Transport Bill

HL Deb 14 October 1985 vol 467 cc409-61

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.

Clause 2 [Local Services]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 9: Page 2, line 35, at end insert— ("(5) Subsections (5)(b)(c) and (6) of section 1 of the 1981 Act (meaning of "fares") shall apply for the purposes of this section.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9. This amendment is purely technical and I believe that it needs no explanation.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 3 [Traffic commissioners]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 10: Page 3, line 2, leave out ("section") and insert ("sections").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 10, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 and 20.

Amendment No. 11: Page 3, line 31, at end insert—

("Publication of information by traffic commissioners.

5.—(1) Every traffic commissioner shall publish, in such form and at such times as may be prescribed, such information with respect to the exercise, or proposed exercise, of any of his functions under this Act or the Transport Act 1985 as may be prescribed.

(2) Where the traffic commissioner for a traffic area publishes information under this section he shall—

(a) send a copy of the publication—

1. (i) to every chief officer of police, Passenger Transport Executive and local authority whose area falls partly or wholly within that traffic area; and
2. (ii) where that traffic area falls wholly or partly within London, to London Regional Transport; and

(b) make a copy of it available (by post if required and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed) to anyone who asks for one.

(3) In this section "local authority" means—

1. (a) in England and Wales, the council of any non-metropolitan county, any district or London borough or the Common Council of the City of London; and
2. (b) in Scotland, any regional or islands council." ").

Amendment No. 20: Clause 6, page 7, line 25, leave out subsections (9) and (10).

This amendment is a welcome addition, I hope, to the Bill and fulfils an undertaking given to my noble friend Lord Teviot to put on a statutory basis the publication by traffic commissioners of information about registrations. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 11:

[Printed above.]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2 [Amendments consequential on section 3]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 12:

[Printed earlier: col. 393.]

The noble Lord said: I have spoken to this amendment already, my Lords. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, may I apologise to the Government Front Bench, which is virtually the House? I had meant to say on Amendment No. 11 how much we appreciated the fulfilment of the commitment that the traffic commissioner should publish reports in an adequate form. This is strictly out of order but nobody is listening. I wanted to express the appreciation of those who took part in the relevant debates in Committee for the fulfilment of those promises in Amendment No. 11.

The Deputy Speaker (Baroness White)

My Lords, does the noble Lord wish to say anything to put himself in order on Amendment No. 12?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I am sure that Amendment No. 12 is unexceptionable.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 12): Schedule 2, page 139, line 21, at end insert—

("The Transport Act 1968

1.—(1) The Transport Act 1968 shall be amended as follows.

(2) In section 96(10)(b), there shall be substituted for the words "commissioners or licensing authority". the word "commissioner" and for the words "commissioners or authority think" the words "commissioner thinks".

(3) In section 98(3), there shall be substituted for the words "commissioners or licensing authority" in both places the word "commissioner"; and for the words "commissioners or authority think" the words "commissioner thinks".

(4) In section 99, there shall be substituted for the words "commissioners or licensing authority" in subsections (1) and (8) the word "commissioner".

(5) In section 103(5), for the words "commissioners or licensing authority" there shall be substituted the word "commissioner".").

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 13: Page 142, line 37, leave out from ("or") to end of line 40.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 13,1 wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 18, 25, 293, 359, 375 and 376.

Amendment No. 18: Page 7, line 5, leave out from first ("to") to second ("the").

Amendment No. 25: Clause 7, page 9, line 34, leave out subsection (15).

Amendment No. 293: Clause 119, page 124, line 16, after ("Act") insert—

("(b) traffic regulation conditions determined under section 7 of this Act;").

Amendment No. 359: Schedule 6, page 167, line 11, at end insert—

("(7 A) In section 56(1) (records of licences etc.) there shall be added, at the end, the words "and shall allow the record to be inspected at all reasonable times by members of the public".").

Amendment No. 375: Schedule 7, page 172, line 8, column 3, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("in subsection (1)").

Amendment No. 376: Page 172, line 9, column 3, at end insert ("and subsection (2)").

Before I speak to those amendments, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for his words on Amendment No. 11. These amendments tidy up the statutory requirements on the traffic commissioners to keep records and to make them available. I would draw your Lordships' attention briefly to the substantive amendment which is No. 359, the amendment of Section 56 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 by Schedule 6. Section 56, as it stands, allows members of the public to inspect records only if they have reasonable grounds for doing so; and there is a power to prescribe a fee although it is not currently used. The amendment would allow anybody to inspect the records of licences, registrations and traffic regulation conditions free of charge. Clause 119(3) brings registrations in London licences within the section and the amendment to Clause 119 would bring in traffic regulation conditions as well in place of the separate reference to the Clause 7(15). I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 14:

Page 143, line 30, at end insert—

("The London Regional Transport Act 1984

In Schedule 5 to the London Regional Transport Act 1984, there shall be substituted—

1. (a) in paragraph 11(5), for the word "commissioners", where it first occurs, the word "commissioner" and for the words "those commissioners" the words "the commissioner";
2. (b) in paragraph 11(8), for the word "commissioners", in both places, the word "commissioner"; and
3. (c) in paragraph 12(7), for the word "commissioners" the word "commissioner".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment substitutes references to the traffic commissioner in the singular to references to the traffic commissioners in the plural in those places where the phrase occurs in the London Regional Transport Act except for Section 45 which is replaced by Clause 39 of this Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 4 [Inquiries held by traffic commissioners]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 15: Page 4, line 17, at end insert— ("(4A) Where a traffic commissioner holds an inquiry he may, in such circumstances as may be prescribed and subject to any provision made under subsection (4B) below, make such order as he thinks fit as to the payment, by such party to the inquiry as he thinks fit, of costs incurred by him or by the Secretary of State in connection with the holding of the inquiry.

