest pound the grant requirement for a year. Any surplus would be rolled forward and used to reduce the subsidy requirement in 1985–86, and ratepayers would benefit through a reduced ratepayer contribution.
I am sorry to say also that the amendment is in any event technically deficient. I believe that it fails to achieve what its proposers intend. It is not clear how grant payments could exceed the amount required by the Clause 15 duty when this merely requires LRT not to make a loss. Furthermore, the proposed amendment would change these well-precedented arrangements with little advantage to anyone, least of all London ratepayers.
I turn now to Amendment No. 150, the second of the two amendments to which the noble Lord spoke. Broadly speaking. the effect of this amendment would be to make LRT carry out the plans and policies for 1984–85 approved by the GLC for London Transport prior to the establishment of LRT. I am afraid that the amendment would in fact tie the Government's hands in a quite unacceptable way and would be tantamount to postponing the take-over of London Transport until 1st April 1985.
What I think we can agree on is that the money provided by the GLC to provide and support an
148
efficient and cost-effective public transport system should be used to do just that. But where we may well part company is on the best way to achieve these broad objectives and on the exact balance to be struck between long-term and short-term considerations and among the interests of travellers, taxpayers (both local and national) and those providing public transport. In short, we cannot be shackled to supporting every single facet of the GLC approved plan for London Transport. no matter how ill-advised it might prove to be in the light of circumstances then prevailing.
Under the provisions of the Bill London ratepayers will continue to contribute towards the costs of public transport support in London. This clause simply provides a convenient mechanism for the transitional year before the levy arrangements come into operation. There is no reason in principle therefore to constrain LRT in the way proposed for the remainder of 1984–85.
In addition there would be great difficulties of interpretation if the plans approved by the GLC for London Transport proved incompatible with the financing proposed by the GLC, for example, because of some unexpected event like an extremely bad winter or some major setback at the end of the accounting year. I hope that in the light of these considerations the noble Lord will not wish to press his amendments
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. He has explained the Government's position quite clearly. It shows, in one or two facets, the difference between the Government and those of us who are critical of the formation, the establishment, of LRT.
The noble Lord referred to present legislation. But we are talking about legislation that is now being put through Parliament, or which it is hoped to put through Parliament, to establish an entirely new organisation. Therefore, Parliament has every right to decide what shall be done with grants paid for the initial year.
The Minister said that the first amendment is technically difficult because he could not see how there could be a revenue surplus. The GLC is going to be compelled—as is made clear, and the Secretary of State has reaffirmed this—to pay the balance of its grants for the remainder of 1984–85. Once this Bill has passed and has received Royal Assent, the Secretary of State is going to give instructions as to how that money shall be used, as he thinks fit, which is what subsection (6) says. Obviously, should there be any curtailment of services there could be a surplus. It is that surplus about which we are talking in the first amendment.
It seems absolutely wrong that the GLC should sit down, work out its plans. make its budget, decide on revenue support on that budget, be compelled to pay the balance for the current year to the LRT and it be used for things for which the GLC in its budget did not intend that it should be used. Hence the amendment. The Minister has said just that the money will be used to establish an efficient system. Noble Lords will recall the debates we had as to what should be the system of transport for Greater London. We wanted to ensure that at least in the first year there was justice done. The Government want to have their own way and ignore

149
the GLC plans, for which money has been subscribed. I will read carefully what the Minister has said but, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 150 not moved.]
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 [Travel concessions on journeys in and around Greater London]:
3.23 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 151:
Page 46, line 39, leave out ("subsection (4)") and insert ("subsections (4) and (4A)")
The noble Lord said: Clause 49 provides for a voluntary scheme by which the local authorities of London, acting separately or jointly, may make arrangements with London Regional Transport for concessionary travel schemes. It is generally recognised that this is not likely to work and the Government have introduced—and this is outlined in Clauses 50 to 52—a fall-back reserve scheme. The amendment arises because the reserve scheme is nowhere near as good as the present scheme. I would remind noble Lords that since 1973 free travel has been established on London Transport and London country buses within Greater London. At first, this was during the off-peak periods 9.30 to 4.30, and then after 6.30. In March 1983 it was extended to all times after 9.30 and unrestricted at week-ends.
Noble Lords will have heard accounts of people, particularly pensioners, before that change was made, waiting at bus stops just a few minutes before the hour for when the concessionary travel would not be possible, apprehensive that the bus may come a few minutes late and they would not have their concessionary fare. Since March 1983 that has not been a possibility.
The present scheme also allows permit holders half-price off-peak journeys on the British Rail network in Greater London. Noble Lords will be aware that about a million people in all have benefited from London's concessionary scheme. Poll after poll has shown how much it is appreciated, not just by the recipients of the concessionary scheme but by other people throughout Greater London.
The fall-back reserve scheme, which we are pleased that the Government eventually introduced, has a number of deficiencies. I will briefly mention them. The scheme restricts the use for journeys starting in the early evening between 4.30 and 6.30. The clause provides that the off-peak periods may be altered by LRT. There is no necessity for the Secretary of State's approval should it decide to alter those periods. It does not cover Green Line services within London.
The reserve scheme provides that boroughs will be allowed to charge for the passes and to make conditions. Admittedly, these are subject to approval by the Secretary of State, but the power is there. If there are different charges in different boroughs, different conditions in different boroughs, then it is pretty certain there will be varying issuing offices in the different boroughs with different schemes. The present practice of universal use of post offices in London could then no longer operate.
In moving these amendments, I must ask: why have the Government decided on these changes to a successful scheme, well received throughout the Greater London area? As noble Lords will be aware. there are a number of amendments on the separate points, but I hope the Government will accept the amendment to the effect that the new scheme should he the same as the scheme operating at the moment, before LRT is formed. I hope that the Government will see the justice of that scheme and will accept the amendment. Then any consequential amendments that may be required can be dealt with at the next stage and the individual improvements need not be moved.
The Earl of Avon: The purpose of these amendments. which the noble Lord has moved so eloquently, is very similar to Amendment No. 81 which we debated during our consideration of Clause 12. I do not want to detain the Committee too long, and I hope I shall not go over the same arguments again. On that occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, drew attention to the current GLC scheme, which places no restriction on evening peak travel as well as providing half price off-peak travel on British Rail services within London. Nobody is denying the right of local authorities to provide additional facilities of this kind if that is what they wish to do. But it is another thing entirely to require, in statute, that this sort of scheme should exist.
During the Report stage of the Bill in another place my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made it clear that the reserve scheme had been geared deliberately to off-peak travel. I think the point is that it would be wrong to force local authorities in London to finance the most generous possible scheme. Financing concessionary travel at peak periods of the day costs some £10 million in London. We believe that the right approach is to provide in the reserve powers—and they are reserve powers—for a reasonable uniform scheme, but at the same time to allow the individual local authorities, if they wish, to top up the scheme by buying additional benefits from LRT or from British Rail. The scheme, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in a way, has been saying, changes all the time. To say that a scheme is now right. I do not believe is necessarily satisfactory. To provide a reserve scheme, as we have done, that covers the best of the present scheme, I honestly believe is the right way forward. This is the approach that the Bill adopts. I recommend it very much to the Committee and hope that the Government will be supported.
Lord Tordoff: We recognise that schemes change from time to time. What this amendment says is that they should be no less favourable, not that they should not change.
Baroness Lane-Fox: I am conscious that some of us have already asked quite a lot, to put it mildly, of the Government on matters of fundamental importance—on Dial-a-Ride, special taxis and representation on passenger committees—in this Bill. I do not now feel that it is reasonable to press this point. It is surely much more an economic point than a travelling or mobility one. My wish is to see LRT made eminently workable. If we ask a lot at every

151
stage, I feel that we may lose our credibility and jeopardise the chances for those other vital matters that, above all, require LRT to be viable and efficient. That is why I cannot support the amendment.
The Earl of Avon: I should like to reply briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, who spoke, I think, about less favourable schemes, although I missed his actual remark when he was speaking. I can perhaps answer that. At the moment, some things are still experimental. We do not know, even if the GLC continued. whether they would be kept or not. The second point is that new ideas are continually being introduced. We do not therefore know in this Committee what will be less favourable when the Bill is enacted.
Lord Underhill: I am very disappointed with the Government's answer. I know that the noble Earl is a compassionate individual; otherwise I would say that the Government were displaying a hard-hearted attitude. That is not, however, my personal view of the Minister. The noble Earl referred to the possibility of boroughs making changes. That is one of the things that we want to avoid. We do not want to find that, instead of the composite scheme that now affects all London, we have bits and pieces of schemes in different parts of London. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has answered his criticism. We do not want schemes for all time. The GLC was considering even extensions of its own scheme.
There are so many weaknesses and deficiencies in the Government's reserve scheme that the amendment is absolutely essential if we are to do justice to the vast number of pensioners—we are not dealing here with the mobility of the disabled to which the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, seemed to be referring —affected by the Bill. I believe that many Members of your Lordships' House derive benefit from the scheme and are happy to use it. They will be affected if the Government's reserve scheme goes through.
At the end of the day, it is the ratepayers of London who will pay for the scheme—not the Government. I hope that we shall have a reserve scheme that is a good scheme and that we shall not find that the Government's reserve scheme, with all its deficiencies, is carried through. There is a big principle here. We must not go backwards in London under LRT. I hope therefore that the Committee will declare its view on the issue in a Division.
3.34 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 151) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 121.

DIVISION NO.1

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Bottomley, L.

Ardwick, L.

Brockway, L.

Attlee, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Aylestone, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Banks, L.

Collison, L.

Birk, B.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Blyton. L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Boston of Faversham, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

152

Diamond, L.

Mishcon, L.

Donnet of Balgay, L.

Nicol, B.

Ennals, L.

Oram, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Peart, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Gaitskell, B.

Gallacher, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

George-Brown, L.

Rhodes, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Rochester, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Gregson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Grey, E.

Serota, B.

Hale, L.

Simon, V.

Hampton, L.

Stallard, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stedman, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Stone, L.

Jacobson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Jacques, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L,

John-Mackie, L.

Tordoff. L,

Kagan, L.

Underhill, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Wedderbum of Charlton. L.

Leatherland, L,

Wells-Pestell, L.

Listowel, E.

White, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

McCarthy, L.

Mcintosh of Haringey, L.

Winstanley, L.

Mayhew, L.

Wootton of Abinger. B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Gray of Contin. L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gridley, L.

Ampthill L.

Hailsham of Saint

Annan, L.

Marylebone, L.

Auckland, L.

Halsbury, E.

Avon, E.

Hanson, L.

Bellwin, L.

Hawke, L.

Beloff, L.

Hayter, L.

Belstead, L.

Henley, L.

Berkeley, B.

Hives, L.

Bessborough, E.

Holdemess, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Brookes, L.

Hood, V.

Broxbourne, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ingrow, L.

Caithness, E.

Ironside, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Kinnaird, L.

Chelmer, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Clitheroe, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Cockfield, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Coleraine, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Loudoun, C.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cottesloe, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Cox, B.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Craigavon, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Davidson, V.

Mar, C.

De Freyne, L.

Marley, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

Donoughmore, E.

Avon, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Merrivale, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Mersey, V.

Eccles, V.

Milverton, L.

Effingham, E.

Molson, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Elton, L.

Morris, L.

Faithfull, B.

Mostyn, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mottistone, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Gainford, L.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Gisborough, L.

Northchurch, B.

Glanusk, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Onslow, E.

153

Orkney, E.

Spens, L.

PlummerofSt. Maryiebone,T

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

L.Polwarth, L.

Strathspey, L.

Porritt, L.

Suffield, L.

Portland, D.

Swansea, L.

Renton, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Renwick, L.

Terrington, L.

Richardson, L.

Teviot, L.

Rochdale, V.

Todd, L.

Rodney, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Rugby, L.

Trumpington, B.

St. Davids, V.

Vaizey, L.

Sandford, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Sandys, L.

Vickers, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Westbury, L.

Somers, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

British Leyland
3.43 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, with permission, I will repeat a Statement on the British Leyland 1984 corporate plan made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Statement is as follows:
"I am making available in the Library of the House and in the Vote Office a report by BL on its recent performance and details of the 1984 corporate plan. The published results of BL show that, in 1983, the company achieved its objective of breaking even at the trading level for the first time since 1978. Productivity and quality standards within the company have continued to improve markedly. The House will, I am sure, wish to congratulate the company on these achievements, and on the range of new models successfully launched over the past year, including the larger Sherpa vans, the Land Rover One-Ten, the Maestro, and—most recently—the Montego. The corporate plan, which the Government have now approved, sets out the basis on which the company's solid progress towards viability and its return to the private sector will be maintained.
"A particular problem for BL in this year's plan has been Leyland Trucks, which faces an exceptionally depressed market at home and, particularly, overseas, showing little signs of major improvement in the medium term, and severe overcapacity throughout Europe. The Government have endorsed the board's plan to continue the Leyland Trucks business, but accept the need for radical action to reduce costs and adjust to the medium-term prospects for the market. The company has informed its workforce at its Bathgate plant today of the phased closure of that plant over the next two years. Leyland Bus, too, has suffered from a
154
depressed market at home and will also have to reduce its capacity to a level more consistent with market prospects. The company has today informed its workforce at the Charles H. Roe plant in Leeds of the closure of that plant later this year.
"The Government, like the company, greatly regret these measures, which are however necessary to establish a viable prospect for the remainder of the commercial vehicles business and the employment in it.
"It has been the long established objective of the BL Board to return its businesses to the private sector. The House will be aware of the sustained improvement in recent years in the performance of Jaguar Cars. As a result of this improvement, the BL Board is now able to propose as a first step, subject to the approval of the shareholders of BL plc, that Jaguar Cars should be returned to the private sector later this year. It is the board's intention to proceed by means of a public offer for sale of Jaguar. The Government warmly welcome these plans and I look forward to keeping the House informed of progress in the coming weeks."
That completes the Statement.
3.47 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place by his right honourable friend, and I should like also to convey the congratulations of the Opposition to British Leyland on the success it has made in rebuilding a British car industry since it was nationalised by a Labour Government. I think in 1976. Had it not been for that act of a Labour Government it is doubtful whether the Minister would have been repeating the Statement in the House this afternoon, because there would have been no BL of which to speak.
Is the noble Lord aware that in our opinion it is quite reprehensible that the Statement on the corporate plan and the success of 1983 should be lumped together with the announcement of the closure of the Bathgate plant and the Charles H. Roe plant at Leeds? That this should be done just before a parliamentary recess is indicative of the Government's attempt to duck the justified criticism of these disastrous closures. Does he not realise that the closure of Bathgate in particular means the elimination of the motor industry in Scotland and will prove to be a disaster for Scotland, which already is devastated by mass unemployment under this Government?
What is more, is he aware that as far as Bathgate and truck exports and imports are concerned, between 1978 and 1983 exports fell by 33 per cent. while imports rose by 109 per cent? It is this unchecked disaster—unchecked by the Government, that is—that has caused the closure at Bathgate. Further, does the noble Lord not agree that the falling sales which have now led to these closures are a direct result and consequence of the Government's own policy of high interest rates and over-valued exchange rates? In relation to buses, does he not realise that the Government's cuts in expenditure in local government, especially the transport supplementary grant, have had a most detrimental effect on this particular industry?

155
I want also to remind the noble Lord that in February the Government announced the Nissan development. Is the noble Lord aware that the announcement today of the closures at Bathgate and Leeds mean that there will be five times as many jobs lost in the motor industry in the United Kingdom than will be created by the first phase of the Nissan development? The Government are shelling out £100 million to this Japanese company at the same time as they refuse to give support to keep these long-established industries in Bathgate and Leeds going in the interests of the British motor industry, and indeed in the interests of the economy itself?
While it is pleasing that British Leyland as a whole showed a profit for 1983, can the noble Lord the Minister say how much of that profit came from Jaguar itself? Furthermore, can he say, when Jaguar is privatised, whether it will be able to stand on its own against such giants as BMW and Mercedes? Or will Jaguar collapse and again have to be rescued by the taxpayer?
Is the noble Lord aware—I am sure that he must be—that Jaguar sells largely to a single market—the United States? Indeed, in 1983 of a total production of 29,200 cars, 15,815 were sold to the United States. Will the noble Lord accept that a collapse of the United States car market for this particular type of car would also mean the collapse of Jaguar? I would be most obliged if the noble Lord could answer some of those questions.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I too, should like to offer my thanks to the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy for being good enough to repeat the Statement which was made in another place and which, surprisingly enough, was capable of being repeated here after a very short time, which gives one the impression that far fewer questions were asked in the other place than I propose to ask in this House.
The Statement covers a variety of pieces of information all of which are very relevant to the consideration that your Lordships' House normally gives to these matters? First. I should like to share in the congratualtions offered to the company on the success that they have achieved in a variety of fields which, to me, only shows that companies—whether they are in the public sector or in the private sector—are amenable to good management. There is no point in carrying on the argument about the principle of transferring companies from the public sector to the private sector and the reverse.
But does not the Minister think that the Government have a special responsibility here of demonstrating that it is not damaging to the body corporate to have one of its most useful limbs removed and expect the rest of the body to function just as well as it did before? Is it right therefore to remove Jaguar—which has apparently producd by far the greatest part of the profit which has been earned by the company—at a stage when the company is obviously in the great difficulties to which this Statement refers? If the transfer of Jaguar to the private sector is to go ahead, is the noble Lord able to assure us that the arrangements which already exist for consultation between managed and managers within that plant. Will
156
be continued or improved—but at least continued—in the private sector?
So far as Leyland Trucks are concerned, the Statement makes clear that the fall in world trade of trucks may well necessitate some cutting back. What I therefore have to ask the Government is whether on this occasion they will be good enough to give special consideration to the re-employment or, if necessary, the re-training of those who will become unemployed at the Bathgate plant? The last time I asked this question was in relation to British Aerospace and they obviously had given the matter no consideration. Having dealt with trucks, I now turn to buses, which are a very different matter. I note with care that there is no reference in the Statement to the depressed market abroad. as was the case with trucks. As regards buses, the Statement refers to the depressed market at home. The origin of the depression in the market at home has already' been made clear. But so far as one knows this is not paralleled by a depression in world trade in buses. Indeed, it must be within the experience of every one of your Lordships when going abroad to be surprised by the increasing number of buses which serve travellers of all kinds all over the Continent of Europe and elsewhere.
It is inconceivable therefore to me—but I would be grateful for the figures if the noble Lord has them—that there is a marked depression in the world trade of buses. I should have thought that the response that the Government ought to give with regard to that factory—and I am referring to the Leeds factory which manufactures buses—is to have another go. to be enterprising and to apply the same good management as that which has achieved good results in other parts of British Lev land. IF closure has to go ahead at the Leeds plant. then I hope again that the same point about alternative employment for those who may become redundant has already received or will receive the special consideration of the Government.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords. I am grateful both to the noble Lord. Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for the congratulations that they offer to British Leyland. The progress that has been made in the past few years is a matter of great satisfaction to all of us, to the management and to the workforce. It is something in which we all ought to take a measure of satisfaction.
I cannot accept of course the criticism of the noble Lord. Lord Stoddart, about the Statement itself. Incidentally. the documents to which my right honourable friend referred—the documents which were being placed in the Library of the House of another place—will also be available in the Printed Paper Office. and they will contain a great deal of additional background information.
The corporate plan covers a very wide canvas indeed and it entailed the Government taking a large number of related decisions on important matters. We felt that the right course. when that consideration was completed, was for my right honourable friend to make a Statement which covered the whole of the field. This is the earliest date at which that Statement could have been made, and it is—with respect to the noble Lord—quite a long time between now and the

