Transport Bill

HL Deb 29 July 1985 vol 467 cc115-50

10.5 p.m.

House again in Committee.

Clause 104 [Bus substitution services and bus service conditions]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 256:

Page 103, line 36, leave out ("in the Executive's area of any bus substitution service") and insert ("of any bus substitution service between places in the Executive's area of between such places and places outside that area but within the permitted distance for the purposes of section 10(1)(ii) of the 1968 Act as it applies to that Executive (that is to say, twenty-five miles from the nearest point on the boundary of that area).").

The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 256, and at the same time speak to Amendments 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262 and 263.

Amendment No. 257: Clause 105, page 104, line 41, at end insert—

("(4A) Where the proposed withdrawal of service relates to a service or part of a service which is subsidised by the Passenger Transport Executive for any passenger transport area under any agreement made with the Railways Board by virtue of section 104(3) of this Act, the Board shall not publish a notice with respect to the proposed withdrawal under subsection (1) above without the consent of the Executive to its publication. (4B) If in any such case the Board publish such a notice before obtaining that consent, the notice shall be of no effect unless before the end of the period fixed by the notice for objecting to the revocation or variation of the relevant bus service condition either—

1. (a) the Executive have informed the Board in writing that they consent to the publication; or
2. (b) the Secretary of State, on an application made for the purpose by the Board (whether before or after the publication of the notice) and after offering the Executive what the Secretary of State considers a reasonable opportunity to make any representations, has directed that the notice shall have effect notwithstanding that the Executive have not consented to its publication.").

Amendment No. 258: page 104, line 42, after ("Where") insert ("in the case of any proposed withdrawal of service subsection (4A) above does not apply but").

Amendment No. 259: page 104, line 43, leave out ("of service").

Amendment No. 260: Clause 106, page 105, line 22, leave out from beginning to ("lodge") in line 25 and insert ("Where, in the case of any withdrawal of service to which section 105(4A) or (5) of this Act applies, notice of the withdrawal has been published under subsection (1) of that section, the Executive concerned may, within the period specified in the notice for objecting to the withdrawal").

Amendment No. 261: page 105, line 27, at end insert— ("The fact that the Executive concerned gave their consent to the publication of the notice shall not affect their right under this subsection to oppose the withdrawal of service.").

Amendment No. 262: page 105, line 30, at end insert—

("(8) References above in this section to a notice published under section 105(1) of this Act do not include a notice which under subsection (4B) of that section is of no effect.").

Amendment No. 263: page 108, line 38, leave out ("section") and insert ("sections 104 to").

These are all technical amendments. Taken together they ensure that PTEs have the same powers to support bus substitution services inside their areas and outside them as they have under existing legislation.

Lord Shepherd

I intervene only because there is so much noise. Could the noble Earl do it again, and with a little caution in terms of speed?

The Earl of Caithness

I am glad to see that the Labour Benches are now empty and so I shall continue. I shall start from the beginning. These are all technical amendments. Taken together they ensure that PTEs have the same powers to support bus substitution services inside their areas and outside them as they have under existing legislation to support rail services, and that the arrangements covering the PTEs' role in relation to proposals to withdraw bus substitution services in their areas and within 25 miles of their areas is parallel to that which applies to rail services. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 104, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 105 [Notice of withdrawal of bus substitution services]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 257 to 259:

[Printed above.]

The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 257, 258 and 259. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 105, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 106 [Objections to withdrawal of bus substitution service]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 260 to 262:

[Printed above.]

The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 260, 261 and 262.I spoke to these earlier. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 106, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 107 agreed to.

Clause 108 [Supplementary and consequential provisions]:

Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 262A:

Page 108, line 8, leave out ("to consider the charges made for any bus substitution service, or").

The noble Lord said: How good it is to get back to regulars, and to have the lights down for the normal sort of transport debate. I beg to move Amendment No. 262A, and it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to 263A at the same time.

Amendment No. 263A: Page 108, line 41, at end insert— ("(12) In section 56(5) of the Transport Act 1962 the words "to consider the charges made for any service or facility or" and "or reduction" and in section 40(6) of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 the words "the charges made for any service or facility or" and "or reduction" shall be omitted.").

At present the Central Transport Consultative Committee, the Transport Users' Consultative Committee and the London Regional Passengers' Committee are statutorily prevented from considering issues relating to fares, charges, and reductions in British Rail services. During the debate last year on the London Regional Transport Bill the Government gave a commitment to remove these restrictions in the first appropriate Bill, declaring that the London Regional Transport Bill was not appropriate since it related only to London and that the change would have national application.

The relevant comments were given by Mrs. Chalker, the Minister of State at the Department of Transport, in another place. In relation to fares and charges she said on 13th December 1983, at cols. 929 and 930 of Hansard: Fares were mentioned by several honourable Members. The role of the new consumer body in relation to fares is important. At present consumer bodies dealing with transport—the Central Transport Consultative Committee, the area transport users' consultative committees, and, in London, the LTPC—all have fares and charges specifically excluded from their statutory remit. In December last year the Government published a document called: The Nationalised Industry Consumer Councils: A Strategy for Reform".

She went on at some length indicating that although she was seized of the need for the sort of changes which are contained in this amendment today, that was not the time to do it. She also said at that time that she was glad to say that the chairman of British Rail, the then Mr Bob Reid, now Sir Bob Reid, had agreed that his board would consult the Central Transport Consultative Committee in advance of any new legislation.

It seems from what I hear that this system is not working, and, without going into further long quotes from what the honourable lady said, I think it is correct to say that the Government have not seen fit to include clauses in this Transport Bill, and it is clear that it had been intended to include the relevant powers in a wider nationalised industries Bill intended for the next Session of Parliament. It is certainly wrong for me to anticipate the Queen's Speech, and I am sure that it is also wrong for the Government to anticipate the Queen's Speech; but we understand that this Bill has been deferred and that both the LRPC and the CTCC feel strongly that the opportunity should not be missed, while this Bill is passing through Parliament, to include suitable clauses in it.

I am informed that former arrangements have not worked well, especially in relation to British Rail. In the very recent past British Rail decided to increase longer-distance savers' fares, for instance, from 7th July. No formal or informal discussions took place with either committee, and the details only emerged as a result of a press meeting. On service reductions, the CTCC produced an amendment setting out the reasons why the present arrangements should be ended (which I can offer to the Minister at a later stage if he wishes), but it follows that if the statutory exclusion relating to fares and charges for air services is removed then it should be removed relating to the bus substitution services referred to in Sections 103 to 109. The second part of the proposed amendment, therefore, covers the appropriate change to Clause 108(6). With that slightly complicated and, I hope, not too lengthy explanation, I beg to move.

The Earl of Caithness

As we suspected, these amendments are designed to fulfil what the noble Lord thought was the commitment made by the Government in another place during the passage of the LRT Bill in 1983–84 to amend legislation to give the transport consumer bodies a statutory role in relation both to fares and to reductions in BR services. While I would be very quick to reassure the Committee that it remains our firm intention to fulfil that commitment, these amendments do not, and I believe that there are good reasons why they are inappropriate. Our commitment was to establish a role on "the structure and relativities of fares". These amendments give the consumer bodies a statutory role which would enable them to comment on fare levels. That is something that was not our intention.

In setting objectives for the Railways Board in 1983 and for LRT in 1984, we made clear that responsibility for determining fare levels was a matter for the boards of those industries. We do not want to include on the statute book any provisions which cloud the responsibility that BR and LRT have to determine fare levels, or which open the way to direct ministerial intervention in the matter of fares or service levels. These are, quite properly, management decisions for the board within the framework of objectives set by the Government. To extend the scope of the consumer bodies' remit in this way would require a rather different and much more substantial set of amendments than these simple deletions of the existing statutory exclusions.

The Bill is primarily about bus services, and, as we know, it is already a very long and complex Bill. I hope that the Committee will agree that it would be wrong for extra ideas of this kind to be included. I believe that there is a limit to the number of policy areas, however worthy, which we can include, even policy areas which are linked in some way to provisions already in the Bill. I should add that in practice the existing statutory exclusions are not preventing the transport consumer bodies from making a contribution either in the matter of fares or in the matter of BR service levels.

In practice, the TUCCs, which I referred to earlier, and the LRPC already comment on BR service reductions, and both BR and LRT have agreed to consult with the TUCCs informally before implementing fares increases. So this already takes place at the moment. Indeed, I know that in drawing up their new simplified fares structure British Rail drew on recommendations and advice from the consumer bodies. So, while I repeat that it is our intention to regularise these informal arrangements, I do not feel that the need to do so is so urgent as to justify Government amendments to this Bill at this stage. I trust your Lordships will agree that we should await a more appropriate legislative opportunity.

10.15 p.m.

Lord Tordoff

The question really is when that is going to come. This is the second time we have been fobbed off with a statement like that. The first was on the London Regional Transport Bill last year, and now it is on the Transport Bill this year. Assuming that we have a transport Bill every year, presumably we shall be fobbed off again next year if the Government are not bringing forward a wider nationalised industries Bill.