(4B) Regulations may make provision, in relation to orders under subsection (4A) above, as to—

1. (a) the method of calculating the amount of any costs incurred as mentioned in that subsection; and
2. (b) the maximum amount which may be ordered to be paid under such an order.

(4C) Any amount so ordered to be paid by any person may be recoverable from him—

1. (a) in England and Wales, as a debt due to the Crown; or
2. (b) in Scotland, by the Secretary of State.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross who persuaded us in Committee to look hard at his proposal to give the traffic commissioner power to award costs in order to deter delaying tactics and similar abuses; for instance, by people called before him for possible disciplinary action. We thought carefully about this as we promised and concluded that there was real merit in the idea. Hence this amendment. There are a few things that I should like to say about it.

First, it gives power to the commissioner to recover only his costs and those of the department in providing accommodation and clerical assistance to the inquiry. It does not enable the commissioner to order one party to pay the costs of another. We understand from the commissioners that they would not welcome the responsibility of adjudicating in such a way, and of course in many PSV operator licensing cases, particularly the disciplinary ones of which we are primarily thinking, there is only one party, the person who the commissioner has called to the inquiry. Secondly, the regulations we shall make under Subsection 4(a) will limit the recovery of costs to cases where the person against whom the award is made has acted vexatiously, frivolously, or the like.

The vast majority of people appearing at commissioners' inquiries for whatever reason need not bear an increased expense. Indeed, they and all licence holders will benefit if the commissioners' costs are kept down because all costs are met from fees. We see this power as a deterrent—and we hope an effective one—and not a way of raising money. Thirdly, the regulations will lay down the way in which costs are calculated and a maximum. This will prevent the commissioners' task from being too invidious. I beg to move.

Viscount Colville of Culross

My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for this amendment. I am very glad that he is proposing that there should be regulations because most of these matters need to be looked at from time to time without primary legislation; and regulations would be a very good way of doing it. He will I am sure make certain that the department consults widely before regulations are made, and indeed before they are revised if that should be necessary.

I take his point that this is entirely a matter of deterrence. From what I know—and I think I said to the House when in Committee that I have information from somebody who sits extensively as a traffic commissioner—there are occasions when deterrence would be a very valuable matter to have as a method of preventing people from wasting a lot of time. I quite agree with him that in most of the tribunals where powers to award costs are already available the issue very seldom arises largely because the power to award costs is available and it therefore works. I am delighted that the Government have been persuaded by this argument. I should like to thank the Government very much for accepting the principle of this and I hope it works.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 6 [Registration of local services]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 16: Page 6, line 2, leave out second ("a") and insert ("an unconditional").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 16 I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 17 and 57.

Amendment No. 17: Page 6, line 5, at end insert— ("(4A) in subsection (4) above "unconditional", in relation to a PSV operator's licence, means a licence which does not have attached to it a condition imposed under section 26(1) of this Act prohibiting, or having the effect of prohibiting, the operator from using vehicles under the licence to provide the service to which the application in question relates.").

Amendment No. 57: Clause 26, page 26, line 27, at end insert— ("(2A) Where the effect of a condition attached to a PSV operator's licence under subsection (1) above is that the operator of a local service registered under section 6 of this Act is prohibited from using vehicles under the licence to provide that service, the traffic commissioner attaching the condition may—

1. (a) cancel the registration; or
2. (b) where the service is registered with another traffic commissioner, direct that it be cancelled.

(2B) Where a direction is given under subsection (2A)(b) above, it shall be the duty of the traffic commissioner with whom the service is registered to cancel the registration.").

This is a group of amendments, the inspiration for which came from my noble friend Lady Vickers. In Committee, my noble friend moved an amendment including provision for refusal of registrations by operators with certain conditions on their licences. This alerted us to a loophole which could have undermined the purpose of Clause 26(1) which empowers traffic commissioners to attach conditions to licences, restricting or prohibiting the use of vehicles to provide local services. It is a principle of Clause 6 that only a person lawfully entitled to operate a service can register it, although there is always the possibility of sub-contracting to another licensed operator.

These amendments seek to strengthen that principle by preventing an operator from registering a service that would contravene a condition in the licence. Related to this is the amendment to Clause 26 providing for the cancellation of services registered by an operator who has subsequently had a condition attached under Clause 26(1). We do not expect commissioners often to have to take stern measures—indeed we hope they never will—but if they do they must be effective. I beg to move.

Baroness Vickers

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Minister. I think it will be very useful indeed to the authorities concerned and I am grateful to the Government for having accepted the arguments that were put foward at Committee stage.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

8 p.m.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 17:

[Printed above.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 18:

[Printed earlier: col. 411.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 13. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 18): Page 7, line 5, leave out from first ("to") to second ("the").

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 19:

Page 7, line 24, at end insert— ("(kk) for excluding from the application of this section services which are—

1. (i) excursions or tours; or
2. (ii) excursions or tours falling within a prescribed class.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 19, I should like, with the leave of the House, to speak also to Amendments Nos. 23 and 28.

Amendment No. 23: Clause 7, page 8, line 1, leave out from ("service") to end of line 2 and insert ("means any local service to which section 6 of this Act applies").

Amendment No. 28: Clause 12, page 14, line 42, at end insert—

("(5A)In subsection (5)(b) above "local service" does not include an excursion or tour.").