157
Summer Recess. We shall be away at Whitsun for a relatively short period of time. I shall remain in my office throughout most of that period and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, will also be devoting himself to his parliamentary duties during that period.
None of us of course in any way underestimates the tragedy which always occurs when a plant of this kind closes down. when a venture of which high hopes have been held comes to an end, and when unemployment is created. There is nothing between any of us on that particular point.
However, the economic pressures have been such that there is no alternative. There has been a very big fall in the world market for trucks. The market in the United Kingdom has also fallen substantially. In 1979 the United Kingdom market was 80,000 trucks; in 1983 that United Kingdom market fell to 50,000 trucks. There has been a fall in Leyland Trucks' share of that market. It has fallen from 17·3 per cent. to 15 per cent. But the biggest element in the fall has not been import penetration at all; it has been the fall in the total market, for which I have given figures.
Coupled with this, Leyland Trucks were always export-orientated and the tragedy is that the particular markets to which their efforts were mainly directed are markets which themselves have been devastated by various factors. Their two biggest markets were Nigeria, where exports have fallen from a figure of 2,600 to 300 trucks in 1983, and the Middle East, where there had been sales, again, of 2,600, which have now fallen to 400. These are factors which are totally outside the control of Leyland Trucks.
As a result, last year for example Leyland Trucks' exports amounted to 3,000 vehicles as against exports of' 9,100 in 1979. As a result, the company has gross over-capacity. Perhaps I may illustrate that by one example. The capacity at the Leyland works in Lancashire alone amounts to some 24,000 vehicles, while the total output of Leyland Trucks last year amounted to only 10,900 vehicles. The measure of concentration of production which is now being undertaken is the necessary price for the survival of Leyland Trucks—it must be able to survive on a viable and economic basis.
I now turn to Jaguar. It is true—and indeed a matter of some congratulation—that in the past few years Jaguar has proved to be a very profitable company. Figures for its profitability given in paragraph 8 on page 3 of the document which will be available in the Printed Paper Office, show that in 1983 the operating profits of Jaguar amounted to £55 million compared with £15 million in 1982. These figures are in documents.
Having two quite different kinds of operation carried out in the same company—namely, a volume car business and a very specialised car business, such as Jaguar—has not been an entirely happy arrangement, and both the Board of BL as well as the Government believe that Jaguar's future success lies in it being an independent company. Mr. Ray Horrocks, who is the chief executive of the car division of British Ley land, will be a non-executive director of Jaguar, so that link will be maintained. It will be open to Jaguar and British Leyland to make whatever commercially
158
correct arrangements they consider appropriate for any research and development which could be carried out between the two companies. Therefore there will be a link there.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, raised a specific point about consultations between managers and the workforce. One of the most important points about Jaguar has been the very close identification between the workforce and the management. Indeed, this has been one of the factors which has led to its great success. We are confident that that will continue to be the case and it is the intention of the Board of British Leyland that there should be special facilities for the workforce to acquire shares in the publicly-quoted company.
Finally, there is the question of the closure at Charles H. Roe in Leeds. The position is that the United Kingdom bus market has declined very substantially. This is because of the spread of private car ownership, and Leyland Bus is left in the position where it has excess capacity. It has other works at Workington and at Lowestoft. and the manufacture currently being carried on in Leeds will he transferred to those two plants.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the fact that to many of us the basis of this Statement is enormously encouraging, particularly for the realism which it shows on the part of both the management of British Leyland and of Her Majesty's Government? Is my noble friend aware that many people will support the commercial approach shown by this Statement of concentrating effort and production where there is a market and cutting back where there is not, and so acting as any privately-owned company would have to act in a similar situation? Is he also aware that in these developments—particularly the well-earned success of that magnificent car the new Jaguar—many of us see a real chance that we may get hack to the position of some 20 years ago when the motor industry was one of our major and most successful exporting activities?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for what he has said. The price of survival is the capacity to adjust to change, and this is what is being done here. But as my noble friend also touched on this aspect, may I reply to two further points. First, Jaguar will be in competition with BMW and Mercedes over part of the range, and they show a great capacity to meet that competition. The performance of Jaguar in markets like the United States and Western Germany gives one every confidence for the future because they have put up an extremely good performance in both of those markets.
Additionally, the full services of the Manpower Services Commission will be available to help the people who become redundant in the two plants. At Bathgate in particular the management of Leyland Trucks is taking special measures in the enterprise field, where there is a body called BASE—the Bathgate Area Support for Enterprise group—which the Leyland management supports, and it will be strengthening its support. It will also be bringing in a firm of consultants to see what opportunities there are for setting up additional industries or activities in the areas
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister, either now or later, give any figures or indication as to the effect of these rearrangements which he has adumbrated on the research and development activities of British Leyland?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I see no reason why these arrangements should in any way damage the research and development activities of British Leyland. What is being done is being done not only with the support but on the advice of British Leyland, and what is happening here is that the Government are accepting the views that British Leyland have put forward.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, it is ironic, is it not, that it falls to the present Minister to receive congratulations from a former Minister, that former Minister being a member of the Government which established Bathgate as a truck plant over 20 years ago? From Scotland's point of view it is just another addition to the dismal catalogue of disasters that we have had in the past five years. Will the noble Lord tell us how many people are being made redundant here? Is it of the order of 1,800, and then the knock-on unemployment following from that? Is it the case that unemployment in the Bathgate area will rise to probably over 40 per cent.? The noble Lord stated just a minute ago that the capacity for survival depended on the ability to adjust to change. Will the noble Lord tell me what these men have got to change to, because there is no new industry of that nature coming into Scotland?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords. I entirely appreciate the depth of feeling expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. I myself started by saying that whenever a high endeavour of this sort comes to an end it is a matter of great regret for all of us. But we have to face reality. The market has shrunk to an extent where the whole future of Leyland Trucks is in danger, and the measures which are being taken on the advice of the board of British Leyland are the right measures which are the only hope that exists for the survival of Leyland Trucks as a whole. So far as the redundancies are concerned, the number at Bathgate is, as the noble Lord says, approximately 1,800.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am most obliged to the noble Lord for answering some of the questions that I have put to him. But I must confess that I am puzzled by one or two of the answers, and perhaps he could further elaborate. First of all the noble Lord mentioned the export figures to Nigeria and the Middle East, and the drop there seems quite enormous. Were there any particular internal reasons in those countries, or was the fall in orders from those countries due to British policy of high interest rates and high exchange rates, and perhaps of giving too little assistance to under-developed countries?
Secondly. the noble Lord said that the reason for the fall-off in the number of buses ordered at home was due to the growth in private car traffic. Is that absolutely so? Is it not a fact that one of the reasons why orders have fallen off is that local authorities, oppressed by Government cuts in expenditure, have in fact not been renewing buses over the same period but
160
over a rather longer period than they did before? Is not that the real reason for the fall-off in the market?
Finally, bearing in mind that Jaguar made an operating profit of £55 million. may I ask the noble Lord this: all things being equal next year, if Jaguar has by then been sold off will British Leyland be £55 million in deficit? If so, does it mean that the transfer of a profitable part of the British car industry to private enterprise will be financed by the British taxpayer to the tune of £55 million?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked for the reasons for the fall in the exports to the two markets that I mentioned. In the case of Nigeria there are of course severe payments problems, of which the noble Lord will be aware. The Nigerian Government, understandably, has greatly restricted imports into that country. It will be a long time before Nigeria is in fact out of the financial problems that it faces. One cannot therefore look to a rapid revival of the market in that country.
In the case of the Middle East, of course as the noble Lord knows, there have been a number of severe dispruptions to business there, but there are also other factors affecting both these and other markets. There has been a big fall in the work demand for trucks which is associated in part with the much greater longevity of trucks. This is something that we cannot contract out of. We have in fact given our exports considerable help. and a great deal of credit for exports to Nigeria has been under Section 2—that is outside the normal commercial coverage of ECGD.
So far as Jaguar is concerned, the profits of British Leyland next year are not a matter for me to forecast in your Lordships' Chamber today. The objective of the board of British Leyland is to bring all of its units back into profitability. It is not that one should support the other but that all of them should be brought back into profitability. That is what their objective is. Their objective also is progressively to return the various parts of the business to the private sector. I am sure that we all wish them every success in rebuilding the profitability of the various components of the total business.
Lord Diamond: My Lords——
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee upon the Bill.
Moved. That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.-(Baroness Trumpington.)
4.17 p.m.
The Question having been put a first time..
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Listowel): The Question is that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on the Bill. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"?
Noble Lords: Content.
The Deputy Speaker: To the contrary. "Not-Content"?
I think the "Contents" have it.
Motion agreed to.

London Regional Transport Bill
4.20 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 49.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 152:
Page 46, line 39, leave out from ("below,") to ("enter") in line 40, and insert ("the local authorities falling within the boundaries of the Greater London Council as presently constituted shall").
The noble Lord said: I was tempted during that interesting exchange, had there been time, to suggest that there would not be quite such a decline in bus sales if we had a proper public transport system in London. That is something which we, at least on this side of the Chamber, are trying to achieve. I beg to move Amendment No. 152, and I understand it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if I speak to Amendments Nos. 153, 155, 156 and 158, which are consequential upon Amendment No. 152.
Amendment No. 153: Page 47, line 3, leave out from beginning to ("reimburse") in line 5 and insert ("the local authorities concerned").
Amendment No. 155: Page 47, line 11, leave out from ("below,") to the end of line 12 and insert ("all London authorities shall").
Amendment No. 156: Page 47, line 23, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
Amendment No 158: Page 48, line 5, leave out ("local authority or any of the").
As the noble Lord. Lord Underhill, said, Clause 49 deals with travel concessions for the elderly, the blind and the disabled. Let me say straight away that in a better society than ours it would not be necessary to have travel concessions for the elderly. It is a symptom of our society that our pension provisions are inadequate and that our elderly people have to rely on concessions on public transport. It is not the most efficient way of dealing with the problem but it is the only way that we have at the moment. It is indeed a symptom of a somewhat sick society that we do not have a system where our elderly have a sufficient income to enable them to decide for themselves how they will spend their income, and we have to resort to concessions of this sort.
Nonetheless, nobody at present doubts that need. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said in relation to the subsequent clauses which were introduced by the Government in another place after considerable pressure from local authorities and from outside bodies, there is built into the Bill a fall-back scheme. Nevertheless, I think we would all prefer that local authorities should themselves put together a scheme. Clearly, there needs to be something to replace the provisions made by the GLC at the moment, and we are forced into this position again by the impending abolition of the GLC. It is another penalty that we pay for that abolition.
We must ask whether it is likely that a voluntary agreement can be reached by all the local authorities in the Greater London area. In some ways it seems to me that the fall-back clauses make it less likely that such agreement will be reached. The moral pressure, as it were, on the local authorities is somewhat removed by having the fall-back provision.
Secondly, the less willing authorities can block the agreement and thus cause the narrower fall-hack scheme to be brought into operation. The poorer
162
boroughs may not be able to allocate sufficient resources to sustain the scheme, particularly in these days of rate-capping and central government interference with local government finance. I shall return to that in connection with a later amendment.
We seek to ensure that the scheme shall be mandatory on the authorities and not be a voluntary scheme. Frankly, we do not believe that the local authorities can put the act together themselves, and therefore Amendment No. 152 says that they shall enter into such an agreement with London Regional Transport. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: As the noble Lord said in his introduction, the main purpose of this series of amendments is to compel—and I stress the word "compel"—all local authorities in London to arrange travel concessions not only with LRT but also with private operators and with British Rail. The amendment would also have an unfortunate side effect, to which I will refer later.
As your Lordships will recall, I made it clear during the debate on Clause 12 that the Government's policy (in common, I may say, with successive Governments) is that local authorities should have discretion over the provision of concessionary fare schemes. That is why Clause 49 specifically re-enacts the existing law enabling local authorities to make their own voluntary arrangements. Nonetheless, the Government recognise the value which pensioners and disabled people place on a uniform scheme covering the whole of London. We have therefore provided, as the noble Lord was good enough to say, for a reserve scheme to come into effect for local authorities if they are unable to agree among themselves on a uniform scheme. I spelled out that reserve scheme in detail earlier on in the Committee stage, but if any of your Lordships would like me to do so again I shall he happy to do that. We believe a reserve scheme is the way ahead rather than to force a statutory provision on the local authorities, as the noble Lord's amendments do.
I think it would he right to draw the Committee's attention to the fact that these amendments, as drafted, would have an unfortunate effect so far as county and district councils surrounding Greater London are concerned. Clause 49 is specifically drafted in such a way as to preserve the existing powers of local authorities outside Greater London to enter into agreements with LRT to provide for concessionary travel. By restricting the application of Clause 49 to local authorities within Greater London, these amendments remove from county and district councils their existing powers to enter into agreements with LRT for the provision of concessionary travel. I am sure that this particular effect is not intended, but that is how we read it. I honestly think that the Committee would be well advised to go forward in the way that we have suggested and to have this reserve power available to the Government if required, and not to put in this statutory, mandatory section.
Lord Tordoff: I had anticipated that perhaps the noble Earl might refer to places outside Greater London and I concede that that is a weakness of this amendment; but in the Government's fall-back scheme I see no reference to the outside authorities he

163
is talking about. It may be that I have misread the Bill or missed a particular point; but there is something of "sauce for the goose and sauce for the gander" here. I wonder whether, if it is not contained in Clauses 50, 51 and 52, the Government intend to put in their fall-hack scheme something which covers the area in which he suggests that my amendment is defective.
The Earl of Avon: I will certainly look into that.
Lord Tordoff: I am grateful to the noble Earl, and with that assurance I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 153 not moved.]
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 154:
Page 47, line 6. at end insert—
("; and
()expenditure incurred by local authorities under this section shall he disregarded for the purposes of calculating local government overspending.").
The noble Lord said: As I suggested a few moments ago on the earlier amendment, I am now speaking to Amendment No. 154. and I understand it is the wish of the Committee that I should also speak to Amendment No. 173. which stands in the names of the noble Lords. Lord Underhill and Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove.
Amendment No. 173: After Clause 50, insert the following new clause:
("Financial provisions as to travel concessions on journeys
in and around Greater London.
—(1) Any payment made by any London authority for travel concessions under this Act shall be disregarded for the purposes of calculating grants which may be payable to a local authority under any enactment.
(2) For the purpose of achieving a uniform concessionary travel scheme throughout London each rating authority shall levy a rate of the required amount in the pound such that if a rate of that amount is levied by each London rating authority the total amount levied will he sufficient to provide for such a scheme.").
The Government controls on local authority expenditure, as I suggested, are a severe disincentive for them to agree to a uniform scheme. Amendment No. 154 simple seeks to ensure that such expenditure shall be disregarded for the purposes of calculating over-spending. If we are seriously interested in wanting the local authorities to adopt a common scheme then we cannot use the stick without offering the carrot.
Amendment No. 173, if I may speak to that, in subsection (1) is similar, although it covers a wider aspect of the Bill. It also seeks under subsection (2) to balance the costs across all the local authorities. However, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will be speaking to that in a moment. Certainly I support those ideas. I think it is wrong for Parliament to expect local authorities to put in such a voluntary scheme and then not be prepared to accept the financial consequences of it. It seems to me that as the Bill stands at the moment that is the position we find and I seek merely to ensure that all the various forms of local government expenditure control are waived so far as this particular item is concerned, since we all believe that schemes of this sort are important for the disabled and the elderly. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Nugent of Guildford): Will the noble Lord make it plain? Is he moving Amendment No. 154?
Lord Tordoff: Yes.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Then Amendment No. 153 is not moved, I presume.
[Amendment No. 153 not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for having moved Amendment No. 154 and I believe that it would be for the convenience of your Lordships' Committee if, as the noble Lord suggested, we took with it Amendment No. 173.
[Printed above.]
The purpose of the amendments is first to make it clear that any cost to the local authority from continuing with concessionary fares shall not be part of the assessment for clawback purposes by the Government. For instance, the GLC in London paid last year £56 million to finance the concessionary fares scheme and yet the Government's assessment of the value of the concession is less than half that amount. In fact. it is £27·6 million. What the amendment seeks to do is to ensure that that £27·6 million, or whatever figure up or down it should become on some agreed scheme, does not hit the penalties that the Government are imposing in some of the other legislation that is being put through. Unless the assessment is altered, the borough councils, when they are charged with paying for the scheme, will be in an even worse position if fares rise and concessions rise accordingly—of course one would believe that this would be proportionately.
The amendment proposes that expenditure on concessionary fares shall not be subject to any financial penalty. That of course gives a great deal more freedom and independence to London Regional Transport. But the amendment, and in particular Amendment No. 173, also proposes that the scheme shall be financed through rate equalisation with all those boroughs which are taking part in it, rather than on a permanent basis. The object of this of course is that there should be some reasonable feeling of equality between residents using exactly the same transport—the same colour, the same route marks and all the same accoutrements that make up London Transport. The people in all the boroughs would all be subject to the same payments. The permit system could differ very widely and one could have a situation where people on either side of a main road or a boundary which might run down a secondary road could pay quite different basic sums for their permits.
I am not a Londoner but I know many Londoners and it is doubtful whether even in their own boroughs people know where the boundaries are, never mind trying to pick out the boundary of boroughs out with their own area. I understand, for instance, that if costs remain constant, it is estimated that, on a permit basis, there would be an increase in rates of 2 5p or more in some of the outlying boroughs such as Barking. Dagenham. Bexley, Merton, Redbridge. Sutton, and