I shall have to read what the noble Earl has said, but some points appear to be in complete contradiction to the information I have been given by some of these consultative committees. Indeed, at one point it seeemed to contradict what the honourable lady Mrs. Lynda Chalker said in another place in reply to my honourable friend the Member for Bermondsey. We seem to be continually being fobbed off in this matter, and I must say this is an area of considerable concern to people whose duty to the public is to represent their views, particularly in relation to British Rail. The fact that this is a buses Bill does not preclude us from dealing with certain matters relating to British Rail where those matters overlap. Nevertheless, it is just after quarter past 10, and I will go away and read what has been said. I cannot help feeling that this is something we must certainly come back to at Report stage. Having said that, I beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 262B:

Page 108, line 25, leave out (" "or" (in the third place where it occurs) ") and insert (" "and to the Bus Company" ")

The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 262B and at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 275ZA. Amendment No. 275ZA: Schedule 7, page 151, line 11, column 3, leave out (" "or" (in the third place where it occurs) ") and insert (" "and to the Bus Company" ")

These are amendments designed simply to correct technical imperfections. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 263:

[Printed earlier: col. 116.]

The noble Earl said: I beg to move this amendment. I spoke to it with Amendment No. 256.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 263):

Page 108, line 38, leave out ("section") and insert ("sections 104 to").

[Amendment No. 263A not moved.]

Clause 108, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 109 agreed to.

Clause 110 [Application of sections 52 and 56 of the 1981 Act]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 264:

Page 109, line 21, leave out paragraph (a) and insert— (" (a) applications for the registration of services under section 6 of this Act and for the variation of such registrations;")

The noble Lord said: This is a minor tidying up amendment, designed to ensure that the registration system works smoothly. Clause 110 confers a power on the Secretary of State to prescribe fees to be charged by the traffic commissioners for registrations and variations. The amendment relates this power to applications for registrations and variations. The fees therefore must be enclosed with the application or the application is not proceeded with. The traffic area officers will therefore not have to spend valuable time chasing late papers and collecting debts. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 110, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 111 and 112 agreed to.

Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 264ZA: After Clause 112, insert the following new clause:a

("Timing of re-organisations.

. It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State so to exercise the powers conferred upon him by this Act as to procure that—

1. (a) all directions required to be given under section 48(5) of this Act shall have been given and compliance therewith secured in so far as they relate to the promotion of sustained and fair competition both between companies which are part of the National Bus Company or former companies of the National Bus Company and between any such companies and other persons engaged in providing bus services or in carrying on any activities carried on in connection with providing bus services;
2. (b) a scheme under section 58(7) and an order under section 59(5) of this Act shall have come into force in relation to every Passenger Transport Executive;
3. (c) for every council operating a bus undertaking within the meaning of section 62(2) of this Act, the council or (as the case may be) each of the councils shall have formed (whether alone or jointly with any other council operating a bus undertaking) one or more companies pursuant to section 63 of this Act and there shall have been approved and come into force—
1. (i) a scheme within the meaning of section 64 of this Act; or
2. (ii) an order within the meaning of section 65 of this Act; or
3. (iii) a scheme within the meaning of section 64 of this Act and an Order within the meaning of section 65 of this Act where the Council's bus undertaking forms part of a joint undertaking and separate activities are carried on by the council within the meaning of section 64(2) of this Act;

not later than 31st May 1986.")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 264ZA. It will not have escaped your Lordships' notice that this amendment is similar to the very first amendment which was debated in the Committee and which was proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. As before, I have had the benefit of studying the report and the reply given by my noble friend Lord Belstead. Having done this, I remain concerned that in order to meet the Government's own requirements of fair competition it is necessary that basic structural reforms in the public sector should first have taken place. However, I do not know that this amendment seeks to delay the introduction of deregulation; rather it sets a date by which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will have taken the necessary steps to implement his own policy. It is his policy; and he cannot have it both ways.

It is a major objective of this Bill to permit free and fair competition between bus operators. It is the Government who have decided that a reorganisation of the public sector is necessary to ensure that competition is fair. My right honourable friend has stressed that these changes need to have taken place before deregulation can be effective. Indeed, the White Paper on Buses specifically states: The Secretary of State has also concluded that fair competition can only be achieved on deregulation if the separation of district councils and PTE bus operators from their parent authority and their incorporation into companies and the reorganisation of NBC companies to compete fairly, has been completed.

I do not know whether your Lordships would like me to read that again——

Noble Lords

No!

Lord Teviot

That sounds very indigestible, but that is what my right honourable friend has said. The Transport Bill enacts this provision which is fundamental to the fairness of competition.

We have now reached the amendments to Schedule 5, tabled by my noble friend Lord Belstead. One looks forward to many words of wisdom on that. Because of those amendments, when we consider the Bill at Report stage the date of 31st May 1986 which is written into my amendment may itself require to be amended. However, in this Committee, it is the principle upon which we must decide. For the moment let me say that I chose 31st May 1986 as the appropriate date for the completion of the necessary action by the Secretary of State because this, in the Bill as drafted, is the last day before registration of services will begin. One is not necessarily wedded to this particular date although it seems to be an appropriate one. However, as the Bill is to be amended by the Government we shall have to think again. Therefore, I ask your Lordships to accept this amendment, on the understanding that it may be appropriate to amend the effective date at a later stage.

At this very late stage, on the sixth day of debate, various noble Lords have spoken quite a lot. If they wish to sally forth I shall be delighted to hear them, and I am sure that my noble friend will answer. I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My noble friend has explained with great clarity that if the Bill is to work we must have an early date by which NBC subsidiaries are in the form in which they will be competing fairly after deregulation, and by which the PTE and municipal undertakings will have been transferred to companies. I think I should try to deal first with the difficulties I see in my noble friend's suggestion that we should include a particular date, 31st May, in the Bill, although my noble friend said he was not absolutely wedded to that date. I shall then turn to the points which he made about the relationship between his amendment and the transitional provision of Schedule 5.

As my noble friend has pointed out, we debated some weeks ago now a very similar amendment to Clause 1, and no doubt later on this evening we shall be debating further the issue of the dates. As we said then, we do not think that we could amend the Bill in the way suggested here. The Government have made clear that they intend to ensure that NBC's local companies will be competing fairly with each other and with other operators by deregulation day. They have also made clear that they fully intend by the same date to approve the schemes which will establish public transport companies.

But I must ask your Lordships whether it would be practical to put a deadline in the Bill by which all this must be completed. What, for example, would its effect be if an unforeseen problem arose in one particular case, so that a transfer from one municipal undertaking could not quite be effected? It might genuinely be impossible to comply properly with the amendment. I do not think that we should accept that the transfer should in those circumstances be hurriedly completed in order to comply with the amendment.

I must also say that the deadline of 31st May suggested by my noble friend would not be practical. A good deal of progress must of course be made by then. In the case of NBC my right honourable friend will have received disposal proposals from the company within three months of coming into force, which include a statement of how their main objective and duties under new Clause 48 are to be implemented. As for the directions which may be given by the Secretary of State under Clause 48(5), this is very much a reserve power which may never be used, but must, if it is to make any sense, be available to the Secretary of State throughout the disposal period. In the case of PTE and municipal undertakings, there will no doubt be some need for discussion with authorities about the issues raised by their proposals, if the transfer is to work properly, I do not believe it is realistic to expect all this work to be completed by May; nor do I think it necessary. as I shall try to explain.

As regards the way in which these "reorganisations" would interact with the transition to deregulation, I think it would be wrong of us to accept that the difficulties are too great. I fully accept that these public sector operators will need to have a sound estimate of their future structure and costs as a company if they are to participate fully and—just as important—fairly in the tendering process. But the Government do not accept that every detail of the reorganisations has to be complete in order for them to do so.

In the case of NBC, as I have said, the company will have submitted its disposal programme within three months of that clause coming into force and will have substantially completed restructuring in preparation for deregulation; and in the case of PTE and municipal undertakings, the Government have made clear that they will require the schemes to transfer properties, rights and liabilities to their companies to be submitted by 1st March. We shall be consulting authorities shortly on draft advice to help them do that job. So it is not as if these undertakings will have nothing to go on. In practice, they will have firm proposals for the shape of their companies as soon as March, and that will be an adequate basis for them to prepare tenders and registrations.

In short, I think the business of reorganisation is bound to be interlocked with the transition. We should have very odd proposals for restructuring if it were not. I think the proposed timetable put forward by the Government is the best practical solution, and, therefore, I hope that my noble friend will think again before pressing his amendment.

Lord Shepherd

I am not entirely wedded to the amendment that has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. But I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, what he means by the "disposal programme" of the NBC companies. My understanding is that the NBC companies will remain within the National Bus Company, that they will be competing with each other—but certainly not in the time-scale that we are now discussing—and that there will be a disposal programme into the private sector. What did the noble Lord mean by a disposal programme?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

Under Clause 47(3) they will have to have submitted a disposal programme. But that does not mean to say that they will actually have to have disposed of the separate companies. Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, pointed out, they will be expected to compete fairly one with another and to operate as if they were apart, even if they are not.

10.30 p.m.

Lord Shepherd

So what the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, said in terms of the disposal programme is not exactly appropriate to the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, moved. The noble Lord is quite right. Under the relevant clause the companies shall be free and able to compete with each other and with all other organisations.

I have a touch of anxiety about the date of the Bill. I think that the usefulness of the amendment is that the noble Lord speaking for the Government cannot say "Yea" or "Nay" in regard to this. Yet later on, no doubt, they will be very firm in terms of deregulation. This amendment is crucial to deregulation and to fair trading between all the various public organisations once they are set free under the Bill. The Minister is not able to give a specific date as to when that could be achieved, yet I have no doubt that later on he will be very specific in terms of the date for deregulation. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, that I think I understand the Government's anxiety and difficulty in either accepting the amendment or being critical of it. What we ought to do—I hope the noble Lord will agree—having listened very carefully to what the noble Lord the Minister has had to say, is to see how we can use it on the major debate which is bound to arise under Schedule 5. I do not know whether the noble Lord will agree with that, but that seems to me the best procedure.