Noble Lords will recollect that Clause 2 defines a local service as one on which passengers may make journeys of less than 15 miles in a straight line or tours which do not go more than 15 miles from their starting place. We have during the summer been giving a lot of thought to the details of registration of these services and have consulted widely. We have come to feel that to require all excursions and tours which fall within the local service definition to be registered would mean a lot of work for operators and traffic area officers and would in most cases have very little value. Excursions and tours have always been treated differently from other services and even under the tight system of licensing which existed up to 1980 there was no obligation to run a tour which could be cancelled if there were no demand. The basic concept of registration is that it embodies a commitment to run as registered and it would be something of a contradiction in terms to require a commitment to run an excursion. We are therefore very attracted by the idea of exempting the bulk of excursions and tours from registration.

We are aware, however, as has been pointed out to us by several people in the course of consultation, that the difference between excursions and tours and other local services is blurred at the edges and that a total exemption from the registration requirement might lead to evasion of disciplines in the Bill, traffic regulations and the rest. We are therefore considering whether a distinction between those excursions and tours which are so like ordinary local services that they really should be registered and the others can be made—for instance, by requiring the registration of any service which is run fortnightly or more frequently.

The amendments before the House will enable us to make this distinction if, after full consideration, we decide that it is right and workable. I should perhaps point out that excursions and tours are not eligible for fuel duty rebate, rural bus grant or service subsidies. There is therefore not much danger that operators will seek to pretend that services which are not excursions or tours are. The danger is rather that they will dress up excursions and tours as local services in order to obtain the rebate, and that is something for which we are vigilant. I should also point out that these excursions and tours will remain local services as defined in Clause 2. Most importantly, this means that they will require local service licences in London.

With this amendment we are taking ones to Clauses 7 and 12. That to Clause 7 is consequential. Traffic regulation conditions bite only on registrable services. Other bus operations are of course subject to the Road Traffic Regulation Act powers of local authorities.

The amendment to Clause 12 ensures that taxis will be able to run services under that clause only when they are subject to the disciplines that the registration system imposes. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 20:

[Printed earlier: col. 410.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 10.I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 20): Page 7, line 25, leave out subsections (9) and (10).

Clause 7 [Applications of traffic regulation conditions to local services subject to registration under section 6]:

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 21:

Page 7, line 45, at end insert—

(" () If any authority asks him to do so the traffic commissioner for any traffic area may determine conditions as to the use of available bus stations ("bus station conditions") which must be met in the provision of services in the area to which those conditions are expressed to apply in order to prevent traffic congestion in streets or other detriment to amenities.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps it will be possible to take with Amendment No. 21, Amendments Nos. 22, 23A and 24.

Amendment No. 22: Page 8, line 1, after ("section") insert (" "authority" and ").

Amendment No. 23A: Page 8, line 1, leave out ("has the same meaning") and insert ("have the same meanings")

Amendment No. 24: Page 8, line 2, at end insert ("and references to traffic regulation conditions or traffic authorities in subsections (3), (5), (7), (9) to (11), (14) and (15) of this section shall include references to bus station conditions or (as the case may be) authorities.").

The grounds for imposing traffic regulation conditions under Clause 7(4) are restrictive since they can only be imposed in order to prevent danger or to reduce traffic congestion. I do not think these powers are really wide enough to compel operators to use bus stations, which is desirable on quite different grounds from these. Bus stations do not only provide a valuable terminal facility but they also enable buses to lay over for crews to take meal breaks, to effect a changeover or to trade in their money in a secure environment. All functions like those are better undertaken in a bus station than in the open street.

In addition, considerable investment has been made in bus stations by public authorities and in some cases by private concerns, which includes commercial development. Rents for retail shop units have been negotiated on the basis that a considerable number of services would use the bus station, thus providing their clientele with the use of shops and other facilities, and the commercial viability of these units could be jeopardised. The amendment proposed would therefore give the traffic commissioners power, by the imposition of traffic regulations on amenity grounds, to compel operators to use bus facilities.

It should be said, of course, that traffic commissioners already have powers with regard to local authority bus stations to adjudicate and determine departure charges. The charges are made on the number of departures. It might possibly be considered wise for these powers to be used in all bus stations in future and, taken alongside the ability of the traffic commissioners to make traffic regulation conditions, some justice and control could be exercised to ensure that all operators are treated alike and that passengers have the best possible amenities provided.

The amendment to Clause 79 would reinforce this need by ensuring that in those cases where a company does retain the ownership of a bus station it is made readily available to other companies who feel there would be an advantage to them in using it, and the safeguards available via the traffic commissioners would protect individual interests.

We had a long debate on the effects of congestion in parts of London around bus stations. Of course it would be even worse if there were no bus stations and if the buses merely lined up in the street and there was no vacant ground such as many of them at present use. I hope the Minister will look at this with some sympathy and see whether perhaps he can come part of the way towards meeting the problem. I beg to move.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I recollect that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, promised to return on Report to his concern as to the effects of the abolition of road service licensing on the use of bus stations. I have listened with interest to what he has said, but I must confess that I am unconvinced that the powers of compulsion which are in these amendments ought to be put into the Bill.

I wonder whether in reply I might just say a word about our general policy on the use of bus stations after deregulation. It is that publicly owned bus stations should be available to all local service operators without discrimination and that privately owned bus stations should be governed by competition legislation. I shall in due course be moving Amendment No. 287 with this in view.