165
Waltham Forest, whereas it would be less in the inner London areas. I really do feel that we should try to make a real job of giving people a feeling that there is such a thing as London. That is why I think it is wrong to talk about the boroughs having independence: for other things, certainly, but not for something which is spread over the whole of London and which everyone takes as relating to London. No one thinks of London Transport as something particularly associated with Barking, Bexley, Redbridge or Waltham Forest. It is London, and I feel, and the amendment seeks to emphasise it, that the scheme should be for the whole of London and that the additional cost of the scheme above Government grant is not something for which the boroughs should be penalised. Most important of all, it should he London-wide, not based on permits hut on a rates supplement.
I am very pleased to support the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, in moving the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I very much hope that my noble friend will not accept Amendment No. 154. It is designed, as I understand it, to exclude from the financial controls now somewhat belatedly being imposed local authority expenditure in respect of travel concessions. We all know the case for travel concessions and that it is a very strong one, but I cannot believe that even the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, thinks that this is in human terms the most important of the activities, social service-wise, of local authorities. If there is to be a case for excluding payment for travel concessions, what about home helps? What about meals on wheels? What about facilities for old people? Local authorities deal with people unhappily far too helpless even to use public transport. Those services, one might think in human terms, have really a far more compelling appeal than travel concessions. Therefore, this is really an attempt to use this Bill as a means of knocking out the general control over local authority expenditure which under other measures the Government are putting forward. I am sure that my noble friend has spotted this and I hope that he will knock it on the head.
The Earl of Avon: I do not think that I disagree with one word of what my noble friend has said, except that I now have to change my own notes. We do not think it would he right to single out concessionary fares and give expenditure on concessionary fares a statutory exemption from the general penalties which local authorities may suffer in regard to their total expenditure. The new clause would also have a disadvantage in that it would prevent local authorities which had their expenditure under control receiving grant on their concessionary fares expenditure.
Perhaps I may expand a little on what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said. If the GLC is abolished, the boroughs will take on a whole range of new responsibilities such as waste disposal, more roads and more planning. The boroughs will have to have new targets which will be calculated to take account of their increased responsibilities. That will obviously be a matter for consultation with the London boroughs.
So far as rate capping is concerned, expenditure on concessionary fares will be part of a local authority's total expenditure. So far as the GLC are concerned,
166
their expenditure on concessionary fares has formed only a small element of their total overspend of about £300 million. We should have to consider carefully how to treat that, if the GLC are selected for rate capping. We shall take into account how far the GLC have been positively increasing their expenditure instead of seeking to rein it back. In the case of the boroughs, we hope that they will get their financial affairs in order so that they do not face the possibility of rate capping. Rate capping is an absolute control on spending and covers all expenditure of a local authority and will be judged on a national basis. To put it in terms of disregards which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, mentioned, one must consider that at the moment disregards are for such things as the additional cost of the police between September and March, and the extra cost incurred as a result of policing the miners' industrial action. Matters such as that should not be planned fully, as this one is.
The noble Lord. Lord Carmichael, spoke about the London rates equalisation scheme. Under the Bill, boroughs will contribute to the cost of the concessionary fares scheme on the basis of the number of permits issued in their area. This seems to us a more appropriate basis than rateable value. I understand the concern about the effects of the removal of the GLC precept, but the Government have undertaken to try to avoid major shifts in the relative burden of ratepayers in different parts of London following the disappearance on abolition of the GLC precept.
The noble Lord mentioned an estimate of 2½P in the outer London boroughs. I think that this ignores the proposed adjustments to the London rates equalisation scheme. The White Paper, Streamlining the Cities discusses the extension of the London rates equalisation scheme as a possible mechanism. The Secretary of State for the Environment is considering responses to his White Paper and will be discussing the issue further with the London boroughs. I believe it is right that we should acknowledge that these matters will need to be dealt with, but we should not anticipate our consideration until the abolition Bill.
Lord Tordoff: It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has put his finger on a very important point. When we listen to the Government speaking on local government finance, they tell us that the reason for this is that certain local authorities are spending their money unwisely on foolish projects. They point in particular at the GLC in this regard. But I do not think that any of the projects that he mentioned could be regarded as foolish. Home helps and other matters of that kind which he mentioned are not foolish. Is he really saying that it is the Government's intention, willy-nilly, to force local authorities to choose between these quite vital services? It seems to me that that is the basis of what he was saying.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: If the noble Lord is asking me that question, I am only too happy to respond to it. What I am saying is that any responsible local authority will, anyhow, inside its total expenditure, give priority to these important social welfare activities and will cut out such eccentricities as, for example, the GLC's Prostitutes Co-operative.
Lord Tordoff: That is precisely the answer that one expects from the Government, but it does not bear on this point. What Parliament is saying here is that the local authorities should put together a voluntary scheme for concessionary fares. If that is what Parliament wishes, then Parliament should make sure that the local authorities have the finance to provide those schemes without doing it at the expense of home helps and the other matters which the noble Lord suggested. I accept that there has been foolish spending by a number of local authorities in different parts of the country; but that, as I see it, does not bear on the argument that I am putting before your Lordships today. I am extremely disappointed that the Government are not prepared to go along with the suggestions I have made here, and I feel that I must divide the Committee on this issue.
4.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 154) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 88; Not-Contents, 113.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Amherst, E.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Ardwick, L.

Mcintosh of Haringey. L.

Attlee, E. [Teller.]

McNair, L.

Aylestone, L.

Mayhew, L.

Banks, L.

Mollov, L.

Blyton. L.

Mulley, L.

Bottomley, L.

Nicol, B.

Brockway, L.

Ogmore. L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Oram, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Peart, L.

Collison, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

David, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Diamond, L.

Rhodes, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Roberthall, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rochester, L.

Elystan-Morgan. L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Ennals, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Seear, B.

Foot, L.

Serota, B.

Gallacher, L.

Simon, V.

George-Brown, L.

Stallard, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Stedman, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Grey, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hale, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Stone, L.

Han worth, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hughes, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hunt. L.

Underhill, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jacobson,L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jacques, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wigoder, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham,

Kirkhill, L.

E.

Leatherland. L.

Winstanley, L.

Listowel, E.

Winterbottom, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Alport, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Auckland, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Avon, E.

168

Bellwin, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Belstead, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Berkeley, B.

Lyell, L.

Bessborough, E.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Brookes, L.

McFadzean. L.

Broxbourne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Caithness, E.

Mancroft, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mar, C.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Margadale, L.

Cathcart, E.

Marley, L.

Chelmer, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

Clitheroe, L.

Avon, L.

Cockfield, L.

Merrivale, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mersey, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Milverton, L.

Cork and Orrery'- E.

Molson, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cox, B.

Morris, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mostyn, L.

Crathorne, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne. L.

Daventry, V.

Northchurch, B.

Davidson, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Donoughmore, E.

Orkney, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Pender, L.

Eccles, V.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Polwarth, L.

Elton, L.

Porritt, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Portland. D.

Fortescue, E.

Renwick, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rochdale, V.

Gainford, L.

Rodnev, L.

Gisborough, L.

St. Davids, V.

Glanusk, L.

Sandford. L.

Glenarthur, L.

Sandys, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Sempill. Ly.

Gndley, L.

Skelmersdale. L.

Hailsham of Saint

Spens, L.

Marylebone, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Hawke. L.

Hayter, L.

Strathspev, L.

Henley, L.

Suffield, L.

Hives, L.

Swansea, L.

Holdemess, L.

Swinton. E. [Teller.]

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Teviot. L.

Hood. V.

Trefgarne, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Trumpington, B.

Ingrow, L.

Ullswater. V.

Keyes. L.

Vaizey, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lauderdale. L.

Vickers. B.

Lawrence, L.

Westbury. L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Young. B.

Loch. L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendments Nos. 155 to 158 not moved.]
4.52 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 159:
Page 48, line 8, at end insert—
("(d) registered unemployed persons and persons working under the Youth Opportunities Programme who do not come within the descriptions in paragraphs (a), (h) or (c) above.").
The noble Lord said: Noble Lords will recall that in the case of a previous Transport Bill there was a debate on an amendment to change the law to permit concessionary fares for the unemployed and for those on special training projects. In addition, a Private Member's Bill was promoted by my noble friend Lord Molloy. We have no hesitation about moving this amendment today. I would emphasise that it is not just travel in search of work to which we are referring. We

169
are concerned also about travel for social and personal reasons. It must be emphasised that for many unemployed people a concessionary fare of this kind is their only means of communication. I am fortunate enough never to have been unemployed. I hope noble Lords can appreciate how an unemployed man feels when he is unable to move about freely. The Bill provides an opportunity for such travel to be made possible.
According to the terms of Clause 49, each borough will be able to decide whether it wishes to enter into an arrangement to cover the unemployed and those who are working under the Youth Opportunities Programme. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will support my amendment because under Clause 49 the option rests solely with the local authorities, a point which I hope will not be forgotten. It was suggested in the other place that it would he wrong for this to apply to London only. Whenever the Government oppose an amendment, either it is because it has national implications which cannot be applied everywhere, or it is because the Government wish to confine it to one area only. This argument has applied to other issues. However, London is a very big city. People who live in north London may wish to visit very close relatives who live in south London. I mentioned in a previous debate that my hard-up football club charges a special entrance fee for the unemployed. However, they have to travel in order to get to the football ground. This means that the club's concession to the unemployed is almost cancelled out.
The Secretary of State said that the "clinching argument"—those are his words—is that we should not differentiate between travel in pursuit of jobs and any other purpose for which the unemployed may wish to travel. That is just what we are seeking. We do not wish the unemployed to be unable to move about because they cannot afford the fares. We want the unemployed to be able to spend their limited resources on other purposes. In Standing Committee on 20th March the Secretary of State said, at col. 1165:
"The Opposition are suggesting that those who have to go to work every day and are paid very low wages should be disadvantaged and put in a worse position than the unemployed".
What a cynical argument to use, particularly by a Government which have abolished the wages councils! For the Government to argue that because people in employment are paid shockingly low wages they will not consider granting a concession to enable the unemployed to move around freely, seems to me to be terribly weak. Frankly, it shows a lack of understanding by the Government. I hope that the noble Earl will feel that he can accept the amendment, bearing in mind, as I have already said, that it will apply to London only and that it will be up to each borough to decide whether it wishes to enter into an agreement to grant concessionary fares for this purpose. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: Of course I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that the Government fully share the concern of the Committee about the position of the unemployed, but I believe that there are difficulties in pursuing the course proposed in the amendment. The existing categories of people eligible for travel
170
concessions—the elderly and the physically disabled—have been very carefully defined. They relate to physical handicap and frailty as much as to social disadvantage. In this respect, the Bill simply follows the wording of the existing legislation. If we were to include the unemployed, why should we not include other equally disadvantaged people—perhaps single-parent families or the mentally disabled? Once we started on this path I believe that it would be very difficult to know where to draw the line and that the consequences in terms of cost would be enormous. The noble Lord mentioned London. The cost of the present scheme in London could increase by nearly 40 per cent. and the cost of providing such concessions on a national basis would clearly be very substantial.
There are a number of municipal operators across the country which have introduced self-financing schemes for travel by the unemployed at reduced fares. The cost of fare reductions has thus been balanced by increased levels of patronage. There is no reason why LRT should not consider following this example; but we do not think that it would be right—I hope the Committee will agree with me—to put in a requirement on the lines the noble Lord has suggested. I would mention that a number of schemes already exist under which the Manpower Services Cornmisson and the Department of Health and Social Security provide limited assistance for travel expenses incurred in seeking work. These extend in certain cases to assistance with fares and subsistence in connection with pre-arranged interviews and with travel expenses on taking up employment in a new area.
As I said at the outset, of course we have sympathy with the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, but I believe that the amendment would have very wide implications. We do not feel that we can recommend it to the Committee for acceptance. I hope that on reflection the noble Lord will not wish to press it.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I am not very happy about the Minister's answer. When all is said and done, no requirement is being imposed on local authorities. This power is being given to them, if they wish to exercise it. Unless that power is given to them, it cannot be exercised at the moment. The amendment gives to local authorities the power to make these concessions to the unemployed, if they so wish.
I cannot understand why the Government are so difficult about what I regard as being a simple matter. The question has been raised as to where one draws the line. We will decide where to draw the line. We hope that this problem of unemployment—and I use the word "hope"—is a temporary one. By giving this concession now, it does not follow that we will have for evermore millions of people making use of it. At this moment in time, they need this concession.
This amendment merely suggests that boroughs should have the power to make the concession if they so wish. I hope that the Government will think again. I would invite the Minister to examine this point in terms of giving the boroughs a power to do something that they could use if they wished—but which, as the law now stands, they do not have the power to do. The point is as simple as that. It does not follow, for example, that every borough will offer this concession.

171
No borough may do so. But the boroughs will have the power to do so. As the law stands, they cannot offer this concession.
The Earl of Avon: It may help the noble Lord if I say that it is possible. without special legislation, to provide reduced fare travel for the unemployed on a self-financing basis.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: But a self-financing basis would involve the authority having control of the transport. In other words LRT could offer this concession but the boroughs could not. If London Transport were to remain under the power of the Greater London Council then the point which the noble Earl has made would probably hold good. But once the transport set-up which is envisaged in this Bill has been established, the boroughs will be able to grant only those concessions which they are permitted to grant.
Lord Underhill: I am sorry that the noble Earl the Minister has not responded to my noble friend's appeal. but I think he was being genuine when he stated that the Government have sympathy. But sympathy is not enough. Sympathy does not pay bills. Sympathy does not pay fares. We want some practical action as well as sympathy. I readily agree that the three existing categories are carefully defined. The Minister asked the question: if the unemployed, why not others? That uses the argument to which I referred in my opening remarks: that because we cannot help everybody. then we should not move at all. Everybody recognises that the unemployed have a special case.
The noble Earl asked: where should one draw the line? I do not believe that my memory is at fault when I say that the first concessionary scheme was introduced by Birmingham City Council when there was no legal power nationally for them to do so. They were taken to court. I believe that it was a Labour Government who introduced the concessionary fares general legislation. If my memory serves me right, the party represented by the noble Earl opposite opposed those proposals. That is an attitude which one finds fairly continually.
I am sorry that the Minister cannot move on this point. We readily understand the help that can be given by the MSC and by the DHSS in certain cases. We recognise it and have acknowledged it in previous debates. But it does not help us to deal with the position of the unemployed. However, the noble Earl has indicated that the Government cannot move in this respect. We will examine our position for a later stage of the Bill; meanwhile. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Reserve free travel scheme for London residents]:
5.4 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead Lord Pitt of Hampstead moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 49, line 2, leave out ("free") and insert ("London free and
concessionary.")
The noble Lord said: With Amendment No. 160 I would invite the Committee to consider also Amendments Nos. 161, 162, 163, 164, 174, 175, 176, 178 and 181.
Amendment No. 161- Page 49, line 4, leave out ("free") and insert ("London free and concessionary").
Amendment No. 162: Page 49. line 34. at end insert—
("and
( ) references to any services under the control of the Railways Board are references to any public passenger transport service provided by the Railways Board. or any subsidiary of theirs, within Greater London.").
Amendment No. 163: Page 49. line 41, at end insert ("or the Railways Board").
Amendment No. 164: Page 50, line I, after ("payable" insert—("on any service under the control of London Regional Transport, and the reduction or waiver, on production of such a permit, of any fare otherwise payable on any service under the control of the Railways Board").
Amendment No. 174: Clause 51. page 50. line 29. leave out ("free") and insert ("London free and concessionary").
Amendment No. 175: Page 50. line 33, leave out ("free") and insert ("London free and concessionary").
Amendment No. 176: Page 51, line 21, leave out ("free") and insert ("London free and concessionary").
Amendment No. 178: Page 51. line 33. at end insert ("and the Railways Board").
Amendment No. 181: Clause 52, page 53, line 5. at end insert ('and within Greater London those under the control of the Railways Board").
The purpose of these amendments is to introduce the concession that now exists for holders of London travel permits to use British Rail. The reason why we must add the words "and concessionary" after the word "free" is that the concessions on British Rail are not free. What they offer is the right to use their permit to buy the concessionary fares which elder citizens can obtain for British Rail nationally through buying the travel card. It saves them having to buy the 12 travel card.
This matter is more important than it may seem at first. The Underground is mainly, north of the river. The boroughs in the south depend mainly on buses and British Rail. If the citizens in the southern part of London do not enjoy the concessions they now have from British Rail, then the travel permit will not be worth the same to them as it will to the citizens living in the north of the capital. In fact, even with the British Rail concessions, it will not be worth as much to them as to people living in the northern boroughs. However, I accept that this is as far as we can go, unless we are prepared to provide free travel on British Rail. At the moment, we are able to obtain a concessionary fare—a half fare—on British Rail. That is the same concession which any of us can enjoy when travelling on British Rail nationally, using the London travel permit.
The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that people can continue to enjoy the concession I have described. I hope that the Government will accept these amendments because it is my view that if the Government arc to negotiate an agreement with the boroughs (under which, as I understand it, the boroughs will pay for the permits they obtain for their citizens) then the boroughs in the south will insist on paying a smaller price because their citizens will be getting less of a good deal than will citizens north of the river.
As the Government are very anxious to deal with

