Transport Bill

HL Deb 24 July 1985 vol 466 cc1287-353

8.32 p.m.

House again in Committee.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 240B:

[Printed 18/7/85; col. 953.]

The noble Lord said: I rise to move the amendment standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and myself. I listened very carefully to the answers of the Minister to the preceding amendment and it seemed to me that it was at least worth setting out the arguments here for what is, after all, a very much more modest solution—or an attempt at a solution—to a major problem with this Bill.

The Bill as drafted posits a dual system for public transport in this country. On the one side there will be the commercially viable network of buses which will be privatised and which will no longer be under public control. On the other side there will be that part of the bus network which all concerned recognise cannot be profitable and must be subsidised through a tendering system.

The major problem which this Bill faces is how these two parts of the bus network now divided are to be made to work effectively together, so that passengers and operators may achieve a system which works profitably for those who are to make profits from it, efficiently for those who are to subsidise it, and effectively for those who are to ride on the buses. This amendment does not propose that there should be any delay in the implementation of the Bill, nor that there should be any new obligations of any significant character on operators, but simply that the operators of the private buses should be required to give information to the local traffic authorities who will be responsible for the other part of the network and who will have other public transport responsibilities.

Let us immediately recognise that there is a problem of the commercial confidentiality of information. Let us recognise that there are bound to be fears. Transport operators will feel if they are obliged to give certain kinds of information—not just about the timing and frequency of their services, but also about stopping places they U ill use, the scheduling of vehicles and so on—they are giving information which may be valuable to the traffic authorities and which may be used for those parts of the bus network which will still be influenced by the public sector.

The amendment makes adequate provision, in my submission, for those fears. It says that apart from those items of information which have to become public anyway, such as the timetables—because timetables are no use unless they are made public—the information shall not be dislosed to third parties without the agreement of the operators concerned. I am summarising that. But the need for somebody somewhere to know everything that is happening about the bus network, the bus services, the way in which they will work, cannot be denied.

Let me refer back to our discussion on Amendment No. 208, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. In cols. 946 and 947 of the Official Report he expressed concern about the position of the Isle of Wight and the co-ordination of the public transport services of the Isle of Wight with the ferries. He was answered from the Front Bench opposite by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, who said that there was no problem because the ferries could be treated in the same way as cross-boundary services between different traffic areas. He said that that was covered adequately by Clause 61 of the Bill. That was not and is not the case. Clause 61 refers only to the subsidised services. What we must have is some degree of liaison—I shall not even call it co-ordination, let alone planning—between different operators who are concerned not only with the subsidised services but also with the commercial, privatised services.

I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will agree that the situation about which he was afraid so far as the Isle of Wight was concerned already appears to be happening: that British Rail appear to be concentrating their services more on the Southampton-Cowes route and that the other ferry routes appear to be getting less attention. If I am wrong, I shall gladly give way. But my understanding is that already there are changes happening in the British Rail routes which will affect the subsidised services as well as the privatised bus services on the Isle of Wight.

Lord Mottistone

I have no knowledge of what the noble Lord is saying. I do not think it is very likely without going into a little geography. I think perhaps the noble Lord does not have quite the right message there. I take his point notwithstanding. But I do not think that that particular case is relevant.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I am glad to yield to the greater knowledge of the noble Lord, particularly since, for my sins, I have never even been to the Isle of Wight. Let me give another example of where changes have certainly happened: the example of the Irish Sea crossings and the privatisation of Sealink away from British Rail. Here there have been arrangements for sharing routes between Sealink and B. and I. Ferries on the routes to Ireland and the Isle of Man. The result of these arrangements has been that Sealink is no longer operating the route from Liverpool to the Isle of Man. That may be a perfectly proper commercial position, but the Isle of Man tourism depended very considerably on the Liverpool trade and it must be a very wrong decision which, as it takes effect, will do a great deal of damage to the Isle of Man.

Continuing with the example of Sealink—I am talking about things which have happened and not about things which may happen in the future—it is a fact that through ticketing systems between British Rail and Sealink are less effective than they were before, and that passengers are having to buy ferry tickets separately from the rail tickets which they used to buy together. It is a fact that concessionary fares, which were available on British Rail and which used to be available on Sealink as well, will no longer be available after 31st December 1985.

So we are already seeing in practice the kind of failure of co-ordination between different operators, between the private sector and the public sector, which all of us who have expressed concern about this Bill have always been worried about. We are not talking about the future. We are talking about what we know to be the case now.

Let me give more general examples about the bus system itself. Let us suppose that we have a housing estate or a hospital which is three-quarters of a mile away from what would otherwise be a profitable route. The commercial interests of an operator are that he will pay attention to the largest number of his passengers and will run past on the main road without serving the housing estate or the hospital, as it may be, because that is the way in which he will get his passengers most directly to their destination, and that will mean that it will be left to the tendering process to provide for the housing estate or the hospital. If we take that literally, and there is no co-ordination between the subsidised services and the commercial services, what that means is that we shall have a grossly inefficient system.

We shall have buses running over the same route between the housing estate and the shire town destination, duplicating each other, rather than having a mutually agreeable arrangement, whereby some or all of the buses also serve the housing estate or the hospital. That cannot be the right way to run our bus services. Information on the timing and frequency of bus services, on stopping places, on the way in which a time-table is to be constructed and publicised—all of these are items of information which ought to be available to a democratically elected authority and to the general public. The sad fact is that if it is left to voluntary agreement between the operators and the authorities, it will not take place to the degree that it ought to take place.

The requirement for operators to give information to local authorities is surely not a very onerous requirement. There is protection for commercial confidentiality in the amendment. There is here a possibility for some co-operation to succeed in bringing together the two parts of the bus system, as the Government are proposing to establish them. I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in his objections to the preceding amendment. It seems to me that none of the objections which he made would apply to the present amendment, and that the Government therefore ought to see this as a way, without any need for objection on anybody's part, to easing the way to the privatisation and deregulation which they require. I beg to move.

8.45 p.m.

Earl De La Warr

I have listened with great care to what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said. It seems to me that this amendment achieves, in practice, a good deal of what the last amendment sought to achieve, and as he gave us its purpose with great lucidity I shall not repeat it. I really think that there can be no complaint here on the score of the complaint which was made from this side of the Committee about a form of backdoor opposition. As for the information getting out, the fact of the matter is that it will get out within a few months, anyhow—it has to. It probably will not go to the authorities until February or March, or even April or May, but by then we are only three months away from deregulation day.

In any case, I should have thought that the matter of confidentiality in this case had to be put in second place to what we are all seeking, which is better service for the public. So I would completely discount the dangers of that. Confidentiality in business is something which, in my experience, is the British disease. You do not get Americans refusing to tell you something. They are only too ready to tell you. But I shall not depart into a wider field.

I like this amendment because it will help, and what it will really do is allow the traffic authorities that much quicker—and it is all a matter of months—to set about identifying the routes which they will have to put out to tender. As we shall see in a later debate, this question of finding out as quickly as possible is absolutely crucial with a D-day which is dangerously close to us from the point of view of getting efficient tendering. So for those reasons I like this amendment and I support it.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

Of course we accept that co-operation between local authorities and operators can be highly desirable, and as we have explained to the Committee on earlier clauses, we have given authorities considerable powers both to subsidise public transport and to take more general measures to promote the use of public transport and the convenience of the public. There are further important provisions on tendering and concessionary fares. We have no doubt that many authorities will make extensive use of those powers and we expect that they will have a wide measure of co-operation of operators in doing so. That will often be to the mutual benefit of both sides and for the good of the general public as passengers and as ratepayers.

But this new clause would require operators to cooperate with local authorities by providing information. That, in our view, is both unnecessary and indeed potentially damaging. It will be unnecessary because authorities, in carrying out their tendering and concessionary fares functions, will have available to them very considerable amounts of information. They will certainly have no difficulty in obtaining the information that they need to carry out those particular functions. I would remind your Lordships that all particulars of registered routes which the traffic commissioner will have received will have to be passed on to the local authorities; and these include route stopping places, timetables, etc. My noble friend Lord Belstead, earlier in Committee, gave an undertaking that we would make sure that this was done as speedily as possible.

I turn to the dangers which we see in this new clause. Where there is a one-sided duty of this sort, it would be open to authorities to seek to use it to make operators complete endless forms and provide excessive and onerous amounts of information.

Lord Shepherd

Really!

Lord Brabazon of Tara

Noble Lords, will be aware of the Government's recent White Paper stressing the need to keep burdens of this kind to a minimum.

Under the powers in Clauses 57 and 61 the authorities can take measures to promote the availability of services and the convenience of the public. Incidentally, Clause 61(7) would indeed apply to the commercial services, including the ferries which serve the Isle of Wight. It is reasonable to assume that operators will wish to co-operate in many cases, and it will be in their best interests to do so. But on some occasions they may not. It is the essence of our policy that operators should make the final decisions about how to go about providing the services that they judge the travelling public want.

The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, raised a point about co-operation between Sealink and British Rail on the Isle of Wight service. I have not noticed this matter at all. The train still meets the boat, and vice versa. There has certainly been no change in the emphasis that British Rail have put on their services. The noble Lord brought up the case of the Liverpool to the Isle of Man service. I understand that Sealink have not in recent years operated from Liverpool to the Isle of Man. They have operated from Heysham, in Lancashire. The Isle of Man Steam Packet Company, which operates from Liverpool to the Isle of Man, is to be merged with Sealink's Heysham service. I cannot believe in my own mind that if the need for the service from Liverpool to the Isle of Man was that great this company would have decided to move it from Liverpool to a nearby port.

Therefore, I would submit to the noble Lord that this clause has its dangers; but more important than that, I think it is unnecessary. I say that because the information which the local authorities require will in any case be very readily available to them.

Lord Shepherd

In some respects this amendment could be a watershed as to the way in which we proceed on this Committee stage. This amendment is not in any way a radical approach. It is not in any way seeking to undermine what the Government have in mind in terms of this legislation. The noble Lord said that if the amendment were passed one of the dangers would be that certain local authorities could well use it to ask for this information or that information, perhaps with the objective of causing difficulties for the operator. I do not know whether the noble Lord has read the amendment. The amendment says: such information as the authority may reasonably require for the purpose of carrying out its duties". Those words are well known in other forms of legislation. If it were necessary for a court to decide what they mean, the noble Lord knows how the courts would judge these words. The word "reasonable" is now a very accepted word in the judgments of courts.

What are my noble friends asking for in this amendment? They are asking that the operator should provide information which the authority—the authority at the end will be politically responsible for services—may require for carrying out its duties. The noble Lord said that in his view it is solely a matter for the operator to decide what services are to be made available. In the end, politically, it will be for the authority to decide. All I see in this amendment is that there should be a sufficient provision of information on which the authority can make its own judgment, and in regard to tendering I should have thought that that was a crucial part of it.

If the noble Lord could say, "I accept the amendment in principle but I should like to see it drafted differently", some of us would be willing to respond. But if the noble Lord's attitude on this amendment is going to be consistent throughout the Bill, I think that some of us are going to be in a very difficult position. Most of us have been seeking to find ways and means to avoid some of the difficulties that we perceive in this Bill, but we have not had many logical or sensible responses to these amendments. I have to say to the noble Lord that I thought that his response to the speech of my noble friend on this amendment did not do well for the Government and their basic approach to this Bill.

Lord Teviot

It might surprise the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, but I thought that on this occasion my noble friend made a clear and moderate speech. One has not heard him as much on this Bill as one should have liked. My noble friend gave the Government's view. He did not fall into the trap of going back to the old arguments. He did mention bureaucracy, and paper. Although I have my name down to this amendment I think that we have to look back to Clause 61. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has looked at it and has an excellent argument to throw back at my noble friend. In that case one can come in again. I thought that my noble friend presented his argument moderately and very well.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion on this amendment. I say that even to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. I must say that to call it "moderate" when the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, refers to endless forms and excessive and unreasonable information, when, as my noble friend points out, the amendment refers to, such information as the authority may reasonably require", —the interpretation of "reasonable" has been well established in the courts—seemed to be somewhat immoderate. I also noticed that, although I am perfectly ready to be shot down on particular issues such as routes to the Isle of Wight or routes to the Isle of Man, the Minister made no attempt to answer my more important points. The privatisation of Sealink has resulted in a reduction in through-ticketing, and will result at the end of this year in the abolition of concessionary fares for the elderly and disabled on Sealink vessels. All those points were made but were not answered by the Government.

Above all, the fundamental issue was not answered by the Government. There is no clear and simple dividing line between the commercial and the subsidised services. One cannot say, "Here is one route which is entirely commercial and here is one route which is entirely subsidised". I gave an example of the extent to which, on a perfectly commercial route, there might have to be subsidised elements. Indeed, in another place the Secretary of State himself agreed that that might be the case. I am afraid that I do not have the reference in front of me, but I recall reading that he said that there might be a case where a commercial operator would refuse to operate concessionary fares and in those circumstances the local authority would be justified in using the subsidy and tender procedure in order to secure that those concessionary fares were obtained on that route as they were on other routes.

The fact of the matter is that our bus services are going to be intertwined as between commercial and subsidised services. The Bill is based on the supposition that they are going to be operated separately. We are trying to provide a link between the two to provide the possibility of co-ordination which will be to the benefit of both parts of the bus system. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, had the key to it when he said that the major issue here was timing.

I am sorry that the Government are so intransigent on this issue. I am sorry that our approach, in this respect at least and in most other respects, which has been entirely constructive, has not found any response from the Government.

Lord Mottistone

There is one small point. I do not understand why the noble Lord does not take my noble friend's point that Clause 61(7) meets his requirements. The more I read that the more it seems to answer everything that the noble Lord said.

9 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

The answer to that was given by the noble Earl, Lord De La Wan. The fact is that one must have the information at the time when it can be used. It ought, in the Bill, to be an obligation on the operators to provide that information and not be a matter for the local authority to demand it afterwards. It is timing that is of the essence, and that is the extent to which—although the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is undoubtedly right about Clause 61(7), and its extent—this amendment is still necessary.

As I said, I am sorry that the Government are so intransigent on what appears to me to be a helpful amendment. It is certainly helpful in its intention. We shall need to find some other way of helping the Government on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 77 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Belstead

I have already spoken to this on Clause 32 stand part. I also spoke to the subsequent Amendments Nos. 24OC, 24OD and 24OE.

Clause 77 disagreed to.

Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 24OC:

[Printed 16/7/85; col. 698.]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 240C):

After Clause 77, insert the following new clause:

("Provision, maintenance and operation of bus stations.

.—(1) A Passenger Transport Executive for any passenger transport area shall have power—

1. (a) to provide bus stations and associated facilities at any place in or in the vicinity of their area; and
2. (b) to maintain, repair and operate bus stations and associated facilities provided under paragraph (a) above or under their former powers.

(2) A council operating a bus undertaking who have ceased by virtue of section 62(1) of this Act to have power to provide a service for the carriage of passengers by road which requires a PSV operator's licence shall have power to maintain, repair and operate bus stations and associated facilities provided by that authority under their former powers.

(3) Any charges for the use of accommodation for public service vehicles at any bus station provided by the Passenger Transport Executive for any passenger transport area or provided by any other person under any agreement entered into by any such Executive under section 10(1)(xv) of the 1968 Act (contracting-out powers) shall be reasonable.

(4) Subsection (3) above only applies where the charges are made by the Executive in question under section 10(1)(xiii) of that Act or by a person who is operating the bus station under any such agreement otherwise than as agent for the Executive.

(5) Any such council as is mentioned in subsection (2) above shall have power—

1. (a) to make reasonable charges for the use of accommodation for public service vehicles at any bus station provided under their former powers; and
2. (b) to make reasonable charges for the use of, or let on hire to any person, any associated facilities provided by them in connection with any bus station so provided.

(6) If any person who is the holder of a PSV operator's licence in respect of any vehicles using accommodation for public service vehicles at any such bus station as is mentioned in subsection (3) or (5) above considers that charges for the use of that accommodation are unreasonable, that person may apply to the traffic commissioner for the traffic area in which the bus station is situated (or where it is situated partly in one area and partly in another, to the traffic commissioner for such of those areas as may be agreed between the traffic commissioners concerned or, in default of agreement, determined by the Secretary of State).

(7) On any application under subsection (6) above the traffic commissioner may determine the charges to be made in respect of the applicant's vehicles for such period and on such terms as he thinks fit.").

Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 240D.

[Printed 16/7/85; col. 699.]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 240D):

After Clause 77, insert the following new clause:

("Bus stations: restrictions on discriminatory practices, etc.

.—(1) Neither a Passenger Transport Executive nor a local authority shall, in the exercise of any of their powers—

1. (a) in relation to the provision or operation of bus stations or any associated facilities; or
2. (b) (without prejudice to paragraph (a) above) in relation in particular to the charges to be made for the use of any accommodation at a bus station or of any associated facilities;

act in such a way as to discriminate (whether directly or indirectly) against any holder, or class of holder, of a PSV operator's licence.

(2) In relation to a local authority, the powers in question under subsection (1) above include in particular (without prejudice to the generality of that subsection) their powers under section 38 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (appointment of parking places provided under section 32 of that Act as stations for public service vehicles and provision of accommodation in connection with places so appointed).

(3) Where under any agreement (other than an agency agreement) entered into by a Passenger Transport Executive under section 10(1)(xv) of the 1968 Act (contracting-out powers) a person is operating a bus station or any associated facilities provided by that Executive or provided by that or any other person under any such agreement, that person shall not—

1. (a) in relation to the operation of that bus station or (as the case may be) of those facilities; or
2. (b) (without prejudice to paragraph (a) above) in relation in particular to the charges to be made for the use of any accommodation at that station or (as the case may be) for the use of those facilities;

act in such a way as to discriminate (whether directly or indirectly) against any holder, or class of holder, of a PSV operator's licence.

(4) The reservation of the whole or any part of the accommodation for public service vehicles at any bus station for such vehicles used in providing local services or (as the case may be) for such vehicles used in providing services other than local services shall not be taken to be discrimination prohibited by subsection (1) or (3) above.

(5) Notwithstanding anything in section 8 of the Transport Act 1983 (obligation to accept tenders for carrying on activities of Executives in certain circumstances) a Passenger Transport Executive may not in exercise of their powers under section 10(1)(xv) of the 1968 Act enter into an agreement (other than an agency agreement) for—

1. (a) the provision of any bus station or associated facilities the Executive have power under section (Provision, maintenance and operation of bus stations) of this Act to provide; or
2. (b) the operation of any bus station or associated facilities provided by the Executive under that section or under their former powers or provided by any other person under any agreement entered into by the Executive under section 10(1)(xv);

(6) In this section "agency agreement" means, in relation to any agreement under section 10(1)(xv), an agreement with any person for the carrying on of activities by that person as agent for the Executive concerned.

(7) Any such agreement as is mentioned in subsection (5)(b) above entered into after this subsection comes into force shall include provision for ensuring that it will come to an end if the person who under the agreement is to operate the bus station or associated facilities to which it applies becomes the operator of any public passenger transport services or a person connected with any such operator.

(8) On and after the date on which this section comes into force, subsection (5) above shall apply in relation to any such agreement as is there mentioned entered into by the Passenger Transport Executive for any passenger transport area before that date as if this section had come into force on 11th July 1985.").

Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 240E:

[Printed 16/7/85; col. 700.]