We do not want any local service operator to be kept out of a bus station which has room for him, and for the use of which he is prepared to pay an appropriate price. But while we do not want operators to be kept out of bus stations, we are diffident about compelling them in. After all, not all bus stations are sited where the passengers want to be taken or where they want to be picked up. Some local authorities have spent very large sums of money on stations which have become very much like white elephants, but I do not think that operators and passengers should suffer in consequence. The result of compelling bus operators to take passengers to an inconvenient place would be the same as the result of so much well-intentioned, but ill-thought-out, planning—more expensive services and loss of passengers.

Of course, we agree that the problems caused by large numbers of buses stopping in the street may outweigh the convenience to the passenger, and we also agree that pedestrianisation can greatly improve the environment in parts of city centres. But I would put it to the noble Lord that surely the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 is available for local authorities who want to pedestrianise or, indeed, to bring an additional amount of control into traffic in their locality, and the provisions in Clause 7 for traffic regulation conditions to be imposed speedily by the traffic commissioners supply a solution to problems of danger or congestion caused by excessive numbers of buses trying to use one or two bus stops. We really do not think that these powers need strengthening in the way proposed in these amendments.

Local authorities may, quite properly, have a policy of encouraging the use of bus stations, and may implement it by providing attractive facilities or reasonably low charges, and, as I said, local authorities can press the button, either by using the 1984 legislation or by going to the traffic commissioner to try to prevent buses from using areas where as a result there is a danger. But to give to local authorities a power of compelling operators into bus stations, which would be the effect of the noble Lord's amendment, is something which we really do not feel would be right. I hope that I have said enough to show that we feel that the noble Lord has got a point. Where we disagree is over the method which the noble Lord is choosing in these amendments to meet that point.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, before my noble friend replies to the noble Lord the Minister, may I say that my reading of the first part of Amendment No. 21 is that if an authority asks the traffic commissioner he may determine conditions. Therefore, the question of compulsion does not appear to arise, unless there are certain conditions.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, although I can see the point of some of the arguments which the Minister has put—and if I thought that his perfect competition worked properly I would be very happy—I suspect that a great many problems will be arising. Certain operators will continue to do things on the cheap, particularly people who have very little capital and who, as suggested by the Secretary of State, spend their redundancy money. They will not be willing to use a bus station and will tend to use the street. In one experiment we saw that even the repairs were done in the street. I realise that a local authority can at some point compel operators to use a bus station or can put them off a particular pan of the road, but this all takes a considerable time.

As I said on an earlier amendment, when I spoke with the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, this is part of the fair competition about which some of the very good and responsible operators were concerned. It was not just a question of the running; it was the whole question of unscrupulous operators using every dodge in the book. By the time they were caught up with, a great deal of money had been lost and some of the good operators could even have been put out of business. I am sorry—

Lord Belstead

My Lords, may I answer the question? I do not think that the rules of the House allow me to speak again, which is why I did not reply to the noble Lord, but may I ask a question of him? Am I correct in assuming that there is compulsion in these amendments, in the sense that, if the traffic commissioner agrees with the representations of the local authority, compulsion will then be on the operator? Will the noble Lord agree with my interpretation?

8.15 p.m.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, my interpretation is that if the local authority want to use traffic regulations and conditions and ask the traffic commissioner, he will need to say, "You cannot park in the street for certain services. You must use the bus station". That is what the noble Lord was asking about. So there would be that compulsion if this amendment were accepted, because it would be at the request of the local authority who would have to give proper reasons to the traffic commissioner. He would be a responsible person and would not do something frivolously. There will be occasions when good operators will use a bus station and its facilities because it is more convenient. There may be offices there and places for collecting money. That will cost them money and they will have to pay a fee every time they use it, but there will be some people who decide at the beginning that they are not prepared to pay. I had a feeling that the Minister was giving the matter rather deep thought, but in order not to confuse him in any way I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 23:

[Printed earlier: col. 414.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 19.I beg to move.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill)

My Lords, I should point out that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot then call Amendment No. 23A.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 23): Amendment No. 23: Clause 7, page 8, line 1, leave out from ("service") to end of line 2 and insert ("means any local service to which section 6 of this Act applies").

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, I cannot call

Amendment No. 23A.

[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 25:

[Printed earlier: col. 411.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 13. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 25): Page 9, line 34, leave out subsection (15).

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 26: Page 9, line 39, at end insert ("metropolitan district or non-metropolitan").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential on the enactment of the Local Government Act 1985. It replaces metropolitan county councils with metropolitan district councils in the definition of "traffic authority", because the traffic regulation functions are to transfer from metropolitan county to district level on 1st April 1986 before this clause is planned to take effect. My Lords, I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Vickers moved Amendment No. 26A: After Clause 9 insert the following new clause:

("Restoration of regulation.

—(1) A local authority may apply to the Secretary of State for an inquiry into services in their area.

(2) An application made under subsection (1) above may not be made less than two years from the commencement of this Act or more than four years from the commencement.

(3) The grounds upon which an application be made are that—

1. (a)the average annual level of subsidy paid to services under this Act is greater than the average annual subsidy paid by the local authority for road transport services in the two years immediately preceding the commencement of this Act; or
420
2. (b) having regard to the interests of the public the services operated since the commencement of this Act have not been as beneficial as compared with these operated in the area in the two years immediately preceding the commencement of this Act.

(4) Upon the receipt of an application the Secretary of State shall, unless he is of the opinion that it is frivolous or too trivial to warrant the holding of an inquiry in respect of it, refer the application to the traffic commissioner for the traffic area to which it principally relates.

(5) The traffic commissioners shall hold an inquiry in accordance with section 54 of the 1981 Act as substituted by this Act.