173
the matter in that way rather than have a London levy, as we have suggested. then it would be wiser for them to concede the points I have made and try to include the British Rail concession in the whole concessionary fares scheme. I hope the Government will agree. I beg to move.
Lord Somers: While I am in favour of all the amendments which have been moved for concessionary fares, it may be partly in the light of self-interest as I am one of those people who are kindly known as "being of pensionable age". None the less, I feel that one of the great difficulties in a place such as London is that if one leaves this matter to the boroughs there will be a lack of uniformity. One will never have all the boroughs agreeing to a single plan. It is as much as they can do to agree among themselves. One will never achieve a uniform plan throughout the whole of London.
Imagine a bus route or an Underground route that extends from one side of London to the other and which passes through half a dozen different boroughs. Supposing some of those boroughs do and some do not agree to concessionary fares. What then? It would be hopelessly confusing. Who, in the end, will settle what the fare shall be? It seems to me that there must be some controlling body higher than the boroughs to settle what the fares should be.
The Earl of Avon: We are now debating Clause 50 which, in fact, is about the reserve scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Somers, might like to bear in mind that it is because of the doubts he expressed that the Government have put in this reserve scheme; it caters for just such an eventuality as he envisages. The amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, are designed to extend the concessionary travel scheme under Clauses 50 to 52 of the Bill to travel on British Rail services.
What we have to hear in mind in our debates on these clauses is that the Government are embodying in statute for the first time a specific concessionary fares scheme which the local authorities in London will be obliged to finance—that is, if conditions are such that the scheme automatically comes into operation. The noble Lord, Lord Somers, was pessimistic enough to think it might have to.
In drafting the Bill, the Government had very much in mind the need to balance the interests of pensioners and disabled people in London on the one hand, and the ratepayers on the other hand. For instance, we do not think it right to impose on the boroughs the cost of financing the most generous possible concessionary travel scheme that could be devised. We believe that the boroughs should remain able, as they are now, to finance concessionary travel for their pensioners on British Rail services if they wish. The Bill retains their right to do this, by the powers given to them under Clause 49.
The current position is that the GLC has, since last October, had an agreement with British Rail under which pensioners can travel for half-fare within Greater London after 9.30 a.m. The cost of the scheme to the GLC is some £2 million a year. They have every right to provide these benefits for their
174
pensioners; and the boroughs will have the same right after the GLC is abolished. But the issue is whether these additional benefits should be built into the statutory reserve scheme that we are debating under these clauses.
The Committee should take into account—the noble Lord, Lord Pitt. was good enough to mention this—that British Rail already operate a national scheme of their own under which, for the payment of a modest sum (£12 a year), pensioners receive a travel card which entitles them to half-price travel on British Rail services anywhere in the country. So whatever action the boroughs take under the new arrangements, pensioners will be able, if they make frequent use of British Rail services, to benefit from that scheme.
I hope that, on reflection, your Lordships will agree that what has been written into the statutory reserve scheme under these clauses strikes the proper balance between the cost of the scheme and the desire to offer concessionary travel to pensioners and disabled people in London. I look forward to hearing the response from the noble Lord, Lord Pitt.
Lord Underhill: Before my noble friend replies, may I ask, is it not a fact that if the reserve scheme comes into being without this concession a large number of pensioners in London will be adversely affected? Surely the Government must admit that. The Minister also referred to the British Rail pass. I have one to enable me to travel round the country. However, there are pensioners in London who also want to travel by bus, and if a borough should make a charge for the permit, as it has every right to do under the Government's proposals, the pensioners will have to pay not only the £12 to travel by any British Rail service but that, too. Perhaps the Minister will comment on those two points.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I do not know whether I can help the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, but he will recall that the boroughs have always had the opportunity to support further schemes, and the Bill enables them to continue to do so. Whether or not they make a charge of £1, 50 pence, or no charge at all, is entirely up to the borough. What we are talking about is the reserve scheme. This is a basic scheme which is brought into being, and was introduced into the Bill very largely in response to requests by honourable Members in another place, in the event of the local boroughs failing to agree on a uniform scheme.
We are a long way from that—in fact, nearly two years away. We believe that a uniform scheme is possible. We are talking now of a basic scheme. Even where a uniform scheme is not available it would not prevent various boroughs with differing needs for their elderly pensioners or disabled to supplement the scheme, whether by a card or with special arrangements. The noble Lord opposite should remember that in his consideration of my noble friend's basic response to the amendment.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I despair. It seems impossible to get the Government to take a proper view of these issues. Of course we are talking about the basic scheme. Of course the basic scheme will provide for the elderly—I hope with the amendments I shall

175
move later—for travel in London on London Transport vehicles; but it does not provide for that sort of travel on the services of British Rail which are within Greater London. Pensioners in London need those services just as much as they need the services of London Transport.
What is more, as I said earlier, those who live south of the river will require British Rail services to a tremendous extent, while those who live north of the river will not require British Rail services to the same extent because they have the Underground. I should have thought any Government would regard it as reasonable to have a scheme which covers both. All I am doing in these amendments is trying to get the Government to agree to do that. I am sorry that the Government cannot see their way to doing something even as simple and straightforward as that. However, there does not seem to be any point in pushing the matter, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 161 to 164 not moved.]
5.18 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead Lord Pitt of Hampstead moved Amendment No. 165:
Page 50, line 6, leave out ("offs-peak").
The noble Lord said: I will have another try. This time I will see whether I can get the Government to recognise what they are doing. As I said in moving an earlier amendment on our previous sitting, I was in County Hall at the start of all this. What we found is that, as a result of our restriction—I agree our's was four o'clock and the Bill proposes 4.30 p.m., which gives an extra half an hour, which may help—there was congestion because children from school and old people were trying to use the buses at the same time.
We also found that in this short time—and it will be the same whether it is 4.30 p.m. or four o'clock—there is much conflict between conductors and elderly passengers. The conductors say, "It's one minute past four and therefore you must pay". The passenger says "No, it's one minute to four.- Moreover, if the bus is very late. the passenger will say, "I have been waiting here for 20 minutes", and sometimes it is true. That was the situation. We also found that after the removal of the peak hour travel restriction there was no problem. There is no problem as regards whether or not the buses can accommodate these people between 4.30 and 6.30 p.m. There is no problem there. Therefore there is no need for the restriction. It causes congestion before the time when it comes into force. Old people try to get home before the restriction. They want to be on the bus before 4 o'clock, or 4.30, so there are problems then. It has also happened to be the same time that the children are rushing to get home from school, so there is that problem, too.
There is another problem. If old people are visiting someone, they have to watch the time and rush to make sure that they get the bus before the concession ceases. In my previous speech I mentioned what I had found in my practice. Patients have said to me, "Please, doctor, will you see me early, because I have to catch the bus? If I am delayed in the surgery, I shall not be able to use the bus, as I will have to pay the
176
fare". I also know of people who visit their families and have to rush because the off-peak period is about to be over. If they do not leave in a hurry they will not get the concession.
At the beginning we were afraid that during the peak period there would be too much congestion and there was not the capacity. But during the time when we have not had the peak hour restriction, experience has shown that the capacity is adequate and that there is no difficulty in accommodating all the passengers. I hope that the Government will rethink this one.
I said earlier that I was not prepared to do battle about the early morning peak period. There actually is congestion then. I should be happy to accept an amendment on that. If my amendment was accepted. I should probably try to come back with something that would start the free service from 9.30 a.m. onwards. I think that that would be fair, and I am quite happy to do that. But I believe that the 4.30 to 6.30 p.m. exemption is bad and should be abolished. It restricts the activities of elderly people and also creates quite unnecessary conflict.
There is also the peculiar point that there is this restriction between midnight and 1 a.m. during the week, when in fact the buses are empty, but there is no restriction on Friday and Saturday night, when they are full. All these anomalies are created by the insistence on restricting the concession to off-peak times. I hope that the Government will accept my amendment. As I said, if it is accepted, I shall, in consultation with the Minister, bring forward another amendment which will start the concession from 9.30 in the morning. In other words. the period will run from 9.30 a.m. onwards. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: I should like to add a very small point to what the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, has said. I support everything that he has said on this. By imposing these off-peak restrictions, you are not only restricting those people who are moving out of town on the busy buses but also the people who are moving into town on buses that are very often empty. It may be just as important for elderly people to travel from somewhere outside the city to see their relatives, or whoever else, at precisely this time of night. They may want to go to see their grandchildren at teatime, or whatever. I do not want to tell a great sob story. All I am saying is that by putting this sort of blanket restriction on the off-peak you are not only blocking people getting on the buses at what is accepted is a reasonably busy time—I think the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, has dealt with that—you are also putting a restriction on those people who could on their return journey be travelling on buses, which in many cases are travelling empty.
The Earl of Avon: I find this a fascinating argument and one that is really a question of preference as much as anything else. It might be a reasonable start if I were to say to the Committee that there are of course good reasons for imposing limitations of this kind in the reserve scheme. In fact. my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made it clear at Report stage in another place, that the reserve scheme was deliberately being restricted to off-peak travel, and he explained why. Concessionary fares schemes have their origin in the fact that, in the middle of the day, buses and trains

177
were running three-quarters empty. It therefore makes sound social and economic sense to make use of this spare capacity to provide concessionary travel for pensioners and others. There is little, if any, extra cost involved to a public transport operator if seats on buses which are running, and which would otherwise be empty, are filled during these periods.
The position is very different at the peak periods. Everyone knows what travel is like in the rush hours in London and in the other major conurbations. Public transport is crowded and inevitably uncomfortable. There really is not a great deal of point in encouraging pensioners to travel at times when commuters are going to and from work. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, mentioned the word "conflict". I am not at all sure that there would not be more conflict at the hour of 5 o'clock if that was encouraged. It discourages commuters from relying on the buses and makes more of them take to their cars instead. I believe also that it could lead to additional costs.
My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes spoke with the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, on the earlier amendment on the subject of late travel. I believe that this is an example of something which ought to be considered, but I do not particularly wish to accept this amendment at this stage.
As to the extent of the peak periods, the Bill does of course specify what these should be. But may I also say to the Committee that the Bill recognises that circumstances and habits change and it provides a means whereby these peak periods can be altered in order to suit circumstances. I should like to suggest to the Committee that we leave what is in the Bill at the moment. If in future times the suggestions which the noble Lord has made should be agreed by all concerned, we could go ahead and change the system in accordance with (1 think it is) subsections (5) and (7) of Clause 50.
I do not believe that there is any danger that pensioners or disabled people, having boarded a bus or train, will be ejected from it simply because in the course of their journey they find themselves encroaching on the forbidden peak period. The Bill makes it quite clear that the definition of peak travel relates to journeys which start during the peak period.
I fully sympathise with what the noble Lord says. I think that we could go on arguing about different peak hours for some time. I hope that he will appreciate equally what I have said.
The Earl of Perth: I find some difficulty on this. I must confess that I have a lot of sympathy with Lord Pitt. My reason is one of the points that he made: what happens if you have been waiting 20 minutes and then the bus comes along and you cannot get on it because it is then one minute past the hour or half hour? If it had in fact been proved that these peak periods caused great inconvenience, we should have to put up with it, but I certainly have seen some facts which seem to illustrate that in practice what we feared would happen during the afternoon does not happen at all.
It is all very well for the noble Earl, Lord Avon, to say that we can always change the system. I would far rather see it the other way round—namely, that at this moment we accept Lord Pitt's amendment and if later
178
it is proved that the numbers getting there at certain time are intolerable, we can then put it the other way round. I hope the noble Lord will think about doing it that way.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: May I just follow the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I listened with great attention to the Minister's reply and I understand that he has great sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, has to say. I also listened with great attention to my noble friend Lord Tordoff, who has great experience of matters in relation to London transport; but I did not gather that the noble Lord the Minister felt that he could add anything in relation to the very interesting—and I thought very appropriate—remarks or submissions which were made by my noble friend Lord Tordoff on this matter.
The Earl of Avon: I think I would like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, only one thing. Perhaps he can tell me if I am wrong. This is the point of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, on the present scheme. I understand that for the present scheme, which we have incorporated, these times are based on advice from London Transport.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: Of course the present scheme permits of travel from 9.30 a.m. until midnight. That is really what I am trying to restore. What may happen in the peak hour was the basis of the argument when we first introduced the scheme. Then, after I had left, the council found there was this conflict and decided just to extend the scheme. What happened orginally was that the council extended the scheme to the Underground. When it extended the scheme to the Underground it did not impose anything other than the morning peak restriction. In other words, the concession on the Underground was from 9.30 until midnight. Then it was obviously sensible to do the same thing with the buses. When that was done there was found in fact to be no problem. If you ask London Transport now, they will say that there is no problem.
What is more, more often than not the position is as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, that people are travelling at that time in the reverse direction to the peak flow. If I am coming to the House from Hampstead during the peak hour, the bus is half empty until I reach Oxford Street. Then of course it is crowded. It leaves me here, so I do not know whether it is crowded afterwards. If I am going home at that time, I have trouble getting a bus between here and, say, Gloucester Place. But after that I will get a bus quite easily. This is the sort of problem that one faces. Really what happens with the old people is that often they are travelling not with the people who are going home from work, or going to work, but in the opposite direction to those people. Therefore there is no problem with the buses. That is the first point.
I do not believe the Government have thought this out at all well and perhaps because they do no' like the GLC, they have not consulted them about it. The GLC started this scheme in 1974. They have been operating it now for 10 years. They know something about it. If you consult them about it they will tell you what problems there are and what problems there are not.

179
Really there is no problem nowadays. We thought there would be a problem about the 4.30 to 6.30 travel but there is not.
I am always hearing about this cost. People have the pass. Whether they use it during the off peak hour or during the peak hour, I cannot see how that will incur an extra cost. I am afraid somebody will have to tell me. I cannot see where the extra cost comes in. People have the pass and they will use it. Incidentally, I have to say to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that the point he made is not quite right because when we restricted it originally, pass holders had free travel up until 4 o'clock. So if they boarded the bus before then it did not matter how long they had to travel on it, that was all right. What they had to do was to board the bus before 4 o'clock. That was why this conflict used to occur between them and the conductor. This is a point that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, also made. People would be standing waiting for a bus for 20 minutes. Had they boarded a bus in time, they would have been all right. The bus having come 20 minutes late, they were too late to enjoy the concessionary fare and therefore they had to pay the full fare.
Those were the experiences that we had in the first year or two of running this service. Then we found that when we extended it and there was not this restriction, we did not have a problem. Now the Government are going to reintroduce the problem by insisting on this restriction of between 4.30 and 6.30 p.m. As I said earlier, I am not prepared to go to battle on the issue on morning peak travel. I do not think it is worth going to battle for. But I am prepared to go to battle about this evening peak between 4.30 and 6.30 p.m. because that is the time when that restriction adversely affects the elderly people. I am afraid that I shall have to divide the Committee on this amendment.
The Earl of Perth: Before the noble Lord does that, I should like to just ask, as a matter of fact, whether the situation at the present time is or is not that between 4.30 and 6.30 p.m. people cannot travel free. I think they can. Therefore, the answer that the noble Earl, Lord Avon, gave us, as I understood him, is not that we are doing what is already in existence but in fact that we are going backwards from an existing plan. Therefore I hope that he will think once more about the situation so that we can avoid a Division on this amendment. As I see it, he gave us an answer which was not in accordance with facts.
The Earl of Avon: In case I misled the Committee on that point, I agree exactly with what the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said. Something that the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, mentioned was whether we had consulted the GLC about the scheme. My understanding is that the scheme is actually based on the advice of London Transport.
5.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 165) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 104; Not-Contents, 96.

DIVISION NO.3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Lawrence, L.

Ardwick, L.

Leatherland. L.

Attlee, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Aylestone, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bernstein, L.

Longford, E.

Blyton, L.

Loudoun, C.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bottomley, L.

McCarthy, L.

Brockway, L.

Mcintosh of Haringey. L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McNair, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mar, C.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mayhew, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mishcon, L.

Collison, L.

Molloy, L.

Croham, L.

Mullev, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Nicol,"B.

David, B.

Ogmore, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Oram, L.

Diamond, L.

Perry of Walton. L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Perth, E.

Donnet of Balgay, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Elystan-Morgan. L.

Ennals, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Richardson. L.

Falkland, V.

Roberthall, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rochester, L.

Foot, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

George-Brown, L.

Serota, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Simon, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Somers, L.

Grey. E.

Stedman, B.

Hale, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch. B.

Hampton, L.

Stewart of Fulham. L.

Hanworth, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stone, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hughes, L,

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Terrington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Tordoff, L. [Teller,]

Irving of Dartford, L.

Underhill, L.

Jacobson, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jacques, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jeger, B.

Whaddon, L.

John-Mackie, L.

White, B.

Kagan, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kennet, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Kirkhill, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Craigavon, V.

Alport, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Ampthill, L.

Crathome, L.

Avon, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Bellwin, L.

Daventry, V.

Beloff, L.

Davidson, V.

Belstead, L.

Digby, L.

Bessborough, E.

Donoughmore, E.

Brookes, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Eccles, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Caithness, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Elton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Cathcart, E.

Fortescue, E.

Chelmer, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Cockfield, L.

Gainford, L.

Coleraine, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Gisborough, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Glanusk, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Glenarthur, L.

181

Gray of Contin, L.

Molson, L.

Gridley, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Northchurch, B.

Hawke, L.

Orkney, E.

Henley, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Hives, L.

Holderness, L.

Rochdale, V.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Rodney, L.

Hood, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Ingrow, L.

St. Davids, V.

Lane-Fox, B.

Sandford, L.

Loch, L.

Shannon, E.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Soames, L.

Lyell, L.

Spens, L.

McAIpine of Moffat, L.

Strathcona and Mount Roya, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

McFadzean, L.

Strathspey, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Suffield, L.

Mancroft, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Margadale, L.

Teviot, L.

Marley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Marsh, L.

Trumpington, B.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Ullswater, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Merrivale, L.

Vickers, B.

Mersey, V.

Young, B.