Lord Shepherd

I am sorry that I was not in the Chamber earlier. On page 13 of the Marshalled List the amendment is referred to as No. 240E, but on page 14 it is referred to as No. 240D. Perhaps there has been a printing problem.

I should like to ask the noble Lord about subsection (5)(b), which states: 'associated facilities' means, in relation to a bus station, any amenities or facilities provided for use in connection with that station. This is in terms of fair competition. I can understand what is meant by "amenities". That can refer to toilets, cloakrooms and so on. However, as regards other facilities there can be, and I know that there are, in bus stations owned by authorities—certainly for the National Bus Company—booking facilities for its own stage carriage, or for National Express and others. My difficulty is this. Does the amendment as it now stands mean that if the National Bus Company, or a future offspring of it, already has established facilities for the sale of tickets and the distribution of information, and if the authority is not able to provide similar facilities to a competitor, or to an independent coming in, that that would be seen as discrimination as between one and another?

There may be a simple answer to this but it appears to me that where there are existing facilities for an existing operator, and if they cannot be provided for another operator who may claim the facility, it may then appear that the authority is acting in a discriminatory way in regard to the other operator. If there is not a simple answer the noble Lord may prefer to write to me, but there appears to be a potential problem.

Lord Belstead

"Associated facilities" is, I know, meant to be a catch-all phrase and helpful to that extent. However, before I offer to write to the noble Lord—because that is what I think I must do—I am not quite sure whether the noble Lord is aware that this particular amendment, on which he is querying subsection (5)(b), does not apply to the National Bus Company bus stations. It is confined to the local authority and passenger transport executive bus stations.

Lord Shepherd

These are, in fact, the bus stations that I had in mind from which various existing operators are running. Facilities have been developed over a period of time, perhaps to meet the needs of the biggest operator in the district. My only anxiety is whether that subsection would create difficulties in the future for the continuation of those facilities.

Lord Belstead

As I said, this expression was used in order to try to be helpful. It refers back to subsection (1) of Amendment No. 240C. That subsection makes it clear that, A Passenger Transport Executive … shall have power to provide bus stations (and) … to maintain, repair and operate bus stations and associated .facilities". The wording is in order to ensure that the power given to the PTEs and local authorities is not drawn too tight.

Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord, having said that, because there are probably aspects of the matter that I should answer.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 240E):

After Clause 77, insert the following new clause:

("Supplementary provisions.

.—(1) References in section (Provisions, maintenance and operation of bus stations) of this Act to the former powers of a council operating a bus undertaking are references to any powers which have ceased to be exercisable by that council by virtue of the application to that council of section 62(1) of this Act; and references in that section and in section (Bus stations.. restrictions on discriminatory practices, etc.) of this Act to the former powers of a Passenger Transport Executive are references to any powers which have ceased to be exercisable by that Executive by virtue of any order under section 59(5) of this Act.

(2) For the purposes of section (Bus stations: restrictions on discriminatory practices, etc.) of this Act a person is a person connected with the operator of any public passenger transport services if that person is a member of a group of interconnected bodies corporate any one or more of which is such an operator.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above, any two bodies corporate are to be treated as interconnected if one of them is a body corporate of which the other is a subsidiary or if both of them are subsidiaries of the same body corporate; and in that subsection "group of interconnected bodies corporate" means a group consisting of two or more bodies corporate all of which are interconnected with each other in the sense given above.

(4) In section (Bus stations: restrictions on discriminatory practices, etc.) of this Act "local authority" means—

1. (a) in relation to England and Wales, the council of a county, London borough or district, the Greater London Council or the Common Council of the City of London; and
2. (b) in relation to Scotland, a regional or islands council.

(5) In sections (Provision, maintenance and operation of bus stations) and (Bus stations: restrictions on discriminatory practices, etc.) of this Act and this section—

1. (a) "bus station" means a parking place which may be used by public service vehicles (including any such parking place which forms part of any interchange facilities for enabling passengers travelling by one means of transport to continue their journey by another); and
2. (b) "associated facilities" means, in relation to a bus station, any amenities or facilites provided for use in connection with that station.").

[Amendment No. 240F not moved.]

Clause 78 [Compensation for loss of employment, etc.]

[Amendment No. 241 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List]

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 241ZA.

[Printed 18/7/85; col. 978.]

The noble Earl said: I beg to move this amendment.

I spoke to it with Amendment No. 211CN.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 241ZA): Page 79, line 17, leave out ("or") and insert ("and")

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 241A: Page 80, line 2, after ("of") insert ("or, in Scotland, sequestration of the estate of, or granting of a trust deed for creditors by,").

The noble Earl said: This is a minor technical amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will fully appreciate this, but for the rest of the Committee may I say that it is a necessary amendment because bankruptcy does not have a legal meaning in Scotland. The terms "sequestration of the estate" and "granting of a trust deed for creditors" are used to cover both cases where a court has judged someone bankrupt and cases where a trustee has been appointed voluntarily on behalf of creditors. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 78, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Sandford

At the beginning of today's proceedings I had occasion to thank my noble friend Lord Trefgarne for a long letter which he wrote to me in answer to the debate that we had on Thursday about pension arrangements for members of the municipal bus companies, but he and I were at something of a loss at that stage to know how to make that information availiable to the rest of the Committee.

May I take this opportunity of saying what we have done is this. I have put to him a Question requesting him to publish the letter that he wrote to me on 24th July, and he has answered that Parliamentary Question by agreeing to publish it. It will appear in tomorrow's Hansard, and that will deal with that problem for us.

Clause 78, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 79 [Incorporation of Passenger Transport Executives in Authorities for their area]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 241B:

[Printed 18/7/85; col. 978.]

The noble Earl said: With the leave of the Committee, we could perhaps take Amendments Nos. 241 B and 241C together. I spoke to them on Amendment No. 211CN. I beg to move.

[Amendment No. 241C.: Printed 18/7/85; col. 978.]

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendments (Nos. 241B and 241C): Page 80, line 44, leave out ("subsection (6) below") and insert ("the following provisions of this section"). Page 81, line 10, at end insert— ("(6A) Any order under this section may make modifications in Schedule 4 for the purposes of its application to a transfer effected by that order.").

Clause 79, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 80 agreed to.

[Amendment No. 242 not moved.]

Clause 81 [Interpretation of Part IV]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 242A: Page 82, line 7, leave out ("(3) and").

The noble Earl said: I beg to move this amendment. I spoke to it with Amendment No. 211ZE.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 81, as amended, agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 243 to 245 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Clause 82 agreed to.

Clause 83 [Obligation to invite tenders for subsidised services]:

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 245A: Page 83, line 37, after ("sections") insert—

("(Phased Introduction of Tendering),")

The noble Lord said: Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee to take Amendment No. 249A with Amendment No. 245A. Amendment No. 249A: After Clause 83, insert the following new clause:

("Phased Introduction of Tendering.

.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, on application from an authority responsible for expenditure on public passenger transport services, make an order suspending the provisions of Schedule 5 in respect of the introduction of tendering and substituting a scheme drawn up by the authority for the phased introduction of tendering over a period to be agreed between the authority and the Secretary of State.

(2) In drawing up a scheme for the phased introduction of tendering the authority shall have regard to the following factors:—

1. (a) the number of services for which tenders have to be invited;
2. (b) the period for which each tender shall be let when tendering is introduced in full;
3. (c) variation of the initial period for which each tender is let in order to avoid excessive peaks in workload;
4. (d) the need to take urgent action in respect of any service that may cease to operate; and
5. (e) the number of staff available to perform the tendering function.

(3) The scheme shall specify—

1. (a) a programme showing the numbers of tenders to be let in each three monthly period until the complete introduction of tendering;
2. (b) the date at which tendering will be fully introduced within the authority's area; and
3. (c) arrangements to continue the payment of service subsidies by agreement for those services the authority wishes to secure but which are not yet subject to tendering arrangements.

(4) The scheme shall not confer unfair advantage on any particular operators within the area.")

Amendment No. 245A is merely to enable the introduction of tendering to be phased over a long enough period so that local authority staff will be able to cope satisfactorily with this work. It would also be to the benefit of bus services by enabling local authorities to control the introduction of new arrangements in an orderly fashion, and so avoid many of the problems that may arise from a total and simultaneous change everywhere, tempered only to the limited extent that the transitional arrangements in Schedule 5 will secure, and the more substantial amendment, No. 249A. The reason for this is to enable regulation to be deferred in certain circumstances because of the pressure under which local authorities will find themselves. It will be most severe in major urban areas which have the densest, the most complex and the most integrated networks.

The proportion of these networks which will need to be put out to tender is largely an unknown quantity, like so much else in the Bill, and it will not be known for sure until the registration period is over and the opportunity for variation and withdrawal is ended somewhere in mid-1986. The Government have not changed their mind and have not reduced their determination to adhere to deregulation day by October 1986. The revisions tabled in Schedule 5 make 20th September 1986 the operative day—D-day I suppose you could call it. The timing is still such that there is little hope of completing tendering in the time available. In the metropolitan areas the new joint boards will not be fully effective until after 1st April 1986, and so there is little hope of having more than four effective working months in which to implement the new, untested and unfamiliar process of tendering.

9.15 p.m.

The joint boards will be trying to cope with all that is entailed in administrative reorganisation—new personnel, new policies and other such matters. The period will also coincide with the summer holidays, during which even local authority and PTA staff have the right to be away. At that period the resources on all sides are always stretched by annual leave commitments, and operators are also most heavily committed to the seasonal services, such as tours, that crop up, especially at the seaside and in the conurbations near the seaside.

On the basis of limited experience of tendering in London after the 1984 Act, one PTE estimates that if only half its services are required to go to tender—that could be a low or a high estimate; it is thought by the authority to be low—in order to complete the task in the time proposed, up to 90 additional staff would be required. Another PTE calculates its requirements at about half that number. In any event the total requirement for staff qualified in this field—and these staff do not grow on trees; they are highly specialised—for all PTEs will run to hundreds, with all the complications of attempting to recruit professional staff on a part-time basis. In the consultative paper on tendering issued by the Department of Transport, the Government acknowledged that longer time-scales might be needed in certain areas, and that the problems would be most severe in the metropolitan areas.

The amendment merely seeks to allow for those problems, uncertainties and differences in various parts of the country. It aims to minimise the practical difficulties and the undoubted administrative problems to smooth the transitional process and thereby ensure that the quality of the end product is as high as possible. I hope that the Minister will respond to the amendment in the spirit in which it is moved—that is, in an attempt to be helpful. I beg to move.

Earl De La Warr

I should like to support the amendment. We do not want to get too far into Schedule 5 debates, but a couple of dates are perhaps worth adding to show how acute the time factor is. As the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said, D-day will be September 28th. Perhaps a high proportion of applications for registration will be in the early part of the year, but throughout the spring and summer they will be coming in. Indeed, the last date is to be October 16th. Perhaps noble Lords will bear that in mind when they think of the final D-day being September 28th.

It might be useful to remind the Committee of the measure of the task that lies in front of the local authorities which have to prepare these tenders. First of all, when the registrations are done they have to analyse all the commercial routes to see where the gaps lie. At the same time they have to take big and important decisions on the priorities at which they must look. We must remember that money will not be unlimited. At least in the shire counties and probably in the metropolitan areas they have to make decisions which they cannot make without referring to the political body on the priorities as between concessionary fares and subsidised routes. They have, on a more mechanistic base, to draw up the specifications. They have to issue all the documents. Then, when the applications come in, they have to evaluate each one and see what the whole amounts to in terms of money. It really is an enormous job. When one bears in mind that in each metropolitan county anything between 500 and a thousand services are to come within the non-commercial, the tendering, orbit, I think one will see what an enormous task this is. I repeat that in the final analysis they have only six weeks to do it and up to August 16th it will be like people sitting down to do a jigsaw when they have not all the pieces, because the pieces will not all be there until the middle of August.

I suggest to Members of the Committee that they should believe the advice which is coming to me and to other noble Lords, from those people who are actually going to do the tendering, that they will not succeed in getting through in time. Whether the Government choose to say, "We do not believe you: they will succeed—they must succeed", or whether they make provision for what must be a possibility, and in my opinion is a near certainty, that there will be enormous overspill after D-Day of services that have not yet found a contracted operator, is for them to decide. In my opinion it is pure folly to take a rigid attitude and say, "This will be done because I say it will be done", because it cannot be done.

I should very much like to hear the Government's attitude to this situation, bearing in mind, as I am sure they will, that if hard-worked men fail to get all the routes, the would-be tendered routes, buttoned up, registered and contracted, then on D-Day plus one there will be people waiting at bus stops for buses which will not turn up.

I want my noble friend Lord Belstead to take this very seriously. I know him well enough to know that he most certainly will, because, in the final analysis, it is a human question. It is a human question and has nothing at all to do with the Minister's resolve.

Lord Teviot

My Lords, I should not normally have come in now, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, introduce this amendment so effectively, and to my noble friend. However, I do so only to support this amendment. I think my noble friend must think quite seriously of the restrictions of the timetable. There are only two points that I should like to make to pre-empt his remarks.

We had a similar amendment on phased deregulation on Part I. However, we are now dealing with Part V. By and large, we have progressed fairly well. I think one must be sympathetic. If this Bill is to work, I think all of us, including even those who are against the Bill, agree that we do not want it to be a botched job. At the moment, with the programme offered, it will, unless something is done, be a botched job.

Lord Belstead

I should perhaps say first, in reply to the amendment, that the consultative document put out by the Department of Transport on tendering did indeed speak of a rather longer period for tendering than is provided for now. However, it was in response to what people said during the consultation process that the Government were persuaded that tendering should be carried out fully before deregulation. I have to say that although I absolutely understand why the arguments have been put forward on the new clause—and I respect the motives for the putting forward of the amendment—I am really dismayed at what would be the effect of the amendment compared to the arrangements that are being made, particularly in Schedule 5 to the Bill.

I should like to turn to a little more of the detail. First, why do we put a firm date for deregulation in Schedule 5 and make it the same for the country as a whole? It is because it is in the nature of things that if individual authorities could choose the timescale then reasons would be found for extending it, even if we were talking about a long period of some years. I think it is probably human nature that we would find a rush towards the end. At some point, one has to have certainty. In specifying a fixed date, that has been the principle which has guided us so that local authorities and operators can start working to a common goal.

I do not want to suggest for one minute, having listened to your Lordships, that the move to deregulation and competitive tendering will be easy. I know that it is going to mean a lot of hard work for the professionals in the bus industry. But we believe that the timescale in Schedule 5 is a realistic one. Noble Lords have said that they do not want to go into detail on Schedule 5. I would prefer not to do so either. However, as a general proposition I would say that I like to think that the amendments that we have put down to Schedule 5 will give authorities some six to seven months to complete the tendering exercise starting from the date of registration in February 1986. Many authorities will be well advanced with their preparations long before that. Indeed, some counties are already initiating the change to tendering, and in some areas, particularly the metropolitan areas, the timescale, although it will be demanding, will nonetheless be achievable.

The effect of the new clause would be to remove the link between the abolition of road service licensing and the introduction of tendering. It would mean that in many areas network subsidy would continue well beyond deregulation day. I put it to your Lordships that this would, or certainly could, have a number of serious effects. It would mean that the incumbent, largely public sector operators, would be in a very different competitive position from the independent operators seeking to start in the market. It would distort competition and the benefits which the new patterns of services and the new operators coming into the market will, we hope, bring.

Secondly, the new clause presumes that operators can readily register a network of commercial services unaffected by the continuation of network subsidy. Operators, in deciding which services to register during the transitional period, will not only have to assess what services they believe they can operate without subsidy in the open market but will also have to take into account, under the amendment, the fact that some operators would be continuing to receive network subsidy after deregulation day as well. At that stage operators would not even know how long this uncomfortable state of affairs would continue. It could be for months, but it could be for years.

The result would be that the services registered during the transitional period would, I suggest, be closer to the existing pattern of services than the sort of services that will emerge when the market is free of network subsidy. That would probably mean that authorities would be involved in extensive re-tendering over the first year or so following deregulation as the pattern of services adjusted to a market oriented one. Is this really what noble Lords who have put their names to the amendment would want—to almost certainly require or force operators to go in for a whole lot of re-tendering once the transitional year had finished? I should have thought that that was something which we should all want to avoid.

9.30 p.m.

Paradoxically, a further side effect of the new clause could well be to introduce greater pressure on local authorities during that part of the transitional period falling after deregulation, and by that I mean the initial period between October and December next year. Network operators would feel under commercial pressures and would very likely seek to use their dominant position to demand higher subsidy payments. Authorities would be faced with the beginnings of the effects of cross-subsidy withdrawal without the benefit of lower costs which tendering will bring about.

If I may be forgiven for saying so, I really think that with that paradox we would be getting the worst of all worlds. I am therefore suggesting to your Lordships that, although I respect the reasons for which this amendment is put forward and the care with which Amendment No. 249A has been drafted, it would lead to a great deal of uncertainty. I would go so far as to say that it would lead even to confusion.

Finally, I ask your Lordships to contrast that with the approach in the Bill which aims to make the transition a controlled one so that on deregulation day when the new pattern of services starts, the local authorities will have had an opportunity to make sure that the service subsidy contracts for the noncommercial services have been organised and everybody knows where they stand.

Earl De La Warr

I should like to ask my noble friend one particular question. In the middle of his excellent exposition he said that this might go on for years. I wondered why he said that because if he looks at the last three lines of subection (1) of the amendment he will find reference to the substitution of: a scheme drawn up by the authority for the phased introduction of tendering over a period to be agreed between the authority and the Secretary of State". Therefore, it is ultimately under the control of the Secretary of State to say how long the period will be. I do not wish to be personal about the present Secretary of State, but I do not think that we need fear, under those circumstances, that it would go on for years. I should have thought that "months" was a more reasonable interpretation of the amendment. I wonder whether my noble friend would care to comment on that either now or later in the debate?

Lord Belstead

Perhaps I may reply to my noble friend on that particular point. As I understand it, my right honourable friend would be required to make an order regardless of the merits of the case. The only discretion which would be allowed to my right honourable friend would be to agree with the authority the period over which the tendering is to be phased. A refusal by my right honourable friend to agree to the authority's proposals would not necessarily lead to my right honourable friend prevailing; it would simply lead to disagreement, and in the background there would be the requirement for my right honourable friend to make an order regardless of the merits of the case.

Earl De La Wan

Would my noble friend at least agree that the Secretary of State does not have removed from him the right to say "No" to a period which he regards as unreasonably long?

Lord Belstead

My noble friend and I must not keep on having exchanges on'this matter even though this is the Committee stage, because both of us can read what is in subsection (1) of the amendment. Whereas it is for debate as to how disagreement between the authority and my right honourable friend would turn out, what is for sure is that: The Secretary of State shall, on application from an authority responsible for expenditure on public passenger transport services, make an order suspending the provisions of Schedule 5".

Lord Shepherd

I do not know what my noble friend has in mind in regard to this amendment. He has certainly sought to deal in—I will not say an ingenious way—a pragmatic way with what is a genuine concern throughout the bus business and the local authorities. Perhaps by Report stage there will be a great deal more information available as to what existing operators have in mind as a consequence of the passage of this Bill.