Lord Sandford

Perhaps I may endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has just said. The question of dates and whether we have them in the Bill and how firm they are is a topic better discussed when we come to Schedule 5.

Lord Teviot

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. When we come to Schedule 5 I might come in on one or two points, but it will not be with conviction.

My noble friend Lord Brabazon answered the amendment very clearly. I was not quite sure which algebraic equation it was. I did not get very far on that subject, only as far as the Common Entrance. However, the comments he made will be studied. The Bus and Coach Council working party have watched the proceedings before your Lordships and they felt that this was a very worthwhile amendment. My noble friend has given his views and when we come back to this on Report we shall have three days to consider a great many points. An immense number of improvements have to be made to the Bill. One thing about the Bill is that many noble Lords have expressed all sorts of opinions. I do not think that anyone has tried to undermine the Bill. We have tried to make a great success of it. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 113 [Transfer schemes]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 264A:

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

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

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 264A):

Page 111, line 12, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 264B:

[Printed 18/7/85; col. 935.]

The noble Earl said: This amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 185A. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 264B):

Page 111, line 15, leave out ("a") and insert ("the whole or any").

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 264C to 264F:

[Printed 18/7/85; col. 987.]

The noble Earl said: These amendments are consequential upon Amendment No. 211CN, to which I have already spoken. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendments (Nos. 264C to 264F):

Page 111, line 17, at beginning insert ("(or partly in one way and partly in the other)")

Page 111, line 19, at end insert ("(including in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of that, provision with respect to the consideration to be provided by the transferee for any transfer under the scheme)")

Page 111, line 20, leave out ("subsection (4) below") and insert ("the following provisions of this section")

Page 111, line 34, at end insert— ("(5) The Secretary of State may by order make modifications in Schedule 4 for the purposes of its application to transfers under section 50(4), 58(7), 60(10) or 64(7) of this Act.")

Clause 113, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 114 to 119 agreed to.

Clause 120 [General interpretation]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 264G:

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

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

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 264GJ:

Page 117, line 12, at end insert— (" "securities", in relation to a body corporate, means any shares, stock, debentures, debenture stock, and any other security of a similar nature, of the body corporate;").

Clause 120, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 121 [Expenses and receipts]:

[Amendment No. 265 not moved.]

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 265A:

[Printed earlier: col. 23.]

The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 253H. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 265A):

Page 118, line 39, leave out ("95") and insert ("(Grants for establishment, etc., of rural passenger services in Wales and Scotland), (Transitional rural bus grants)").

Clause 121, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 122 [Transitional provisions, savings, amendments, repeals and revocation]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 266:

Page 119, line 16, after ("Act") insert ("(which include certain provisions which are already spent)").

The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment which recognises that Schedule 7 includes some repeals—that in Amendment No. 279 is one—which are not strictly consequential on anything in this Bill but which are of provisions which are already spent; Amendment No. 279 being consequential on the Metropolitan Traffic Area (Transfer of Functions) Order 1984. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 122, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 5 [Transitional provisions and savings]:

Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 266A:

Page 137, line 38, leave out ("30") and insert ("27").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 266A and will speak also to Amendments Nos. 267A, 268ZA, 268ZB, 268ZC, 268ZD, 268B, 268C and 281.

Amendment No. 267A: Page 138, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (1).

Amendment No. 268ZA: Page 139, line 24, leave out ("9") and insert ("9C").

Amendment No. 268ZB: Page 139, line 27, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 30 and insert—

• (" "relevant authority", in relation to a local service, means any Passenger Transport Executive or county, regional or islands council within whose area there will be a stopping place for the service;
• "road service licence" has the same meaning as in the 1981 Act;").

Amendment No. 268ZC: Page 139, line 32, at end insert—

("(2) Section 118(3) of this Act shall not apply to any regulations made under paragraphs 7 to 9B below.

(3) For the purposes of paragaph 8 below, a local service is improved if, but only if, there is any increase in—

1. (a) the frequency of the service;
126
2. (b) the length of its route;
3. (c) the number of stopping places for the service; or
4. (d) the number of passengers which can be carried by the service taken as a whole.".

Amendment No. 268ZD: Page 139, line 33, leave out paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and insert—

("7.—(1) Where an application for registration of the prescribed particulars of a local service falls within one of the Cases mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) below—

1. (a) the traffic commissioner to whom the application is made shall register those particulars;
2. (b) they shall be deemed to have been registered with him under section 6 of this Act; and
3. (c) the period of notice (mentioned in section 6) in relation to that registration shall be deemed to have expired.

(2) The Cases are—

CASE A

Where—

1. (a) the application for registration of the prescribed particulars of a local service is received by the traffic commissioner at any time before 1st March 1986; and
2. (b) the prescribed requirements are satisfied in relation to the application.

CASE B

Where—

1. (a) the application for registration of the prescribed particulars of a local service is received by the traffic commissioner at any time after the grant of the licence mentioned in paragraph (b) below but before 17th August 1986;
2. (b) a road service licence has been granted for that service at any time after 28th February 1986; and
3. (c) the prescribed requirements are satisfied in relation to the application.

CASE C

Where—

1. (a) the application for registration of the prescribed particulars of a local service is received by the traffic commissioner at any time during the period beginning with 1st March 1986 and ending with 16th August 1986;
2. (b) the particulars of the service are the same as those of a trial area service; and
3. (c) the prescribed requirements are satisfied in relation to the application.

In this Case "trial area service" means a local service provided in a trial area (as defined by section 38 of the 1981 Act) and in respect of which the requirements of section 40 of that Act (duty to publish particulars of services in trial areas) have been satisfied.

CASE D

Where—

1. (a) the application for registration of the prescribed particulars of a local service is received by the traffic commissioner at any time during the period beginning with 1st March 1986 and ending with 27th September 1986;
2. (b) the application is supported in writing, in accordance with sub-paragraph (3) below, by an authority responsible for expenditure on public passenger transport services (as defined for Part V of this Act by section 82(7)); and
3. (c) the prescribed requirements are satisfied in relation to the application.

(3) An authority of the kind mentioned in paragraph (b) of Case D shall give their support to an application in accordance with this sub-paragraph if, but only if, the local service in question is one—

1. (a) which the operator has contracted with that authority to operate under an agreement providing for service subsidies; or
2. (b) for the provision of which that authority have issued an invitation to tender under section 83 of this Act and for which the person applying for registration of the particulars of the service has submitted a tender to provide the service without subsidy.

Variation and cancellation of registrations during transitional period

8.—(1) Where the prescribed particulars of a local service have been registered with a traffic commissioner under paragraph 7 above and an application is made to him for the variation or cancellation of the registration, he shall vary or (as the case may be) cancel the registration if he is satisfied that the application falls within one of the Cases mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) below.

(2) The Cases are—

CASE 1

Where—

1. (a) the application is made by the operator of the service to which the registration relates;
2. (b) the application is received by the traffic commissioner at any time before 1st March 1986; and
3. (c) the prescribed requirements are satisfied in relation to the application.

CASE 2

Where—

1. (a) the application is made by the operator of the service to which the registration relates;
2. (b) the application is received by the traffic commissioner at any time during the period beginning with 1st March 1986 and ending with 30th June 1986;
3. (c) the application is supported in writing, in accordance with sub-paragraph (3) below, by each relevant authority; and
4. (d) in the case of an application for variation, a service operated in accordance with the particulars as proposed to be varied would not amount to a service improved by comparison with a service operated in accordance with the particulars as registered.

Where a relevant authority have refused to support the application but the traffic commissioner is of the opinion that no such authority acting reasonably would have refused to support it he may, at the request of the applicant, proceed as if paragraph (c) of this Case were omitted.

CASE 3

Where the application—

1. (a) is for the variation of the registered particulars;
2. (b) is made by the operator of the service to which the registration relates;
3. (c) is received by the traffic commissioner at any time during the period beginning with 1st March 1986 and ending with 27th September 1986; and
4. (d) is supported in writing, in accordance with sub-paragraph (4) below, by each relevant authority.

(3) Where a relevant authority are asked by the operator of a local service to provide written support, in accordance with this sub-paragraph, for an application for the variation or cancellation of the registration of the prescribed particulars of the service, the authority shall do so if, but only if, they are satisfied—

1. (a) that any demand which would have been met by a service operated in accordance with the registered particulars would be met—
1. (i) by a service operated in accordance with the particulars as proposed to be varied; or
2. (ii) by another service the particulars of which have been registered under paragraph 7 above; or
2. (b) that there has been a change of circumstances—
1. (i) which seriously impairs the ability of the operator of the service to operate it in accordance with the registered particulars; and
2. (ii) which could not reasonably have been foreseen by him.

(4) Where a relevant authority are asked by the operator of a local service to provide written support, in accordance with this sub-paragraph, for an application for the variation of the registration of the prescribed particulars of the service, the authority may do so if they are satisfied—

1. (a) that a variation of the particulars of the service is desirable in the interests of producing a pattern of service which is 128 better suited to meeting the public transport requirements of their area; and
2. (b) where a service operated in accordance with the particulars as proposed to be varied would amount to a service improved by comparison with a service operated in accordance with the particulars as registered, that any demand met by the improvement to the service could not be met by any other local service if the improvement were not made.