Milverton, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.45 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Jacques): Before calling the next amendment, I should inform the Committee that the numbers voting in Division No. 2 should have been announced as: Contents, 88; Not Contents, 113—instead of 112.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead Lord Pitt of Hampstead moved Amendment No. 166:
Page 50, line 10, leave out ("off-peak").
The noble Lord said: I have spoken already to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead Lord Pitt of Hampstead moved Amendment No. 167:
Page 50, line 11, leave out ("4.30 p.m.") and insert ("6.30 p.m.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead Lord Pitt of Hampstead moved Amendment No. 168:
Page 50, line 12, leave out ("off-peak").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead Lord Pitt of Hampstead moved Amendment No. 169:
Page 50, line 14, leave out ("off-peak").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead Lord Pitt of Hampstead moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 50, line 16, leave out ("off-peak").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 171:
After Clause 50, insert the following new clause:
("Provisions for the operation of travel concessions by
independent transport operators.
It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State—
(1) (a) subject to subsection (2) below to consider any request received from a London authority in relation to the provision of travel concessions by an independent transport operator as defined in section 48(8) of this Act and, if he considers it appropriate, to direct such an operator to provide travel concessions to persons eligible to receive them in accordance with section 48(7) of this Act similar to those concessions which are from time to time available on services provided by London Regional Transport and the Railways Board;
(b) in relation to paragraph (a) above, if he considers it appropriate, to give directions as to the maximum payments which may be made by a local authority to an independent transport service operator for the provision of travel concessions under this section.
(2) No direction under subsection (1)(a) above shall be made by the Secretary of State for the provision of travel concessions by any independent transport operator unless the Secrectary of State is satisfied that financial provision for them will be made pursuant to subsections (1) and (3) of section 48 of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: We are still dealing with concessionary fares. The Bill, as it stands, imposes no obligation on an independent operator to participate in a concessionary fares scheme. It is optional upon an independent operator whether he intends to join in an agreement with a local authority under a concessionary scheme. Unless an independent operator can arrange a satisfactory price for the provision of concessionary fares, it is obvious that there will he little incentive for the independent operator to introduce them. We recognise generally that independent operators will seek remunerative routes at profitable times. Naturally, they will run their services for profit. There is no obligation upon them to follow any social considerations. That is not a political point; it is a common-sense business point. That is what independent operators will be running their business for.
This will not be good enough. The amendment provides for a new clause which gives the Secretary of State power to direct an independent operator to provide travel concessions. This will only occur following a request from a local authority. We are not suggesting that it should be made mandatory for local authorities to enter into such a scheme. Paragraph (b) enables the Secretary of State to determine the maximum payment to be made by a local authority for a concessionary scheme. I do not like to argue that the Secretary of State should have additional powers under the Bill. However, unless something of this kind is done, we could have a situation where the only service in an area might be run by an independent operator, and those persons entitled to a concessionary fare would have no concessionary facilities at all failing any agreement of the kind proposed in this amendment.
Therefore, what we are really asking for is that where a local authority asks that the independent operators should come into the scheme the Secretary of State shall make it mandatory for the independent operator so to do; but also that the Secretary of State shall fix the figure to be paid by the local authority to the independent operator to meet the cost. It seems that this meets every possible criticism and I hope the Government will accept this amendment.
The Earl of Avon: This new clause appears to be based on an assumption that it is necessary statutorily to compel an independent operator to provide concessions if the local authority want them and are prepared to pay for them. I believe I have understood the noble Lord correctly. But if the local authority are prepared to pay for them, there seems to be no reason why such operators should not provide them. It would involve them in no net additional cost; and they would be most unlikely to court adverse publicity by refusing to help those for whom such concessions are intended.
In the circumstances, the only justification for the new clause would seem to lie in the fact that it provides a mechanism for limiting the charge made by such operators to an amount which the Secretary of State considers reasonable. This seems to us to he an unnecessary form of nannying. I can understand the hesitation of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. to put such an imposition on the Secretary of State. Surely it is possible for two such parties to negotiate a satisfactory agreement in such circumstances, rather than to deal with it by a statutory means.
Of course, any concessionary fares scheme will apply automatically to services provided for LRT by independent operators under a Clause 3(2) agreement. As for the wholly independent operator, who operates under a road service licence, in practice I am quite sure that the boroughs will wish to extend concessionary schemes to them, too. But I believe that it would be wrong to put a private operator under this statutory obligation. That is a matter which they and the boroughs concerned should settle locally.
The Government do not think it right to require all such operators by law to provide concessions, whether or not they want to and whether or not the local authorities want to pay for them. But in practice there can be little doubt that it will be in the interests of everyone to extend concessions to those small number of operators operating independently of LRT. I hope I have said enough to appease the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and that he may feel able to withdraw his new clause.
Lord Underhill: Far from appeasing me, the noble Earl the Minister makes me rather concerned. He mentioned the small number of operators. One of our complaints about the Bill is the obvious encouragement within it for there to be an increased number of independent operators. That has been mentioned time and time again. We are concerned that in future, once this Bill becomes law, there can be areas where the only person operating on a certain route at a certain time may be an independent operator.
It is not good enough to say that it is common sense, that agreement will be reached. Agreement may not be reached. Therefore, why should not this Bill make it mandatory that where a local authority says it wants to have an agreement the independent operator must provide it? Why should it be mandatory on LRT? Why should it be mandatory on an operator with whom LRT has got an agreement but not be mandatory on an operator who has not worked on an agreement with LRT but has got a road service licence? There seems to be no argument as to why that should not be so, particularly as where there is failure of the local
184
authority and the independent operator to agree on a figure the Secretary of State shall determine this.
I will read very carefully what the Minister has said but it seems to be one of those points where we may have to come back on Report stage. I should like to think that the Minister will consider what I have said, because we are not forcing anything unless the local authority wants it and the proper agreement to pay for it can be arranged. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 172 to 178 not moved.]
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [Requirements as to scope and uniformity of arrangements for travel concessions under section 49(1)]:
5.56 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 179:
Page 53, line 1. leave out ("section 49(1) ") and insert ("sections 49(1) and 50(1)").
The noble Lord said: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if we spoke also to Amendments Nos. 180 and 182.
Amendment No. 180: Page 53, line 5, leave out from ("on") to end of line 5 and insert—

(" (a) on all services under the control of London Regional Transport and within Greater London on those under the control of the Railways Board;

(b) on all services operated wholly or in part as London Bus Services, under road service licences in accordance with section 44 of this Act, on roads or between destinations where immediately prior to London Regional Transport vesting day, services are provided by

(i) London Transport Executive, within and outside Greater London;

(ii) any other person in pursuance of an agreement with London Transport Executive within Greater London, and outside to the extent that concessions on fares are available to Greater London eligible residents:").

Amendment No. 182: Page 53, line 9, at end insert—
(" ( ) The provisions of section 52(1) are without prejudice to the powers available to any London authority, or any two or more London authorities acting jointly, contained in section 49 of this Act.").
My noble friend Lord Underhill was trying to have put into the Bill a provision to operate a concession fare with groups of people, either British Rail or private operators, when the Bill came into force or when agreements were made. These amendments are trying to ensure that there should be an immediate acceptance when the Bill comes into force and not only when an agreement is made. Amendment No. 180 seeks to delete or to remove,
"all services under the control of London Regional transport …
That is the part that is being omitted and a rather fuller explanation is being put in:
"… services under the control of London Regional Transport and within Greater London on those under the control of the Railways Board;"
and,
"on all services operated wholly or in part as London Bus Services, under road service licences in accordance with section 44 of this Act .…
This is applying to services that are being operated

185
already on the routes by London Transport and may in future be operated by a private operator. It is important to note the point made by my noble friend Lord Underhill when he spoke about the small numbers of people who may very well take over some of the bus routes. The number could be extremely small. We have had no indication as to whether it should be half a dozen buses or perhaps even only one bus. With one bus or one single operator it could become extremely dangerous. For quite perverse reasons he may decide that on his route he is not going to be bothered with such problems as concessionary fares, even if he were reimbursed the face value of them. He may very well consider that there were too many other problems involved.
Therefore, one could have one or two single routes in the London area surrounded by people, perhaps private operators or London Regional Transport, who are operating schemes. One could be left with a single operator or two or three operators who for personal reasons just refuse to have anything to do with concessionary fares. It is important that before there is any given date, before there is any actual take-over, these changes he made as proposed in Amendments Nos. 179, 180 and 182. I will be very pleased to hear the Minister's reply. I regard the amendments as a safeguard we should have in the Bill before we let it leave this Committee. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: The Committee will recall that one of the debates which we had on Clause 49 covered much the same ground as these amendments. In essence, what the amendments seek to do is to impose on all London authorities a duty to arrange uniform travel concessions, not only on LRT services, but also on those of British Rail and independent operators within Greater London.
I would ask the Committee to bear in mind that the purpose of Clause 52 is to set out the degree of scope and uniformity which must apply to the voluntary concessionary travel scheme if the statutory reserve scheme is not to be brought into effect. As the Committee are aware, the statutory reserve scheme, for the reasons I have already described, covers only those services under the control of LRT. I therefore hope that the Committee will agree that it does not seem reasonable to make it a condition of uniformity under Clause 52 that all authorities must agree a scheme covering not only LRT services but those of British Rail and independent operators as well.
As I have mentioned in earlier debates on these clauses, the Government's policy is to maintain, so far as possible, the discretion of local authorities in the provision of concessionary travel. While the Bill makes it obligatory for local authorities in Greater London to agree a uniform scheme for LRT services, we do not believe that it is necessary to extend this obligation to include other services.
Clause 49 provides ample opportunity for local authorities to make such arrangements if they so wish. Indeed, there is nothing to stop them agreeing a joint scheme for the whole of Greater London. But again we do not believe that this should be made obligatory. I hope that I have said enough to set Lord Carmichael's mind at rest on this point, and I hope that I have persuaded him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Underhill: I wonder whether the noble Earl could answer one question for me. The Secretary of State has said that the Bill will take effect as soon as possible after Royal Assent. The "appointed day" refers to the day when London Transport ceases and LRT takes over. Until there is either a voluntary agreement or the reserve power, what will happen to the existing concessionary schemes? Is there anything in the Bill which says that they will continue until something else is done? In my view this is a very important question.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, my understanding is that they continue. If that is not the case, I will let the noble Lord know.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I should be grateful if the Minister could investigate the matter. They will continue, for example, if the GLC agrees to continue them. But the GLC may not agree to continue them.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Both of my noble friends have made important points. The Minister has said that, so far as he understands it, they will be continued. However, it would be useful if the Minister would look at the matter more closely. The gap between the takeover day and the final working out of the schemes is an important point and it may involve quite a long time. If the Minister would agree to look at the matter and give us a specific statement at the next stage of the proceedings, then I would beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees The Deputy Chairman of Committees The next amendment is Amendment No. 180 and it should read:
"Page 53, leave out line 5 and insert"
the words as printed.
[Amendment No. 180 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 181 and 182 not moved.]
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Interim control over organisations and fares of Executive]:
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 183:
Page 54, line 16, leave out ("submitted to and approved by") and insert ("discussed with").
The noble Lord said: Clause 54(3) provides that the London Transport Executive cannot change the general level or structure of fares before the appointed day unless approved by the Secretary of State. But it seems to me that before the appointed day it is not his responsibility. The clause therefore gives him blocking power without responsibility for the result of his actions. Clearly he needs to be consulted but to suggest anything more seems to me to be an unwarranted attack upon the integrity of the members of London Transport Executive as at present consituted. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said in another place, the whole purpose of Clause 54(3) is to enable him to

187
prevent the GLC from making any extravagant gesture over fares in the period before they lose control of London Transport. On the contrary, there is no attack upon LTE. If no such drastic changes arc in mind, as my right honourable friend was given to understand in another place, he will not need to exercise his powers of approval in subsection (3) and the clause therefore will have no further effect beyond the appointed day. It seems reasonable to me that he should at least have these powers, even if they will be operative only for the short period between enactment of the Bill and its coming into operation. The point here is that we have to ensure that there are no great changes over fares after Parliament has approved the Bill, but before the appointed day. That is why I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tordoff: It does not refer to anything wild that the GLC is going to do. It says that:
"the Executive shall not make any alteration in the general level or structure of the fares"
without the approval of the Secretary of State. It seems to me to be imputing motives to people and it seems to me that the Government clearly have no evidence on which to make those imputations. But having smoked out that reply, there is not much point in going further at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clause 55 [Provisions as to approvals, consents and directions]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 184:
Page 54, line 41, leave out from ("assets") to end of subsection (4) and insert ("provided that the Secretary of State shall give no directions which cause London Regional Transport to dispose of assets at a loss or incur a liability to local authorities.").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. We would be giving a great deal of power to the Secretary of State merely to say blandly that he can give a direction to London Regional Transport to discontinue any activity or to dispose of any property whether or not they do so at a loss and whether or not there is any recompense to them. It is important to have the parameters of the powers explained to the Committee. Indeed, the purpose of the amendment is totally to negative those powers and I have a feeling that the noble Lord the Minister would not be willing to accept it. But perhaps he would at least be willing to explain rather more fully than the Bill appears to do, the circumstances under which it is envisaged that the Secretary of State would use such a powerful provision as is contained in this subsection. So in order to elicit a reply from the Secretary of State, I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for having explained the principle underlying this amendment. When I looked at it I thought that the amendment would probably be more in the nature of an exploratory one. As he will know, a similar amendment was discussed during the Committee stage proceedings in another
188
place, and at that time my right honourable friend the Secretary of State sought to explain that there was nothing sinister in subsection (4) of the clause as it was then drafted. It is in fact precedented in Section 41(2) and (3) of the 1969 Act. So the Greater London Council at present have this power in relation to London Transport. I can see no reason why, on that basis, it should be objectionable to give the same power to the Secretary of State, as this would be consistent with the transfer of responsibilities to London Regional Transport.
If the Committee will allow me, it might be as well if I take a moment or so to explain the general background to the clause. The main point is that if London Regional Transport have taken an action which requires the Secretary of State's consent or approval, but have not obtained that consent or approval, the action in question might be ultra vires in the absence of Clause 55(2). I should point out that if LRT take an action which requires the Secretary of State's consent or approval but have not obtained that consent, one is not imputing anything. It could be a genuine error or misunderstanding. Subsection (2) of Clause 55 avoids the difficulty by providing that the action in question is not unlawful merely because the Secretary of State's consent or approval has not been obtained. But it combines that provision with a power in subsection (3) for the Secretary of State to give directions to LRT to rectify the problem. Subsection (4)—with which the amendment is concerned—then spells out the form which these directions may take.
Having said all that, it might be helpful if I give a hypothetical example in which subsection (4) might be used. Let us suppose that LRT have ordered an expensive piece of research equipment but, for whatever reason, LRT did not obtain the consent of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State then needs power to require LRT to halt the purchase and/or dispose of the equipment. If the supplier had expected to deliver the equipment and to be paid for it, and then the Secretary of State intervened. LRT could be faced with a claim for breach of contract. That is why the clause specifically provides that a direction by the Secretary of State may result in LRT incurring a liability to other persons. The noble Lord's amendment refers to a "liability to local authorities" and he spoke to this. The effect of his amendment appears to be to rule out any direction by the Secretary of State which would cause LRT to:
"incur a liability to local authorities".
I wonder whether this is quite what the noble Lord really intended. His amendment would effectively absolve LRT from any liability to local authorities in such circumstances. As I understood his remarks, his anxiety was that local authorities should not themselves suffer liability. If my understanding is correct, in any event his amendment would be defective. But when we discussed earlier whether local authorities should somehow be "compensated" for any contribution that they may have made in the past towards assets which LRT may dispose of, I explained why the Government could not accept that this should be the case.
Given that rather lengthy explanation, I hope that the noble Lord is clear about the purpose behind subsection (4) as drafted, and the kind of

189
circumstances that might arise in which the Secretary of State would need to take action under subsecton (4). If he is able to accept my explanation, no doubt he would agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The noble Lord the Minister has given a long and helpful explanation. I should have preferred him to give a different example than the fairly obvious one of LRT embarking on a large-scale assessment, or a large scientific or technical assessment, which involves them in equipment. For instance, I was concerned about the disposal of land and whether the Secretary of State could give the instructions to dispose of land, even at a loss. That is when we come on to slightly more difficult ground. However, perhaps the noble Lord the Minister would take note of everything that has been said in Committee, as I am sure he does, and at the next stage of the Bill deal with this matter specifically. That requires a little more explanation than we have been given. I see that he has signified his agreement to do that and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clauses 56 to 61 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Operation of enactments relating to former London Board functions]:
6.17 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 185:
Page 81, line 27, leave out from ("provisions") to ("shall") in line 28.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 186.
Amendment No. 186: Page 81, line 30, at end insert ("; and section 104 of the Act of 1934 mentioned above (power to erect shelters, etc.) shall also apply (with any necessary modifications) with respect to the routes of any public passenger transport services operated by any person in pursuance of any agreement entered into by London Regional Transport by virtue of section 3(2) of this Act as it applies with respect to the routes of such services operated by London Regional Transport or any subsidiary of theirs.")
Amendment No. 185 simply corrects an error in the Bill. The power to make by-laws and regulations under Section 104 (2) and (3) of the London Passenger Transport Act 1934 was repealed in a subsequent local Act as long ago as 1938. We therefore seek to delete the reference to that power from paragraph 8(3) of Schedule 4 to the Bill.
However, the main part of Section 104 of the 1934 Act is still in force. It will continue to apply to LRT and to their subsidiaries by virtue of sub-paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of paragraph 8 of Schedule 4. It will allow LRT to erect and maintain bus shelters on the routes of services operated by LRT themselves or by their subsidiaries.
In addition, Amendment No. 186 will allow LRT to erect and maintain bus shelters on routes operated on their behalf by private operators who may be operating under Clause 3(2) agreements. I am sure that your Lordships will readily agree that this is sensible. Without such a power it would be necessary for independent operators to have to negotiate their own arrangements with the local authority or local
190
authorities involved, as bus operators other than LRT or the National Bus Company do not have their own powers to erect bus shelters. This then would be needlessly complicated. We can avoid difficulties of this sort by amending the Bill in the way in which I have described. I hope that the Committee will welcome this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 186:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
[Clauses 62 and 63 agreed to.]
Clause 64 [Initial membership of London Regional Transport]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 187:
Page 61, line 3, leave out from ("office") to end of subsection (2) and insert ("provided that person is given a period of notice as specified in the terms of appointment for that person or if no period is so specified a minimum period of notice of one month shall apply, and that person shall be informed in writing of the reasons for removal.").
The noble Lord said: Clause 64 provides for members of the London Transport Executive to continue in office as members of London Regional Transport after the appointed day, but within a period of three months from the appointed day the Secretary of State will have power to remove any such person from office. This appears to be unfair in so far as it allows dismissal by the Secretary of State without any notice and without any assigning cause. This is in the form of a probing amendment, and I should like to know why this is done and whether the Minister would agree that our amendment is better.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I shall be happy to give the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, a reason, but may I start by saying that I cannot agree with him that his amendment is a better way of doing what we intend. As the noble Lord has explained, Clause 64 is concerned with transitional provisions which deal with rather exceptional circumstances. Normally, on the creation of a new public body, its board members would be newly appointed from scratch. In this case, however, the London Transport Executive are not changing their legal persona; they are simply continued under a new name and under a new constitution, and their board members will continue in office as LRT board members on the appointed day. But it is quite possibly the Secretary of State's single most important function, in his relationship with LRT, to make appointments to the board, and he must have freedom to start LRT off as early as possible with a board which he regards as suitable for implementing his policies.
Normally a Secretary of State will of course inform the board member whom he removes from office of the reason for his decision. Indeed, paragraph 7(1) of Schedule 1 lists those circumstances in which the Secretary of State may remove a member of LRT, and he will make clear the ground for his action. But we are not talking, in this clause, about a normal period; we