I am with the Government in that I do not want to see phasing in of deregulation. From the beginning I have taken the view that if there was to be fair competion there has to be one date applicable throughout the country. To that extent I am with Her Majesty's Government and Ministers. However, I believe that the timescale provided in this Bill is far too short.

I do not know whether the noble Lord has seen an estimate that in Merseyside there could well be over 1,000 specifications that will have to be considered. When we are talking about tendering we are not just thinking about tendering for routes, but it could be for tendering on a route between particular times of the day, and also days in the week. It is not clear-cut that one is tendering for a service. One may be tendering for portions of time on a particular route.

With the figure I have that in Merseyside there will be a thousand specifications which will have to go out for tendering and will have to be considered, even with the best will in the world I do not see how the authority will be able to deal with it correctly and adequately. There ought to be one date for deregulation, so in principle I am against phasing in as it is proposed.

However, I do not believe that the timescale in Schedule 5 is a date that, even with the best will in the world and with all the work, ingenuity and dedication, can be achieved. If the Government insist upon the timescale here you are going to have holes in the system where there will not be operators willing to come in. We ought to come back to this on Report when we have greater knowledge as to how the operators view the procedures.

It is not just the operators. The operators' task in a sense is relatively simple compared with that of the authorities who have to make their judgment as to the services they want, and the failure, shall we say, from the commercial side for the provision of services for which they will have to tender and provide subsidy. This is something to which we ought to come back with perhaps greater knowledge on Report.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

The Committee will be grateful to the Minister for the persuasive way he put his case, and also for the fact that he emphasised the difficulties if there was phasing. I agree with my noble friend Lord Shepherd that if we are to have this change we do not want phasing, we would rather have it all done at once.

I am a little surprised and amazed at the incredible confidence that the Minister has that it is all going to be done. No one expert in the field of running buses and operating complicated systems really believes that it is all going to be done. We may be greatly surprised by things happening much more quickly, and they may prove to be even simpler than we had originally believed. But I should have thought that the Minister would have jumped at this amendment just to give that slight fallback. If he had been in as many Scottish Committees as I have he would realise that is not unknown in Parliament. In the new clause he has used the words "the Secretary of State shall". I have spent up to two-and-a-half hours listening to Scottish honourable Members discussing "shall" and "may". Why could not the Minister have just slipped in "may" and solved the whole problem by giving the Secretary of State a possibility to meet the slight chance that this huge complicated reshuffle might not go as smoothly as he had hoped?

This amendment would give him that opportunity. In so doing, I hope the Minister will take it away and consider it. No harm is done by the amendment as it stands, I do not believe, or I would not have agreed with the alteration from "shall" to "may"; but in the meantime I wish to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Sandford moved Amendment No. 246:

Page 84, line 2, at end insert— ("(2A) An invitation to tender under this section may, without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2) above, include conditions requiring the tenderers to participate in a travel concession scheme provided under section 87 of this Act.").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 246 on behalf of my noble friend Lady Vickers, I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 247, 248 and 249: Amendment No 247: Page 84, line 18, at end insert— ("(4A) An authority may refuse to issue an invitation to any person who has not given to the authority a written notice indicating that they undertake not to compete on any route, or section of route subsidised under Part V of this Act."). Amendment No. 248: Page 84, line 37, leave out subsection (7) and insert— ("(7) The authority issuing the invitation to tender under this section shall—

1. (a) have regard to regulations made under section 86(2) of this Act; and
2. (b) determine—
1. (i) whether to accept a tender submitted in response to the invitation; or
2. (ii) which (if any) of the several tenders to accept: solely by reference to what in their view is the most effective and economic application of the funds at their disposal for the payment of service subsidies.").

Amendment No. 249: Page 85, leave out lines 21 and 22 and insert—

1. ("(i) be efficiently operated by the person proposing to provide it; and
2. (ii) not have an adverse effect upon existing or proposed tendered subsidised services.").

At this stage these are only probing amendments. I do not want to ask my noble friend to go into any of them in great detail. We shall return to them when we come to Report stage, when the noble Baroness will he here to consider the matter herself.

The broad intention, I surmise, is that the amendments together would enable authorities, when they are dealing with tenders for subsidised services, to secure some measure of protection for the services that they are proposing for tender. That is done by Amendment No. 246 adding to the end of subsection (2), Amendment No. 247 adding to the end of subsection (4), Amendment No. 248 substituting a new version of subsection (7) and Amendment No. 249 introducing some changes at the end of subsection (8).

It would be tedious to try to explain in any more detail to the Committee exactly how these amendments would work. All I should like to do at this stage is to ask my noble friend on the Front Bench to comment on their general thrust. They would operate in broadly the same way as Hereford and Worcester County Council has tried to operate its trial area in Hereford, using the power of contract with local operators to restrain them from acting to the prejudice of and in competition with other subsidised services. That is the broad intention.

Although these amendments would not impose limitations on this power of protection in the way that some other amendments have done, I suggest to the Committee that they have the great virtue of simplicity. Though at first sight one would not think that, I believe that is a claim one can make for them. May I invite other noble Lords interested in this aspect to contribute to this debate and my noble friend to comment on the general concept. I beg to move.

9.45 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon)

As the noble Lord spoke to Amendment No. 248 as well as to Nos. 246 and 247, I ought to call attention to the fact that if No. 248 were to be agreed, I could not call Amendment No. 248A.

Lord Belstead

My noble friend Lord Sandford has moved three different sets of amendments on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers. But I think that my noble friend made it clear in his remarks that what he is after is to find the Government response to the main thrust of these amendments, which is to endeavour to give, for instance, in Amendments Nos. 247 and 249 (which go together) more protection to subsidised services. I hear my noble friend say, "That's right". I feel that Amendments Nos. 246 and 248 go a little wider than that; but if that is what my noble friend is really after, may I simply say this.

I think that really the essential point about the difficult question about the protection for subsidised services is that it is terribly difficult to give some form of artificial protection to a service simply because it is subsidised without running the risk of endangering the position of passengers on commercial sectors of routes. By protecting the subsidised services, other operators on the commercial parts of the routes—and indeed adjoining routes—would be prevented from stopping up gaps in the market and seeking out ways of providing the customer with a better service or a choice of service.

We feel that the local authorities should see what the market is going to provide and then have the right and the power to fill the gaps. The truth of the matter is that these amendments go quite a long way to standing that intention on its head. May I say at the risk of having said it many times before that we believe that competition is the key to better services for the passenger but that it is also the key to greater efficiency and lower costs. One simply cannot look at subsidised services in isolation and say, "If we can give them protection, then it is going to cost the local authority a great deal less". One has to look at the whole market and recognise that there are a number of offsetting factors at play. If I may be forgiven for saying it yet again, we take the view that the combination of various effects of competition should not change the level of local authority expenditure required for the same level of services over the country as a whole; and, of course, for passengers there will be a large net benefit in the form of lower fares and more flexible services.

If I may speak finally and particularly to Amendments Nos. 247 and 249, I realise that in looking particularly at those central amendments they do not go as far as that major amendment, Amendment No. 107, which my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton moved and which we debated about 10 days ago. These amendments would prevent only those operators with service subsidy contracts from the local authority from competing against the subsidised services. But in other respects these amendments would be far more damaging to the working of the free market (which is what the Bill is trying to bring about) than my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton's amendments tried to do some 10 days ago.

Lord Monk Bretton's amendments were very tightly drawn in the protection that they tried to give to the subsidised services and they gave a right of appeal. These amendments would provide no such limitations. In effect, they would allow a local authority to use its purchasing power in the market to inhibit the right of operators to go about their legitimate activities and it would be a kind of Hobson's choice for operators. Either they would have to forgo the possibility of a local authority subsidy or they would be stymied in serving the passengers to the best of their abilities on their commercial routes. I therefore suggest that whichever option an operator chose, it would be the public who would lose out.

I shall not go on about this. I know there is a difference of opinion in the Committee about the position of subsidised services. I would simply say that although I know the evidence is not great, what evidence there is shows that if one allows for greater competition, in the end it is the passenger who will benefit from lower fares, from more flexible services and a greater number of them. I think it is incontrovertible that the evidence that there is all tends in that direction. Certainly there is enough evidence to show that the artificial protection of subsidised services which these amendments would tend to achieve would not only go against what the Bill is trying to do but, if I may say so to my noble friend, would not be necessary.

Lord Sandford

It is of course the difficulty that we find ourselves in that we are planning and legislating very much in the dark. The extent to which the loss of cross-subsidy will be made up by increased efficiency and by competition is not something which has been studied, researched and measured. That is the whole difficulty. But when my noble friend says that such evidence as we have points in the right direction—from his point of view—I beg to differ because it was by operating just these sorts of powers that the county of Hereford and Worcester were able to achieve such success—although it was pretty limited—as they had at Hereford.

If I may say so, I think that the Government and Parliament will look rather silly if the assumptions on which this legislation is based are not fulfilled in practice and there is no power to do anything at all along the lines of these amendments. However, I am encouraged by what my noble friend said, particularly when he was referring to Amendments Nos. 247 and 249 because although he said they were defective in some respects he also said they were superior to those which had been moved earlier. He also said that although the earlier amendments were defective in other respects, they had virtues which these amendments had not; and so perhaps between us we can find a formula which will combine the virtues of these amendments and of the earlier ones which may enable us to get something into the Bill which will provide a means out of this difficulty if the Government's rather optimistic expectations are not fulfilled. With that, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 247 and 248 not moved.]

Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 248A: Page 84, line 42, leave out ("solely") and insert ("by reference to both the manner in which and the extent to which the needs of elderly and disabled people are to be met and".").

The noble Lord said: It would be churlish of me to say that I am glad that the Government did not accept Amendment No. 248, because it was ruled that that would have made it impossible for me to move Amendment No. 248A, and I am going to do so because I think it raises an important question of principle which I should like the Minister to think about.

Earlier in the Bill, much to my pleasure and that of other Members of your Lordships' Committee, the needs of disabled people were recognised in amendments which were introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. The point here really follows on logically from what this Committee had already done. As the Bill is drafted, an authority issuing an invitation to tender has to accept that tender which in their view—and here I will quote from the bottom of page 84— is the most effective and economic application of the funds at their disposal …".

That means that they must be satisfied that the firm is competent and that the bid is low; if possible the lowest. I believe that that would be wrong. It does not allow them to give consideration to the facilities that an operator might offer to elderly and disabled people.

As I said, on earlier amendments the Minister accepted the need for PTEs to have regard to the needs of disabled and elderly people. I think that it would be in accordance with that principle that in determining the question of tendering and the acceptance of tenders the needs of elderly and disabled people should be a factor. The amendment therefore would ensure that authorities considered tenders by reference to the extent to which the needs of elderly and disabled people are to be met, as well as an effective and economic application of the funds available.

I think that that is a simple and logical argument, one which I hope the Minister will accept, even if he may say that the amendment could perhaps be worded in a better way. But I hope that he will want to accept the principle that I have just mentioned.

Lord Belstead

I fully appreciate the intention behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. I must say that I am less certain as to the effect that it would have. It gives me the opportunity to make quite clear how the tendering system will apply to the needs of elderly and disabled people. The point to stress in reply to the noble Lord is that local authorities will, under the tendering provisions, have full discretion to specify the sort of services they require to meet the needs of elderly and disabled people. Under Clauses 57 and 61, as amended, authorities will have a duty to have regard to the needs of elderly and disabled people in securing the services that they consider appropriate. In inviting tenders for subsidised services, authorities will therefore be able to specify particular vehicle features or to specify specialised services designed for the disabled.

The noble Lord said that we had a basis to the Bill on which he would now like to build. I agree with the noble Lord so far as the basis is concerned. There are two important stages at which authorities will be considering the needs of elderly and disabled people: first, in determining their public transport policies under Clauses 57 and 61; and, secondly, in drawing up their invitations to tender under Clause 83(2) which will flow from those policies. When an authority invites tenders they must, in the words of that subsection, be tenders for the provision of that service for such period and on such basis as may be specified in the invitation to tender". So the fruits of the authority's consideration of the needs of elderly and disabled people should emerge in those tender invitations.

Clause 83(7)—which the amendment of the noble Lord seeks to alter—deals with the stage at which authorities are choosing which tender to accept; and subsection (8) elaborates on that. The subsection is not primarily concerned with policy choices but with comparisons between offers to provide what an authority has already asked for. It is an essential feature of any tendering process that all those who put in offers do so on a fair and equitable basis—that is, that each has the opportunity to say at what price and at what time of day he can supply what it is that the authority wants.

That is not to say that policy choices are impossible at tender stage. An authority might decide that it will invite tenders which specify a price for, say, using a low-step vehicle and another price for vehicles adapted to carry wheelchairs. It might be only when the authority could see the cost of each of those options that it felt able to take its decision. But subsection (7) simply directs the authority to choose the offer which provides the best use of funds in the context of the policy that it has chosen. With respect to the noble Lord, I think that that is as far as the Bill ought to go in this respect.

10 p.m.

After all, subsection (7) does not mean that authorities must accept the lowest tender—it really does not. Nor does it mean that if they want buses with low steps they must accept a low tender from an operator whose buses do not have low steps. Nor does it mean that a local authority cannot take account of some helpful feature that an operator is able to provide over and above the specification issued and assess its value, provided all operators had the same opportunity to offer additional features. All those considerations are for the authority to address when they draw up their policies and to carry through when they issue their tender invitations. I really do not think that an amendment to subsection (7), which covers the moment when they are finally looking to see which of the tenders they will choose, is either necessary or relevant.

So this is not a difference of principle between the Government and the noble Lord, but a difference of emphasis and a difference over the construction of the Bill, for may I repeat that local authorities will have a duty to have regard to the needs of the elderly and disabled; the tendering provisions will allow them to specify services to meet those needs, and there will be full discretion for authorities to take those needs into account in inviting tenders. On that understanding, I hope that the noble Lord will feel that the amendment is not necessary.

Lord Ennals

I wish that I could be a little more impressed by the arguments put forward by the noble Lord the Minister. I should have thought that the final moment that we are now talking about, which is accepting and taking a decision on a tender that has been put forward, is precisely the moment at which the principle which is already written into the Bill should be not uppermost, but borne in mind.

I understand the Minister's argument, that of course there has already been stated to be an obligation upon the licensing authorities to "have regard to"; but they are much more likely to "have regard to" if the wording is not at least giving the impression that it is the lowest bid that has been looked for. If the Minister looks again at the words, the most effective and economic application of the funds", there is no implication whatsoever that the specific needs of disabled people will be borne in mind. I think that the wording as it is now gives the impression that it is the efficiency of the service and the cheapest bid which would be uppermost, unless something were put in at this stage.

I assure the Minister that I shall not press the amendment to a Division, but I should like him to look at it again. As I have said, we have looked at them at other stages in the process and it is at the final stage, also, that the needs of the disabled should be brought to the attention of those who have to reach this final decision. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Belstead

Of course, if the noble Lord asks me to do so, I shall be only too ready to look at this amendment and, no doubt, there will be an opportunity for the noble Lord and myself to consult together between the two stages of the Bill. But I would simply repeat that in drawing up their invitations to tender under Clause 83(2) the needs of the elderly and disabled will be taken into account. If that is the case—and it is the case, because we have amended the Bill in that way—then, when one gets to the point at which this amendment is directed, when the tenders come back in, the needs of the elderly and disabled have already been taken into account in going out to the tenderers. It is at that moment, I am suggesting to the noble Lord, that the authority needs to look at the results of those tenders, without having it said again that the authority must have regard to the needs of elderly and disabled people.

Lord Ennals

I accept the logic of what the noble Lord said, but in that case why is it emphasised that there must be, the most economic and efficient application of the funds"? That seems to point in a certain direction. Is it necessary to point in that direction, if all the other considerations which have already been written into the Bill are specified?

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

Before this discussion comes to an end, perhaps I may say this. When you are in a local authority looking at the tenders you have to look at them in relation to everything that they have been asked to tender for. You have to look at all the other requirements. Although I appreciate that, as ever, the noble Lord is watching to try to make sure that the legislation does the very best it can for the elderly and disabled, I think that in judging a tender you would always look at the criteria against which people tender, because otherwise it is not fair to decide which is the right one to take. You must apply all the criteria that were set out when the tender papers were issued. I think the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will agree that that is always a condition of tendering.

I personally am not too worried about it at that stage. I accept that the other point the noble Lord is making about their being efficient is a different one; but I do not think that the elderly and disabled not being mentioned again could conceivably matter, because you always look at all the criteria.

Lord Ennals

I understand the logic of the argument presented by the noble Baroness. If there were to be written in a phrase which did not necessarily specify the elderly or the disabled but which added to this phrase "effective and economic application" and referred to all the other obligations at which an authority is obliged to look, the subsection would be clearer than it is at present. The emphasis is on efficiency and economic application. There is really something missing. It may be that my words are too specific, but perhaps the Minister could look at them in the context of all the other obligations. In the light of what has been said and with the assurance that the Minister will look at it again, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 249 not moved.]

Clause 83 agreed to.

[Amendment No. 249A not moved.]

Clauses 84 and 85 agreed to.

Clause 86 [General provisions with respect to the exercise of functions under sections 83 to 85]:

Lord Sandford moved Amendment No. 250:

Page 87, line 43, at end insert— (" (1A) Arrangements made in pursuance of a scheme to which section 87(4A) of this Act applies shall be deemed not to inhibit competition.")

The noble Lord said: I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady Vickers. At the same time I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 251 and 252, as probing amendments. Amendment No. 251: Page 88, line 1, leave out subsection (2) and insert— (" (2) Any authority responsible for expenditure on providing public transport may, in selecting a tender have regard to—

1. (a) the vehicle type to be used;
2. (b) the ease of access to and egress from the vehicle;
3. (c) the arrangements to have vehicles and drivers available at short notice to replace a vehicle which is delayed in operating its service, has failed or is damaged or to replace an incapacitated driver,
4. (d) the fare levels and structure to be used; and
5. (e) the minimum run and recovery times to be operated.")

Amendment No. 252: Clause 87, page 89, line 18, at end insert— (" (4A) Where the sole operator of a service on a section of road does not wish to participate in the scheme, the local authority may invite tenders for a subsidised service on condition that the tenderer does not enter the scheme.")

As your Lordships will see, these are fairly precisely worded amendments. Amendment No. 250 adds to subsection (1) of Clause 86; Amendment No. 251 substitutes another version of subsection (2) of Clause 86; Amendment No. 252 adds to subsection (4) of Clause 87—that is, Clause 87 as at present printed in the Bill and not the Clause 87 my noble friend Lord Belstead proposes to substitute.

I do not want to invite the Committee to look at those amendments in detail now with a view to moving them into the Bill, but I ask my noble friend once again to comment on their general thrust, which is to provide a wider scope for the local authorities to take a range of relevant factors into account when assessing the tenders rather than a narrow view concentrated exclusively on the tender price and not enough on the real value to the public of the services which that price is going to buy.

I hope that that brief explanation of the general idea behind these amendments is sufficient for my noble friend to give me, and in due course my noble friend Lady Vickers, an indication of how he regards this attempt at improving the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Belstead

I am a little worried that I shall not be replying very effectively to my noble friend. He is dealing with Amendments Nos. 250 and 252 together.

Lord Sandford

And Amendment No. 251.