Duty to notify relevant authorities of applications for registrations etc.

9.—(1) Any person making an application which falls within one of the Cases mentioned in paragraph 7 above shall—

1. (a) notify each relevant authority of the application and of the particulars to be registered; and
2. (b) furnish each such authority with such further information as may be specified.

(2) Any person making an application which falls within one of the Cases mentioned in paragraph 8 above shall—

1. (a) notify each relevant authority of the application and, in the case of an application for the variation of registered particulars, of the variation to be registered; and
2. (b) furnish each such authority with such further information as may be specified.

Publication of information by traffic commissioner

9A.—(1) Each traffic commissioner shall publish—

1. (a) the particulars of local services registered with him in response to applications falling within any of the Cases mentioned in paragraphs 7 and 8 above; and
2. (b) details of any such registrations which are cancelled in response to applications falling within any of the Cases mentioned in paragraph 8 above.

(2) The particulars registered with a traffic commissioner in response to applications falling within Case A in paragraph 7 above, or Case 1 in paragraph 8 above, shall be published—

1. (a) separately from the other particulars which he is required to publish by sub-paragraph (1) above; and
2. (b) before 1st April 1986.

(3) Where a traffic commissioner is required by sub-paragraph (1) above to publish any particulars of a local service, he shall send those particulars to any Passenger Transport Executive, district council in England and Wales or county, regional or islands council in whose area lies any part of the route of the service.

School buses

9B.—(1) For the purpose of ensuring that in the school year beginning in 1986 satisfactory provision can be made for transporting those pupils for whom a local education authority (or, in Scotland, an education authority) are under a duty to provide transport, the Secretary of State may by regulations make provision (including provision modifying this Schedule) for enabling approved local services to be operated during the transitional period without road service licences.

(2) In this paragraph "approved", in relation to a local service, means approved by the traffic commissioner for the traffic area in which the service is to be provided.

Continuation of existing road service licences

9C. A road service licence (other than one for a service with one or more stopping places in London) which is in force when this Act is passed but which would otherwise expire before 27th September 1986 shall, unless previously revoked, continue in force to the end of that day.").

Amendment No. 268B: Page 141, line 34, leave out paragraph 12.

Amendment No. 268C: Page 143, line 12, leave out ("30th") and insert ("27th").

Amendment No. 281: Clause 123, page 119, line 22, after ("section") insert ("and paragraph 9C of Schedule 5 to this Act").

These amendments are all consequential. I hope that many of your Lordships will have seen the revised note on this schedule which has been in the Printed Paper Office, explaining in detail how these amendments will change the transitional provisions in Schedule 5. Amendments Nos. 266A, 267A and 268C will adjust slightly the dates for the end of the transitional period, from 30th September to 27th September, so that it will fall at the end of the week rather than on a weekday. We received many representations suggesting that such would be more convenient for the public and for the industry, and the amendments are in response to them.

The main change we are seeking to make, by Amendments Nos. 268A, 268ZA, 268ZB, 268ZCand 268ZD, is to drop from Schedule 5 the provisions requiring the notification of services in the transitional period. Under those provisions operators would have been required to notify passenger transport executives and county councils early in 1986 of the services they intended to register, to run on deregulation. Notification was intended to inform PTEs and county councils, at the earliest point, of operators' commercial networks so that the authorities could start planning their subsidised services in time for all the services—both commercial and noncommercial—to be running from the end of September 1986.

However, notification did not carry with it the commitment from operators that they would in fact operate the services notified during the transitional period. We received many representations from local authorities and others that the information they would receive under the notification procedure would not have been sufficiently reliable to be a basis for their planning. So instead of notification, what our amendments do is to require operators to register their commercial services by the end of February 1986. That will then give authorities firm information about the services which will be operated on deregulation and it will allow a period of some six to seven months for authorities to organise the tendering for the noncommercial services they wish to secure in addition to the commercial ones.

Of course, this will commit operators long in advance of deregulation day at the end of September. Such a long commitment could cause some difficulties; adustments may be needed, circumstances may change. For that reason new paragraph 8 in Amendment No. 2682D, contains provisions which allow operators to withdraw or vary their registrations during the transitional period. I should stress, however, that this only allows a limited degree of flexibility to operators to cancel or reduce the level of service registrations where there are special circumstances to justify it: notably where there has been a change of circumstance which the operator could not have reasonably foreseen or where demand will still be met by the operator's own service or another service. That will allow for withdrawal where a number of operators have registered duplicating services. In all but one instance, to be found at the top of page 15 of the Marshalled List, variations would be subject to the approval of the relevant local authority—that is, the PTE, county, regional or islands council. It also enables authorities to negotiate changes with operators to produce a better pattern of services where this would not adversely affect other registered commercial services.

That is the meat of the amendments. Perhaps I may just add that your Lordships will wish to note that Amendment No. 268ZD honours the commitment I gave to the Committee in an earlier sitting by requiring operators who apply for a registration, or a variation or cancellation of a registration, also to notify directly each relevant authority of the details and to give those same authorities such further information as may be specified. In addition, new paragraph 9A will also require the traffic commissioner to publish registrations (and variations and cancellations) and to send the particulars to the appropriate local authorities.

The purpose of new paragraph 9B is to allow some flexibility for the traffic commissioner, responding to a local difficulty, to allow services to operate without road service licences before deregulation day for the purpose of ensuring satisfactory provision for transporting pupils to school in the school year beginning 1986. This provision honours a commitment which my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary gave in another place to consider the question of school services.

I think that that covers the main issues which are set out in these amendments. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of these complex amendments and I am grateful to him for notifying me on Friday of the revised Notes on Clauses which referred to them so that I was able to see them when I arrived earlier today.

But this is further evidence, if it were needed, that the Government are deeply dissatisfied with the Bill, deeply dissatisfied with the ability of the Bill to carry out their objectives and deeply uncertain about whether the Bill will, in fact, achieve those objectives.

This has been a history of shifting goalposts. Earlier we had substantial changes proposed by the Government about bus stations. Substantial changes were proposed on concessionary fares. As a result of a debate on pensions, where the Government Front Bench was almost alone in its defence of the provisions of the Bill, the Government were forced to avoid a Division by virtually promising a recommital into Committee unless agreement could be reached with insurance companies about the continuation of the pension rights of those working on the buses. Now, finally, we have substantial changes to a most important element of the Bill—the transition of deregulation.

10.45 p.m.

It is true that what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, says is quite correct. At the first meeting of the Committee he promised that these amendments would be put forward and in three or four sentences he gave an outline of what they would contain. It is also true that the amendments were tabled on 17th July. I do not want to take a point of procedure, but those of us who have to do this as amateurs, without being paid for our work and having to do it in addition to our existing responsibilities, find it impossible to put together complex amendments such as this to the existing schedule when we only receive (or I only received) the Notes on Clauses which seek to explain it just a few hours before the debate actually takes place. Under those circumstances it is procedurally impossible for this Committee to act as a revising Chamber, as it ought to.

I turn now to the content of the amendments and the proposals which the Government have made. I say at once that I accept that the amendments are made in good faith, that they are intended to respond to pressure which the Government have received, and that they are intended in particular to make good undertakings which were given in another place to honourable and right honourable friends. Yet I must seriously question whether the complex, Byzantine series of amendments that we have now, with four different cases affecting the time at which registration must be made and three different cases illustrating the variety of ways in which amendments may be varied or cancelled, in fact achieve the objectives of the Government.

As the noble Lord stated a few minutes ago, the idea is that the operators shall be required to register their proposed services by 28th February in order that the traffic commissioner and the local authority will have adequate time to consider them and to consider what is required of the tendering procedure between the end of February and the end of September. It is a laudable intention. But what assurance is there in fact that operators will be able or willing to register their services in the way in which it is proposed? In the first place, it will be extremely difficult for the PTEs, the district councils and the ex-National Bus Company operations to get their act together by the end of February. After all, the new PTAs have not actually been formed yet. All this is referred to in Clause 58.

There are huge procedural changes taking place with the formation of initial companies, the disposal of the operations of the existing municipal services, and so on. All these activities are taking place in the period between Royal Assent, to be given at the beginning of November, and the end of February, when registration is supposed to take place. That is for those who would like to register their services and yet, as I say, will find it difficult to do so. I cannot help thinking that there are a number of operators who will seek every loophole that they can find in these amendments and in this schedule so as not to register their services until the very last minute.

Let us take Cases B, C and D which are provided for in the new paragraph 7 of the schedule. The key is that these cases apply to those operators who do not have a road service licence before the 1st March. What is to prevent an operator from surrendering or giving notice of surrendering his road service licence and applying on the 1st March or afterwards for a new road service licence which is slightly different? He then becomes eligible under one or other of the cases subsequent to Case A to avoid registration until something like the middle of August, and all the time which is to be gained by the authorities and by the traffic commissioner will actually be lost. There are too many loopholes in the amendments as they are now. I suspect that they will have to be negotiated and amended again at Report stage if there is not to be a tremendous rush at the end of the transition period.

Let us look at the provisions on variation. What is interesting about this is the role—to which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, referred a few minutes ago—of the responsibilities of local authorities at new paragraph 8(4). The schedule refers to the fact that it is desirable that there should be a pattern of service better suited to meeting the public transport requirements of the area. This is exactly the kind of condition that we were trying to put into the Bill at Clause 107 and which was rejected out of hand by the Government.