191
are talking about the transitional period during which the Secretary of State is building up the new board. During this time the Secretary of State must be free to discharge a member if, on the basis of whatever consideration, he regards the member as unsuitable. There is in these circumstances no question of "assigning cause": he must be able to say in this transitional period, "I am sorry, I don't want you. I want somebody else".
It is true in this case that for the Secretary of State to dismiss a board member without notice and without assigning cause would be outside his existing terms of appointment under the GLC. As I understand it, the GLC's current terms of appointment for members of London Transport provide for a period of notice of unspecified length. This is precisely why the Bill provides in Clause 64(3) that the dismissed member should have a right to compensation. We shall be discussing compensation when we get to Amendment No. 188, so at this stage I would not like to go into that.
The amendment that the noble Lord has tabled specifies a minimum period of notice of one month. That may not seem—and perhaps indeed it is not—a very onerous requirement under normal circumstances. But, as I have implied, the circumstances are not as normal as one might have wished. The Secretary of State must be able to start, as it were, on day 1 with a board of his own choosing, and it is not reasonable for his hands to be tied in the way implied by the amendment. With that explanation, I hope that perhaps the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Underhill: I am obliged to the Minister for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 188:
Page 61, line 8, leave out ("London Regional Transport") and insert ("the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps it would be convenient for the Committee if I speak also on Amendment 189.
Amendment No. 189: Page 61, line 9, leave out ("the Secretary of State") and insert ("he").
In speaking to this amendment I must draw attention to some of the remarks that the noble Lord the Minister made on the previous amendment because it would justify the present amendment that I am now moving. I am paraphrasing. We were told: "The Secretary of State must start on day 1 with a board of his choosing. It is a most important decision that he has to make to start with a board that suits his policies. He should be able to say, 'I don't want you. I want someone else'. It is a transitional period when the Secretary of State is building up a new board".
The clause goes on to say that the Secretary of State will determine the compensation, the amount and the terms, as he may so determine. I think all noble Lords will agree that it is right that compensation should be paid in such a case, but who is going to pay it? The Bill provides that the Secretary of State will decide the terms of the compensation and the amount, but LRT
192
is to pay: the London Regional Transport is to pay. In other words, it is added to the costs of London Regional Transport. It adds to the total charges of London Regional Transport which will then be put on to the local authorities at the end of the year, or whenever the precept is being made, as part of their maximum two-thirds contribution.
It may be right for the Secretary of State to determine the compensation because it is his decision; he has removed the man from the board for his own reasons. Yet the Treasury is not meeting the bill, or the compensation; the LRT is to meet the compensation, and they will add it to their charges which will affect the contribution paid by the local authorities. The point of Amendments 188 and 189 is that LRT will not pay but the Secretary of State will pay. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I can quite understand what prompts the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to use some of the terminology that he did in moving his amendment, but the logic behind the amendment appears to me to be that if the Secretary of State is responsible for the terms of appointment of members of the board of LRT, then he should be responsible for paying any compensation if they are removed from office.
We do not think that this is the right way of preceeding. It is an absolute standard for all nationalised industries that it is the industries themselves which are responsible for paying compensation to members of their boards if a question of compensation arises. The provision for LRT in this clause follows all precedents. I think the reason is quite clear. Although it is the Secretary of State who appoints members of the boards of nationalised industries and who fixes their remuneration (certainly with the approval of the Treasury), it is the industries themselves which provide their salaries. In these circumstances it is absolutely right and logical that it should be the industries themselves who should pay compensation in those cases where compensation applies.
There is nothing more to it than that. A question was raised in another place as to whether or not the GLC should be responsible for the compensation paid. This was generally thought by the Government to be an unfair burden to put on the GLC. Again, it was felt that since LRT were going to have the changes made, fix the salaries—whether they be higher or lower than those existing is immaterial—it would be logical for them to meet the charges that might result from compensation being paid. It is for those reasons that I would invite the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to withdraw both the amendments.
Lord Underhill: The noble Lord said that in the other place suggestions were made that the GLC should pay. I believe I am correct in saying that the original Government drafting of the Bill was to the effect that the GLC should pay and the amendment was made because the Government had second thoughts. I would ask them to have second thoughts again. It is pretty clear from what the Minister has said that the Government will not shift on this. We will have a look at it, but it is not the LRT that will be responsible for the changes; they will take over a board

193
that is responsible to the GLC now. The Secretary of State wants to change the board for policy reasons and therefore it seems so logical to me that he, on behalf of the Government, should pay the cost of compensation. That was the point of the amendment. The Government obviously think otherwise. We will have a careful look at what the Minister has said but I believe that logic, common sense, fairness, reasonableness and businesslike ethics are on our side. At this stage I would beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 189 not moved.]
Clause 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 [Further transitional provisions, savings, amendments and repeals]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No.
189A:
[Printed earlier: col. 1585.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No.
189B:
[Printed earlier: col. 1586.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
6.32 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No.
189C:
Page 87, line 22, after ("office)") insert ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I would like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 189D and 189E.
Amendment No. 189D: Page 87, line 24, leave out from ("Act") to ("as") in line 27 and insert ("or (b)").
Amendment No. 189E: Page 87, line 29, leave out from ("pay")
to ("on") in line 31 and insert ("to that person compensation of such
amount, and").
I think these amendments will he welcome to the Committee, and in that belief I will be brief. They provide that as the chairman of the London Transport Passengers Committee loses his office prematurely as a result of the Bill, any compensation due to him will be paid by the Secretary of State instead of by the GLC. The amendments do not imply any decision about the position of the present holder of the chairmanship. They apply merely to the chairmanship of the London Transport Passengers Committee, and the principle which was accepted by my right honourable friend in another place in relation to loss of initial membership of the LRT, that the GLC should not be required to pay compensation. In the circumstances, we believe that the most appropriate course is for the Secretary of State instead to pay any compensation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 189D and 189E:
[Printed earlier.]
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 190:
Page 91, line 7, leave out ("2nd December 1983") and insert ("the appointed day").
The noble Lord said: The Bill provides that where before 2nd December 1983 the GLC have entered into certain capital commitments, whether legally enforceable or not, that commitment shall have effect as if it transferred to the LRT. The point of the amendment is to change the date 2nd December 1983 to "the appointed day". That seems quite important, because we want to ensure that the commitments referred to in the clause shall apply not to those made before 2nd December but to those made before the appointed day, which the Secretary of State hopes will be some time this summer.
The reason is that the GLC has quite an ongoing programme, for instance, with British Rail; and the present drafting means that the matter will be made retrospective. Any costs that have been incurred since the 2nd December 1983 up to the appointed day will not be transferred to LRT. Moreover, I would ask: why 2nd December 1983? That just happened to be the date of the publication of the Bill. One would have thought the correct procedure would be to take any commitments entered into before the appointed day after Parliament has approved the Bill. A number of the projects are long term and cannot be rushed through. It seems so important that these commitments should not be prejudiced, and I hope that the Minister will be able to accept this amendment which, again, is not only logical but seems to us to be good business practice.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: As the noble Lord said in moving his amendment, it is quite important. Indeed it is; but I regret to say that we do not find the amendment acceptable. The noble Lord seeks to substitute in paragraph 15 of Schedule 5 a reference to "the appointed day" in place of the reference to "2nd December 1983", which was the date when this Bill was published. That is germane: he himself underlined it, and I shall return to it in a moment. That would allow the Greater London Council to enter into grant-making commitments with British Rail and other people right up to the appointed day, knowing that LRT would be obliged to take over, and a considerable proportion of the costs would then fall to London Regional Transport.
I believe it is reasonable to accept that once we had published the firm legislative proposals for London Regional Transport—that is, on the 2nd December 1983, as we have said—the GLC should realise that any grant-making commitment entered into after the publication of the Bill, whether on capital expenditure or otherwise, should be their own responsibility. Indeed it would have been most odd if we had permitted the GLC to commit their successors in this way to possible major expenditure over which LRT had no say.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State made this quite clear in a debate on an identical

195
amendment in another place, when he said that the provision was not intended to stop all capital investments from being made but that it was simply designed to secure fair arrangement for the funding of sensible schemes for this transitional period. The precise extent of the GLC's commitments under these projects as at the appointed day is not known. They are likely to have a very firm commitment to the Homerton Station, which is something of the order of £410,000 and of which the GLC's share is £102,000 and which is funded very largely by the Department of the Environment. It is not expected to be completed until 1985. The important point is that the commitments would not necessarily fall to LRT. They may be outside the scope of Schedule 5, paragraph 15.
To the extent that the GLC had made a firm commitment they would be able to continue to pay grants notwithstanding the repeal of Section 3 of the 1969 Act. If they have no such firm commitments they would have to rely on other statutory powers or simply withdraw their involvement. That is the purpose of the clause and with that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: There is a principle involved in this. Who runs affairs—the executive or Parliament? The implication is that the moment you publish a Bill everybody must conclude it is law and act accordingly, and that from the day of the publication of this Bill the GLC should cease to make any capital commitments. If you say that the moment a Bill is published eveyone must take it that it is the law of the land, I think you are belittling Parliament to a terrible extent. No one is entitled to assume that anything is law until it has been passed by Parliament. Therefore the GLC and anybody else were entitled to assume that things will continue as they are until Parliament has given its consent to this Bill and the Bill has received the Royal Assent.
I think that the Minister would have been right if he had said to my noble friend that, instead of "the appointed day", he would have the day on which the Bill received Royal Assent. That would have been in order. But to say that because the Bill was published on "X" day no one has a right to do anything after that is really to be giving a power to the executive which I cannot believe members of your Lordships' Committee really intend the executive to have. I would have thought that there are people here who are sufficiently concerned about the constitution to see that this is the wrong way to go about things and that, in effect, this is a belittling of Parliament. We should not allow it. We must say to the Minister, "You published the Bill. Very well. When Parliament says the Bill is law and the Queen gives her consent to the Bill, it is the law of the land and then everybody must respect it. But until then you are not entitled to say that no one can make a commitment because you published a Bill saying that you are going to change things." After all, Parliament may have refused, and if Parliament had refused things would remain as they are. People are entitled to assume that everything will remain as it is until Parliament gives its consent.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Will my noble friend the Minister agree that in principle everything that the
196
noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, has said is impeccable? But are there exceptional circumstances and, if so, do they not warrant some exposition?
Lord Tordoff: May I from these Benches support what the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead. has said. I am sure that your Lordships will understand that retrospective legislation is anathema, and this is a piece of retrospective legislation. Could the noble Lord the Minister indicate whether there have been any substantial amounts of capital expenditure to date, and whether he anticipates that there are likely to be any major items of capital expenditure between now and the time at which the Bill becomes an Act? If not, would he be prepared to accept an amendment at a later stage which was not "the appointed day"—I can see that there may be some problems in that—and not the date on which the Bill was published, but the date on which the Bill becomes law? That seems to me, along with the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, to be the proper way in which to proceed.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I never fail to be amazed at the imagination of the noble Lord. Lord Pitt of Hampstead, in these matters, because in fact we are not really doing what he suggested we are doing. We are not flouting the law of the land. All we are saying in this schedule is that London Regional Transport should not be obliged to honour GLC commitments entered into after the Bill was published. We said that right at the beginning. If the Bill fails. the position remains as it was. But we are dealing with exceptional circumstances. Some of the actions of the Greater London Council who are the masters of London Transport have been, to say the least, somewhat unpredictable over this past 12 months or so. Indeed, if they want to continue financing capital projects the GLC can so do, but any contractor entering into agreements on such projects after 2nd December 1983 does so with his eyes open, because when the Bill was published we said what the intentions would be.
I think it was my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway who asked whether I had any details of expenditure. The details which I understand the GLC have entered into are with British Rail for the electrification of the line from Dalston to North Woolwich at a total cost of some £7 million; they are also helping to finance the Finsbury Park Station improvement programme at a cost of £900,000; and they have station improvement programmes of a minor nature totalling a further £1 million or so. I do not think I can say any more.
Lord Tordoff: Can the noble Lord the Minister be precise about this? Have these expenditures been entered into since the date the Bill was published?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: As I understand it, they have not. I think that I have actually come to the end of what I had to say. I was about to say that I cannot say any more and that I hope the explanation is acceptable to the noble Lord.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: If I may intervene again, all GLC capital expenditure passes through both Houses of Parliament. The GLC gets permission to spend money through a money Bill. That money Bill passes

197
through Parliament. So everything that the GLC commits itself to spend on capital is approved by Parliament.
Lord Underhill: The three items to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, referred totalling some millions of pounds will be covered because I think he replied in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that these were entered into before the 2nd December 1983. Therefore we are not arguing about those. I will certainly check up to see what commitments have been entered into since 2nd December, because the inference from the Minister is that we could not have a situation where the GLC were rushing things through. There is no indication that that has happened and, as far as British Rail is concerned, that is suggesting that British Rail would have connived at something. The Minister said that people should have known the intentions when the Bill was published and therefore should not have entered into matters with the GLC afterwards. But my noble friend Lord Pitt did not say that this was against any parliamentary constitutional law; what he said was that it is belittling Parliament to make something retrospective on the publication of the Bill, before the Bill has even had its Second reading in Parliament, never mind actually receiving Royal Assent. I will check up very carefully to see what the commitments are. but the GLC have over a period of years had a very progressive scheme, about which very few people know, by which they have been meeting the costs of renovations and improvements to British Rail stations. We learn only about grants to lesbian bodies. We do not hear about the grants that are made by the GLC for practical and useful purposes.
I will check exactly what commitments have been entered into and we may well come back to this at Report stage, because if there are important items in connection with the GLC's transport planning requirements which will not be taken over by London Regional Transport but will fall solely on the GLC, it is a serious matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in the meantime, but will check the position; and I hope that the Minister will do likewise.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 190A:
Page 97, line 47, at end insert ("or to any subsidiary of London Regional Transport (within the meaning of the London Regional Transport Act 1984)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with a small oversight in the preparation of the Bill. Paragraph 22 of Schedule 6 as drafted will enable LRT to retain an exemption which London Transport and British Rail have from the general requirement placed on public service vehicle operators under Section 27 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 to produce financial and statistical returns to the Secretary of State. We omitted to apply that exemption to LRT's subsidiaries, and it is obviously sensible to treat LRT and its subsidiaries in the same way. Once the main bus subsidiary has been established, it will be that
198
subsidiary which is actually operating the public service vehicles. We therefore seek to add a reference to LRT's subsidiaries into paragraph 22 of Schedule 6.
We are not seeking to exempt LRT's bus subsidiaries from the need to make financial and statistical returns. It is simply that the Bill already contains a power for the Secretary of State to obtain this information; namely, in Clause 32(10), which the Committee will note on page 27 of the Bill. We do not need a requirement in two separate places. LRT and its subsidiaries will be required to make extensive information available, as we have discussed on earlier clauses. We are concerned here only with the question of which power should be used for the purpose. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 191:
Page 97, line 47, at end insert—
(" . Section 35 (which relates to the grant of road service licences for certain excursions or tours) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 shall have effect subject to the following amendments—

(a) in subsection (1), at the beginning, there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsections (1A), (1B), (1C), (1D) and (1E) below"; and

(b) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsections:—

"(1A) If it relates to a service which would involve picking up or setting down passengers on any road in Greater London an application for a licence for a service of a kind described in subsection (1) above shall be treated as an application to which this subsection applies and subsection (1) above does not apply.

(1B) As regards an application to which subsection (1A) above applies the traffic commissioners shall grant the licence unless they are satisfied that to do so would be against the interests of the public on the grounds only that the use for the taking up or setting down of passengers of any place which may be so used would be prejudicial to the safety or convenience of the public.

(1C) In relation to an application to which subsection (1A) above applies and to any licence granted on it, section 33 of this Act shall not apply and sections 31 and 32 of this Act shall have effect as if section 31(2) to (4) and, in section 32(1), the words "and in particular to the matters mentioned in section 31(3)(a) to (c) of this Act" and paragraphs (a) and (b), were omitted.

(1D) In considering under subsection (1B) above whether the grant of a licence would be against the interests of the public or whether in accordance with section 32 of this Act it would be in the interests of the public to attach conditions to the licence, the traffic commissioners shall have regard to any objections or representations, which they consider relevant, which are made in the prescribed manner by the Greater London Council, any London Borough Council, the Common Council of the City of London and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and, where the proposed service involves any place within the City of London which may be used for the taking up and setting down of passengers, the Commissioner of Police for the City of London.

(1E) Notwithstanding subsection (4) of this section, section 50 of this Act shall apply to applications to which subsection (1A) above applies.")

The noble Lord said: As your Lordships are already aware, I referred to this amendment in the Second Reading debate which took place on 1st May. I commented at that time that this amendment is in the same form as Clause 44 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill and is intended to strengthen the operation of Section 35 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 in Greater London.
The 1981 Act came into force on 30th October 1981, although many of the measures contained in it were previously contained in the Transport Act 1980. The main purpose of the legislation was to relax the licensing arrangements for public service vehicles in order to encourage greater competition between operators in the provision of bus services. Sitting on this side I applaud competition, especially when it is innovative and interesting, and my amendment is entirely consistent with that view.
As your Lordships are aware the 1981 Act defines three types of bus service for licensing purposes: stage carriage services, which are dealt with under Section 31 of the 1981 Act; express carriage services, which are stage carnage services of more than 30 miles, and excursion or tour services, which are dealt with under Section 35 of the 1981 Act. The amendment to Section 35 is concerned with the way in which the Traffic Commissioners deal with applications for road service licences for excursion or tour services. In marked contrast with applications for stage carriage operations under Section 31, the commissioners have no power to refuse a licence for an excursion or tour, nor to impose conditions on the grant of a licence, provided that they are satisfied, first, that the service is a "tour or excursion" service and, secondly, either that there would not be direct competition with other services which are not excursion or tour services, or that the service is for the purpose of some special event.
Unlike the arrangements for Section 31 applications, the Traffic Commissioners are not empowered to receive and consider any representations from local authorities or from the police responsible for highway matters, including road safety and traffic control or from other operators. The Traffic Commissioners are not, for example, able to refuse to grant an unlimited number of licences for excursions or tours, even if the operators all wished to operate their services on the same route with the same picking up or setting down points, however undesirable or dangerous that might be.
In Greater London, the existing arrangements have caused considerable difficulty over the last two years and placed the safety of the public at risk, particularly at the height of the summer tourist season because the operators all wish to provide services for tourists at such places as Piccadilly Circus, Victoria and Trafalgar Square, where there is already heavy traffic congestion and very limited scope to provide special bus standing facilities. The police and highway authorities for these areas have been expressing great concern and pressing for urgent action for some time and they have given their support to my amendment.
It may be felt that by some that the Traffic Commissioners should have the wider powers to consider tour and excursion applications on the grounds of whether or not there is a need for the service, as they have at present outside London and will have in London under Clause 43 of this Bill for stage carriage services. In my view, that would tend to stifle competition, which I appreciate is contrary to the policy of both the 1981 Act and the present Bill
For that reason, as can be seen from the text of the amendment, while it follows the scheme of Section 31
200
of the 1981 Act in making provision for the Traffic Commissioners to receive representations and to refuse an application or give a conditional licence, the representations, the grounds for refusals or the imposition of conditions are limited to matters of road safety or public convenience and may only be received from the authorities named in the clause. It is also important for me to mention that the provisions of Section 33 of the 1981 Act, which deal with conditions as to the level of fares, are expressly excluded and, in subsection (1E), my amendment preserves the right of appeal in Section 50 of the 1981 Act, which is not presently available for operators who are refused on a Section 35 application.
I should say that the amendment is in identical form to Clause 44 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill, which has the support of the Department of Transport. In my view, the measure I propose, which amends a public Act, should be in a public Act dealing with the same subject matter, rather than the GLC's private Bill, and as matters of public safety are involved it should be introduced with the minimum of delay.
Before I sit down and to reinforce what I have said, I inspected some of the sites this morning. Perhaps this was not a day conducive to much tourist activity, as the heavens opened. However, at Piccadilly Circus, where there is a stand on Eros island for only two buses, there were three buses and three operators and people were going round in circles. That place. which is probably the most popular picking-up point in London, is again to be reorganised. Applications for all the surrounding streets will mean that Lower Regent Street will have one operator. there will be another one in Regent Street, which is not so bad, one in Coventry Street and possibly two in the Haymarket. The Traffic Commissioners can do absolutely nothing to stop them and I can foresee congestion. not only because of the private motor car, which in central London is not so important, but—very much more important—because the public stage carriage services could be seriously hampered. I hope that my noble friend will give serious consideration to this amendment, which has already been agreed in principle. Therefore, I commend this amendment to your Lordships and I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Teviot for the explicit and very full way in which he has explained the reason for his amendment. We have been listening to a noble Lord who has some experience in this field and I accept most of what he said. We all recognise the concern of London Transport and the GLC that there is insufficient kerbside space for potential operators of excursions and tours, and we can see, too, that this causes a good deal of congestion in a number of places in central London.
The essential point of my noble friend's amendment was his reference to Clause 44 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill, which is now before another place. Indeed, it is the existence of Clause 44, in an indentical wording to his amendment, which makes me very doubtful about supporting that amendment. I should record here and advise the Committee, if noble Lords are not already aware of it,