Lord Belstead

That is right; but leaving aside Amendment No. 251 for the moment, Amendments Nos. 250 and 252 bring us to a pair of amendments which, with great respect to my noble friend, do not make sense. There is one negative too many in Amendment No. 252. I think that all I wish to say to my noble friend—and I hope he will not think that I am being discourteous in replying briefly—is that it is our intention in the Bill that local authorities should, if they wish, have the power to compel operators of registered local services to take part in concessionary fare schemes. This, for the first time, is where we put our toes into concessionary fare schemes, with Amendments Nos. 250 and 252, and I do not think that these two amendments get it quite right. We shall be coming back to this in a moment.

Amendment No. 251 is completely different. It falls within the scope of what my noble friend said to me a moment ago: that he wanted to know a little more about what the Government think of the setting out of criteria when the whole question of selecting a tender is being decided by the authority. Again, to reply reasonably briefly, I think that the best value for money is a reasonable objective. It is reasonable for the same reasons as I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. As regards elderly and disabled people we have, of course, written an explicit amendment into the Bill saying that their interests shall be taken into account when deciding on subsidised services.

Talking more generally in answer to my noble friend, it is for each authority to decide what it wishes to subsidise in order to fulfil its more general duties under Clauses 57 and 61. If an authority considers it wants to subsidise services with vehicles which are, for example, particularly easy for elderly or disabled people, it is free to do so.

I should like to stress to my noble friend that when inviting tenders, authorities should, as far as possible, make clear to operators the features that they would like to see in the services offered. On the other hand, authorities will wish to bear in mind the disadvantages of specifying services so tightly that operators have no scope to use their expertise to provide the most effective service and thus achieve the most effective and economic use of the subsidy. If they are to make the best use of the advantages of tendering, authorities will want to leave themselves free to judge the relative costs and benefits of, for example, different vehicle types where these are matters on which the authorities have not chosen a clear policy line.

I am trying to show to my noble friend that I know that tendering is a skilled and specialised business and for that very reason we have deliberately drafted provisions in the Bill which allow authorities considerable flexibility. We shall be consulting authorities with a view to issuing a non-statutory code of practice once the Bill has been approved by both Houses of Parliament. We hope, if possible, to rely on the good sense of authorities, together with the code of practice, but a regulation-making power has been included in Clause 86(2) should it prove necessary for the Government to lay down any tighter controls; although that is not our current intention.

The thrust of my reply to my noble friend is that we believe authorities should have as much flexibility as possible in order to carry the tendering process through in the way that they wish.

10.15 p.m.

Lord Sandford

I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. First, am I right in interpreting it to mean that the authorities are not barred by the terms of Clause 86 as at present drafted from taking into consideration the kind of things which are included in Amendment No. 251? Secondly, am I right in understanding him to say that a code of guidance which will give local authorities further indications of what they can and cannot do in this field is in course of preparation and that we shall be in a position to hear more about that from my noble friend when we come back to this clause at the Report stage?

Lord Belstead

Broadly speaking, my noble friend is absolutely right in both his questions. Looking at Amendment No. 251, I am not quite sure about paragraph (c) and I should like to think about that particular provision and perhaps have a word with my noble friend about it. Basically, however, provided that the paragraphs set out in Amendment No. 251 leave it open for all operators to be able to tender and do not exclude any particular operator, then the answer to my noble friend's first question is "yes" and the answer to his second question about the code of practice is also "yes".

Lord Sandford

I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. I apologise to him and to the Committee if Amendments Nos. 250 and 252 are not drafted so as to make much sense, but I think the debate has achieved what my noble friend would have wanted it to achieve, and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 250.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 251 not moved.]

Clause 86 agreed to.

Clause 87 [Travel concession schemes]:

Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 251ZA: Page 88, line 19, leave out from first ("on") to ("services") in line 20 and insert ("public passenger transport.")

The noble Baroness said: This is a very small amendment but we think it is a necessary one. At the present time many local authorities, in addition to having concessionary fares for the buses also offer concessionary fare schemes for the railways, and in many cases for the ferries, which are perhaps even more vital. We are not satisfied that the present wording of the Bill will still enable the authorities to ensure that they can obtain these concessionary fares for transport other than on buses. What we are trying to do is to safeguard the concessions that are already available to people in the area, and we hope that the Minister will either give us an assurance that this is covered in some part of the Bill although we have not been able to find it, or that he will have a look at it and ensure that the authorities will be legally able to extend their concessions, as they do at the moment, to the railways and to the ferries, where they deem it to be necessary.

Lord Ennals

I should like to give my full support to the amendment that has been moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. I think the section that we seek to remove, which is referring to relevant services, is really not adequate. I think it is outdated and unnecessary. I agree with the noble Baroness that we need something that quite clearly includes rail services. An area that I can easily think of—Derbyshire, for instance, and the village of Edale, which I know well—does not have a local bus service at all, but it has a local railway service. For the people of Edale concessionary fares on the railways are just as important.

The noble Baroness said that this issue may be dealt with in some other way. But the Under-Secretary of State, Mr. David Mitchell, in another place said: It is not the intention of the Government to extend the system of concessionary fares which applies to buses to the generality of British Rail services". The Minister may say that it will not be extended to the generality of services but to particular places where there are no bus services, and so that deals with rail. I think that it has to be written in somewhere.

If one lives on the Isle of Wight the ferry is important, and in many other parts of the country the ferry service is absolutely essential. Also, unless some change is made, whether in this form or another, Dial-a-Ride schemes for the disabled (which we have so often discussed in this House on various Bills), if such schemes happen to lie outside a metropolitan area or the Strathclyde region, would be excluded. Therefore we must have a much broader definition.

Obviously the Minister has had these points brought to his attention. The anomaly referred to by the noble Baroness and myself has been brought to his attention by the National Advisory Council for Community Transport, British Rail, Rural Voice and the local authority associations. I hope that he will accept the amendment in the way that we have set it out, but, if not, the point certainly has to be met somewhere in the Bill. Otherwise it will discriminate against and deprive a considerable number of our elderly, disabled and other categories of the concessions that go with bus services.

Lord Mottistone

I, too, support the amendment, but I have to declare an interest. At my great age I have a concessionary fare on the boats from the Isle of Wight to the mainland, and I should hate to see that withdrawn.

With the noble Baroness, I hope that my noble friend can reassure us, but the point that I wish to make is this. On the mainland if one wants to go from one county to another one can catch a bus which is covered by the legislation as it stands; but if one wants to go to an adjacent county from the Isle of Wight, or, I would suggest, from Orkney, which is similar and the distance is not all that much more, one has to go by ferry. If it is to be fair for the people in one county it must be fair for the people in another. Those of us on islands find that in this respect our ferries are like bus services.

I am not arguing for the railways because the position is the same for everybody, and perhaps the Government have a policy about railways. Of course it would be nice to have the concessions on the railways, but I wish to make the point about the importance of ferries in counties cut off from the mainland.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

I am delighted that this matter has attracted the support of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, even though it is only a special interest that has caught his attention.

I should like at this stage to say to the Minister that I do not intend to move the unnumbered and rather garbled amendments to his amendment. I apologise for the fact that they are both garbled and unnumbered. I think that I can make the points necessary before he comes to move his amendment to insert a new clause in place of the existing clause.

At the moment I think that local authority concessionary fares apply on any public passenger transport service, whereas they appear to be restricted both under the present Clause 87 and, I believe, under the new Clause 87 which the noble Lord intends to move. We have heard about ferries, and they are important to particular people; even tramcars may be important.

My main concern has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals; that is, that the clause as drafted and as proposed excludes Dial-a-Ride services for the disabled where they are set up under mini-bus permits. We have agreed under Clause 19 that permits should be available for Dial-a-Ride in respect of the use of buses by educational and other bodies, and it would be inconsistent if, having agreed that on Clause 19, it was now excluded under Clause 87. Thus, I think there is a very serious point which ought to be rectified, either in the terms of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, or by the Minister being good enough to bring in a corrective amendment on Report. One or the other will do, but I think enough has been said from all sides of the Committee to, I hope, convince the Minister that there is something here which clearly ought to be put right.

Lord Belstead

I hope I shall not appear to be ungracious when I say that your Lordships are asking, and the noble Baroness in moving the amendment is asking, for something which is not in the law at the present time. At the moment we have the situation where the passenger transport authorities have the power, covering all bus services and also commuter rail services, to give concessionary fares. In the metropolitan areas the PTAs have, and will continue to have, specific responsibilities for the provision of local commuter rail services under Section 20 of the 1968 Act. It is therefore necessary that they should have the power to provide concessions on those services, and the Bill gives them that.

This Bill then took a step forward in another place in that my right honourable friends and honourable friends there thought it right that the Scottish island authorities should have the power to provide concessions on internal ferry and air services for precisely the reasons which my noble friend Lord Mottistone put forward and so they are included in the definition of "public passenger transport services" and therefore able to attract concessionary fares.

But the non-metropolitan authorities do not have the kind of direct responsibility for rail services that the PTAs have. The Government believe therefore that we ought to maintain the position as it stands under Section 20 of the 1968 Act, under which the metropolitan county councils have powers to fund concessions on rail services in their areas. But there is no corresponding power outside those areas.

It is for that reason that I do not agree with the main thrust of the amendment which the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has put forward, even though it has been put forward in a persuasive way and I shall not deny that the noble Baroness has something of a case—but only something of a case, for the reasons that I have given.

I must confess to the Committee that I had not really considered the question of mini-buses, the Dial-a-Ride point which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, have raised. I should like to think about that. Although the noble Lords feel that there is a difficulty here, it occurs to me that the actual fare structure of special mini-bus services for elderly or disabled people, run under permits, means that one does not have to give concessionary fares in the way that is envisaged under the Bill. The noble Lord may tell me that he does not agreee with that. If the noble Lord will allow me to do so, I should like to think about it, but I am afraid that at the moment I am not in the position to accept the point.

Lord Mottistone

My noble friend said that in another place our right honourable friend gave special concessions for the Scottish islands. Will my noble friend agree to consider that, in all fairness, the same kind of approach should be given to the English islands?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I have been over this ground already. The difficulty here is that the shire authorities do not have the specific powers to provide concessions under the 1968 Act. Maybe I missed what the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, was saying, but I did not hear her saying that what she had in mind, which is what I assume she had in mind, is that we would be talking about the use of the twopenny rate power in providing concessions on rail services within the area of a shire authority. If that is what the noble Baroness had in mind, that is what my noble friend Lord Mottistone would have to have in mind in talking about giving concessions from shire authorities for ferry services which are not actually run by the shire authority itself. It is a different matter when you are talking about the PTA or, indeed, the authorities in Scotland, where they are responsible.

10.30 p.m.

Baroness Stedman

The noble Lord has me quite worried as to whether my authority will end up in jail or something. My district authority in a shire county allows people to get a British Rail senior citizens' ticket from the town hall at a reduced rate. It had done so for some time, I gather, although I have not yet availed myself of the facility. The ratepayers, presumably under the twopenny rate, make up the difference to the railway and buy the tickets from it. Presumably, this is acting illegally, judging from what the noble Lord has said.

On the other hand, if the metropolitan areas are allowed to make these kinds of arrangements for commuters, we consider ourselves now as a commuter area for London. We have many London people, old and young, living in the new town of Peterborough. The city council, rightly or wrongly, took the view that it would help those people to keep in touch with their friends in London if they could have concessionary fares at a reduced rate. I am sorry if I am letting the cat out of the bag. I may be getting my authority into trouble. But it seems to me that it is quite a sensible attitude to make it possible for those who have moved from a nearby conurbation to be able to get back again.

Lord Belstead

With all friendliness to the noble Baroness, when she talks about British Rail services to Peterborough, the noble Baroness is stretching the principle of this amendment like a piece of elastic.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

If any part of the noble Lord's resistance to the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, concerning ferries to the Isle of Wight, is that an amendment might be hybrid, may I beg him on behalf of the noble Baroness to consider ferries to the Isle of Ely and for myself ferries to the Isle of Dogs?

Lord Ennals

Before the Minister responds to that dramatic intervention, an amendment that might have originally been called the Stedman amendment is now clearly the Mottistone amendment. Your Lordships have to ensure that the noble Lord is able to come to the House. Otherwise, he is isolated on his island. I was delighted that the Minister said he would look at the matter, including Dial-a-Ride and ferries, a little more widely than in relation to the Scottish islands.

When the Minister said that it was not good enough because these powers did not exist at the present time, it was one of the poorest arguments that could be used. Everything else that he has said has been very good. If, in 1985—the last Act that touched upon this was that of 1968—we cannot begin to look at one or two advantages, for elderly and disabled people in many cases, then we really are in a bad state, are we not? I am not asking the Minister to agree that we are in a bad state. But the argument that we must not do the right thing because we have not done the right thing before is one that does not stand up very well.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

I wish to support what the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has said, but I also wish to thank the Minister for taking on board the special position of Dial-a-Ride in relation to mini-bus permits. I am grateful to him for that. I wish, too, to support the point, dramatically made by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that it is odd that schemes for concessionary fares should be available in one part of the country but not in another. Whatever the law is at the moment, could it not, please, be put right?

Baroness Stedman

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and for the fact that he is going to look at Dial-a-Ride and things like that. Perhaps at this stage the less I say about other concessionary fares the better. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 251ZB not moved.]

Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 251A: Page 89, line 15, after ("shall") insert ("subject to subsection (4B) below").

The noble Baroness said: I began as one of the sponsors of this amendment, but I seem to have missed the bus en route to the various reprintings of the Marshalled List. However, I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 251B. Amendment No. 251B: Page 89, line 18, at end insert— (" (4B) Subsection (4) above does not apply to where an operator of a registered local service is unable to satisfy the authorities responsible for administration of the scheme that he will only use in operating the service vehicles which by virtue of their design, construction and fittings are suitable for the carriage of persons to whom the travel concession scheme applies.")

Amendments Nos. 251A and 251B seek to limit the automatic right of the operators of the registered services participating in concessionary fare schemes to those operators who are able to satisfy the authorities which have to administer the scheme that they will always use vehicles which are suitable for the carriage of the holders of concessionary fare passes. Most of the concessionary fare schemes which are operated today concentrate on providing a cheaper or a free form of travel for pensioners. Many authorities have also extended those schemes to other people with various mobility problems.

These amendments will not alter, limit or extend either the scope of those schemes which already exist or the categories of persons who are at present eligible for benefit. However, the Bill as it now stands means that new operators would be able to claim income from concessionary fare schemes without any obligation to provide vehicles which the holders of those passes could use with reasonable facility.

The concessionary fares have not only been very attractive politically while they have been in being, but they have also been very much appreciated by a substantial section of the public who are totally or mainly dependent upon public transport. Some 18 per cent. of our population qualify on age grounds alone, and that 18 per cent. comprise some 10 million people. There are another 6.5 million people who have some form of mobility handicap and of those it is estimated that something over 4 million could still use public transport if it were available. Therefore, that means that there is a real customer market, an assured customer market, of around 14 million people as against the rest of the population who tend to make increasing use of private transport rather than public transport.

However, it is no use having concessionary passes if the vehicles, and particularly the older vehicles, are not usable by the intended pass holders. What we are trying to ensure by these two amendments is that the income from those schemes cannot be claimed unless the vehicles are such that the intended beneficiaries from the scheme are able to use them. In other words, public expenditure should not be misdirected on concessionary schemes which the public are then not able to use. All the schemes at present operated are some charge on the rates paid for, of course, by the intended beneficiaries and other ratepayers alike. Indeed, until one becomes eligible for a concessionary fare, one will have contributed towards providing that facility for others in the past.

Many of the schemes also require that the passholders shall pay something for their pass, in the same way as we pay £3.50 for our British Rail pass in Peterborough. If, as the Bill stands, vehicles can be in operation which beneficiaries cannot use with reasonable facility, then their own payments towards the scheme will have been made futile.

There is another aspect to this problem. If the passholders are excluded in these circumstances from normal bus services, then the alternative would be that other forms of transport, such as that provided for the more severely handicapped, would have to be provided. That would mean an increased cost on public use or, alternatively, possibly a reduced availability of transport for the much more severely handicapped people. The less mobile that people are, if they mainly depend on public transport, the greater will be the cost in terms of social and other services if we do not provide it.

I hope that the noble Lord and his colleagues will see the sense of ensuring the correct matching of the concessionary fare schemes with the vehicles used by operators who claim income from those concessionary fare schemes, because anything less will not be cost-effective. Therefore, I hope that our amendments will find acceptance in the eyes of the Government. I beg to move.

Viscount Ingleby

I should like to support the amendment which has been so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. Without the amendment, public money designed to facilitate travel for the elderly and disabled would be going to operators who might frustrate the whole purpose of this service by using vehicles which many elderly or disabled people could not use. This surely must be wrong, and doubly wrong if those elderly and disabled have themselves contributed and provided money through the rates for services which they themselves cannot use.

Baroness Elliot of Harwood

I should like to support this amendment. It is important. What the noble Baroness has said about the numbers of people who could claim this is remarkable. I have a note here which says that 18 per cent. of the population are of an age to qualify for concessionary fare schemes; but according to the noble Baroness it is a far greater number than that.

It is something which everybody would want to support. All of us who are fortunate enough not to have to claim for disabilities are only too happy to be able to contribute to any scheme which helps with the disabilities of the less fortunate. It is something which the Government should take on as an asset to the Bill, and an asset to the community. It would be enormously helpful. I cannot see that it can in any way interfere with anything in connection with this Bill. I hope that the Government will see this as something which they must put into the Bill, and which will have the support of everybody.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

Of course this is important; of course where there are concessionary schemes one wants everybody who qualifies to be able to get on the bus. However, realism has to come into it. If there are really 10 million people who are going to qualify for this I cannot believe that it is going to be possible in rural areas—probably elsewhere too, but certainly in rural areas—to persuade enough bus operators to produce the kind of facilities that they would have to if this amendment were accepted.

Concessionary fares are not a dripping roast for bus companies in rural areas. In areas like the Borders of Scotland where my noble friend Lady Elliot lives, and in Tayside where I live, it is very difficult indeed to get a bus at all to operate on routes, with or without concessionary fares. Although the argument is that using the ratepayers' and taxpayers' money to supply the concessionary fare means you can require things of the bus operators, I do not think it is sufficiently persuasive.

It is difficult to get buses to cover school transport services, which are an even more certain job for them. One would have to be careful about putting it like this, because one would find that most of the elderly people would not have a bus at all on which to have their concessionary fares because nobody would be prepared to run it. This is urban thinking from the point of view of the operators. I do not know what way there is to try to make as sure as possible that where concessionary fares operate the people with the disabilities in that area can use the bus.

A person in a wheelchair needs the bus that can take the wheelchair. A blind person needs the right facilities. But most of the 10 million people are able to get on an ordinary bus, as we said before when we were discussing the question of the disabled. This amendment would rule out most buses where concessionary fares operate, and that would be most rural areas in Scotland. It would be very difficult to get buses to do it. I do not think that it is completely realistic in the non-urban scene.

10.45 p.m.

Baroness Stedman

The noble Baroness referred to buses which one can get wheelchairs on. I perhaps did not make myself plain. I meant them for the people who were sufficiently mobile, even with their handicap, to be able to get on to a normal bus if the steps up to it were low enough for them to be able to get on to the first step and if there was a handrail to help them on. That is the sort of help that we should insist on so that more elderly and infirm people can be assisted. It is the infirm rather than the severely handicapped who are likely to be able to use the buses if they have the kind of fixtures that will give some help in getting on and off.