All the time, those who have been seeking to amend the Bill have been seeking to improve the coordination between local authorities and the public transport operators. I shall not say we have been reviled but we certainly have been treated with the minimum of courtesy and consideration when we have tabled amendments of that kind, and it has been claimed that we have been obstructing the purposes of the Bill. Yet, when we come to the last minute of the last day of the Committee stage, here are the Government putting in exactly that kind of amendment.

We were told on the first day of the Committee by the noble Lord himelf about the period for calm consideration, the initial period after the end of the transition period. That indeed was in the schedule as it was originally presented to your Lordships' Chamber and brought from another place. That initial period has disappeared from the face of the Bill. All that we have in its place is a statement in the Notes on Clauses that regulations will be brought under Clause 6 to ensure that there is this gap after 27th September during which no new registrations will be allowed. Why has it been taken off the face of the Bill? If it was so important for the noble Lord to refer to it on the first day of Committee, what has happened to it now?

Throughout this Bill, with very considerable patience and very considerable difficulty, in view of the shifting nature of the Bill, we have been seeking to do three things: we have been seeking to secure realistic timetables for the Bill; we have been seeking to secure adequate co-operation between local authorities and the operators; and we have been seeking to protect all the parties concerned, the operators, the local authorities, above all, the passengers, but also the Government, from the very high risks involved in leaping forward in several directions at once.

We shall not be moving the series of amendments which are down in our names this evening, partly because of the hour and partly because we think that they will require very much greater consideration at a later stage. However, the basis on which the thinking behind these amendments rests is still sound. It is necessary that one should allow the new companies which will have to be created to be formed first before the registration process starts. It is necessary that there should be adequate provision for the units to be formed from the National Bus Company.

I hesitate to make the point because it has been made so often before and so often misunderstood but it is necessary that consideration should be given to the school year. The important point in relation to the school year is not that the routes should be known at the beginning of the first term of the school year; it is that they should be known when parents are making their choices of schools, which is more like Easter time rather than at the end of September. By the end of September they have already chosen the schools to which they are going to send their children at five or 11, and changes in the availability of bus services will be enormously disruptive at that time.

It is for those reasons that we think that a delay of six months, which is the content of our amendments, is right for this schedule. The reason is because we think it will be a protection for passengers and operators and, above all, a protection for Government from the risk they are running.

I have said that I am not going to move these amendments and I have explained why it is that those of us who are trying to act responsibly as a revising Chamber have had difficulties. I would ask the noble Lord directly not just whether he would consider a full discussion at Report stage, because he cannot avoid that, but also whether he would consider recommitting this part of the Bill, Schedule 5, to the Committee procedure at the time we go into Report. I believe that I could give the undertaking that we, on our side, would not do anything that would unnecessarily delay the legislation. We believe that the Committee procedure is the proper one for consideration. We believe that an agreement by the Government to recommit now would achieve widespread recognition and gratitude and would improve the quality of the debate in your Lordships' Committee.

Lord Shepherd

My noble friend Lord McIntosh spoke in regard to Amendment No. 267ZA and said that it was not his intention to move it. I have an amendment before that. It was always open to me to move it. I should like to address a few remarks to the Deputy Leader of your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. I believe that the leadership of your Lordships' House has a duty to the House, whether it is sitting as the House as a whole or in Committee. It is not there solely to get Government legislation through.

Here we are, at five minutes to 11, at a critical part of the Bill. This has nothing to do with politics or whether or not we agree with the principle of the Bill. There is not much between us in terms of whether the Bill, if implemented, contains within it the noble Lord's amendment, my amendment or my noble friend's amendment. All that is at issue is a matter of six months. But that is crucial in terms of the administration and the implementation of all the things within the Bill and what is required to be done.

Here we are, with the House of Commons already up, and following a debate lasting three hours on matters that have nothing to do with the Transport Bill—matters that I would suggest to the Deputy Leader of the House, if I could have his attention for a moment, it was never conceived (was it?) would take place during breaks in a Committee stage of a Bill. We had breaks in Committee stage in the early days, when your Lordships' House was relatively small, in order that Ministers and those who were participating could have a break. It was never then conceived that major legislation would be taken during that period.

What has happened today is, I believe, a gross development of an understanding of how we should use this particular break. I think that it was an abuse. Yet here we are, three hours later, due to the break, having to take a crucial schedule to the Bill. If we had a Division, I do not know whether we could get a satisfactory result. I wonder whether the Deputy Leader—I address this specifically to him on those terms—would be willing to respond to the suggestion made by my noble friend. It was a suggestion that was not in any way seeking to create difficulty for the Government, but rather to enable us to debate the matter. The proposal was that Schedule 5 should be recommitted so that when we come back there can be free and frank discussion.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, as Deputy Leader of the House, will feel that it would be in the interests of the Committee and the House itself that this very important subject should be debated at a different time and at a different period. I know that the Minister will be under pressure. I use that phrase quite deliberately because he is the Minister in charge of the Bill. But he is also Deputy Leader of the House. He is acting as the Leader of the House. I hope he will think that this is a matter which, in the interests of this Committee as a revising Chamber, ought to be recommitted and reconsidered with, as my noble friend has said, a full understanding that there will be no undue delay when we take it in October. At least this crucial part of the Bill could be well and truly considered and perhaps at the end of the day we may have found a better solution than that which is now in the Bill.

11 p.m.

Lord Sandford

I would not want to join the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in criticising my noble friend on the Front Bench for showing all the flexibility that is represented in the changes made to Schedule 5. I think that we want all the flexibility that we can wring out of the Government in a Bill of this kind, especially in Schedule 5, and I welcome the flexibility that we have obtained so far.

My noble friend on the Front Bench chided my noble friend Lord Teviot when he was moving his amendment just now for putting in firm dates. Now the Government propose amendments spattered all over with dates. Of course, in the end we must have dates, but at this stage I would suggest that they are all extremely tentative and that is the way that they should be considered, not excluding D-Day itself.

These changes with which we are now faced were effected on 17th June, and the purpose of the changes has been revealed to us only today in the Notes on Clauses, particularly in paragraph 3 of the Notes on Clauses where the thinking behind them is set out. By no stretch of the imagination does that allow for an informed debate; even if we were starting at three o'clock in the afternoon we would not be able to have an informed debate because there has been no opportunity to ascertain from those concerned what the effect of these changes upon them is apprehended to be.

The concerns so far expressed about the Bill, and the transitional stages in particular, to which my noble friend and his colleagues have responded, are based upon problems that are apprehended as people peer into the unknown and try to guess what is in store. However, I submit to the Committee that they are nothing as compared to the concerns yet to be expressed which will be based upon problems actually encountered.

Therefore, those two reasons—the fact that we cannot possibly have an informed debate now, even if we were all prepared to go on until breakfast-time, coupled with the fact that the problems which will affect the choice of programme and dates have yet to emerge—lead me very strongly to support the suggestion that when we return in October Schedule 5 must be recommitted. I hope that my noble friend will agree to that. If he does not, I am afraid that I have to say that I shall certainly be prepared to move such a Motion. However, I hope that he will agree because the case for recommitting Schedule 5 is absolutely unanswerable.

Lord Belstead

Before I deal with the procedural points which the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord McIntosh, and now my noble friend Lord Sandford have put to me, perhaps I may say a few words about the merits of the case, because although the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was good enough to say that he would not move what I imagine is Amendment No. 267ZA, the noble Lord naturally and helpfully, if I may say so, briefly referred to the case for Amendment No. 267ZA. Equally briefly, if your Lordships will forgive me, I should like to say a few words about the merits of the case.

I firmly believe that the very worst thing that we could do would be to drag out the period before deregulation any longer than is absolutely necessary. I do not believe operators want to wait a minute longer than necessary to run their new commercial services, or to hear the results of their tenders, with staff and customers uncertain of the future. No one would pretend that this is going to be an easy period of transition. It is not going to be. So let us with a sensible timespan at least make it as brief as possible.

The provisions in Schedule 5 which I have brought forward today were arrived at after a consultation exercise which the Department of Transport conducted last autumn, and after further representations received since the publication of the Bill we have brought forward this group of amendments. From the correspondence we have received it is evident that many of the initial fears about the timing have been calmed as people have become familiar with the new way in which they will be operating, have had more opportunity to discuss options and methods with each other, and have begun planning and putting into effect the necessary changes.

The message from the counties is not that the process is unachievable. On the contary, it is now clear that some counties are hoping to get on with tendering even faster than the Bill would require. The only difficulty that has been brought certainly to my attention is that the PTEs have in some cases suggested that there could be difficulty in meeting the deadline for tendering by the end of September so far as they are concerned.

I accept, in recalling that to your Lordships, that the task for tendering in the PTE areas is going to be great, but the PTEs are large organisations, as many of your Lordships know better that I do. They are not without expertise or staff. Indeed they have large staffs. It is not a question for them of starting up completely new organisations, nor are we asking them to tackle an activity with which they are not already familiar.

That is really all I want to say about the merits of trying, as the Government amendments do, to keep the transitional period as brief as is reasonable, and why I feel that Amendment No. 267, if it had been moved, was one that the Government would have had to resist.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I want to come back on the question of consultation and the agreement of the counties. I do not have the papers in front of me but I distinctly recall a memorandum from the Association of County Councils saying that it wanted a delay of at least three months. I know that the non-shire counties, the metropolitan consortium of non-shire counties, support a delay of approximately six months. I know that this is true also of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the PTEs group. I wonder whether the noble Lord and we are talking to the same people. I should be grateful to have further evidence of the opinions the noble Lord has had expressed to the Department of Transport.