(6) If the traffic commissioner finds the grounds of the application to be substantially proved the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument disapply sections 6 to 9 of this Act in the traffic area or areas to which the inquiry principally related and the provisions of Schedule (Provisions relating to local services) to this Act shall have effect in that traffic area or in those traffic areas.

(7) In this section— local authority" has the meaning given to it by section 90 of this Act; service" has the meaning given to it by section 6 of this Act.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, may I first say that I am grateful to the Minister and to the Government for accepting the earlier amendments and I hope that I shall have equal luck with this one. I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Sandford, who, when I could not attend, kindly moved an amendment with which he also was successful.

At Committee stage I moved an amendment to exempt from deregulation those areas which were spending so little on subsidy from the rate fund that greater efficiency could not possibly make it stretch far enough to replace cross-subsidy. In withdrawing the amendment, I said that I found the Minister very sympathetic and that I would try to bring forward a better amendment at a later stage, which is what I am trying to do now.

The Government's spending controls on the low spending areas, mostly district councils, who would need to increase rate expenditure to replace cross-subsidy, are not now severe. Even so, it is estimated by independent transport consultants that the extra rate spending in some areas, if we do not get some action taken, would still add 11 per cent. to the rate poundage. Though in debate the Government would not accept the point that there would be extra costs to the ratepayer in these districts, in the preamble to the Bill the Government admit that there are some areas where greater efficiency will not balance out lost cross-subsidy. They merely say in the opening remarks that these forces will balance out "over the country as a whole", which I suggest is not very satisfactory to the individual areas.

There is still a need to offer an escape clause to those areas where rate expenditure on subsidy may increase unreasonably to replace cross-subsidy. These amendments, I suggest, offer that escape clause. If, after the initial "settle down" period, an area has a worse service at the same external subsidy cost, or for the same subsidy has a lower service, then the Government's experiment will have failed the ratepayer or farepayer, or both. I suggest that local ratepayers, with the consent of their local authority, should then have a right of appeal. They should be allowed to make representations to the Secretary of State as to the worse service, or higher cost, caused by the new Act. If they can convince the Secretary of State of their case, the current road service licence system will be reinstated in the area of the application. Clearly, if a case is marginal, a local authority would not promote it and the Secretary of State would not accept it. Therefore only cases of real detriment would be promoted.

I do not seek to define "service" or "cost of subsidy", for it is for the local authority making the appeal to show a definite detriment. In the current legislation "public interest" is not defined tightly and the traffic commissioners have coped with representations to them on what is and is not in the "public interest". I therefore hope that nobody will argue about the lack of definition of "service" or "cost of subsidy". My amendment contains safeguards, such as limiting applications to a specific time, not only to allow a settling in period but also to stop "out of time" applications when many other time trend factors will have significantly affected services and costs.

A problem could exist with services operating partly within and partly outside an "appeal" area. If such a service did not pick up or set down in the appeal area, it could operate to a deregulated "island" within the area, as in the Devon trial area. If it did pick up and set down it would require a road service licence for the part of the route in the area and a 1985 Act registration for the part of the route outside the area. The system could work if we can decide tonight to take some action along the lines I have suggested. It would not be something that has not happened before. In the Transport Act 1981 the wording "to the interests of the public" is included. As I suggest in my amendment, the traffic commissioners should be able to make these changes. I hope that this amendment will be satisfactory and will help both the ratepayer and local government in making their plans in the future. I beg to move.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I should like to welcome my noble friend Lady Vickers back to the House and I should like to say that I admire the ingenuity of my noble friend in amassing these lengthy amendments. They represent an interesting concept, a sort of trial area in reverse, although instead of trying out something new and challenging it would, I am afraid, be trying out something which is old and threadbare. There is a fundamental misconception, if I may say so, that anything which goes wrong with bus services from now on will be the fault of this Bill and that unless services improve dramatically, which we hope they will, we should be better off with the devil we know.

Noble Lords opposite smile. Let us not be deceived in this matter. It is three months since we talked about buses in any general terms. Let me remind your Lordships of the regime which the amendment of my noble friend Lady Vickers would seek to reimpose. It is the one which has been responsible for the slow but steady erosion of bus services for the past quarter of a century and the not so slow or steady rise in subsidies over the past 15 years or so, not to mention the appalling increases in fares at 30 per cent. more than the rate of inflation over the past 10 years which have hit many people so that they have in fact deserted buses. My noble friend calls for an inquiry which could take place after deregulation so that the area could return to regulation again. Presumably the questions being asked in the inquiry would be: "Have services deteriorated more rapidly in the past two years than they did in the two years before deregulation? Have subsidies gone up faster than before?" If the answer to those questions was yes, I suggest that the inquiry ought then to ask, "Would it have been am better under road service licensing? Would the restoration of road service licensing bring about any improvements?" But the amendments do not provide for those sorts of questions. I am bound to say that, if we thought that a return to road service licensing would create an improvement where there might be problems, I do not think that we should have been bringing this Bill before your Lordships' House.

There is a further problem with regard to the amendments. Suppose that in a particular local authority area both the council and the major operator were fundamentally opposed to the principles of the Bill, I suggest that they could deliberately run down services and run up subsidies in order to bring about an inquiry in the hope of restoring licensing. In view of some of the irrational and ill-informed propaganda about the Bill, I do not think that that suggestion is entirely far-fetched. On a more sober note, as long as the possiblity remains of a return to the old dispensation, the temptation will always be there not to adjust to the reality of the bus market and to produce the services the public want at a price they can afford.