We have to accept, with all the goodwill in the world, that we cannot expect special buses on every route—the kneeling buses, those with ramps or lifts that can take wheelchairs. We have to accept as a community that those are the things that have to be provided through the social services for the more severely handicapped. But there are thousands and millions of people in this country, elderly people who are infirm, who could use a bus if they were able to get on to the bus, if they had a handrail at the side and the bottom step was low enough for them to get on to. People with heavy shopping need that sort of help to get on the bus and people with young children.

It is important that we see that the buses used are not just any old crocks that might be put on to the market because this is a chance to get a business started. If someone starts a business he must use the kinds of coaches and buses that the ordinary infirm and slightly handicapped people are able to use. Otherwise we have this chicken and egg situation that we have had all the time with the bus operators saying that there is no demand for a route there and people not able to use the buses because they cannot get on to them, because they are elderly or because they have some minor physical handicap. If we can only marry the two together it would be a much more lucrative proposition for the bus people to be able to run buses that are really being used by the people and it would allow many people to be able to get out to see their relatives or do a bit of shopping for themselves and that kind of thing. I think we have to try to match the two together.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

I should like to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and endorse what she said to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, that it is the less agile of the public of whom we are thinking, and not the severely disabled. Those very steep steps on most buses are very difficult to negotiate for a large section of the public which is less agile. Some of the handgrips are not well placed. It is small things like that with which we are concerned.

We have heard the argument of the noble Baroness before in different guises and it boils down to the fact that if a provision of this kind were made, one would find it difficult to argue with the local people in the more sparsely populated districts in the country. When they ask, "Where are our buses?" we shall have to say, "You cannot have any buses because such impossible conditions have been imposed on the operators".

That is the gist of the argument which the noble Baroness has produced before and has dished up again today in a different guise. I have some sympathy with this. I think the noble Baroness has a point. Perhaps this kind of condition should be imposed on the larger operators and there should be exemption for smaller operators. I do not see that this de minimis argument of the noble Baroness should deny the greater part of the country who do not live in the sparser populated districts the kind of benefits which we are hoping that this Bill will provide.

I do not think that this amendment is necessary, apart from the general public frustration that will arise if these provisions are made and, having obtained a concessionary ticket, they find they cannot get on to the bus. That is not very good for public relations, but it is not just that. It may be that under the Bill as drafted schemes may be made and payments claimed by operators whereas the vehicles are such that the intended beneficiaries cannot use them. That is a highly undesirable situation which may come about unless some change is made on the lines that this amendment proposes. That very undesirable practice may occur and the public may feel, quite rationally, defrauded. But, having said that, I recognise that the noble Baroness has a point and I think there is a case for making an exemption from such conditions for smaller operators.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

Perhaps I may follow what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has said with this argument which, he says, I keep bringing up in different guises—and I am sorry he sees it in that way. I do not see why people in rural areas should be totally deprived of buses with concessionary schemes because of a blanket amendment for the sake of urban areas. There will be buses running on which you cannot have concessionary fares because they will not be able to do it if this amendment is accepted. That is why I talk about the rural areas. Blanket legislation which suits one part will not suit another. I think it is an important argument. There must be an answer, as I have said, and it should be looked for because it is very important. I do not think a blanket amendment is the way to do it.

Lord Shepherd

It may be a question of drafting. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, was saying that if this amendment were passed many of the rural services would not pass muster and would not—I was about to say "have the benefit of concessionary fares", but in truth there is no profit to an operator in running a concessionary fare scheme. The amendment uses the words suitable for the carriage of persons to whom the travel concession scheme applies". My noble friend Lady Stedman (if I may call her my noble friend although she sits on Benches other than those of my party) made it very clear that what she was not seeking was that vehicles should be so designed that they could carry those who are in wheelchairs.

The disabled and the aged represent a very broad spectrum of disability. At an earlier stage of our considerations I referred to what has already been done, certainly within my old company, at very little cost—handrails, for example, so that when you came into the coach you had something that you could put your hand on. They could be either vertical or horizontal; or even handrails on the seats. You can do a great deal for those who have disabilities without a great deal of cost. Therefore, this amendment is not one (I would think) that would create major difficulties for an operator other than an operator who has taken his vehicles straight out of the auction, so to speak, and put them into service.

I have one anxiety—again, it is in the drafting—and that is the phrase which says, that he will only use in operating the service vehicles which by virtue of their design", and so on. It may not be necessary to meet what I think is the major thrust of what the noble Baroness has in mind here; that is, that if there is a half-hourly service all the vehicles used are equipped in this way. As I say, the cost is relatively small, and the truth is that most stage-carriage vehicles, certainly within the public sector, are designed and equipped in a way which makes it possible for people who have disabilities to be able to move and to find seats, although in some particlar cases you can do more.

I personally do not see any difficulty in regard to this amendment, if we take it as being what the noble Baroness has in mind. She is not asking an operator to climb Mount Everest. What she is really asking (is she not?) is that if one has concessionary fares, which is very much something for the aged—an increasing part of our population, and with age we have our different disabilities—there should be some effort made by an operator to provide these services.

I would suggest that if the Government would be willing to concede that there is a point here—I am not saying that they should accept the words as now drafted—and if they would be willing to accept that there is a spirit, a purpose and an intention behind this amendment and are willing to come back at Report stage, then we have done a good evening's work.

I would only say again that the cost of doing these things is not all that high. It is a cost—I repeat, it is a cost. It is what an operator thinks he ought to do. I suspect that in a competitive scene one will need to have some legislation to require certain minimum standards, because in a competitive scene competition tends to depress the quality—not always: but I suspect that in this particular case it will.

I therefore suggest to the Government that they should accept the spirit of this amendment; and in that case those who have moved it could withdraw it. I would say again: the cost is not all that great. What we need is to ensure that all the various operators will at least be seeking a common standard.

Lord Teviot

First may I say that I welcome talking to an amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. The last time one spoke to her on transport, one was sitting three Benches behind her and she was sitting on the Front Bench. That was a few years ago now. However, although I do not want to introduce a dissenting note on this amendment, I feel that at this time of night we are apt to become the faintest bit too cosy. One must remember that here we are really talking about disabled people travelling on buses. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Carnegy will not mind if I slightly chide her, because she has been telling us that it is hard enough to get buses in the country now, and she has been telling us before, on all sorts of other amendments, that with deregulation and the lid off the pot, people will find competition of all kinds coming along.

I am sorry, but I have to say something that I hope your Lordships will not find distasteful, but we have to realise the fact of relevance here. One hears the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, saying that the cost is not too high, but I can remember the situation concerning buses when I was a conductor. I have never driven a "one-person operation", which I believe is the expression: but it is very important to have handrails. When I was a conductor on a bus, it was a Bristol low-decker and one stood on the platform. Also, that was in an area where there were a lot of aged people, in New Church Road, Hove. There were rather a lot of elderly ladies and one always greeted them with a smile. Luckily, in those days they wore a garment called "stays", and one pressed the bottom, turned them round and rang the bell at the same time, so that one achieved one's destination in the correct time. Seriously, we have to look at this amendment in the context of the whole Bill. The Government must look at it in that light.

11 p.m.

Lord Ennals

I only want to say, in positively one sentence, since it has been so much better said by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and by my noble friend Lord Shepherd, that I want to associate myself totally with this amendment. I hope that the Minister will agree to take it away and think about the principle, even though he may come back with this, either in a different form of words, or in a different place in the Bill.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

May I also add 60 seconds in support of this amendment. I hope that the Minister will look encouragingly on the spirit of the amendment, even if he cannot accept it as it is.

As many noble Lords have now stressed, it is the less agile for whom we want to cater, not the almost totally immobile. It is cheap, small adaptations about which we are talking. I think that it is worth stressing, therefore, what the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said at the end of her speech in moving the amendment: that if these less agile intended beneficiaries cannot use the schemes operated by the normal bus services then they will be forced on to the forms of special transport; and then the more severely disabled who really need that sort of transport will be deprived of it.

Lord Belstead

I think that the problem with this pair of amendments is one which we have debated before—that is, that the kind of standard which authorities should be expected to adopt under the amendments is left open and given no criteria.

The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, reminded us in this debate of a very wide range of modifications which can be made to buses in order to make them more convenient for people who have difficulty in moving into and out of vehicles; and while some of these modifications are certainly fairly modest in cost, others would be expensive and are only feasible on new vehicles. But, I repeat, the difficulty here is that these amendments would in effect give authorities the power to require modifications up to any standards within this range before admitting an operator to their concessionary scheme. We are, therefore, on to a difficulty here. Although I think that the Government have done their best to respond to a great deal of what has been said so far as elderly and disabled people are concerned, there has been one point of difficulty between the Government and those of your Lordships who have been speaking on this subject generally—that is, that we, on the Government side, have made it clear that we are worried about putting the direct responsibility—particularly an undefined responsibility—on to the operator himself. The reason is that given by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour; namely, that there will be the danger that one will drive operators out of the market who would otherwise be carrying passengers.

May I just put the point to your Lordships that of course operators will not get concessionary patronage if they cannot carry concessionary passengers. If it is the case—as indeed I believe absolutely that it is the case put by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman—that a very large percentage of the travelling population are either elderly or disabled people, then it must be in the interests of operators to make adaptations, particularly minor adaptations, in order to see that people travel by their vehicles.

May I make absolutely clear the point that operators will not get payment for journeys on which they do not carry concessionary fare passengers because they are using vehicles on which the concessionary fare passengers do not choose to travel, or indeed cannot get access. Your Lordships may say to me, "All right, what do the Government intend to do if this amendment is not acceptable?" My answer to that is that we believed earlier on that we were making a step forward by saying that we were producing a code of practice which was addressed precisely to this point; namely, the conversion of older vehicles in order to make them suitable to the travelling public who find it less easy to get on and off. We hoped that in that way we were being helpful.

I must confess that we also hoped that we were being equitable in putting into the Bill that all operators of registered local services should have the right to participate in a concessionary fares scheme, matched by the right of local authorities, if they wished, to require participation. That is a principle which I think it would be very dangerous to depart from, because it is through that principle that we are trying to make a success of concessionary fares under the Bill.

I am very ready, as I said earlier on this evening, to look at this amendment—of course I will. But I do not want to mislead the Committee. There is a very real difficulty, as we see it, in concessionary fares, which are what we are discussing now, as there has been in simply providing the right facilities, in putting the responsibility, particularly if it is an undefined responsibility, slap on to the shoulders of the operators themselves.

We tried to go at this by another route earlier on, by putting the responsibility on to the local authorities, and making sure through that method that local authorities—and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and I discussed this at some length earlier—can make quite detailed stipulations so far as their subsidised services are concerned, and by making sure that local authorities are able to take into account the needs of people who find it difficult to travel, particularly the elderly and disabled, in generally promoting the convenience of the travelling public and securing services in their area. That is what we tried to do earlier on.

In this case, I have said that we will be trying to achieve the same objective through a code of practice. Your Lordships may say that it is not quite the same thing. I agree that it is not, but this is where one has finally to look at where the balance of advantage lies. I beg your Lordships in deciding on that just to heed what my noble friend Lady Carnegy said. If you put the responsibility on the shoulders of the operator, you may find at the end of the day that you will have fewer buses for everyone.

Lord Ennals

May I ask one question of the Minister? He has very kindly said that he will be willing to look at this amendment again. Of course, he gave some warnings to those who moved it that he could not commit himself. Sometimes it happens in your Lordships' debates that between Committee stage and Report stage not only does the Minister do some thinking, but a little collective thinking can be done. I wondered whether the Minister would agree that some of those who have obviously thought a lot about this subject, as well as feeling strongly about it, could have an opportunity to discuss with the Minister to see whether we can find a basis for something that will satisfy us all.

Lord Belstead

Yes, certainly.

Baroness Stedman

I am most grateful to the Minister. I understand the difficulties that he is in. Having stood in his place and been chivvied by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, some years ago, I know exactly the problems that he is facing in trying to please everyone and do what he thinks is right. I am happy that he is taking the amendment back to have a look at it.

But may I ask whether, when the draft code of practice is ready, it will be possible for us to see a copy of it and to see exactly how the Government propose in this draft code to recommend to authorities or to operators the type of buses that they ought to be using? Will there be any mention of that in it? It would be helpful if at some stage we could see the draft code, and I shall certainly be very happy, with the other Members who have their names to this amendment, to talk to the Minister between now and the next stage.

Lord Belstead

Perhaps that is a point that we can discuss when we talk about this matter. The discussion that we have may be quite soon.

Baroness Stedman

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 251B and 252 not moved.]

Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 252ZA:

Leave out Clause 87 and insert the following new clause—

("Travel concession schemes

87.—(1) Any local authority, or any two or more local authorities acting jointly, may establish a travel concession scheme for the provision of travel concessions on journeys on relevant services—

1. (a) between places in the principal area covered by the scheme;
2. (b) between such places and places outside but in the vicinity of that area; or
3. (c) between places outside but in the vicinity of that area; by operators of such services participating in the scheme.

(2) For the purposes of this section, the principal area covered by a scheme under this section is—

1. (a) the area of the local authority concerned or, where two or more such authorities are concerned, the area comprising the areas of both or all those authorities; or
2. (b) if an area comprised within the area which would be the principal area under paragraph (a) above is specified in the scheme as being the principal area to which the scheme applies, the area so specified.

(3) In this section "relevant services" means, in relation to any scheme under this section—

1. (a) where the principal area covered by the scheme is or includes a passenger transport area or any part of a passenger transport area, or in Scotland the area of an islands council, any public passenger transport services; and
2. (b) in any other case—
1. (i) any local services registered under section 6 of this Act;
2. (ii) any other services for the carriage of passengers by road at separate fares which require a PSV operator's licence; and
3. (iii) any services provided by means of tramcars (within the meaning of the 1981 Act).

For the purposes of paragraph (b)(ii) above, a service for the carriage of passengers by road at separate fares is a service which requires a PSV operator's licence if vehicles used in providing the service are used in such circumstances that a PSV operator's licence is required in respect of that use.

(4) Any travel concession scheme established under this section shall define—

1. (a) the travel concessions which are for the time being to be provided by operators participating in the scheme;
2. (b) the description of persons eligible in accordance with subsection (8) below to receive travel concessions under any such scheme who are for the time being to qualify for travel concessions provided under the scheme; and
3. (c) the dates in any year currently adopted as the dates on which operators may be admitted to participate in the scheme under section(Rights of eligible service operators to participate in travel concession schemes) of this Act (referred to below in this section as the standard admission dates);

and may include particulars of any other arrangements for the time being adopted by the authority or authorities concerned in establishing the scheme with respect to the operation, scope and application of the scheme.

(5) Any such scheme may define the standard admission dates by specifying particular dates, or by referring to dates of any specified description or separated by intervals of any specified length; but those dates, however determined, must not be separated by intervals of a length exceeding such period as may be prescribed.

(6) Arrangements adopted by the authority or authorities concerned in establishing any such scheme with respect to the operation, scope and application of the scheme (including the matters specifically mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) to subsection (4) above) may differ for different descriptions of concessions or relevant services to which the scheme applies.

(7) Subject to section 88 of this Act, where an operator participating in any such scheme in respect of any services operated by him provides travel concessions in accordance with the scheme for persons travelling on those services, the authority responsible for administration of the scheme or (as the case may be) the authorities so responsible in such proportions respectively as they may agree among themselves shall reimburse that operator for providing those concessions.

(8) The persons eligible to receive travel concessions under any such scheme are—

1. (a) men over the age of sixty-five years and women over the age of sixty years;
2. (b) persons whose age does not exceed sixteen years;
3. (c) persons whose age exceeds sixteen years but does not exceed eighteen years and who are undergoing full-time education;
4. (d) blind persons, that is to say, persons so blind as to be unable to perform any work for which sight is essential; and
5. (e) persons suffering from any disability or injury which, in the opinion of the authority or any of the authorities responsible for administration of the scheme, seriously impairs their ability to walk.

(9) In this section "local authority" means the council of a county or district in England and Wales or a regional or islands council in Scotland (and accordingly includes the county or regional council which is the Passenger Transport Authority for any passenger transport area).

(10) Unless the context otherwise requires, references in this section and in the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to schemes under this section to the authority or authorities responsible for administration of a scheme under this section are references to the authority concerned in establishing the scheme or, where two or more authorities are so concerned, to both or all those authorities acting jointly, except where the authority or one of the authorities so concerned are a Passenger Transport Authority in England and Wales, in which case those references are references to the Passenger Transport Executive for that Authority's area or (as the case may require) to that Executive and the other authority or authorities so concerned acting jointly.

(11) Where a Passenger Transport Authority have established a scheme under this section, whether alone or jointly with any other authority or authorities, they shall notify the Passenger Transport Executive for their area of any proposal to vary the scheme, giving particulars of the proposed variations.")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 252ZA and, with your Lordships' permission, will speak to Amendments Nos. 252AA, 252AB, 252AC, 252D, 253A, 253B, 253C, 253D and 253E.

Amendment No. 252AA: Leave out Clause 88 and insert the following new clause:—

("Reimbursement for travel concessions under schemes

88.—(1) Regulations under this section may make provisions with respect to any of the following matters—

1. (a) the factors to be taken into account by the authority or authorities responsible for administration of a travel concession scheme under section 87 of this Act in determining the aggregate amount that may be made available for the purpose of reimbursing operators participating in the scheme for providing travel concessions during any period;
2. (b) the determination by the authority or authorities so responsible of the amounts to be paid to individual operators participating in the scheme, or to any class of such operators, by way of reimbursement for providing such concessions;
3. (c) the manner of making any payments due to operators by way of such reimbursement; and
4. (d) the provisions or description of provisions that are to be or (as the case may be) may or may not be included in arrangements agreed with operators or adopted by the authority or authorities so responsible with respect to participation of operators in the scheme.

(2) Subject to any provision of regulations made by virtue of subsection (1)(d) above and to the following provisions of this section, the arrangements with respect to participation of operators in any such scheme shall be such as may be agreed between the authority or authorities responsible for administration of the scheme and individual operators on their admission to participation in the scheme.

(3) Subject to—

1. (a) any provision of regulations under subsection (1) above;
2. (b) any modifications that may by virtue of any provision of regulations made by virtue of paragraph (d) of that subsection or in accordance with section (Right of eligible service operators to participate in travel concession schemes) of this Act be agreed between the authority or authorities responsible for administration of any such scheme and any individual operator; and
3. (c) any modifications applied in the case of any individual operator by a direction given under section 90 of this Act;

the arrangements with respect to reimbursement and terms of withdrawal from participation in the scheme applicable to operators of eligible services participating in the scheme shall be such as the authority or authorities responsible for administration may from time to time adopt and must be the same in the case of all such operators.

(4) For the purposes of the provisions of this part of this Act relating to schemes under section 87 of this Act, a service is an eligible service if it is a service qualifying for fuel duty grant.

(5) The arrangements currently adopted by the authority or authorities responsible for administration of any such scheme with respect to reimbursement of operators of eligible services participating in the scheme are referred to below in this Part of this Act, in relation to that scheme, as the current reimbursement arrangements for eligible service operators participating in the scheme.