Lord Sandford

Perhaps I may make it clear that although some fears may have been calmed—it would be surprising if that was not the case—it would be totally wrong to give the Committee the impression that the Association of District Councils and the 50 councils which run bus companies are remotely satisfied with the programme that is set before them at the moment.

That is not the case. They are very concerned. As for their being asked to do no more than they normally have to do, it is unheard of for local authorities to have to form a Companies Act company. They have never been asked to do it before in their lives. It is a totally new exercise.

Lord Shepherd

I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, can help us in this respect. Assume that the Committee accepts all the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, moves to Schedule 5. Would he then, recognising what I said earlier and what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has said, agree that Schedule 5 could be recommitted when we come back in October? My understanding is that we have at least three full days for consideration on Report.

Your Lordships' House is a House which always honours its agreements. Certainly in this Committee stage we have never failed to reach an agreed point, despite the hour. This is a very crucial matter. What would the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, do if we were to allow his amendments to be moved en bloc without any further debate, on the basis that, if we were to move that this part of the Bill be recommitted, we should do it with the greatest sense of responsiblity, certainly not in the sort of way that goes on in another place; but acting in the general manner in which your Lordships' House conducts its business? If the noble Lord would respond in that way, I think we should make a great deal of progress, not only on Schedule 5 but on the remaining part of the Bill.

Lord Belstead

I think that now I have been invited by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for the second time to turn from the merits of the case to the procedure and I will do so—and that does not mean that I have not listened to what my noble friend Lord Sandford has said. I would say to my noble friend in passing that I said that the message from the counties was that the process will be unachievable; I did not say it was the message from the districts; although my knowledge of and admiration for district councils in this country leads me to believe that they will be able to meet their deadlines if and when this Bill passes into law.

Let me now turn to the question of procedure. I should first like to offer your Lordships an apology from myself in that the letter which was sent on Friday giving detailed notes on the new amendments obviously was not picked up by noble Lords until this morning. I am sorry that I was not able to get it off sooner. I am afraid that it is my fault. I would gently say that the amendments were put down on 17th July so that they have been on the Marshalled List for 12 days—very nearly a fortnight—and that has been some period of time. That was done, I admit, at the urging of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and he had every right to urge me; but I like to think that I responded.

So far as the procedure for today is concerned at the very late hour at which we are debating this very important part of the Bill, with a bit still to go, I have to say that that was agreed through the usual channels under the circumstances in which we find ourselves today. May I add to that, that when it is suggested to me, as it has been in the last quarter-hour or so, that the Government on this Bill have been very inflexible, it might interest noble Lords to know that if one takes commitments to accept in principle or to bring forward amendments at Report, or other undertakings or promises, we have over 60 changes of one kind or another which have been mooted, suggested or promised during the time that this Bill has been going through its Committee stage in this House. So I like to think that the Government have not been entirely immovable while this Bill—and it is a complicated and difficult Bill—has been going through.

That brings me to the final point. Noble Lords are saying that because the Bill is a complicated Bill, because this part of the Bill is particularly complicated—and it is the case, I agree, that this long series of amendments by the Government, although they have been down for 12 days, are amendments which noble Lords would wish to look at again in detail—it will be necessary to recommit Schedule 5. My noble friend the Leader of the House and I agreed very readily when we were talking about the pensions issue because we felt that there was a very special reason there in the sense that we had to report back to your Lordships' House. The agreement, if I remember rightly, on that occasion—and the suggestion was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd—was that if, when we reported back to your Lordships' House, the House felt that the report was not satisfactory, then an undertaking would be given that the House would recommit. We said, "Yes, that will be the case." In this particular case, however, we are not reporting back to your Lordships' House on Schedule 5. I am sorry, but I have come forward with amendments which are not a departure from the policy which was originally in Schedule 5. Indeed, perhaps I may just point out to your Lordships that the amendments on the Marshalled List in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd, Lord McIntosh and Lord Carmichael, which I believe the noble Lords are thinking of not moving but which nevertheless are on the Marshalled List and still might be moved, are not directed at the amendments which I have brought forward this evening, giving a somewhat different structure to a time period. They are aimed at one thing and one thing only, and that is to extend the timetable for bringing into effect the provisions of the transitional arrangements for this Bill. I am sorry: I am not giving way to my noble friend. That is all the amendments are aimed at doing. If your Lordships really think that I am going to agree to a recommitment on the grounds that noble Lords opposite want to delay the effect of this Bill coming into force until 1987, your Lordships can think again.

11.15 p.m.

Lord Teviot

My noble friend said, after I had got up to interrupt him, that he is not going to recommit these clauses. Every good reason has been put forward before, and other amendments have not been moved. Finally, we have reached this point. We have got to discuss this very thing and, quite frankly, all the arguments have been given. I do feel that these amendments to Schedule 5 should be recommitted in October. My noble friend mentioned that these amendments had been before us since 17th July: but it is rather different, because one puts down amendments for the Government and one expects the Government to respond within 48 hours. They have civil servants, whereas all other organisations have to go back out into the shires and so on. In 1986 we shall be celebrating the 900 years of Domesday: the first survey of this country and a most important document not only for this country but for the whole world. That may not be quite so important as doing this; but the amendments were brought forward on the 17th July and now we are at the 29th. I think that my noble friend is asking really rather a lot and I believe that in this atmosphere we should ask for a slightly longer time to consider them.

Lord Shepherd

May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, one very simple question? I can understand his position; but will he explain to the Committee why he cannot meet the request? The question was submitted that these amendments to Schedule 5 be recommitted—taking into account what has always been the understanding within your Lordships' Chamber, that there must be agreement that we are not seeking to frustrate or to delay. Why is it that the noble Lord cannot meet us?—recognising that we are in this situation, not because of the noble Lord. Lord Belstead, but because of the Government's managers. Whatever he may say about it having been "agreed through the usual channels", we have had a long delay today because of the way the Government managers have organised their business. That is where we are now.

Our case is that this is not the time at this Committee stage for taking this important part of the Bill. Will the noble Lord say why he cannot make this small concession, knowing that this Committee does respect agreements and understandings?

Lord Mottistone

Before my noble friend replies—and I have not had a chance to speak yet—may I say that to begin with I was sympathetic to the thought of recommittal, but I am not sure that this is right and I think a great deal is being demanded. A great deal was made of the fact that the Notes on Clauses came out only last weekend. It is only very recently that we have had Notes on Clauses. I have been through Bills on which this very thing has happened, and I have been through Bills when in opposition on which this very thing has happened, and we have grumbled like mad. Admittedly, we have not had what has just taken place in this Chamber and which has added to the time. But before now I have been arguing until after midnight about this sort of thing, and I think we are making a great issue of it.

Producing the Notes on Clauses is making us "soft". The amendments have been down since 17th July. If you wanted comment from people, there was time for them to come back with comment. There have been 12 days. I often have comments from the people who advise me only about four days after a Government amendment has gone down. I think we we are making too much of a meal of this.

On the question as to whether it should be recommitted, it seems to me slightly wrong that we should accept the Government amendments and then have a Committee stage on part of a Bill that has already been amended in Committee. It may be technically correct—I do not know—but it seems to me that it is perfectly normal for amendments to be taken in this way and then for people to come back at Report stage. We are trying to make a special thing of something that in many cases in the past has been just like this: it has been just as frustrating, we have been just as late. I remember noble Lords opposite—and sometimes those on this side, too—"trundling" on so that we were talking at this time of night. In this case we have had a debate on another matter in the middle. I think we are making a mountain out of a molehill. We ought to stick to the procedure as we have it. Let us get on with the Bill now and stop talking about procedure.

Lord Belstead

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Mottistone for what he has said. If we are concerned about the Notes on Clauses, I have already given a personal apology that the revised Note on Clauses was notified to noble Lords only very recently. But, of course, the revised amendments have been on the Marshalled List for some 12 days. My noble friend Lord Mottistone is quite justified in saying that it is only in fairly recent years that we started having Notes on Clauses. They are very necessary, and no one is more glad than I am that we have them. But for it to be thrown back in my teeth that the revised Notes on Clauses having only been sent out a very short time ago is a ground for recommitting a Bill is, I think, a little hard.

The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, nonetheless puts a more substantive point to me. The noble Lord asks: under the circumstances in which we find ourselves this evening, why am I disagreeing to recommitment? I am afraid it is tedious repetition, but, for the record, it is for this reason. The Government have put down amendments to Schedule 5 which your Lordships have enabled me to move this evening, starting with Amendment No. 266A and the associated amendments. Although they are lengthy amendments, all that they actually do is to make improvements to the way in which what we call the transitional period (which is the beginning of next year up to deregulation day, which will be 28th September 1986) will work in practice.

Your Lordships have suggested that there are deep questions which might be asked of me concerning the Government amendments. But the truth of the matter is that the Marshalled List is silent so far as any deep questions are concerned. The only amendments that have been put down—literally, the only amendments—are an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, both of them having basically the same effect (the second amendment is a little more refined) which is simply to extend the transitional period into 1987. Noble Lords will not mind my saying—because it is the give-and-take of politics—that the Government do not agree with that. I think we can in all friendliness agree to differ there. We can probably battle out our differences either in debate across the Floor or in the Division Lobbies, but it is not a ground for recommitment.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I have no wish to detain the Committee, and I certainly do not want to go over procedural arguments again. If the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will read my speech he will recognise, I think, that I referred to the Government's flexibility, and I referred to the Government's good intentions in some of these amendments. What I said was that the result was unsatisfactory; and I still believe that to be the case.