201
that the Government support Clause 44 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill, but we do not believe that it is necessary to duplicate legislation. It is not likely to become law quite so soon as the Bill which we are discussing tonight, but there is no reason to fear that the clause will fail, either because of the removal of the GLC's public transport functions by the present Bill or because of the proposals to abolish the GLC.
It would not be right for me to seek to pre-empt consideration of the GLC Bill in another place. However, I understand that Clause 44 is not itself opposed. In the light of that fact, we are referring only to a few months' delay. Since we shall already be well into this year's tourist season, I doubt very much whether that kind of delay will have any effect, in practice, this year. In the light of that response, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tordoff: At such a late stage of the Committee stage of this long Bill. I should have thought that the Government could be more forthcoming. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has made his case. That fact has been acknowledged by the Government. Surely they could accept it at this stage. This is the right place to have this piece of legislation. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, were here I am sure that he would give us another speech on consolidation. This is a means of consolidating an important measure and putting it where it ought to be. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will give way on this important measure.
Lord Teviot: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for his intervention. I disagree with my noble friend about the tourist season. The most important part of the tourist season is from the beginning of July until the end of August. I believe that the amendment should be written into the Bill, and I am extremely unhappy that my noble friend says that he is unable to consider it. Whether or not he has any more to say about it I do not know. He agrees with it in principle. At the Report stage I may make a slight adjustment to the amendment. I do not intend to let the matter rest. For very practical reasons it is a very important amendment. At the Report stage I shall be armed with further information. Although I may return with the same amendment, I may, as I have already said, make slight modifications to it.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I regret that my noble friend has not found my explanation to be satisfactory. I accept my noble friend's description of the tourist season, but the Government see no point in duplicating identical legislation, even though there may be a few months' delay. We believe that the clause which the noble Lord seeks to insert into the Bill is far better placed in the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill. However, my noble friend is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. Therefore, without any commitment, I am willing to have a further look at the matter in order to examine whether my explanation is totally satisfactory not only to my noble friend but also to the Government.
Lord Teviot: I thank my noble friend for what he has said. However, may I make the point that, although
202
my noble friend has referred to the duplication of legislation, the GLC Bill may not be enacted within a few months. It may take longer than that. This amendment ought to be incorporated in a public rather than a private Act of Parliament. I do not intend to weary the Committee for a minute longer. I am grateful to my noble friend for saying that he will look again at this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Enactments repealed]:
[Amendment No. 192 not moved.]
Schedule 7 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

Ordnance Factories and Military Services Bill
Brought from the Commons: read a first time, and to be printed.

Trade Marks (Amendment) Bill
7.6 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed.

Cycle Tracks Bill
7.7 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill, moved in another place by my honourable friend Mr. Cecil Franks, contains the proposals for legislative change included in the Government's cycling policy statement issued in January 1982. It seeks to simplify the procedures for converting all or part of a footpath to a cycle track and to increase the protection available to users of cycle tracks and of adjacent footpaths or footways. Though short, the Bill is somewhat complex, and it may help noble Lords if I outline briefly its provisions clause by clause. I shall start with Clause 1, which amends the definition of "cycle track".
Mopeds with pedals are pedal cycles. Unless they have been excluded by an individual traffic regulation order they are entitled at the moment to use cycle tracks. When they have done so they have made a significant contribution to the number of accidents on them. It is recommended practice that mopeds should be excluded from cycle tracks and it is appropriate to provide a specific general prohibition. Highway authorities will no longer have to make individual traffic regulation orders to secure their exclusion. Subsection (1) of Clause 1 amends the definition of "cycle track" in Section 329 of the Highways Act so that in future mopeds will not have the right to use cycle tracks. Subsection (2), for clarification, removes the right of mopeds to use existing cycle tracks.

203
Clause 2 deals with prohibition of the driving or parking of vehicles on cycle tracks. Again, unless there is a specific traffic regulation order or a local by-law it is not at the moment an offence to drive or park a motor vehicle on a cycle track. The presence of motor vehicles on cycle tracks is, at the very least, an inconvenience and, at worst, it is a serious danger to cyclists, and may deter cyclists from using such facilities. Clause 2(1) makes it an offence to drive or park a motor vehicle, wholly or partly, on a cycle track and sets a maximum fine on the third level of the standard scale, which is currently, I believe, £400.
Some defences are provided, such as in subsection (2) if the motor vehicle is being used in an emergency; in subsection (3), if the vehicle is engaged in work on behalf of a highway authority or a statutory undertaker. Again, in subsection (4) there is a defence if the motor vehicle is being driven on a cycle track if that is the only reasonably practicable means of obtaining access to, or egress from, premises.
I now come to Clause 3, which deals with the conversion of footpaths to cycle tracks. At present, cyclists are all too vulnerable on our roads. Each year, far too many are killed or seriously injured. In 1982, for example, 300 cyclists were killed and 5,700 seriously injured. Some 30 per cent, of them were under the age of 15, and the numbers are steadily rising. Clearly, we must do all that we can to reduce the number of cycling accidents. First, we must examine ways of improving cycling conditions on the road itself. We must recognise that this may not always be possible and that local highway authorities may need to consider converting parts of footpaths to cycle tracks as a cycle safety measure of last resort. Local highway authorities already have powers to convert footpaths to cycle tracks, but the procedures are complex and time-consuming. They involve up to five separate stages, possibly with three distinct orders.
A major weakness of the existing procedures is that while objections can be made at many points during the procedures, there is only a limited prospect of an independent assessment of the conversion as a whole. This Bill gives a clear right to object to a footpath conversion and a right to be heard at a public inquiry. The Bill was amended in another place to provide that contested footpath conversion orders should be decided by the Secretary of State for Transport. The Bill as now drafted provides clear safeguards for those who are anxious about the principle and practice of shared use.
Clause 3(1) provides that a local highway authority can make a single order to convert a footpath or part of it to a cycle track, retaining the right of way on foot. If the order is opposed it must be confirmed by the Secretary of State, whereas, if it is unopposed it can be confirmed by the local highway authority. Footpath conversions are seen primarily as a cyclist safety measure and not as a means of providing recreational cycling routes. Again, it was agreed in another place that an additional safeguard should be provided when footpaths cross agricultural land. Subsection (2) prevents a local highway authority from making an order converting a footpath across agricultural land unless they have obtained the prior written consent of all those having a legal interest in that agricultural land.
204
Subsection (3) provides that the Secretary of State can confirm an order either in the form in which it was made by the local highway authority or subject to such modifications as he thinks appropriate; or it may be confirmed by the local highway authority, but only in the form in which it was made. Again, that is only if it is unopposed. Subsection (4) gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations covering the publication of the notice of the making of the order and of its effect, the making and consideration of objections, and the publication of the notice of confirmation of an order, either by the Secretary of State or by the local highway authority. Subsection (11) provides that regulations made under subsection (4) will be made by statutory instrument subject to the negative resolution procedure. Subsection (5) provides that any regulations made under subsection (4) may include provision for the holding of a local inquiry and to allow the decision whether an order is to be confirmed, with or without modifications, to be made by a person appointed by the Secretary of State—that is, by the inspector at the inquiry.
Subsections (6), (7) and (8) provide for the legal validity of an order to be challenged in the High Court within six weeks of the date of the publication of the notice of the confirmation of the order. They set down the powers of the High Court to suspend the operation of, and on final judgment to quash, an order either in whole or in part. No other legal challenge can be made to the order. These provisions reflect the usual provisions applied to such orders.
Subsection (9) allows a local highway authority to revoke an order confirmed under subsection (1) under equivalent procedures to those for the making and confirmation of the original order. In other words—the whole process in reverse. Subsection (10) gives the local highway authority power to undertake necessary work to give effect to an order, and any work that would constitute development under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 is deemed to have been given planning permission.
Clause 4 deals with the provision of barriers in cycle tracks. Barriers may be desirable to separate cyclists and pedestrians on adjacent cycle tracks and footpaths or footways, occasionally to reduce the speed of cyclists on cycle tracks, and to exclude motor vehicles. There is currently no power to provide such barriers unless the highway includes a carriageway. It may be possible to separate a cycle track from an adjacent footpath or footway by ways other than a barrier, rail or fence. A hump or a tactile strip may be sufficient to indicate the boundary and to encourage the cyclist to remain on his own side. Such works could also assist blind or partially-sighted pedestrians using the footpath or footway.
Clause 4(1) allows highway authorities to provide and maintain barrier tracks. Subsection (2) allows highway authorities to undertake whatever work they consider necessary in the interests of safety to separate persons using a cycle track from those using an adjacent footway or footpath. Subsection (3) allows highway authorities to alter or remove any barriers or other works. Subsection (4) defines, for the purpose of this clause, a cycle track, a footpath and a footway. A highway authority's activities under this clause are

205
restricted to those ways which are highways maintainable at the public expense by that highway authority.
We now come to compensation. Clause 5(1) gives a right to recover compensation for damage consequent on the undertaking of work under Clause 3(10), which is concerned with the power of the local authority to effect work, to give effect to a conversion order, or, under Clause 4, the erection of barriers. Subsection (2) gives a right to claim compensation for any reduction in the value of an interest in land arising as a consequence of the coming into operation of an order confirmed under Clause 3—but it excludes claims which can be made or anticipated under Clause 5(1). Disputes resulting from this are referred to the Lands Tribunal under subsection (3). There are four remaining clauses. Clause 6 extends the Bill to cover land owned or managed by the Crown, and this is based on similar provisions in the Highways Act 1980. Clauses 7 to 9 contain financial and other supplementary provisions. I should also say that the Bill extends only to England and Wales.
My Lords, I hope that my explanation has helped to clarify the detailed provisions of this Bill. The Bill seeks to strike a balance between improving the safety and convenience of cyclists and ensuring that the interests of others are protected. I commend the Bill to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill he now read a second time.—(Lord Henley.)
7.20 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, we on these Benches certainly welcome this Bill. The encouragement of cycling in itself, in an age where fuel and power become more and more expensive, is to be encouraged. Equally, it is to be welcomed for its effect on the health of the nation. However, the health of the nation is very much dependent on the cyclists actually getting to the other end of their journeys and not being mown down on the way. Therefore, any Bill which deals with safety is one which we welcome in principle.
It is the neighbourhood approach that lies behind so much of the philosophy of cycling these days. People want to have manageable distances between their home and their work or between their home and their leisure place, and if they do then the cycle is the obvious vehicle to use.
There is no need for me to go into the technicalities of the Bill. Judging from the debates in another place there is, I think, general agreement on the purposes of the Bill. I thank and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Henley, on his very clear exposition of the make-up of the Bill. Nevertheless, there are just one or two caveats and one or two questions which some of us want to put.
I am an officer of the all-party cycling group in the Palace, but I am also a Vice-President of the Pedestrians Association. Whereas the Pedestrians Association and the cyclists find themselves very much in the same lobby on a great many occasions, there are one or two moments when their priorities clash. There are one or two particular worries which some pedestrians have about this Bill, and not least the visually handicapped. Bells are no longer required on bicycles. I must say that that was an appalling decision. I understand it has
206
been effective for a year or two and comes from a decision of the department. The societies which represent the blind were not consulted on this particular matter.
Bells are distinctive. They let people know that a cyclist is coming. The argument is sometimes produced—I think it was used in Committee in another place—that it is just as effective if someone shouts "Hi" as it is tinkling a bell. But if someone shouts "Hi" you do not have the faintest idea of why he is shouting. If you are blind you have no further intimation of the nature of the menace. An old-fashioned bicycle bell of the kind that we were used to in our youth is an extremely useful warning signal to people that you are approaching. It is warning of a very real hazard. If the Government have any plans to reintroduce the need for bells on bicycles that would be an extremely welcome step and would go some way to solving some of the problems which arise from this Bill.
Where paths are to be shared I think there is very great need to see that the means of dividing the pedestrians from the cyclists—and there must be means for providing them—are such that they can be recognised by both those with sight and by the blind. It is no use drawing a white line down the middle of the road and saying that that will be sufficient guide. It is, of course, a sufficient guide for those who can see, but it is no guide at all for the blind. There is a need for textured or raised divisions which a blind person can feel with his feet or with his stick so that he can tell when he is straying from his part of the track.
It is desirable, if not absolutely necessary, that the portion of the road given to the blind or to pedestrians should be the side nearest to any wall that may be there—what I believe is called the sure side—because, as we all know, many blind people make their way by feeling against a barrier. To put the pedestrians the other side of the path is to put the blind at a disadvantage.
I know that the Ministry is working on this matter and I am not suggesting that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, necessarily can do anything about it in this Bill. I know that the Ministry is trying, but I suggest that in the course of the passage of this Bill we ought to get some very real assurances as to implementation. There is a problem here. We are saying to local authorities, "You can go ahead and set up these shared cycle and pedestrian tracks and you must differentiate between the two, but we will not tell you exactly how you must do it". All right, we on these Benches are all in favour of giving local authorities the choice. However, where local authorities are absolutely strapped for money there is a considerable danger that things will be done as cheaply as possible. It is unfortunate that many of the things that need to be done in this field, particularly for the blind, are those which cost a bit of money. Therefore, I should like some reassurances from the Minister who is to speak on this Bill that the Government intend to see that safety measures are enforced and that the local authorities have to produce the kind of paths and cycleways which will lead to the least possible number of accidents.
We wish the Bill well but we look for improvements. Councils are not to be blamed these days for

207
economies, but safety comes first and it is part of our business if we pass this Bill—and I hope we will—to see that safety is ensured.
7.28 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I should like to extend a very warm welcome to this Bill and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Henley—dare I say it?—in tandem with his honourable friend in another place, on producing the Bill. I should like to explain, quite briefly, why it is a particularly welcome effort as far as I am concerned.
I am a member of an authority for a mediaeval city, with mediaeval street patterns and road services to match. We have a population with about 30,000 bicycles— 1 0,000 or so of them ridden by students. In 1978 the Department of Transport produced a document called Ways of Helping Cyclists in Built Up Areas. This was a ray of hope for us, struggling with our very difficult conditions. At last, we thought, someone "up there" understands the problems. The document outlined the high accident figures for cyclists, the low costs for improvements and the legislative difficulties of making those improvements.
We embarked upon an experimental programme with the help of the Ministry, convinced that our plans would soon be easier because of the, we hoped, impending legislative changes. After all, the Ministry had identified the problems: cycleways should not be shared with mopeds; tracks shared with pedestrians should have physical separation to protect elderly and disabled people; parking of motor vehicles on cycle tracks should be prohibited; contra-flow lanes in one-way streets should be provided where practicable; and barriers should be permitted where necessary. They were all the things which we wanted to do but which were legislatively very difficult.
Three years passed. then in May 1981 from the Department of Transport came, Cycling, A Consultation Paper, asking all the questions that had been answered in the 1978 note. But it was consultation and we welcomed it, and we still hoped for power to do all the things we had been planning for the past two or three years, some of which we had achieved in spite of the legal difficulties.
Eight months later, in January 1982, the Secretary of State for Transport made a statement. It was encouraging in its wish to see better facilities, its commitment to departmental support for local authority schemes and its promise of financial help with experiments. It identified the problems, which were exactly the same ones as those in the 1978 note. It promised new draft regulations on safety standards for bicyles and legislation to prohibit the driving of a motor vehicle on any cycle track. Draft regulations were before this House earlier this year—two years later—but other legislation has had to rely on a Private Member's Bill; and it is now 1984, six years since my story began.
There is no doubt about the benefits of cycling. The noble Lord. Lord Beaumont, has pointed them out. It is cheap, it is healthy if it is made safe, and it is environmentally beneficial. Over the years we have said time and time again that we need to conserve
208
energy, and the bicycle is an obvious way to do that. We also need to cut down congestion on the roads and expenditure on them. The cycle does all those things.
This Bill will serve to remind local authorities of the need for positive action. They should have encouragement and support. There may be some amendments to make at the Committee stage—for example. in Clause 5. There may be a need to put a time limit on the compensation clause. but that is something which we can discuss at a later stage. This Bill should have a speedy passage. We have waited long enough for these provisions. I hope that from now on the Bill will pass through its stages as quickly as possible.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I put my name down to speak this evening thinking that cycling members of your Lordships' House might be a little thin on the ground at this time of the evening. However, with such an eminent member of the all-party cycling group with us and contributing—I mean the noble Lord. Lord Beaumont of Whitley, whose remarks were very relevant—I am not sure that I can contribute too much.
As a regular cyclist in London, I warmly welcome this Bill. It will certainly encourage local authorities and make it easier for them to provide cycle tracks, and, as a result. do much to improve the safety of the rapidly increasing number of cyclists in this country. I am sure that there will he support from this House for these proposals and indeed for the recommendations of the cycling policy statement issued by the Secretary of State in January 1982. I have read the Second Reading debate on 30th March in another place, and also the subsequent stages of the Bill; and, with the explanation of my noble friend. Lord Henley, this evening. I am sure that there is little else that can or should be said. I have no wish to delay the Bill in any way.
Several speakers in the debate in the other place spoke of harassment from cyclists breaking the law by riding on pavements or jumping red lights and, as a result, exposing themselves to greater risk. Although there are a minority of cyclists who break the law in this way. or who have defective braking or lighting, I am sure that it is indeed a minority and that the majority behave according to the rules of the road. Offenders must be stopped and dealt with by the law. I should also like to recommend that the habit of cycling while wearing and listening to personal stereo systems should become an offence. I consider that it is highly dangerous to cycle on city roads with total exclusion of all other traffic noises.
During my five years cycling in London I have only rarely seen cyclists vying with pedestrians for space on the pavements and footpaths. One exception must be when the frustration of excessive traffic and blocked roads because of bad and illegal parking necessitates taking a bicycle onto the pavement for short distances. This is quite common in London, and I hope that the provision of more cycle tracks will enable cyclists to find ways round these congested areas.
Apart from the hazards of traffic—both parked vehicles and vehicles in motion—I must also blame