My noble friend will forgive me if I cannot resist adding that one of the technical defects of the amendments is that there is no provision at all to terminate the period of regulation if the restoration of road service licensing did not have beneficial effects. I am sorry, because it gave us great pleasure to accept amendments from my noble friend when she was unavoidably absent from the House and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, moved amendments on her behalf. I would wish that I was accepting the amendments but, for the reasons I have given, I regret to say that I cannot.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, the only temperate thing about that response was the tone of voice. Everything else was so extreme that I could hardly believe that I was hearing it from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. The suggestion that authorities would actually make bus services worse and increase the fares in order to provoke a public inquiry is so extreme that it is an insult to those who are responsible to the public in the areas they serve and are capable of being replaced by the public if they fail to provide an adequate service. The same cannot be said of some operators or indeed of the traffic commissioners—I am not attacking the traffic commissioners—who are not themselves responsible to the areas they serve.

The noble Lord in his reply seems to think that all the arguments are so firmly on one side that even the possibility of failure in a single area, which is what the noble Baroness was envisaging, is so completely out of court that it cannot be considered and there is no opportunity to go back.

8.30 p.m.

During the Committee stage of this Bill none of us who expressed doubt, concern or opposition to any of the aspects of this Bill ever said that the effects of the Bill would be universal all over the country and that there was no possibility that in some parts of the country liberalisation and privatisation might not be justified. We never said that. We have always recognised that there is a wide variety among the transport needs of different parts of the country and in the kind of organisation required to meet those needs. That is evidenced by some of the heartfelt concerns expressed by noble Lords with particular links with rural areas, where the argument is quite different from that used in the metropolitan areas and large conurbations.

However, the Government are so convinced about the lightness of their theoretical and ideological attitude that they are not even prepared to consider that where the application—and it may not be a trivial application; the amendment is quite clear on that point—shows that the objectives of the Bill have not been achieved in a particular area, there might not be a public inquiry which could open up the possibility of returning to an arrangement which, if the inquiry proves it so, has shown itself to be better than its replacement. It seems to me that in this case it is the Government who are being unitary and ideological and who are refusing to respond to the possibility that local opinion might be best. For the noble Lord the Minister to trot out the tired old arguments about the decline of the bus services over the past 15 to 20 years as if the increase in car ownership has had no influence on bus services in Britain, as it has in all other countries in the western world, really is not good enough.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord this question. How is it that when 40 per cent. of the households of this country, as I understand it, still do not own a car, nonetheless the use of buses has fallen dramatically while fares and subsidies have escalated?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, 40 per cent. of individuals and not 40 per cent. of households are without access to a car. Those who now have access to cars did in the past provide the most profitable market for bus services. Those who do not have access to cars but who need transport at off-peak times and in the evenings—particularly housewives in one-car families where the wage-earner takes the car to work—are indeed a market, but they represent an incomplete market when compared with the complete market that existed before. Quite apart from the noble Lord's understandable mistake concerning the percentage of car ownership, his question does not support his argument.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, one point that puzzles me about this amendment and about the remarks just made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is that it is being argued that if one does not like a particular piece of legislation one can introduce into it a clause which will enable that legislation to be reversed quite easily.

This is surely a new practice and one which we have not been invited to consider before in other legislation, from wherever it has come and from whichever party.

Normally, we pass legislation which reflects views arrived at after careful thought. In this case the bus industry has been dramatically dying on its feet for the past 10 or 15 years or more, and so something new must be done. There must be change. Naturally, some people are offended, but to put into the Bill that such change can be reversed is questionable. We normally say, "Here is our idea of how matters should be handled in future in order to improve the situation for the ordinary customer". That is what this legislation is all about. In the event that it does not work, then in due course further legislation can be passed by the Government of the day to make the changes shown to be necessary. But we do not usually build into a Bill the seeds of its own destruction, which seems to me to be what my noble friend is seeking to do. My noble friend probably does not mean to do that, but that is what this clause would in effect achieve.

Baroness Vickers

My Lords, in reply to my noble friend, the Transport Act 1981 used the wording "in the interests of the public", and so such a provision is not particular to this amendment. However, as I do not seem to have received much support, I had better withdraw my amendment and see whether I can devise an even better one for next time.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10 [Immediate hiring of taxis at separate fares]:

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 27: Page 12, line 43, after ("fares") insert— ("() the measures to be taken to enforce such conditions and regulations applicable to the operation of taxis under the scheme with regard to their safety and the safe conduct and carriage of members of the public;").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is by way of a probing amendment, and it deals with taxis. The Bill now contains three main promises concerning taxis. They are that the hackney carriage licence will become compulsory; that hackney carriages can be used as shared taxis provided that a scheme is drawn up; and that hackney carriages can be used as buses provided that a restricted licence is obtained from the traffic commissioner and the service is registered.

The Minister may be able to help me with a particular point concerning shared taxis. Clause 10(4) introduces the condition for a licensing authority making a scheme for shared taxis: if the holders of at least ten per cent. of the current taxi licences issued by the authority request the authority in writing to do so".

Will that provision apply if a single operator holds 10 per cent. of the licences? That would be giving a great deal of power to an individual. In many towns and cities a single operator may hold a fairly large number of licences. He may hold up to 20 per cent. of the available licences and would thus be able to exercise that provision if he alone wished to so do. One would therefore have just one person making such a decision.

Since the beginning of this Bill, and even before its introduction, Ministers have been telling us that there will be further legislation to sort out taxi legislation, which we all agree is in a bit of a mess. We have been told that new regulations or legislation will be introduced. We all remember the interesting debate we had earlier at the Committee stage, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, discussed the 1847 Act and other noble Lords made various points about the antiquated nature of taxi licensing law.