It is true that the amendments we have put down so far have been only about timing. There are other grave matters about this schedule; and, accepting what the noble Lord says about recommittal and not seeking to argue it any further, I think he should know that there will be substantial and constructive amendments to Schedule 5 at Report stage. We shall feel under no obligation to restrain the time that we take in debating them and in making sure that your Lordships' House performs its responsibilities.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Shepherd had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 267:

Page 137, line 38, leave out ("30th September 1986") and insert ("31st March 1987").

The noble Lord said: In the light of what my noble friend has said, I shall not move this amendment.

[Amendment No. 267 not moved.]

[Amendment No. 267ZA not moved.]

Lord BeIstead moved Amendment No. 267A:

[Printed earlier: col. 1250.]

The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 267A):

Page 138, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (1).

[Amendment No. 268 not moved.]

Lord BeIstead moved Amendments Nos. 268ZA, 268ZB, 268ZC and 268ZD:

[Printed earlier: cols. 125 to 128.]

The noble Lord said: These amendments are all consequential on Amendment No. 266A. I beg to move.

The Chairman of Committees (Lord Abordare)

I have to point out that, if Amendment No. 268ZD is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 268A.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendments (Nos. 268ZA, 268ZB, 268ZC and 268ZD):

Page 139, line 24, leave out ("9") and insert ("9C")

Page 139, line 27, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 30 and insert—

• (" "relevant authority", in relation to a local service, means any Passenger Transport Executive or county, regional or islands council within whose area there will be a stopping place for the service;
• "road service licence" has the same meaning as in the 1981 Act;")

Page 139, line 32, at end insert—

("(2) Section 118(3) of this Act shall not apply to any regulations made under paragraphs 7 to 9B below.

(3) For the purposes of paragraph 8 below, a local service is improved if, but only if, there is any increase in—

1. (a) the frequency of the service;
2. (b) the length of its route;
3. (c) the number of stopping places for the service; or
4. (d) the number of passengers which can be carried by the service taken as a whole.")

Page 139, line 33, leave out paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 and insert—

("7.—(1) Where an application for registration of the prescribed particulars of a local service falls within one of the Cases mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) below—

1. (a) the traffic commissioner to whom the application is made shall register those particulars;
2. (b) they shall be deemed to have been registered with him under section 6 of this Act; and
3. (c) the period of notice (mentioned in section 6) in relation to that registration shall be deemed to have expired.

(2) The Cases are—

CASE A

Where

1. (a) the application for registration of the prescribed particulars of a local service is received by the traffic commissioner at any time before 1st March 1986; and
2. (b) the prescribed requirements are satisfied in relation to the application.

CASE B

Where—

1. (a) the application for registration of the prescribed particulars of a local service is received by the traffic commissioner at any time after the grant of the licence mentioned in paragraph (b) below but before 17th August 1986;
2. (b) a road service licence has been granted for that service at any time after 28th February 1986; and
3. (c) the prescribed requirements are satisfied in relation to the application.

CASE C

Where—

1. (a) the application for registration of the prescribed particulars of a local service is received by the traffic commissioner at any time during the period beginning with 1st March 1986 and ending with 16th August 1986;
2. (b) the particulars of the service are the same as those of a trial area service; and
3. (c) the prescribed requirements are satisfied in relation to the application.

In this Case "trial area service" means a local service provided in a trial area (as defined by section 38 of the 1981 Act) and in respect of which the requirements of section 40 of that Act (duty to publish particulars of services in trial areas) have been satisfied.

CASE D

Where—

1. (a) the application for registration of the prescribed particulars of a local service is received by the traffic commissioner at any time during the period beginning with 1st March 1986 and ending with 27th September 1986;
2. (b) the application is supported in writing, in accordance with sub-paragraph (3) below, by an authority responsible for expenditure on public passenger transport services (as defined for Part V of this Act by section 82(7)); and
3. (c) the prescribed requirements are satisfied in relation to the application.

(3) An authority of the kind mentioned in paragraph (b) of Case D shall give their support to an application in accordance with this sub-paragraph if, but only if, the local service in question is one—

1. (a) which the operator has contracted with that authority to operate under an agreement providing for service subsidies; or
2. (b) for the provision of which that authority have issued an invitation to tender under section 83 of this Act and for which the person applying for registration of the particulars of the service has submitted a tender to provide the service without subsidy.

Variation and cancellation of registrations during transitional period

8.—(1) Where the prescribed particulars of a local service have been registered with a traffic commissioner under paragraph 7 above and an application is made to him for the variation or cancellation of the registration, he shall vary or (as the case may be) cancel the registration if he is satisfied that the application falls within one of the Cases mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) below.

(2) The Cases are—

CASE 1

Where—

1. (a) the application is made by the operator of the service to which the registration relates;
2. (b) the application is received by the traffic commissioner at any time before 1st March 1986; and
3. (c) the prescribed requirements are satisfied in relation to the application.

CASE 2

Where—

1. (a) the application is made by the operator of the service to which the registration relates;
2. (b) the application is received by the traffic commissioner at any time during the period beginning with 1st March 1986 and ending with 30th June 1986;
3. (c) the application is supported in writing, in accordance with sub-paragraph (3) below, by each relevant authority: and
143
4. (d) in the case of an application for variation, a service operated in accordance with the particulars as proposed to be varied would not amount to a service improved by comparison with a service operated in accordance with the particulars as registered.

Where a relevant authority have refused to support the application but the traffic commissioner is of the opinion that no such authority acting reasonably would have refused to support it he may, at the request of the applicant, proceed as if paragraph (c) of this Case were omitted.

CASE 3

Where the application—

1. (a) is for the variation of the registered particulars;
2. (b)is made by the operator of the service to which the registration relates;
3. (c) is received by the traffic commissioner at any time during the period beginning with 1st March 1986 and ending with 27th September 1986; and
4. (d) is supported in writing, in accordance with sub-paragraph (4) below, by each relevant authority.

(3) Where a relevant authority are asked by the operator of a local service to provide written support, in accordance with this sub-paragraph, for an application for the variation or cancellation of the registration of the prescribed particulars of the service, the authority shall do so if, but only if, they are satisfied—

1. (a) that any demand which would have been met by a service operated in accordance with the registered particulars would be met—
1. (i) by a service operated in accordance with the particulars as proposed to be varied; or
2. (ii) by another service the particulars of which have been registered under paragraph 7 above; or
2. (b) that there has been a change of circumstances—
1. (i) which seriously impairs the ability of the operator of the service to operate it in accordance with the registered particulars; and
2. (iii) which could not reasonably have been foreseen by him.

(4) Where a relevant authority are asked by the operator of a local service to provide written support, in accordance with this sub-paragraph, for an application for the variation of the registration of the prescribed particulars of the service, the authority may do so if they are satisfied—

1. (a) that a variation of the particulars of the service is desirable in the interests of producing a pattern of service which is better suited to meeting the public transport requirements of their area; and
2. (b) where a service operated in accordance with the particulars as proposed to be varied would amount to a service improved by comparison with a service operated in accordance with the particulars as registered, that any demand met by the improvement to the service could not be met by any other local service if the improvement were not made.

Duty to notify relevant authorities of applications for registrations etc.

9.—(1) Any person making an application which falls within one of the Cases mentioned in paragraph 7 above shall—

1. (a) notify each relevant authority of the application and of the particulars to be registered; and
2. (b) furnish each such authority with such further information as may be specified.

(2) Any person making an application which falls within one of the Cases mentioned in paragraph 8 above shall—

1. (a) notify each relevant authority of the application and, in the case of an application for the variation of registered particulars, of the variation to be registered; and
2. (b) furnish each such authority with such further information as may be specified.

Publication of information by traffic commissioner

9 A.—(1) Each traffic commissioner shall publish—

1. (a) the particulars of local services registered with him in 144 response to applications falling within any of the Cases mentioned in paragraphs 7 and 8 above; and
2. (b) details of any such registrations which are cancelled in response to applications falling within any of the Cases mentioned in paragraph 8 above.

(2) The particulars registered with a traffic commissioner in response to applications falling within Case A in paragraph 7 above, or Case 1 in paragraph 8 above, shall be published—

1. (a) separately from the other particulars which he is required to publish by sub-paragraph (1) above; and
2. (b) before 1st April 1986.

(3) Where a traffic commissioner is required by sub-paragraph (1) above to publish any particulars of a local service, he shall send those particulars to any Passenger Transport Executive, district council in England and Wales or county, regional or islands council in whose area lies any part of the route of the service.

School buses

9B.—(1) For the purpose of ensuring that in the school year beginning in 1986 satisfactory provision can be made for transporting those pupils for whom a local education authority (or, in Scotland, an education authority) are under a duty to provide transport, the Secretary of State may by regulations make provision (including provision modifying this Schedule) for enabling approved local services to be operated during the transitional period without road service licences.

(2) In this paragraph "approved", in relation to a local service, means approved by the traffic commissioner for the traffic area in which the service is to be provided.