(6) In relation to operators in any such scheme, references in this section to arrangements with respect to reimbursement are references to conditions of entitlement of such operators to, and the method of determination and manner of payment of, reimbursement in respect of travel concessions provided under the scheme.")

Amendment No. 252AB: After Clause 88, insert the following new clause:

("Publicity requirements for schemes and reimbursement arrangements.

.—(1) On or before the date on which a scheme under section 87 of this Act comes into operation or, where it comes into operation on different dates with respect to different concessions to be provided under the scheme, on or before the first of those dates—

1. (a) the authority or authorities concerned in establishing it shall publish particulars of the scheme; and
2. (b) the authority or authorities responsible for administration of the scheme shall publish particulars of the current reimbursement arrangements for eligible service operators participating in the scheme as they are to apply on initial establishment of the scheme;

in such manner, in either case, as the authority or authorities concerned think fit.

(2) Particulars of any subsequent variations shall be published—

1. (a) in the case of variations of the scheme, by the authority or authorities concerned in establishing the scheme; and
2. (b) in the case of variations of the arrangements, by the authority or authorities responsible for administration of the scheme.

(3) Following publication under subsection (l)(a) or (as the case may be) under subsection (1)(b) above of particulars of any scheme or arrangements—

1. (a) copies of the scheme or (as the case may be) of the arrangements (with any subsequent variations) shall be made available at the principal office of the authority or (as the case may be) of each authority concerned; and
2. (b) a copy shall be supplied to any person on request (whether at that office or by post) either free of charge or at a charge representing the cost of providing the copy.

(4) Where the authority or any of the authorities concerned in establishing a scheme under section 87 of this Act are a Passenger Transport Authority, they shall notify the Passenger Transport Executive for their area of any proposal to publish particulars of the scheme in advance of its coming into operation, giving the proposed date of publication.")

Amendment No. 252AC: After Clause 88, insert the following new clause—

("Right of eligible service operators to participate in travel concession scheme.

.—(l) Subject to the following provisions of this section, where any operator or prospective operator of an eligible service which is a relevant service for the purposes of any scheme under section 87 of this Act applies to the authority or authorities responsible for administration of that scheme to be admitted to participate in it in respect of that service, the authority or authorities in question shall be obliged to admit that operator to participation in the scheme in respect of that service as from any standard admission date under the scheme not later than the one next following—

1. (a) the end of such period as may be prescribed beginning with the date of his application; or
2. (b) the date on which the service begins;

whichever last occurs.

(2) The Secretary of State may, on the application of the authority or authorities responsible for administration of any such scheme, exempt the authority or authorities in question from the obligation under subsection (1) above in relation to any service or description of services; and the Secretary of State may at any time withdraw or vary any exemption granted under this subsection.

(3) An exemption may not be granted under subsection (2) above on the application of a Passenger Transport Executive, or on the joint application of authorities who include such an Executive, unless the application is made with the consent of the Passenger Transport Authority for that Executive's area.

(4) Subject to any regulations under section 88(1)(d) of this Act, where it appears to the authority or authorities responsible for administration of any such scheme, in the case of any operator or prospective operator of an eligible service who applies to be admitted to participate in the scheme in respect of that service, that fares currently charged or proposed to be charged by that operator for relevant journeys on that service include a special amenity element, the authority or authorities in question shall not be required by subsection (1) above to admit that operator to participation in the scheme in respect of that service unless that operator agrees to appropriate modifications of the current reimbursement arrangements for eligible service operators participating in the scheme.

(5) Subject to any such regulations, where it appears to the authority or authorities responsible for administration of any such scheme, in the case of any operator of an eligible service participating in the scheme, that fares currently charged by that operator for relevant journeys on that service include a special amenity element, the authority or authorities in question may by notice of not less than such period as may be prescribed exclude that operator from participation in the scheme in respect of that service unless before the end of that period that operator agrees to appropriate modifications of the current reimbursement arrangements for eligible service operators participating in the scheme.

(6) For the purposes of subsections (4) and (5) above, fares for relevant journeys are to be regarded as including a special amenity element if they are significantly high in relation to the general level of fares for comparable journeys in the principal area covered by the scheme (within the meaning of section 87 of this Act).

(7) References in those subsections to appropriate modifications of the reimbursement arrangements there mentioned are references to such modifications of those arrangements as the authority or authorities concerned consider appropriate for providing reimbursement in respect of travel concessions provided for relevant journeys on the service in question by reference to the general level of fares mentioned in subsection (6) above instead of by reference to the actual fares charged (or proposed to be charged) for those journeys.

(8) For the purposes of this section "relevant journeys" are journeys on which travel concessions are to be provided under the scheme in question.

(9) For the purposes of this section and section 89 of this Act, references to a prospective operator of an eligible service are references to a person who has registered a local service under section 6 of this Act but is not yet operating that service.")

Amendment No. 252D: Leave out Clause 89 and insert the following new clause:—

Compulsory participation in travel concession schemes.

(" 89.—(1) Subject to subsection (8) below, where the arrangements currently adopted by the authority or authorities responsible for administration of a scheme under section 87 of this Act with respect to the terms on which operators of eligible services may withdraw from participation in the scheme require such an operator to give notice before withdrawing from the scheme in respect of any such service, any such operator shall be obliged to provide any travel concessions required by the scheme on journeys on any such service in respect of which he is participating in the scheme until he gives the required notice of withdrawal and the period of notice has expired.

(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the authority or authorities responsible for administration of any such scheme may at any time by notice in writing served on any operator or prospective operator of an eligible service (including an operator already participating in the scheme) impose on him an obligation to provide travel concessions in accordance with the scheme on journeys on any such service operated by that operator to which the notice applies.

A notice under this subsection is referred to below in this Part of this Act as a participation notice.

(3) The power under subsection (2) above to serve a participation notice shall not be exercisable in relation to any such scheme until after the date (or whichever last occurs of the respective dates) of first publication under section (Publicity requirements for schemes and reimbursement arrangements) of this Act of particulars of the scheme and of the current reimbursement arrangements for eligible service operators participating in the scheme as they are to apply on initial establishment of the scheme.

(4) An obligation imposed by a participation notice shall, subject to subsection (8) below and sections 90 and (Release from compulsory participation) of this Act, be effective in relation to any service to which the obligation applies as from the appropriate commencement date for that service until the end of such period beginning with that date as may be specified in the participation notice.

(5) Subject to subsection (9) below, for the purpose of subsection (4) above the appropriate commencement date for any service to which an obligation imposed by a participation notice applies is—

1. (a) the date immediately following the end of such period of notice as may be specified in the participation notice; or
2. (b) the date when the service begins;

whichever last occurs.

(6) Where it is proposed—

1. (a) to vary a scheme under section 87 of this Act; or
2. (b) to vary the current arrangements for reimbursement of eligible service operators participating in any such scheme;

the authority or authorities responsible for administration of the scheme may, not less than such period before the variation is to take effect as may be prescribed, by notice served on any operator of any such service who is under an obligation under this section to provide travel concessions in accordance with the scheme, require him to indicate, within such period and in such manner as may be prescribed, whether or not he is willing to continue to participate in the scheme after the variation takes effect.

(7) Any notice under subsection (6) above shall give particulars of the proposed variation.

(8) Where in pursuance of subsection (6) above an operator indicates that he is not willing to continue to participate in the scheme after the variation takes effect, any obligation of that operator under this section to provide travel concessions in accordance with the scheme on journeys on any service operated by him which was current at the date of the notice under that subsection and would still apart from this subsection be in force on the date when the variation takes effect shall cease on the latter date (without prejudice, however, to the service of a new participation notice).

(9) Where in the case of any operator, notwithstanding subsection (8) above, any obligation of that operator under subsection (2) above to provide travel concessions on journeys on any service operated by him which was current at the date of the notice under subsection (6) above is still in force on the date when any such variation takes effect, the preceding provisions of this section shall apply in relation to that obligation, on and after the date when the variation takes effect, as if that date were the appropriate commencement date for the purposes of subsection (4) above for each service to which the obligation applies.

(10) The exercise of the power to serve a participation notice under this section on any person—

1. (a) by a Passenger Transport Executive; or
2. (b) by authorities responsible for administration of a scheme under section 87 of this Act who include such an Executive;

shall require the consent of the Passenger Transport Authority for the Executive's area.")

Amendment No. 253A: Leave out Clause 90 and insert the following new clause—

(Further provisions with respect to participation notices.

"90.—(1) The authority or authorities by whom a participation notice is served on any person shall send to that person together with the notice, a copy of—

1. (a) such particulars of the scheme to which the notice relates and of any variations of that scheme; and
1333
2. (b) such particulars of the current reimbursement arrangements for eligible service operators participating in the scheme and of any variations of those arrangements;

as have been published under section (Publicity requirements for schemes and reimbursement arrangements) of this Act before the date of the notice.

(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, a person on whom a participation notice has been served may apply to the Secretary of State for cancellation or variation of that notice on either or both of the following grounds, that is to say—

1. (a) that there are special reasons why his participation in the scheme in question in respect of the service or any of the services to which the notice applies would be inappropriate; and
2. (b) that any provision of the scheme or of any such arrangements as are mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above are inappropriate for application in relation to operators other than operators voluntarily participating in the scheme.

(3) Subject to subsection (4) below, an application under subsection (2) above may be made by notice in writing given to the Secretary of State before the end of the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the date of the participation notice.

(4) A person may not make such an application unless he has given notice in writing of his intention to do so to the authority or authorities by whom the participation notice was served—

1. (a) if a period allowed for that purpose is specified in the participation notice, before the end of that period; or
2. (b) in any other case, at any time before the date of the notice given to the Secretary of State under subsection (3) above.

(5) On any such application the Secretary of State may—

1. (a) cancel the participation notice or vary it by excluding from it any service operated by the applicant; or
2. (b) determine that the participation notice shall have effect without variation;

and in any case where the participation notice is cancelled on the ground mentioned in subsection (2)(b) above shall give to the authority or authorities by whom the notice was served a notice in writing indicating in what respects the scheme or arrangements there mentioned are inappropriate for application in relation to operators other than operators voluntarily participating in the scheme.

(6) Where on any such application the Secretary of State does not cancel the participation notice, he may direct that the current arrangements for reimbursement of eligible service operators participating in the scheme shall apply in the case of the applicant or (as the case may be) in the case of any service operated by the applicant to which the participation notice applies with such modifications as may be specified in the direction.

(7) Any obligation under section 89(2) of this Act which has come into effect before the determination of any application under this section with respect to the participation notice by which that obligation was imposed shall—

1. (a) cease to have effect, if the notice is cancelled; or
2. (b) have effect, if the notice is varied, subject to a corresponding variation;

on such date as may be specified by the Secretary of State in determining the application.").

Amendment No. 253B: After Clause 90, insert the following new clause—

("Release from compulsory participation.

(1) The authority or authorities responsible for administration of a scheme under section 87 of this Act may at any time by notice in writing served on any operator who is under an obligation under section 89(2) of this Act to provide travel concessions in accordance with the scheme on journeys on any eligible service operated by him release him from that obligation in respect of that service.

(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, any such operator may at any time by notice in writing apply to the Secretary of State to be released from that obligation in respect of any such service on the ground that the authority or authorities responsible for administration of the scheme have failed to comply with their obligation under section 87(7) of this Act.

(3) An operator may not make such an application unless he has given notice in writing of his intention to do so to the authority or authorities responsible for administration of the scheme not less than twenty-eight days before the date of the application.

(4) A notice under subsection (2) or (3) above shall give particulars of any alleged failures of the authority or authorities in question to comply with their obligation under section 87(7) of which the operator complains.

(5) On any such application the Secretary of State may, if he finds the applicant's ground of complaint established, determine that the applicant's obligation under section 89(2) shall cease on such date as may be specified in the determination.")

Amendment No. 253C: Leave out Clause 91 and insert the following new clause—

("Supplementary provisions.

91.—(1) Regulations under this section may make provision as to—

1. (a) the maximum or (as the case may be) minimum period that may for the purposes of any provision of section 89 or 90 of this Act be specified in a participation notice:
2. (b) the form and contents of participation notices and other notices required for any purposes of sections 89 to (Release from compulsory participation) of this Act; and
3. (c) the manner in which any such notice is to be served.

(2) Where the Secretary of State cancels or varies a participation notice under section 90 of this Act after the obligation imposed by that notice has come into effect he may award compensation to the applicant under subsection (4) below if it appears to him that the applicant has suffered—

1. (a) in a case where the notice is cancelled, any loss attributable to his participation in the scheme in question: or
2. (b) in a case where the notice is varied by excluding from it any service operated by the applicant, any loss attributable to his participation in that scheme in respect of that service.

(3) Where the Secretary of State determines under section (Release from compulsory participation) of this Act that an obligation imposed by a participation notice shall cease he may award compensation to the applicant under subsection (4) below if it appears to him that the applicant has suffered any loss attributable to any failure on the part of the authority or authorities responsible for administration of the scheme in question to comply with their obligation under section 87(7) of this Act.

(4) In any case to which subsection (2) or (3) above applies the Secretary of State may by notice in writing require the authority responsible for administration of the scheme in question or (as the case may be) the authorities so responsible in such proportion as may be specified in the notice to pay to the applicant such an amount by way of compensation in respect of the loss there mentioned as may be specified in the notice.

(5) The Secretary of State may if he thinks fit appoint a person to determine an application under section 90 or (Release from compulsory participation) of this Act on his behalf; and references in those sections and in subsections (2) and (4) above to the Secretary of State shall be read as including references to a person so appointed.

(6) Regulations under this section may prescribe the procedure to be followed in connection with applications under sections 90 and (Release from compulsory participation) of this Act and may in particular (but without prejudice to the generality of that) include provision—

1. (a) as to the conduct of any proceedings held in connection with any such application; and
2. (b) enabling the Secretary of State to require either the applicant or the authority or authorities responsible for administration of the scheme in question, or both or all of them, to pay such sum as the Secretary of State may determine towards any expenses incurred by him in connection with the determinaion of the application.

(7) Where a requirement under subsection (4) above is imposed on more than one authority, the liability of the authorities concerned to the applicant shall be both joint and several.

(8) Any sums paid to the Secretary of State by virtue of subsection (6)(b) above shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.")

Amendment No. 253D: Clause 92, page 95, line 28, at end insert—

("(2) Where an offence under this section committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to have been attributable to any neglect on part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

(3) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (2) above shall apply in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as if he were a director of the body corporate.

(4) Proceedings for an offence under this section shall not, in England and Wales, be instituted except by the authority, or any one of the authorities, responsible for administration of the scheme in question or by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.")

Amendment No. 253E:

Clause 94

Leave out Clause 94 and insert the following new clause—

Travel concessions on services provided by Passenger Transport Executives.

("Travel concessions apart from schemes

94.—(1) The payments provided for under an agreement providing for service subsidies in respect of any service entered into by an authority responsible for expenditure on public passenger transport services may not include payments in respect of the provision of travel concessions on journeys on that service except as provided below in this section.

(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, provision may be included in any such agreement for the making of payments by the authority in question to the person providing the service to which the agreement relates in respect of the provision of travel concessions on journeys on that service or any part of it for any description of persons eligible in accordance with section 87(8) of this Act to receive travel concessions under a travel concession scheme under that section.

(3) Subsection (2) above only applies where the concessions in question are not available, or not available to that description of persons, under any such scheme administered by the authority concerned or by that authority acting jointly with any other authority or authorities.").

This is a whole list of amendments to the concessionary fares system.

When this Bill was being considered in another place, my right honourable friend undertook to provide a new discretionary power which will enable local authorities to require operators, who had declined to participate voluntarily, to provide such travel concessions. This was to ensure that the authorities could secure adequately comprehensive schemes to meet the needs of their areas. The Government acted swiftly to give effect to this undertaking and the Bill as presented to your Lordships was substantially amended in another place to make sure that there will be concessionary fare schemes and that operators, if local authorities wish, must take part in them. All that commitment remains unchanged; but I shall not conceal from the Committee that we have examined further the mechanisms of compulsion. We realise that the changed arrangements that this implies will require more sophisticated provisions in the legislation. This will allow authorities to make the system work smoothly, and to ensure that its misapplication by local authorities would not penalise operators. We have had to produce a very substantial number of technical changes. Instead of producing about 50 separate amendments, which it was decided the wording of Amendments Nos. 87 to 94 would have needed, I am bringing this group of new clauses before your Lordships.

Perhaps I may go straight to Clause 87 which is Amendment 252ZA. Clause 87 gives local authorities the basic power to establish concessionary fares schemes and reimburse operators for participating in them, defining the relevant services on which concessions may be offered. In restructuring this clause a new provision has been made for a concessionary fares scheme to cover only part of a county or district council's area. This could mean, for example that where an authority wishes to see a concession offered on an existing route covered by a commercial service—such as a half fare for children—but feels that a general scheme is unnecessary, it can set up a scheme solely for services on that route so that all operators can opt to participate in the scheme or be compelled to do so.

Clause 87 also defines the groups eligible to receive concessions and the Government have taken the opportunity of the general revision of this clause to provide a more precise definition of "children". Following representations from local authorities, it became clear that there was some uncertainty as to whether people up to their 19th birthday but still in full time secondary education could receive travel concessions. This provision in Clause 87 ensures that it will be possible.

Clause 87 also contains a new provision to allow authorities to limit the entry of operators to participation in a scheme to dates chosen by the authority. This is to allow local authorities to bring a degree of order into the way in which new operators will join their schemes and thus assist in budgeting and forward planning, However, these delays should not be such as to exclude an operator from serving this section of the market for any great length of time, since this would inhibit competition and give concessionary travellers a worse deal. Although the wording of Clause 88 has changed substantially, its purpose in providing for regulations on the reimbursement of operators and for the same treatment of all operators of eligible services remains unchanged.

Similarly, the two new clauses—Amendments Nos. 252AB and 252AC—on publicity requirements for schemes and reimbursement arrangements and the right of eligible service operators to participate in travel concessions schemes contain no new proposals other than the right of local authorities to require a period of notice from operators wishing to join the scheme. The appearance of these new clauses simply reflects the Government's wish to give a better structure to the legislation and the provisions they contain have all previously been contained in the old Clauses 87 and 88.

11.15 p.m.

The Government are intent that the terms for participation in a concessionary fares scheme should be fair and impose no burden on an operator, which might undermine his commercial position. We hope that operators will therefore feel able to participate in the provision of concessionary fares on a voluntary basis. Where operators remain reluctant to do this, there is the power of compulsion. New Clauses 89, 90 and 91 and the new clause in Amendment No. 253B cover compulsory participation by operators. They provide for local authorities to serve a notice on operators requiring them to provide concessionary fares from a given date and provide that operators will receive the appropriate reimbursement. They also provide for an operator to apply to the Secretary of State for release from the obligation to participate on the ground that compulsion is not appropriate either in their own case or in general.

The other amendments will ensure that the exercise of compulsion is not too draconian and does not therefore inhibit operators from providing services. Clause 89(4) now provides that any single period of participation should be for a set duration, after which time the authority should review whether compulsion is still appropriate. If it wishes to renew the compulsion, the authority would then be able to issue a further notice to this effect. It may, however, find it possible to reach a satisfactory agreement with the operator on a voluntary basis.