Under this amendment, district councils who licence taxis would have to make arrangements for the vehicles to be tested as at present, but beyond that the present rules are very limited. Different councils are able to apply different standards. In some cases, a distinctive vehicle is insisted upon. In others, the licensing authority insists upon a distinctive livery. Still other authorities allow any kind of car to be used and not even a distinctive number is required; a sign in the window or a plate on the rear of the vehicle may be all that is necessary.

It may be a cause for concern that where vehicles are to be used as shared taxis or buses there is no easily identifiable livery, plate or mark to distinguish such vehicles. The Bill refers to "the display of any document, plate, mark or sign" but this relates to the authorised stopping places, not to the taxis themselves or to a taxi standing at such a place.

Two questions. First, does "mark" or "sign" apply to the actual taxi? If so, can it be extended to include a distinctive livery? In other words, if taxis are going to be used as shared taxis, will they need to have a distinctive livery, not the same all over the country but for a particular area?

Under the proposals of the Bill, a taxi operating as a bus is subject to enforcement by traffic commissioners just as is any PS vehicle, but a taxi operating as a shared car is not, and there is no provision to ensure that the district council carries out any enforcement. Many district councils do actually take a great deal of care, but some do not, with the result that licensing certainly is open to abuse. In the absence of an enforcement officer there are always the police, but they have limited resources and this is not a job they particularly like doing; I do know that.

This amendment seeks to ensure that where a scheme for shared cars is introduced, part of that scheme should include arrangements for enforcement of the conditions that I tried to describe earlier. There are two reasons for this. One is that cars can cross district boundaries. There can be quite different attitudes over one boundary as opposed to another. There can be a great deal of discrepancy and a great deal of abuse. Some form of inspection and control is essential for the sake of protecting the public. This is intended as a probing amendment and I hope also that it is one that the House will find helpful. I hope the noble Earl the Minister will be able to reassure the House—

Lord Renton

My Lords, can the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, enlighten us on one important point of this amendment? The noble Lord mentioned that normally the police enforce the law, but does he have it in mind that there should be established, if his amendment were to be accepted, some different kind of law enforcement authority other than the police?

8.45 p.m.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, in terms of taxi inspection, certainly in London, it is not the police who do the vehicle inspection. I believe that has changed, has it not? I think the Public Carriage Office do it now, not the police. I am open to correction, but I understood that this was not something done by the police themselves; there were special inspectors.

Lord Renton

My Lords, in London the Commissioner of Police is responsible for enforcement of the taxi regulations.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I would need to take advice on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, as to who would do the inspection. I would have thought there would be—I think the noble Lord the Minister has an answer now as to who does the inspection in other places, but there would be a local authority. I am sorry; I need to take that back and look at it. I cannot give an answer now.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, may I crave the indulgence of the House to do something which perhaps is not in order but which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will not mind? It refers to the next clause of the Bill. I thought it might be a useful opportunity for the Minister to insert into the record correspondence we have had arising out of a discussion which took place on the Motion that Clause 11 stand part. Noble Lords will remember that in Committee I raised the question of the contract position of people hiring shared cabs. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will forgive me, but he has raised the question of shared cabs and I think that this is probably the only appropriate moment when I can introduce this point.

The difficulty arises if someone hires a shared cab by telephone and when the cab comes to the door he finds that there are already within the cab people who are in some way offensive; either drunk or objectionable in some other way. What is the contractual position of the person having hired the cab if he then refuses to get into it? The noble Earl the Minister—and I congratulate him on his promotion; this is the first opportunity I have had to do so—wrote me a long letter in which he explained the position very clearly in relation to what happens already under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 and the London Hackney Carriages Act 1853, which gives the driver the statutory right with reasonable excuse to refuse to carry a passenger. He rightly says this matter will have to be tested by the courts in relation to the present Bill.

Now that, on the face of it, answered my question; in other words, he concluded that if a driver may reasonably refuse to carry someone who is offensive, then a passenger can reasonably refuse to get into a cab occupied by someone who is offensive, so the contractual position would be that the person was not bound by the contract. However, I note from the press that there has been a test case in which a taxi driver was fined £50 for refusing to allow someone to smoke a pipe in his cab. It seems to me to put the whole thing back into question again. I apologise to the House for raising the matter in this way but there is no other way in which I can touch on this. Perhaps the noble Earl the Minister might like to take the opportunity of saying something on this at the moment.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, we have covered a fair amount of ground by this one amendment, and we have been liberal in our interpretation of the law. But I am happy to try and help wherever I can. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, is so sceptical of the value of taxi-sharing and a bit fearful of its consequences. Taxi-sharing has been tried elsewhere in the world—for instance in many Australian cities—and it works. We are convinced that it can work in this country and that it can mean more business for the taxi trade and a better deal for the passenger.

When this Bill comes into force it will be for the taxi licensing authority and the local taxi trade to make use of it as best suits their own areas. The Government will help and advise, and may use the regulation-making power to achieve a measure of national uniformity in things like signs which the noble Lord mentioned, but will not impose anything on the district councils. So when it comes to livery, we will not be imposing anything on them. It will be up to adjacent district councils, if that is what they want to do, to put their heads together and sort something out for themselves. We will be ready to help and advise where necessary.

The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, raised the question on Clause 10(4), and the answer is yes. It is the number of licences that matters. If one person has more than 10 per cent., he will be in a strong position.