Continuation of existing road service licences

9C. A road service licence (other than one for a service with one or more stopping places in London) which is in force when this Act is passed but which would otherwise expire before 27th September 1986 shall, unless previously revoked, continue in force to the end of that day.").

[Amendments Nos. 268ZE to 268ZT and No. 268A not moved.]

Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 268B:

[Printed earlier: col. 128.]

The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 266A. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 268B):

Page 141, line 34, leave out paragraph 12.

[Amendments Nos. 268BA and 268BB not moved.]

Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 268C:

[Printed earlier: col. 128.]

The noble Lord said: This amendment, again, is consequential. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 268C):

Page 143, line 12, leave out ("30th") and insert ("27th").

[Amendments Nos. 268D to 268F not moved.]

On Question, Whether Schedule 5, as amended, shall be the fifth schedule to the Bill?

Lord Sandford

Before we leave this matter, I beg my noble friend on the Front Bench to be careful with this schedule. This may be an excellent Bill by the time we have finished with it, but I have considerable misgivings at the moment. It could be wrecked by asking all those concerned—the National Bus Company, the PTEs, the counties, the municipal bus companies and the district councils—to try to operate it before they are ready. They are all engaged in the most complex, difficult and novel tasks and it would be folly not to get right the transitional stages in Schedule 5.

Lord Belstead

All I would say to my noble friend Lord Sandford is that he may care to glance at Clause 85 and he will see that there is some flexibility included in that clause.

Lord Teviot

I am afraid that I cannot let my noble friend get off the hook. I agree absolutely with what my noble friend Lord Sandford said and will say not very much more. Between now and Report stage, I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will get around to thinking very much harder about this Bill, which seems very unsatisfactory at this moment and all quarters of the public are deeply concerned about it. The Government say that this will be the best thing, with competition and all sorts of other things. This is the last comment in this Committee and between now and October we have a realistic time for people to think again very hard indeed, even about the amendments to this schedule.

11.30 p.m.

Lord Belstead

In all friendliness to my noble friend, that really will not do. Whether or not we agree with the Government's steps in Amendment 266A and associated amendments—and your Lordships have agreed to those amendments—they set out what I believe is a series of sensible transitional steps to take bus operations through from the beginning of 1986 to deregulation day in 1986.

If my noble friend Lord Teviot had stood up and said, on the Question that the schedule stand part, "There are five or six things I don't like in those steps, and these are what they are; but the time is late and we shall come back to it all at Report stage", I would have understood. The truth of the matter is that my noble friend has no criticisms of Schedule 5—none at all. That is why a criticism of the kind that my noble friend has just delivered himself of will not do, because my noble friend is saying to me that I am to go away and rethink—and that after I have moved a series of detailed amendments of which my noble friend has no detailed criticisms. I hope that my noble friend will be the one who will go away and do some hard thinking before Report.

Lord Teviot

If my noble friend is absolutely right I shall buy him a very large drink. At this stage I can usefully make no further comment.

Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 269:

Page 145, line 38, at end insert—

("The Road Traffic Act 1930

2A. In section 101 of the Road Traffic Act 1930 (power of local authorities to run public service vehicles), paragraph (a) of subsection (2) (exclusion of power to run such a vehicle as a contract carriage) shall be omitted.")

The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 273, 274 and 275.

Amendment No. 273: Schedule 7, page 150, line 6, at end insert—

("20 & 21 Geo. 5. c.43	The Road Traffic Act 1930.	In section 101(2), paragraph (a).
		In section 121(1 A), tie words "contract carriages".").

Amendment No. 274: Page 150, line 9, at end insert—

("8 & 9 Eliz. 2. c. 16.

The Road Traffic Act 1960.

So much of Schedule 17 as amends section 121 of the Road Traffic Act 1930.").

Amendment No. 275: Page 151, line 9, column 3, at end insert—

("Section 36.").

These amendments revoke the provisions in Part V of the Road Traffic Acts 1930 and 1960 and in Part III of the Transport Act 1968 which might still prevent local authorities running contract carriage services outside their districts. Since, as far as we know, most if not all the authorities with bus undertakings have made use of the procedure under Section 36 of the 1968 Act to enable themselves to run contract carriage services outside their districts, the main effect of these amendments will simply be to tidy up the statute book. I beg to move

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 269ZA:

Page 145, line 38, at end insert—

("The Transport Charges &c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1954

Section 1 of the Transport Charges &c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1954 shall cease to have effect.").

The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 273A.

Amendment No. 273A: Schedule 7, page 150, line 6, at end insert—

("2 & 3 Eliz. 2 c. 64.	The Transport Charges &c. Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1954.	Section 1. In section 12, in subsection (1), the words from "including" to "Act" and subsection (2).
		In section 13(1), the words "public service vehicles, road service licences and ".").

These are technical amendments. Section 1 of the Transport Charges &c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1954 brought fares charged by bus companies set up under Private Acts of Parliament under the sole control of the traffic commissioners. With the abolition of road service licensing and the ending of all control over fares that provision is no longer required, and hence we have brought forward these amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 269ZB:

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 Executives)".

. 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 provided by Passenger Transport Executives) of the Transport Act 1985 (travel concessions on services provided by Passenger Transport Executives)".")

The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 253F. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 269ZC:

Page 146, line 2, leave out ("the 1968") and insert ("that").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 269A not moved.]

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 269AA:

Page 146, Une 14, column 1, leave out ("charges and licences").

The noble Lord said: This technical amendment brings up to date the sidenote referring to the Transport Tribunal in the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971. The tribunal no longer deals with charges and will not be dealing solely with licences. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 269B and 269C not moved.]

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 270:

[Printed 16/7/85; col. 678.]

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 160. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 270):

Page 148, line 4, at end insert—

("(2A) In section 9 (power to prohibit driving of unfit public service vehicles), in subsection (8), after the word "examiner", in the second place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "or certifying officer" and for the words "by a certifying officer and" there shall be substituted—

1. "(a) in the case of a refusal by a public service vehicle examiner, by a certifying officer, and
2. (b) in the case of a refusal by a certifying officer, by another certifying officer;

and".").

[Amendment No. 270A not moved.]

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 271:

Page 148, line 27, at end insert— ("(7A) In section 79 (vehicles excluded from regulation as private hire vehicles), for the words "or 42(1)" there shall be substituted the words "or (4)".").

The noble Earl said: This amendment serves to meet an undertaking given in another place to put beyond doubt that vehicles used in car sharing and social car schemes are not subject to private hire-car vehicle legislation. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 272:

Page 149, line 30, leave out ("Without prejudice to") and insert ("Notwithstanding").

The noble Earl said: This is a technical amendment which is necessary to express correctly the relationship between the provisions in Section 10(3) of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 and the provisions of paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 to that Act. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 7 [Repeals]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No.273:

[Printed earlier: col. 146.]

The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 269. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 273):

Page 150, fine 6, at end insert—

("20 & 21 Geo. 5. c. 43.	The Road Traffic Act 1930.	In section 101(2), paragraph (a).
		In section 121(1A), the words "contract carriages".").

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No.273A:

[Printed earlier: col. 146.]

The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 269ZA. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 273A):

Page 150, line 6, at end insert—

("2 & 3 Eliz. 2. c. 64.	The Transport Charges &c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1954.	Section 1. In section 12, in subsection (1), the words from "including" to "Act" and subsection (2).
		In section 13(1). the words "public service vehicles, road service licences and".")

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No.274:

[Printed earlier: col. 146.]

The noble Lord said: This is a consequential amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 274):

Page 150, line 9, at end insert—

("8 & 9 Eliz. 2. c. 16.

The Road Traffic Act 1960.

So much of Schedule 17 as amends section 121 of the Road Traffic Act 1930.").

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 274A:

Page 150, line 15, at end insert— ("In section 56, subsection (4)(a), in subsection (7) the word "passenger", subsections (8) to (11) and subsection (13).").

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I must protest at this amendment being not moved—it is sheer poetry!

[Amendment No. 274A not moved.]

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No.275:

[Printed earlier: col. 146.]

The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 269.I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 275):

Page 151, line 9, column 3, at end insert— ("Section 36.").

Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 275ZA:

[Printed earlier: col. 119.]

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 262B. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 275ZA):

Page 151, line 11, column 3, leave out (" "or" (in the third place where it occurs)") and insert (" "and to the Bus Company" ").

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No.275A:

Page 152, line 10, after ("paragraphs 1") insert (" (a) to (d) and (f)")

The noble Earl said: This is a technical amendment and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, in his poetic mood, will approve of it. It reinstates Section 9(5) of the Transport Act 1968 for Scotland. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 275 B not moved.]

Lord Belstead moved Amendments Nos. 276, 277, 278 and 279:

Page 152, column 3, leave out line 23 and insert— ("In section 1, in subsection (3) the word "II" and in subsection (5) the words "section 2".")

Page 152, leave out lines 27 and 28.

Page 152, line 43, column 3, at end insert— ("In section 53(1), the word "the" before the words "traffic commissioners".")

Page 153, line 8, column 3, leave out ("and paragraph (d); and") and insert— (", paragraph (d) and in paragraph (h) the words "or, as the case may be, the commissioner of police of the metropolis; and")

The noble Lord said: These are all technical amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 280:

Page 153, leave out line 11.

The noble Lord said: This, too, is a technical amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 123 [Short title, commencement and extent]:

Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 281:

[Printed earlier: col. 128.]

The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 281):

Page 119, line 22, after ("section") insert ("and paragraph 9C of Schedule 5 to this Act").

Clause 123, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.