Recognising a concern expressed in another place, the Government have taken the opportunity in all these clauses to provide for the compensation of an operator whose compulsory participation is found to be inappropriate. Local authorities may well wish to exercise compulsion on a particular service at an early date in order to provide for comprehensive coverage of their area. However, authorities must be willing to bear the full cost of this, and the amendments to Clause 91 provide that where an operator makes a successful application to the Secretary of State for cancellation of compulsion and can show that he has suffered a loss as a result of the compulsory participation prior to this decision the authority may be directed to pay compensation for this loss, as a civil liability.

Your Lordships will recognise from the amendments to which I have just referred that the Government are intent on securing a fair deal for both parties in the application of compulsory participation. However, as the Bill was introduced there remains a gap in the provisions for dealing with the case of an operator who does not receive proper reimbursement. The provisions did not cater for the situation where an operator finds that an initially fair level of payment becomes progressively less adequate as time goes by. This could happen if the patronage he carries grows but the sums paid by the authority do not because the authority is not monitoring as frequently as it should. The authority has a basic duty to reimburse in relation to journeys carried. The intention in proposing the new clause in Amendment No. 253B on release from compulsory participation is to allow such an operator to make a further application to the Secretary of State for release where the authority fails in this duty and compensation may, again, be awarded.

Finally—and I apologise for the length of these remarks—Amendment No. 253D concerns the enforcement of compulsory participation. Clause 92 provides for an operator who fails to comply with a participation notice to be the subject of a criminal prosecution. In the case of offences of this sort by corporate bodies it is normal practice in criminal law for the senior officers of the company or members of the board of a nationalised industry to be subject to those sanctions personally if their actions have contributed directly to the offence. Since criminal prosecutions are a serious matter and should not be undertaken lightly, the amendments to Clause 92 also restrict the power of prosecution to the authority affected by an operator's failure to provide concessions or to another person with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

I apologise for the length with which I have had to speak to these amendments. I am also sorry that we have had to bring forward this long string of amendments. I hope that in the end the Committee will feel that they have now put into reasonably clear form the basic principle of these amendments: that there shall be concessionary fares and that it will be possible for local authorities to enforce participation in such schemes. I beg to move.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill)

There are three unnumbered amendments to this amendment on page 23 of the Marshalled List. Would the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, care to confirm to the Committee that it is not proposed to move these amendments?

Lord Henderson of Brompton

I confirm that they are not to be moved.

[Amendments to Amendment No. 252ZA not moved.]

Lord Ennals

I do not think that the noble Lord the Minister need apologise at all. He actually gave a very short speech covering a very large amount of material, and I think that the Committee is grateful to him. Perhaps I might both apologise and ask whether, in any debate that may take place on the new clauses that the noble Lord has moved, Amendment No. 252A standing in my name could be taken into consideration?

Amendment No. 252A: after Clause 87 insert the following new clause:—

Concessionary travel for handicapped persons

(" .—(1) Section 87 of this Act (travel concession schemes) shall apply in relation to handicapped persons as defined in subsection (2) below as it applies in relation to persons mentioned in subsection (7) of that section. (2) In this section "handicapped persons" means persons who, not being eligible persons within the meaning of section 87(7)—

1. (a) suffer from mental disorder within the meaning, in England and Wales, of the Mental Health Act 1959 and, in Scotland, of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960;
2. (b) are deaf or dumb; or
3. (c) are substantially and permanently handicapped by illness, injury, defective hearing, defective sight or congenital deformity or by such other disabilities as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State by regulations.

(3) The power to make regulations under subsection (2)(c) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. (4) In Scotland, a regional or islands council may contribute to any cost incurred by any other regional or islands council in granting travel concessions under this section.")

I owe your Lordships' Committee an apology in that this amendment was tabled before the noble Lord tabled the amendments that he has just moved. Of course, the amendment deals with the definitions of disabled people and I do not think that it would make sense to the Committee if it were to be debated quite separately. In fact, had I done my job properly—and I have not, which is why I am apologising to the Committee—I would have withdrawn this amendment and asked that the three categories set out in subsection (2) be added to subsection (8) of the new clause proposed in Amendment No. 252ZA.

Perhaps your Lordships would permit me to say a few words about that clause, which will bring it into conformity throughout the United Kingdom. It would extend the categories of disabled people who are eligible for travel concessions by adopting the definitions of the Travel Concessions for Handicapped Persons (Scotland) Act 1980 in addition to the categories already provided for in Clause 87. It means that there will be a larger number of disabilities, as any noble Lord will appreciate who looks in particular at Amendments Nos. 252A, 252B and 252C standing in my name—and I am thinking especially of the deaf and the dumb, those with defective hearing and defective sight, or with a congenital deformity, who are those who are already included in the Travel Concessions for Handicapped Persons (Scotland) Act, and whom I wish to include. It is a very simple amendment which would standardise the eligibility for concessions throughout Great Britain. It is discretionary of course and it would still be a matter for local authorities to decide which of the categories they wished to include in any scheme or schemes.

In the other place, a series of amendments seeking to clarify this matter was moved and rejected at the Committee stage. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Mitchell, maintained that in England and Wales there was a wider range of disabled persons who could be embraced in concessionary fare schemes under Section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948, and that to amend this Bill would merely duplicate these powers. I see in the Notes on Clauses that that point is repeated. A further examination of the records shows that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State argued that these powers were exercised by the local authorities as social service authorities, and he claimed that they were in the best position professionally to judge in what circumstances it was appropriate to go beyond the definitions of disability already used in transport legislation. I would simply argue that it does not make much sense that one should have one definition for England and Wales and another definition for Scotland. I am certain that that is the view of disabled people.

I think that there would be sympathy in your Lordships' House for the fact that some disabled people resent the idea that there should be different patterns in different parts of the country. I am thinking of people with defective hearing who may also have defective speech, and those with defective sight who may not be able to read or speak for themselves. I hope that the Minister will feel that a definition which is already engraved in legislation could be brought into this Bill simply by adding subsection (2) to the end of his subsection (8) as paragraph (f). I hope that he feels that that is a perfectly reasonable proposition.

I apologise to the Committee for leaving my new clause on the Marshalled List and not withdrawing it to present it as an amendment to the Government's series of new clauses.

Lord Shepherd

I intervene briefly to come back to what my noble friend said in regard to subsection (8) in Amendment No. 252ZA. Is it necessary to draft paragraphs (d) and (e) so tightly? Paragraph (d) reads: blind persons, that is to say, persons so blind as to be unable to perform any work for which sight is essential". I do not know whether a similar provision is in previous legislation, but it seems to me to be so very tight that persons who have a sight incapacity but who do not come within that category would not get concessionary fares.

Paragraph (e) reads: persons suffering from any disability or injury which, in the opinion of the authority or any of the authorities responsible for administration of the scheme, seriously impairs their ability to walk". I suppose one could have many debates as to what the phrase, "seriously impairs", means. If one took it literally, in the eyes of certain administrations, I suspect that it could eliminate persons to whom others would give concessions.

I wonder why the two paragraphs have to be drafted so absolutely tightly. Without opening the provision too wide, could it not be opened wide enough to cover those who fall just within the two categories?

When I was with them the National Bus Company took great pride in providing concessionary fares to the unemployed, particularly the young unemployed. We did this with the Manpower Services Commission and local authorities. I do not know whether such a provision could be included in the Bill or whether a more general new paragraph could be drafted. Concessionary fares for young people seeking employment, particularly if they have no job, is worthy of consideration.

Lord Ennals

Is my noble friend aware that part of my amendment, Amendment No. 252A, is in existing legislation, though at the moment it applies only to Scotland? The definition was thought appropriate for concessions for handicapped persons in Scotland, and it seems suitable that the same should apply to England and Wales.

Lord Shepherd

I am pleased to be informed of that fact. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, will be willing to support the proposition that what is available in Scotland should also be available to the less privileged who live south of the border. I am seeking a little movement within what is drafted here. Secondly, I am asking whether something could not be done about the unemployed, and particularly the unemployed youth, in that there should be concessionary fares to help them in the seeking of employment.

11.30 p.m.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

May I thank the Government for this massive rewriting of a large part of Part V of this Bill, on travel concessions, both for what they have done and for the way in which they have done it? I think the Notes on Clauses which have been made available by courtesy of the noble Lord the Minister are quite admirable, with their tables of new subsections, derivations and main changes. Thus none of us can complain about this, and we have only cause to congratulate the Government and to thank the Minister.

I should like briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, on this Scottish/English divide, and hope that that can be, so to speak, bridged. I should also like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said and to say that I hope the Minister will not take it amiss if amendments are tabled on Report to this massive rewriting of the travel concessions scheme. It will not be in any spirit of ingratitude that amendments are moved but merely because we have only recently had this rewriting to look at and clearly amendments will be required.

The first matter that occurs to anyone reading this, despite the extremely lucid way in which it is explained in the Notes on Clauses, is the massive complication of these provisions. I very much wonder whether it is possible between now and Report stage to simplify these concessionary fare clauses. One fears that the ease of operating the proposed concessionary fare arrangements presupposes a very high level of willingness on the part of operators to participate in local authority schemes. If it is possible during the long Recess for the whole of the concessionary fares clauses to be simplified, in the interests of operators and of everybody else, I am sure we should all be enormously grateful. With that, I should like to leave the subject but rehearse once again my thanks to the Government and in particular, to the Minister.

Lord Belstead

I am grateful to noble Lords for receiving this string of long amendments with comparative equanimity. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, put to me a question about looking at the drafting again. I know that the parliamentary draftsmen will of course always be ready to look at the drafting, although it has been a major labour to get these amendments into their present form.

The question I am really required to reply to is that of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, when he pointed out that here is Amendment No. 252A and related amendments on special categories of handicap, and asked the Government's response. The noble Lord very fairly pointed out that these very groups of people are the same as those covered by Section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948, which gives social services authorities in England and Wales the power to provide various services and facilities for them. Therefore, we are not talking about people who are not covered at all by the facility for concessionary fares. But the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said that of course the situation is different each side of the English-Scottish Border. That is because in Scotland regional and islands councils are both transport and social services authorities.

Herein lies the difficulty that the Government have with this amendment. Yes, I can certainly see the attractions of the arguments that the noble Lord has put; and, indeed, he is quite right in drawing attention to the fact that social services authorities in England and Wales which have powers under the National Assistance Act will generally be different from the authorities responsible for the provision of concessionary fare schemes under the present Bill.

The noble Lord is quite right in saying that. The difficulty is that the argument, I think, does not give proper consideration to the nature and needs of the groups with whom the amendments are concerned. It is, I would suggest, a fortunate thing that it is by no means easy for a transport department to identify persons who are suffering, for instance, from mental disorder. Although noble Lords will be aware of the convention that for the purposes of legislation all Secretaries of State are the same, the reference to the Secretary of State in subsection (2)(c) of the new clause would appear to imply that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport should have the power to make regulations for an area falling much more properly within the scope of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. Once the categories had been prescribed, it would again be the social services department that would be likely to be in touch with the people concerned.

I suggest therefore that the social services authorities are likely to be far better qualified to identify and make proper provision for the needs of the different groups of people covered by the amendment and that it would be appropriate to leave the powers of the transport authorities as they are at present. I realise that in saying this I am disregarding what the noble Lord has said about Scotland. I have given the reason for the difference each side of the border. I really believe that to put this additional power on my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport when the power already exists for the social services departments to consider the needs of these people, in thinking of concessionary fares, would be a step that would not be altogether wise.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

New Clause 87 agreed to.

Lord Ennals

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 252A:

[Printed earlier.]

The noble Lord said: I am not going to move the amendment at the moment, I was not satisfied with the Minister's reply although I shall look at it very carefully in Hansard. I do not see the logic—although clearly he does—of having a different definition for Scotland from that for England and Wales. Noting that I may well return to it—with the support I hope of other noble Lords at Report stage—I shall at this stage withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 88 [Reimbursement for travel concessions under schemes]:

Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 252AA:

[Printed earlier]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 252AA):

Leave out Clause 88 and insert the following new clause:—

("Reimbursement for travel concessions under schemes.

88.—(1) Regulations under this section may make provision with respect to any of the following matters—

1. (a) the factors to be taken into account by the authority or authorities responsible for administration of a travel concession scheme under section 87 of this Act in determining the aggregate amount that may be made available for the purpose of reimbursing operators participating in the scheme for providing travel concessions during any period;
2. (b) the determination by the authority or authorities so responsible of the amounts to be paid to individual operators participating in the scheme, or to any class of such operators, by way of reimbursement for providing such concessions;
3. (c) the manner of making any payments due to operators by way of such reimbursement; and
4. (d) the provisions or description of provisions that are to be or (as the case may be) may or may not be included in arrangements agreed with operators or adopted by the authority or authorities so responsible with respect to participation of operators in the scheme.

(2) Subject to any provision of regulations made by virtue of subsection (1)(d) above and to the following provisions of this section, the arrangements with respect to participation of operators in any such scheme shall be such as may be agreed between the authority or authorities responsible for administration of the scheme and individual operators on their admission to participation in the scheme.

(3) Subject to—

1. (a) any provision of regulations under subsection (1) above;
2. (b) any modifications that may by virtue of any provision of regulations made by virtue of paragraph (d) of that subsection or in accordance with section (Right of eligible service operators to participate in travel concession schemes) of this Act be agreed between the authority or authorities responsible for administration of any such scheme and any individual operator, and
3. (c) any modifications applied in the case of any individual operator by a direction given under section 90 of this Act;

the arrangements with respect to reimbursement and terms of withdrawal from participation in the scheme applicable to operators of eligible services participating in the scheme shall be such as the authority or authorities responsible for administration may from time to time adopt and must be the same in the case of all such operators.

(4) For the purposes of the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to schemes under section 87 of this Act, a service is an eligible service if it is a service qualifying for fuel duty grant.

(5) The arrangements currently adopted by the authority or authorities responsible for administration of any such scheme with respect to reimbursement of operators of eligible services participating in the scheme are referred to below in this Part of this Act, in relation to that scheme, as the current reimbursement arrangements for eligible service operators participating in the scheme.

(6) In relation to operators participating in any such scheme, references in this section to arrangements with respect to reimbursement are references to conditions of entitlement of such operators to, and the method of determination and manner of payment of, reimbursement in respect of travel concessions provided under the scheme.")

New Clause 88 agreed to.

Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 252AB:

[Printed earlier.]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 252AB):

After Clause 88, insert the following new clause:—

("Publicity requirements for schemes and reimbursement arrangements.

.—(1) On or before the date on which a scheme under section 87 of this Act comes into operation or, where it comes into operation on different dates with respect to different concessions to be provided under the scheme, on or before the first of those dates.

1. (a) the authority or authorities concerned in establishing it shall publish particulars of the scheme; and
2. (b) the authority or authorities responsible for administration of the scheme shall publish particulars of the current reimbursement arrangements for eligible service operators participating in the scheme as they are to apply on initial establishment of the scheme;

in such manner, in either case, as the authority or authorities concerned think fit.

(2) Particulars of any subsequent variations shall be published—

1. (a) in the case of variations of the scheme, by the authority or authorities concerned in establishing the scheme; and
2. (b) in the case of variations of the arrangements, by the authority or authorities responsible for administration of the scheme.

(3) Following publication under subsection (1)(a) or (as the case may be) under subsection (1)(b) above of particulars of any scheme or arrangements—

1. (a) copies of the scheme or (as the case may be) of the arrangements (with any subsequent variations) shall be made available at the principal office of the authority or (as the case may be) of each authority concerned; and
2. (b) a copy shall be supplied to any person on request (whether at that office or by post) either free of charge or at a charge representing the cost of providing the copy.

(4) Where the authority or any of the authorities concerned in establishing a scheme under section 87 of this Act are a Passenger Transport Authority, they shall notify the Passenger Transport Executive for their area of any proposal to publish particulars of the scheme in advance of its coming into operation, giving the proposed date of publication.")

Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 252B:

After Clause 88, insert the following new clause:—

("Grants from the Secretary of State for Travel Concession Schemes.

.—(1) Where a travel concession scheme is established under section 87 of this Act the authority responsible for administering the scheme shall be entitled to receive a specific grant from the Secretary of State.

(2) The specific grant referred to in subsection (1) above shall be payable under section 8 of the Local Government Act 1974 and after subsection 8(2) of that Act there shall be inserted:— 2A. For the year 1986–87 and each subsequent year the Secretary of State shall pay to each authority responsible for administering a travel concession scheme on bus, rail and ferry services a grant equal to 90 per cent. of the aggregate amount paid in that year by the authority—

1. (a) to public passenger transport operators for participating in the travel concessions scheme; and
2. (b) to public transport operators or holders of permits under section 19 of this Act for special services provided for the use of the elderly, the disabled or mobility handicapped.".")

The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. Its purpose is to—

Lord Henderson of Brompton

Should we not be considering Amendment No. 252 AC?

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill)

I apologise to the Committee. There are so many pages. I turned over two at the same time. Amendment No. 252 AC.

Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 252AC:

[Printed earlier.]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (252AC):

Insert the following new Clause—

("Right of eligible service operators to participate in travel concession schemes.

.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section where any operator or prospective operator of an eligible service which is a relevant service for the purposes of any scheme under section 87 of this Act applies to the authority or authorities responsible for administration of that scheme to be admitted to participate in it in respect of that service, the authority or authorities in question shall be obliged to admit that operator to participation in the scheme in respect of that service as from any standard admission date under the scheme not later than the one next following—

1. (a) the end of such period as may be prescribed beginning with the date of his application; or
2. (b) the date on which the service begins;

whichever last occurs.

(2) The Secretary of State may, on the application of the authority or authorities responsible for administration of any such scheme, exempt the authority or authorities in question from the obligation under subsection (1) above in relation to any service or description of services; and the Secretary of State may at any time withdraw or vary any exemption granted under this subsection.

(3) An exemption may not be granted under subsection (2) above on the application of a Passenger Transport Executive, or on the joint application of authorities who include such an Executive, unless the application is made with the consent of the Passenger Transport Authority for that Executive's area.

(4) Subject to any regulations under section 88(1)(d) of this Act, where it appears to the authority or authorities responsible for administration of any such scheme, in the case of any operator or prospective operator of an eligible service who applies to be admitted to participate in the scheme in respect of that service, that fares currently charged or proposed to be charged by that operator for relevant journeys on that service include a special amenity element, the authority or authorities in question shall not be required by subsection (1) above to admit that operator to participation in the scheme in respect of that service unless that operator agrees to appropriate modifications of the current reimbursement arrangements for eligible service operators participating in the scheme.

(5) Subject to any such regulations, where it appears to the authority or authorities responsible for administration of any such scheme, in the case of any operator of an eligible service participating in the scheme, that fares currently charged by that operator for relevant journeys on that service include a special amenity element, the authority or authorities in question may by notice of not less than such period as may be prescribed exclude that operator from participation in the scheme in respect of that service unless before the end of that period that operator agrees to appropriate modifications of the current reimbursement arrangements for eligible service operators participating in the scheme.

(6) For the purposes of subsections (4) and (5) above fares for relevant journeys are to be regarded as including a special amenity element if they are significantly high in relation to the general level of fares for comparable journeys in the principal area covered by the scheme (within the meaning of section 87 of this Act).