209
the poor condition of many of the roads in the inner London area. Incorrect camber, potholes, drains and damaged surfaces are frequent problems for the cyclist. I mentioned during the debate in this House on 7th February on the Pedal Cycles (Safety) Regulations the long stretches of road which are neglected and unmaintained in that vital area to the cyclist—the four or five feet out from the pavement or footpath.
The GLC has sadly failed to look after many roads in this respect. I hope that this Bill will provide the impetus necessary for the provision of new routes and cycleways. As a painful example of the poor condition of the roads, I have twice fallen off my cycle in the outer circle of Regent's Park, where long stretches of the road just in that vital four or five feet out from the footpath are potholed, damaged, unmaintained and badly cambered. This makes riding in that area of the road extremely hazardous, to the extent that it is actually safer to use a position nearer the centre of the road, no doubt to the despair of the rush-hour motorists, who are unable to see the problem. With that in mind, I should like to ask the Minister why, in view of the proven safety of cycle tracks in most of the other parks in London, there is still no provision for the use of cycles in Regent's Park.
I hope that this Bill will proceed without delay. I am sure that the increasing number of cyclists will eventually have reason to thank the Government for taking this initiative to contribute to their great need for increased safety.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I must declare an interest, as I always use a bicycle in London because it is by far the quickest and most satisfactory way of getting around. In the countryside I also very often use a bicycle, because, next to the horse, it is about the best way of seeing what is going on on the farm. There are more and more cyclists. I wonder why they must be called "cyclists"? They are bicycles and not cycles. I believe that it is debasing the language to keep calling them "cycles".
In London more and more people are commuting to their work on bicycles. Although the number of bicycles goes up when the fares go up, when the fares come down for one reason or another, funnily enough, the numbers come down. One in every four households in London owns a bicycle. It is estimated that 250,000 people commute by bicycle every day to work in London. We also know that the bicycle is used for recreation. It is quite important to remember that. There is also the big BMX factor—many people have those BMX bicycles which are designed to go across country.
The bicycle is a very quick form of transport. It is cheap, as has been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. It is interesting that in Piccadilly, for example, one may see 100 or 200 cars in a line and just one bicycle slowly pass them all, right to the front. There are no hold-ups. Parking is no problem. I think that the increase in bicycles is to be encouraged. If more people took to bicycles there would be fewer cars and less pressure on public transport in the rush-hour.
I am rather sorry for drivers during the rush-hour. One sees them sitting in stationary cars and one just
210
goes past them. Sometimes one sees very important people in very large cars sitting there for many minutes. When they get to their offices they charge hundreds of pounds for every hour's consultation, yet they are quite happy to sit for half an hour in a traffic jam. It seems an awful waste of their very expensive time, in addition to which they get no exercise and when they get home they have to go for a run or some form of exercise—or perhaps they do not take any exercise.
But, with the increasing numbers, you would think there would be more accidents. In fact there are not. The accident rate has been remarkably static. Above and below 300 bicyclists get killed every year and 25,000 injured according to the statistics I have seen. It does not seem to go up a lot, although the number of bicyclists has gone up. So there is obviously an element of risk.
I therefore welcome this Bill. It certainly helps on the safety side. Provision is needed to help bicyclists and to encourage them. To give them more tracks will reduce the danger. I wonder whether perhaps the time will come when the yellow striped belt and cross belt and the helmet will perhaps become compulsory like the seat belts in a car.
In the countryside, there is a different problem altogether. The bicyclists there are mainly recreational or BMX riders, as I mentioned earlier. Of course while the great majority of bicyclists, as in any other field, are law abiding and do no harm to anybody, there are some bicyclists who are badly behaved and abuse their privileges of being able to ride where they do. Therefore the Bill probably needs some tidying up to protect walkers and certain vehicles, where vehicles are going to be prohibited. I can see that there will be vehicles needing to go on cycle tracks where they have done so in the past. It also needs to protect other interests. In addition, there is a big difference, which I do not think is fully appreciated in the Bill, between the footpaths along the roadside and footpaths across country. I wish the Bill well.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, not having put my name down, I did consider doing so but many noble Lords have said what I want to say. I just want to reiterate something that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, mentioned about bells on bicycles. I must say I did not know that it was not compulsory. As a cyclist, I would not have a bicycle if I did not have a bell on it. I think it is a very worthwile device for warning people. Even though they may have full sight, they still do not bother to look to see if there is anybody coming along. If my noble friend the Minister can tell us whether there is anything further to be added to what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said on this subject, I shall be most grateful.
7.43 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I too should like to thank and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Henley, on introducing this Bill into your Lordships' House and the way in which he presented it. I must make it clear that as this is a Private Member's Bill I am expressing a personal view but I make it quite clear that I welcome the Bill. I was very pleased that the noble Lord, in his introductory remarks, stressed the

211
aspect of safety as being one of the first essentials, particularly from the standpoint of young persons. We are obviously concerned with the cyclists in the urban areas who use a cycle for work, shopping and similar journeys; but I was pleased that one or two noble Lords also expressed their concern at enabling cyclists to freely enjoy the cycles as an exercise and a recreation in the countryside.
I cannot claim any first-rate interest at the moment; but, as I think I have mentioned to your Lordships before, for a very large number of years I was a very active cyclist until the middle 'forties and captain of a cycling club. I regularly journeyed from the suburbs up to Westminster; but frankly I should not like to do it now, with conditions that there are at this time, without certain measures being taken. I also mention this because, strange as it may seem, in the late 'thirties I took part in a mass demonstration of thousands of cyclists in Hyde Park who rode in contingents along Western Avenue in protest against cycle paths. What we were protesting about was this. There was talk of development of cycle paths. The first path was opened on the Southend arterial road. There were gaps in the concrete. Weeds were on the tracks. The cycle path was running into garage forecourts. At junctions the track suddenly went into the main road where the traffic was speeding along, which was a grave danger for cyclists. There were pedestrians walking with prams and dogs on the so-called cycle track. As keen cyclists who used to cycle 100 miles on a Sunday, we were not going to stand for that. So thousands of us joined in this protest.
In towns cyclists have the danger from vehicles. In a number of towns, we have some very very good schemes. I noticed the TRRL report on Peterborough in 1981 stressed at that time that 20 per cent. of the journeys to work were by cycle and 25 per cent. of the journeys of schoolchildren to secondary schools were also by cycle. Although some towns such as Peterborough and others have some very good schemes, is it because of the length of those procedures that have to be followed or the lack of push and the lack of recognition of what needs to be done which has stopped many towns from doing this? When I was on the Docklands Corporation Select Committee, I noticed the plans being made in Docklands for quite a number of useful cycle tracks, tunnels, and so on. The Bill is obviously going to be extremely helpful in easing the procedure of converting existing footpaths and footways to cycle tracks. But of course we must recognise that there is a possible area of conflict created in removing the cyclists from traffic dangers and also giving them reasonable cycling conditions—that is rather important—as against protecting the safety and mobility of pedestrians. Both want security.
I am very pleased that reference has been made, strangely, to the fact that the number of reported accidents on cycleways over recent years has been very low indeed. I say "strangely" because one would have thought it may have been different. As other noble Lords have said, segregation is highly preferable but in some areas this may have to be the exception because of the conditions. From my standpoint I would say that cyclists and pedestrians sharing must be the last
212
resort. It must not be the easy way out. Other noble Lords have stressed the different segregation signs one can have for sharing: barriers, white lines, and so on. Pedestrians will feel less safe with sharing and some cyclists will find it irksome.
I looked at a TRRL document, which suggested that the average mean speed for cyclists—and they checked the figures—was (when I converted it from kilometres) 12 miles an hour. That is a very slow speed for cyclists. One has to consider the type of cyclists that might want to use some of the paths. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, made this point. Where there is sharing, one has to look at the position of the blind and also the disabled. One needs the utmost consultation in the area.
From a personal point of view, while I can see the common sense attitude of banning mopeds, I wonder whether the Minister could give us a more definite description of what is a moped. When I think of what I used to call the pop-pop bikes—travelling at less speed than a good cyclist could achieve—at peril with the traffic, then I believe that something also needs to be done with them. If the description is such that it refers to a small type of motor hike, then I can understand them being banned from the cycle paths. In that case we must have more pressure for training schemes, particularly for young people who use these vehicles.
I was pleased that one noble Lord—I think the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont—said that cycle tracks must not he inferior. That is why I recounted the protests that we had in the late 1930s about their condition. The paths must be of adequate width. They must have a smooth service. They must be properly maintained so that glass and other impediments are not left upon them. The cycle paths must be generally acceptable. I take it that there is no indication from the department or the Ministry regarding banning cyclists from using the roads—I have in mind cyclists who prefer to use the roads rather than the cycle paths. Such a ban would be a very bad step. It has been my good fortune on a number of occasions at Easter to travel by car to see friends in Holland. One has seen the development of cycle paths in Holland and how they are accepted by the public. No one who had no right to use the paths would think of doing so. I have seen the way the paths are maintained. That is an example to us and the Ministry has been studying those conditions very carefully. It is bad to draw comparisons with Community colleagues. However, when one compares some of the cycle paths in Belgium, narrow and with stone sets that no decent cyclist would want to ride upon, with those in Holland, I see the contrast and the need for guidance from the department.
I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, stressed recreation and the position of cyclists outside towns. There is need for more effective action outside the towns. To quote the Netherlands again, when one sees some of their well maintained cycle paths right away from the main roads and taking cuts through wood and all sorts of other areas, so encouraging people to use them, it is a matter that we should be considering.
There must be adequate signing of cycle paths. In towns particularly, we should consider, where appropriate—I am sorry to keep boosting the

213
Netherlands—giving cyclists their own sytem of traffic lights at eye level. This is very important and a system used frequently in Holland. Those using cycle paths, cycle tracks or cycleways should not have to stop every time they come to a side road. This has to be avoided. Where a cycleway is to be constructed or established, there needs to be the utmost publicity in the area. I know that the department, including the Minister of State herself, is keen on this development. It is essential that proper and full guidance should be given to local authorities when the Bill is passed.
7.52 p.m.
Viscount Long: My Lords, this is a very interesting and important debate. If I may remind your Lordships of your youth. each and every one of us started our lives in transport on a bicycle. We were highly dangerous and highly sophisticated, running over our parents' feet and grazing our knees. It was our first start in our transport education.
I welcome on behalf of the Government my noble friend's Private Bill. I believe that it is extremely important, having listened to your Lordships from all sides of the House, that we should now get down to the safety measures and other matters that figure in the life of a cyclist. Equally, it is important that those who are blind should be protected from the cyclist. I am not saying that the cyclist is wrong. However, only a few days ago, while I was walking beside a river, being deaf in one ear, I was nearly run over on the footpath by a cyclist and almost landed in the river. I have my eyes but the use of only one ear. I have the deepest sympathy for those with no sight. It should not be forgotten that the cyclist rides a silent piece of machinery.
I thank my noble friend Lord Henley for his explanation of the Bill. Although it is short, it is a complex Bill. His explanation clearly demonstrated the balance throughout the Bill between the interests and the safety of cyclists and the interests of others. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred to that. The Bill stems from the proposals for legislative change contained in the Government's cycling policy statement and is part of our aim of encouraging more and safer cycling. The Bill is welcomed and supported by the Government.
The restrictions that the Bill places on mopeds and motor vehicles using and, indeed, misusing cycle tracks are long overdue. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked me the difference between a cycle and a moped. I remind him of the words in Clause 1:
"there shall he inserted '(other than pedal cycles which are motor vehicles within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act 1972)'."
That is why we are banning these motor cycles or mopeds.
I hope that this will make a significant contribution towards increasing cyclists' use of cycle tracks and their safety on them. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, referred to this. The defences that the Bill provides when motor vehicles are being used in connection with emergencies or by highway authorities and statutory undertakers, or to obtain access to premises, reflect the balance that is present throughout the Bill.
I refer now to what has been discussed by my noble friend Lord Henley on the conversion of footpaths. It
214
is in Clause 3 that the balance is essential. Converting all or part of a footpath to a cycle track raises difficult issues essentially about the possibility of increasing cyclists' safety but at the risk of inconveniencing or endangering pedestrians. I am aware of the concern that has been expressed during this debate about allowing cyclists to use pedestrian facilities. My honourable friend the Minister of State for Transport has clearly indicated her views on shared use. Again, I think the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked about shared use.
A comprehensive review of the principle and practice of shared use has been undertaken, including the issue of a consultation paper and discussions with the Joint Committee on the Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People. My honourable friend's department will shortly issue comprehensive advice to local highway authorities. This advice will emphasise that shared use should only be considered when there is no other way of overcoming the problems that cyclists face on the roads. Allowing cyclists to use facilities which were formerly reserved for pedestrians should only be introduced after very careful survey and wide consultation.
There is no intention of allowing a general freedom to cycle on pavements, which has already been discussed tonight by your Lordships. That is illegal and will remain so. The behaviour of cyclists who persistently ride on pavements is to be deplored. It does no good for their cause or for their standing in the eyes of the public. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said that he was president of the cyclists' association. All of us should stress to cyclists that when they are using public footpaths they are doing wrong. They must be carefully educated and shown that it is not good for their own cause, especially among pedestrians.
The Bill provides a right to object to footpath conversions. When an objection is made to an order, the eventual decision rests with the Secretary of State after a public inquiry. The regulations which my honourable friend will make after wide consultation will clearly stipulate the procedure that is to be followed, which will include consultation with interested bodies including those representing the interests of the blind, partially sighted or disabled people. That is a vital part of this Bill, if I may say so.
Footpath conversion is seen as a safety measure. It is not a way of providing recreational routes in rural areas, although rural footpath conversions may be appropriate on safey grounds where a footpath links a village to its school. The additional protection when a footpath crosses agricultural land is welcome. There are many miles of quiet rural roads and bridleways which allow the cyclist access to the country without having to ride across a farmer's land. This is important to avoid aggravating the farmer, who is probably growing his corn right up to the edge of a footpath.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, referred to barriers. One particular area of concern over shared use is the advisability of physical separation between a cycle track and an adjacent footpath or footway. Separation by a white line or those situations where the entire footpath or footway is converted to a cycle track are viewed with concern by many. The

215
Department of Transport's advice will recognise that white line segregation or unsegregated use are cyclist safety measures which should be available to highway authorities but they should be used only in exceptional circumstances.
Noble Lords will be aware of the tactile surface which has been provided at the pedestrian crossing on Parliament Square as an aid to blind or partially sighted pedestrians. The Transport and Road Research Laboratory, which devised the surface, is also examining tactile surfaces which could assist the blind or partially sighted pedestrian using a footway or a footpath adjacent to a cycle track. The power given under Clause 4 of the Bill will allow highway authorities to install suitable tactile surfaces or to undertake other works to separate cyclists and pedestrians on cycle tracks which they maintain at public expense.
I should like to break away from my brief for a moment to refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and other noble Lords mentioned about the alarm signal on a bicycle. As I said earlier in my speech, if one is blind very often one cannot hear a cyclist coming up behind one. It is a very frightening experience. This matter was reviewed when pedal cycle safety regulations were being prepared. I will bring the noble Lord's view to the attention of my honourable friend the Minister of State for Transport. I know that she has undertaken to consider further representations on this point. I hope that the answer I have given will he of help to the noble Lord and other noble Lords before we come to the Committee stage of the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Colwyn was worried about cycling on rough surfaces and he was also worried about the parks. He mentioned Regent's Park, which is a Royal Park. The footpaths are subject to by-laws. A cycle track has been provided in Hyde Park but there have been problems with cyclists thinking they have a right to ride on all other footpaths. This is a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I will bring to his attention my noble friend's suggestion.
He spoke about rough roads and potholes at the side of roads. We have emphasised the need for good maintenance of all roads. Funds for maintenance have been made available in the transport supplementary grant. The amounts have risen in recent years. However, authorities have discretion as to how much money is spent and it is up to the GLC to deal with this.
My noble friend Lord Gisborough referred to a cyclist and a horse. I would point out to him that a horse has four legs and a cyclist has only two. He was quite right in what he said. The fact is that cycling is a dangerous hobby. especially in London. Sometimes it is very difficult. Recently I was involved with a Royal visit. En route to Heathrow my car was stuck in Cromwell Road and I noticed that the cyclists were doing much better than I was.
The debate has been extremely useful. At Committee stage no doubt we will be able to improve the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, wanted to know why this legislation was coming forward only
216
now, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, made the point that it has taken six years for us to get to this stage. As with all things, the difficulty is to find the right time to slot in such important legislation. Now it is going forward and we have had this debate. I hope that with help from all sides of the House we shall be able to see the Bill through to a conclusion.
The provisions in the Bill will add to the wide range of measures—innovatory cycle schemes, cycle route research in five towns, cycle safety publicity, construction and safety standards for bicycles—which the Government are taking to encourage cycling and, above all, to improve the safety of cyclists using our roads. We support the Bill and commend it to the House.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we have had quite a useful debate and I am very grateful that the Bill has had general support. I do not intend to delay the House very long. I know that some noble Lords—I am thinking particularly of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill—have been here since 2.30 p.m. Probably he is in need of dinner; certainly I am.
I want to refer to one or two points. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. quite rightly is worried that the interests of the blind might suffer because of cyclists. I think the new procedure for creating cycle tracks gives them a better right of objection than they have at the moment, in that this all comes together in one single inquiry. When the Secretary of State makes regulations obviously the blind cannot see advertisements in newspapers in regard to rights of objection. and there must he some other way of allowing them to know of proposed cycle tracks.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred to doubts she had on the question of compensation. That is really a matter for the Committee stage. At that stage we can find out exactly what the noble Baroness wants. I must say that I did not envisage any questions as regards the time limit at this stage.
I am very sorry that my noble friend Lord Gisborough does not like the title of the Bill—the "Cycle Tracks Bill". I can assure my noble friend that not all cycles are bicycles. There are tricycles. I have even seen what I suppose one would describe as a monocycle hurtling round Hyde Park Corner—and it looked very terrifying. Presumably my noble friend would like the monocyclists and tricyclists to use the proposed cycle tracks.
I must stress that I gained the impression from various noble Lords that there is some confusion as regards the difference between a footpath and a footway. A footway is what we would normally call the pavement—in other words, it runs alongside the highway. There is no intention that cyclists should be allowed on a footway and it is at present illegal. A footpath is not the same thing.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is yet another cyclists, and I must say that all these cyclists make me feel very guilty. I have tried cycling in London only once. However, to do so in the country is very different. At the moment I find it terrifying to do so in London. As the noble Lord says, the procedure for creating cycle tracks will be eased and what is as

217
important is that the right of objection of pedestrians will be increased, thereby preserving the balance.
I do not think there is anything more that I can usefully add at this stage. I am sure that various amendments will be put forward by noble Lords at the Committee stage. However, I hope that there will not be too many amendments, because that would delay the Bill. It has already been a long time in gestation and the sooner we can get it on to the statute book, the better.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Warwick District Council Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee on Unopposed Provisions, with amendments.
Tenants' Rights, etc. (Scotland) Amendment Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Epsom and Walton Downs Regulation Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments. The said amendments were considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes past eight o'clock.