(7) References in those subsections to appropriate modifications of the reimbursement arrangements there mentioned are references to such modifications of those arrangements as the authority or authorities concerned consider appropriate for providing reimbursement in respect of travel concessions provided for relevant journeys on the service in question by reference to the general level of fares mentioned in subsection (6) above instead of by reference to the actual fares charged (or proposed to be charged) for those journeys.

(8) For the purposes of this section "relevant journeys" are journeys on which travel concessions are to be provided under the scheme in question.

(9) for the purposes of this section and section 89 of this Act, references to a prospective operator of an eligible service are references to a person who has registered a local service under section 6 of this Act but is not yet operating that service ")

Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 252B:

[Printed above.]

The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment and its purpose is to suggest to the Government that there is a clear need to separate funding for concessionary travel schemes from general revenue support to uneconomic public transport services.

Concessionary travel schemes assist the mobility of those in our society who, for one reason or another—age, infirmity or the various handicaps about which we have been talking—are unable to pay the full economic cost of the transport facilities which they require. There is a great danger that the current practice of Government to support all local authority expenditure through a single grant, will lead, at a time of ever-increasing restraint on public expenditure, to squeezing the already limited resources for the elderly and the handicapped. If one takes, for example, the metropolitan areas, the Secretary of State has already said that the passenger transport joint board will be rate-capped for three years and given a single expenditure level which will include revenue support for subsidised bus services, contractual Section 20 payments for British Rail, inherited debt charges, administrative costs of the PTA and PTE, and concessionary travel. I submit to your Lordships and the Minister, that there would be a grave danger that these authorities will give priority to revenue support and, as a result, be less generous to concessionary travel schemes than would ideally be necessary.

To prove that this is a probing amendment, I flew a kite in suggesting a particular level of grant, which I think is an unreasonable one. It would have been better, and I might have received a better response—and I shall say it now, so that the Minister does not have to say it—if, instead of talking about 90 per cent., I talked about a grant at a percentage rate not less than that used nationally for the purposes of rate support grant, and that would have kept it in regular conformity.

However, the main point is to stress that the elderly and the disabled can only benefit from travel concession schemes if adequate funds are available. The purpose of this amendment is to say that these should cover both revenue expenditure, giving them access to services available generally, and also, ideally, capital funds to allow provision for specialised services and adaptation of vehicles used in general services. I should be most interested to hear the Minister's response.

Lord Belstead

The first of the new clauses—Amendment No. 252B—would introduce a novel concept, and that is 90 per cent., automatic direct grant from my right honourable friend towards the cost of any concessionary fare scheme which any local authority wishes to bring into operation under Clause 87 of the Bill. The Government fully share the importance which your Lordships attach to concessionary fare schemes for elderly and disabled people and, indeed, for children who are also covered by the powers conferred by Clause 87. However, we believe it is essential that local authorities, in deciding the priority to be given to concessionary fares, should be in a position to weigh the situation properly against other claims on their resources.

The second of the new clauses appears as Amendment No. 252C:

Amendment No. 252C: Insert the following new clause:—

("Continuance of Existing Travel Concession Schemes.

.—(1) Where arrangements have been made under section 138 of the 1968 Act for the provision of travel concessions in an area, those arrangements shall continue in force as if they had been made in pursuance of a scheme by the local authority or local authorities concerned in pursuance of section 87 of this Act.

(2) Where a scheme continues in force in accordance with subsection (1) above regulations made in pursuance of section 88 shall provide—

1. (a) that agreements already in force for the reimbursement of operators participating in the scheme and any further operators that may join it shall continue unless and until the authority or authorities concerned determine an alternative;
2. (b) that the factors taken into account by the authority or authorities in determining the amounts to be paid to individual operators and the aggregate amount payable under the scheme shall be those which were taken into account immediately before the coming into effect of this Act unless and until the authority or authorities shall determine otherwise.

(3) The Secretary of State shall make grants to the local authority or authorities concerned towards the costs incurred in providing those concessions and such grants shall be separate from any grants made by the Secretary of State towards the costs of service subsidies paid under section 83 of this Act.")

This would allow authorities which had established concessionary fare schemes under the 1968 Act to maintain them indefinitely in their present form. I fear that the Government would see that as undermining the whole basis of the new provision for reimbursement of concessionary fares and the way in which it will operate under deregulation. I am sorry that I cannot give a more gracious response to the noble Lord's two new clauses.

Lord Ennals

I said that it was a probing amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 252C not moved.]

Clause 89 [Compulsory participation in travel concession schemes]:

Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 252D:

[Printed earlier.]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 252D):

Leave out Clause 89 and insert the following new Clause:—

("Compulsory participation in travel concession schemes.

89.—(1) Subject to subsection (8) below, where the arrangements currently adopted by the authority or authorities responsible for administration of a scheme under section 87 of this Act with respect to the terms on which operators of eligible services may withdraw from participation in the scheme require such an operator to give notice before withdrawing from the scheme in respect of any such service, any such operator shall be obliged to provide any travel concessions required by the scheme on journeys on any such service in respect of which he is participating in the scheme until he gives the required notice of withdrawal and the period of notice has expired.

(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the authority or authorities responsible for administration of any such scheme may at any time by notice in writing served on any operator or prospective operator of an eligible service (including an operator already participating in the scheme) impose on him an obligation to provide travel concessions in accordance with the scheme on journeys on any such service operated by that operator to which the notice applies.

A notice under this subsection is referred to below in this Part of this Act as a participation notice.

(3) The power under subsection (2) above to serve participation notice shall not be exercisable in relation to any such scheme until after the date (or whichever last occurs of the respective dates) of first publication under section (Publicity requirements for schemes and reimbursement arrangements) of this Act of particulars of the scheme and of the current reimbursement arrangements for eligible service operators participating in the scheme as they are to apply on initial establishment of the scheme.

(4) An obligation imposed by a participation notice shall, subject to subsection (8) below and sections 90 and (Release from compulsory participation) of this Act, be effective in relation to any service to which the obligation applies as from the appropriate commencement date for that service until the end of such period beginning with that date as may be specified in the participation notice.

(5) Subject to subsection (9) below, for the purposes of subsection (4) above the appropriate commencement date for any service to which an obligation imposed by a participation notice applies is—

1. (a) the date immediately following the end of such period of notice as may be specified in the participation notice; or
2. (b) the date when the service begins;

whichever last occurs.

(6) Where it is proposed—

1. (a) to vary a scheme under section 87 of this Act; or
2. (b) to vary the current arrangements for reimbursement of eligible service operators participating in any such scheme;

the authority or authorities responsible for administration of the scheme may, not less than such period before the variation is to take effect as may be prescribed, by notice served on any operator of any such service who is under an obligation under this section to provide travel concessions in accordance with the scheme, require him to indicate, within such period and in such manner as may be prescribed, whether or not he is willing to continue to participate in the scheme after the variation takes effect.

(7) Any notice under subsection (6) above shall give particulars of the proposed variation.

(8) Where in pursuance of subsection (6) above an operator indicates that he is not willing to continue to participate in the scheme after the variation takes effect, any obligation of that operator under this section to provide travel concessions in accordance with the scheme on journeys on any service operated by him which was current at the date of the notice under that subsection and would still apart from this subsection be in force on the date when the variation takes effect shall cease on the latter date (without prejudice, however, to the service of a new participation notice).

(9) Where in the case of any operator, notwithstanding subsection (8) above, any obligation of that operator under subsection (2) above to provide travel concessions on journeys on any service operated by him which was current at the date of the notice under subsection (6) above is still in force on the date when any such variation takes effect, the preceding provisions of this section shall apply in relation to that obligation, on and after the date when the variation takes effect, as if that date were the appropriate commencement date for the puposes of subsection (4) above for each service to which the obligation applies.

(10) The exercise of the power to serve a participation notice under this section on any person—

1. (a) by a Passenger Transport Executive; or
2. (b) by authorities responsible for administration of a scheme under section 87 of this Act who include such an Executive;

shall require the consent of the Passenger Transport Authority for the Executive's area.")

New Clause 89 agreed to.

11.45 p.m.

Clause 90 [Further provisions with respect to participation notices]:

[Amendment No. 253 not moved.]

Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 253A:

Leave out Clause 90 and insert the following new clause:

("Further provisions with respect to participation notices.

90.—(1) The authority or authorities by whom a participation notice is served on any person shall send to that person, together with the notice, a copy of—

1. (a) such particulars of the scheme to which the notice relates and of any vairations of that scheme; and
2. (b) such particulars of the current reimbursement arrangements for eligible service operators participating in the scheme and of any variations of those arrangements;

as have been published under section (Publicity requirements for schemes and reimbursement arrangements) of this Act before the date of the notice.

(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, a person on whom a participation notice has been served may apply to the Secretary of State for cancellation or variation of that notice on either or both of the following grounds, that is to say—

1. (a) that there are special reasons why his participation in the scheme in question in respect of the service or any of the services to which the notice applies would be inappropriate; and
2. (b) that any provision of the scheme or of any such arrangements as are mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above are inappropriate for application in relation to operators other than operators voluntarily participating in the scheme.

(3) Subject to subsection (4) below, an application under subsection (2) above may be made by notice in writing given to the Secretary of State before the end of the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the date of the participation notice.

(4) A person may not make such an application unless he has given notice in writing of his intention to do so to the authority or authorities by whom the participation notice was served—

1. (a) if a period allowed for that purpose is specified in the participation notice, before the end of that period; or
2. (b) in any other case, at any time before the date of the notice given to the Secretary of State under subsection (3) above.

(5) On any such application the Secretary of State may—

1. (a) cancel the participation notice or vary it by excluding from it any service operated by the applicant; or
2. (b) determine that the participation notice shall have effect without variation;

and in any case where the participation notice is cancelled on the ground mentioned in subsection (2)(b) above shall give to the authority or authorities by whom the notice was served a notice in writing indicating in what respects the scheme or arrangements there mentioned are inappropriate for application in relation to operators other than operators voluntarily participating in the scheme.

(6) Where on any such application the Secretary of State does not cancel the participation notice, he may direct that the current arrangements for reimbursement of eligible service operators participating in the scheme shall apply in the case of the applicant or (as the case may be) in the case of any service operated by the applicant to which the participation notice applies with such modifications as may be specified in the direction.

(7) Any obligation under section 89(2) of this Act which has come into effect before the determination of any application under this section with respect to the participation notice by which that obligation was imposed shall—

1. (a) cease to have effect, if the notice is cancelled; or
2. (b) have effect, if the notice is varied, subject to a corresponding variation;

on such date as may be specified by the Secretary of State in determining the application.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

New Clause 90 agreed to.

Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 253B:

[Printed earlier.]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 253B):

After Clause 90 insert the following new clause:

("Release from compulsory participation.

.—(1) The authority or authorities responsible for administration of a scheme under section 87 of this Act may at any time by notice in writing served on any operator who is under an obligation under section 89(2) of this Act to provide travel concessions in accordance with the scheme on journeys on any eligible service operated by him release him from that obligation in respect of that service.

(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, any such operator may at any time by notice in writing apply to the Secretary of State to be released from that obligation in respect of any such service on that ground that the authority or authorities responsible for administration of the scheme have failed to comply with their obligation under section 87(7) of this Act.

(3) An operator may not make such an application unless he has given notice in writing of his intention to do so to the authority or authorities responsible for administration of the scheme not less than twenty-eight days before the date of the application.

(4) A notice under subsection (2) or (3) above shall give particulars of any alleged failures of the authority or authorities in question to comply with their obligation under section 87(7) of which the operator complains.

(5) On any such application the Secretary of State may, if he finds the applicant's ground of complaint established, determine that the applicant's obligation under section 89(2) shall cease on such a date as may be specified in the determination.")

Clause 91 [Provisions supplementary to sections 89 and 90]:

Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 253C:

[Printed earlier.]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 253C):

Leave out Clause 91 and insert the following new clause:

("Supplementary provisions.

91.—(1) Regulations under this section may make provisions as to—

1. (a) the maximum or (as the case may be) the minimum period that may for the purposes of any provision of section 89 or 90 of this Act be specified in a participation notice;
2. (b) the form and contents of participation notices and other notices required for any purposes of sections 89 to Release from compulsory participation) of this Act; and
3. (c) the manner in which any such notice is to be served.

(2) Where the Secretary of State cancels or varies a participation notice under section 90 of this Act after the obligation imposed by that notice has come into effect he may award compensation to the applicant under subsection (4) below if it appears to him that he applicant has suffered—

1. (a) in a case where the notice is cancelled, any loss attributable to his participation in the scheme in question; or
2. (b) in a case where the notice is varied by excluding from it any service operated by the applicant, any loss attributable to his participation in that scheme in respect of that service.

(3) Where he Secretary of State determines under section (Release from compulsory participation) of this Act that an obligation imposed by a participation notice shall cease he may award compensation to the applicant under subsection (4) below if it appears to him that he applicant has suffered any loss attributable to any failure on the part of the authority or authorities responsible for administration of the scheme in question to comply with their obligation under section 87(7) of this Act.

(4) In any case to which subsection (2) or (3) above applies the Secretary of State may by notice in writing require the authority responsible for administration of the scheme in question or (as the case may be) the authorities so responsible in such proportion as may be specified in the notice to pay to the applicant such an amount by way of compensation in respect of the loss there mentioned as may be specified in the notice.

(5) The Secretary of State may if he thinks fit appoint a person to determine an application under section 90 or (Release from compulsory participation) of this Act on his behalf; and references in those sections and in subsections (2) to (4) above to the Secretary of State shall be read as including references to a person so appointed

(6) Regulations under this section may prescribe the procedure to be followed in connection with applications under sections 90 and (Release from compulsory participation) of this Act and may in particular (but without prejudice to the generality of that) include provision—

1. (a) as to the conduct of any proceedings held in connection with any such application; and
2. (b) enabling the Secretary of State to require either the applicant or the authority or authorities responsible for administration of the scheme in question, or both or all of them, to pay such sum as the Secretary of State may determine towards any expenses incurred by him in connection with the determination of the application.

(7) Where a requirement under subsection (4) above is imposed in more than one authority, the liability of the authorities concerned to the applicants shall be both joint and several.

(8) Any sums paid to the Secretary of State by virtue of subsection (6)(b) above shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.")

New Clause 91 agreed to.

Clause 92 [Enforcement of participation in travel concession schemes]:

Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 253D:

[Printed earlier.]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Following is the text of the amendment (No. 253D): page 95, line 28, at end insert— (" (2) Where an offence under this section committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to have been attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. (3) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (2) above shall apply in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as if he were a director of the body corporate. (4) Proceedings for an offence under this section shall not, in England and Wales, be instituted except by the authority, or any one of the authorities, responsible for administration of the scheme in question or by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.")

Clause 92, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 93 agreed to.

Clause 94 [Subsidies for travel concessions]:

Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 253E:

[Printed earlier.]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 253E): Leave out Clause 94 and insert the following new clause:

Travel concessions on services provided by Passenger Transport Executives.

("Travel concessions apart from schemes

94.—(1) The payments provided for under an agreement providing for service subsidies in respect of any service entered into by an authority responsible for expenditure on public passenger transport services may not include payments in respect of the provision of travel concessions on journeys on that service except as provided below in this section.

(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, provision may be included in any such agreement for the making of payments by the authority in question to the person providing the service to which the agreement relates in respect of the provision of travel concessions on journeys on that service or any part of it for any description of persons eligible in accordance with section 87(8) of this Act to receive travel concessions under a travel concession scheme under that section.

(3) Subsection (2) above only applies where the concessions in question are not available, or not available to that description of persons, under any such scheme administered by the authority concerned or by that authority acting jointly with any other authority or authorities.").

New Clause 94 agreed to.

Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 253F:

After Clause 94, insert the following new clause:

("Subsidies for travel concessions.

.—(1) A Passenger Transport Executive may not in exercise of their powers under section 10(1)(xiii) of the 1968 Act (power of Passenger Transport Executive to charge for services and waive their charges, etc.) provide travel concessions for persons travelling on any public passenger transport service provided by the Executive other than persons of any description eligible in accordance with section 87(8) of this Act to receive travel concessions under a travel concession scheme established under that section, except where those concessions are provided under any agreement or arrangements under which the whole of the cost of providing those concessions is to be met by a person other than that Executive or the Passenger Transport Authority for that Executive's area.

(2) The approval of the Passenger Transport Authority for a passenger transport area under section 15(2) of the 1968 Act (approval of Passenger Transport Authority required for alterations by Executive in general level of charges and for reduction or waiver of charges by Executive) shall not be required for travel concessions granted by the Passenger Transport Executive for that area for persons travelling on any public passenger transport service provided by the Executive if those concessions are granted—

1. (a) in accordance with any scheme established under section 87 of this Act by any authority other than the Passenger Transport Authority for that Executive's area or (as the case may be) by authorities who do not include that Passenger Transport Authority; or
2. (b) where that Executive's area is in England and Wales, in pursuance of arrangements made with that Executive by any local authority within the meaning of the National Assistance Act 1948 in exercise of their powers under section 29 of that Act (welfare arrangements for handicapped persons);

or correspond to travel concessions under any scheme established under section 87 of this Act by the Passenger Transport Authority for that Executive's area.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above, travel concessions granted by the Executive for a passenger transport area on any such service correspond to travel concessions under any such scheme if they are—

1. (a) of the same value;
2. (b) available subject to the same terms, limitations or conditions; and
3. (c) available to persons of the same description;

as the travel concessions provided under that scheme.")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 253F and to speak also to Nos. 253G, 269ZB and 269ZC.

Amendment No. 253G: After Clause 94, insert the following new clause:

("Travel concessions on servicss provided by local authorities.

.—(1) Where the council of any county or district in England and Wales or of any region or islands area in Scotland are operating any public passenger transport service, they shall have power to provide travel concessions for persons travelling on that service of any description eligible in accordance with section 87(8) of this Act to receive travel concessions under a travel concession scheme established under that section.

(2) In respect of travel concessions provided under this section, any such council may, if they think fit, from time to time transfer to the credit of the account of their transport undertaking sums from the general rate fund or, where that council is the council of any region or islands area in Scotland, from the general fund (within the meaning of section 93 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973).

(3) Sums so transferred must not exceed the cost to the council concerned of providing the concessions or so much of that cost as would not apart from subsection (2) above fall to be met out of the fund there mentioned.")

Amendment No. 269ZB: Schedule 6, page 146, line 1, at end insert—

(" . In section 10(1)(xiii) of the 1968 Act (power of Passenger Transport Executive to charge for services, etc.), after the word "Act" there shall be inserted the words "and section (Travel concessions on services provided by Passenger Transport Executives) of the Transport Act 1985 (travel concessions on services provided by Passenger Transport Executies)".

. In section 15(2) of that Act (approval of Passenger Transport Authority required for alterations by Executive in general level of charges and for reduction or waiver of charges by Executive), for the words "138(1) of this Act" there shall be substituted the words "(Travel concessions on services by Passenger Transport Executives) of the Transport Act 1985 (travel concessions on services provided by Passenger Transport Executives)".")

Amendment No. 269ZC: Page 146, line 2, leave out ("the 1968") and insert ("that").

These new clauses are necessary to clarify and establish the powers of PTEs and local authorities to provide travel concessions on their own services. I think of such things as the Glasgow Underground, the Tyne and Wear Metro and the Scottish ferries. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 253G.

[Printed above.]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Denham

I think by general consent we have reached as far as we usefully can this evening. I beg to moved that the House do now resume.

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

House resumed.