My noble friend Lord Renton raised the question of the police inspecting vehicles. I have to tell him that both the police and the officials authorised by the district councils are empowered by Section 68 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 to inspect taxis and suspend licences. Of course, as my noble friend will be aware to a greater extent than I, the cost of the licence charged by the local authority can be spent on enforcement by their own enforcement officers.

The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, with whom I am in correspondence, raised an interesting point. I just wonder if I might ask him for his agreement to my putting a copy of the letter in the Library. It ought to be there, as it clearly sets out the present position, and I will arrange for that to be done if it has not been done already.

I ought to say that I believe the judge is right, even though I am not a smoker myself, in the case he mentioned. Until smoking is banned—and from previous debates in the summer I know that the noble friend of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, Lord Ennals, would like that situation to come about—such behaviour would open a door that would be unpopular, and unscrupulous use could be made of situations if taxi drivers were able to do that.

With regard to vehicle safety, which was again mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, I have already touched on this subject. We covered this at great length in Committee. We shall be dealing with it, I know, in amendments which follow and we shall be going into it in some detail.

Regarding the controls over taxis, it does not matter whether or not it is a shared taxi, it will be subject to the same quality controls. I can assure the noble Lord that as soon as the Bill is passed we shall send an appropriate circular to all local authorities reminding them of their responsibilities and the actions that they can take. In reading the Committee stage again it is seen that local authorities have very wide powers.

I hope that in the light of what I have said the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment and that I have covered all the points raised by noble Lords.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, this was a probing amendment and the Minister has covered most of the points raised. I should like to ask whether the Minister knows, or can find out when there will be new legislation and what steps will be taken. I know he cannot reply now but it would be interesting to know when a statement can be made on when a formal examination of existing licensing laws for taxis will be started and what legislation will be likely to come out of it.

I am also very disappointed—I hope that the Minister will also look at this—about the great power given to an individual who has more than 10 per cent. of licences. He can almost dictate to the other 90 per cent. as to whether there should be a shared system. I should add that I am not against shared taxis. I merely think that if it works it will take a long time for people to get used to the idea. There are obvious dangers with taxis or any vehicle on the road which is for hire, as any taxi driver will tell you. I am certainly not against anything that will get people about more cheaply and more conveniently than at present. I certainly agree with that. Following the assurances and explanations given by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 [Use of taxis in providing local services]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 28:

[Printed earlier: col. 414.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 19.1 beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to. Following is the text of the amendment (No. 28): Clause 12, page 14, line 42, at end insert— ("(5A) In subsection (5)(b) above "local service" does not include an excursion or tour.").

Clause 15 [Extension of taxi licensing in England and Wales]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 29 to 31: Page 17, line 23, after ("carriages") insert ("and of the Town Police Clauses Act 1889"). Page 17, line 23, after ("incorporated") insert ("in each case"). Page 17, line 35, at end insert— ("(3) So much of any local Act as enables a district council to bring to an end the application of the provisions mentioned in subsection (1) above to the whole or any part of their area shall cease to have effect.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 31. These are three essential technical amendments to ensure the proper implementation of the extension of taxi licensing throughout England and Wales. I beg to move.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill)

My Lords, Amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 31 have been moved en bloc.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

My Lords, can the noble Earl help me and tell me whether I have misread this? Does Clause 15, as it is proposed to be amended, read: Where, immediately before the commencement of this section, the provisions of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 with respect to hackney carriages and of the Town Police Clauses Act 1889 (as incorporated in each case in the Public Health Act 1875) and so on? At first sight it is rather odd to find a later Act incorporated in an earlier Act. It makes quite good sense to say that the 1847 Act is incorporated in the 1875 Act, as indeed it is, but there must be something very peculiar in the 1875 Act that makes it capable of incorporating an Act that was passed some 14 years later. If the noble Earl can tell me what it is I shall be very grateful.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. At first sight it looks odd and I agree with the noble and learned Lord; but it was the way in which the Town Police Clauses Act was drafted. If the noble and learned Lord will bear with me and wait until we reach his amendments later—Amendments Nos. 34 and 36—I can go into this matter in some detail because I have a lengthy speaking note on it. If the noble and learned Lord can wait until then, but is still not satisfied thereafter, perhaps we can go into the matter further at a later stage.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

My Lords, I shall do my best to be patient.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 16 [Taxis in England and Wales: control of numbers and application to taxi code to eight-seaters]:

[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]

Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 33: Page 17, line 39, leave out subsection (2) and insert— (" (2) After section 37 of that Act there shall be inserted the following section—

"Numbers of hackney carriages. "

37A. The grant of a licence shall be refused by a district council if they are satisfied that the needs of the district as a whole are already being adequately met by those who already hold licences." ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I understand that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time Government Amendments Nos. 33A and 34A, and Amendment No. 35 in the names of the Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham, Earl Attlee and myself.

Amendment No. 33A: Page 17, line 42, leave out ("shall not") and insert ("may").

Amendment No. 34A: Page 18, line 1, leave out from ("them") to end of line 7 and insert ("if, but only if, they are satisfied that there is no significant demand for the services of hackney carriages within the prescribed distance which is unmet.").

Amendment No. 35: Page 18, line 7, at end insert— ("; or that they are satisfied that there is already a sufficient number of hackney carriages to satisfy the needs of their area.").

Your Lordships will remember that in Committee both the form and substance of Clause 16 were strongly criticised by both sides of your Lordships' House, and indeed by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Denning, and Lord Simon of Glaisdale, both of whom are here this evening. The criticism arose on an amendment moved by the noble Earl. Lord Winchilsea which was in the same terms as Amendment No. 35 on the Marshalled List and on my Motion to leave out Clause 16.

At the conclusion of the discussion in Committee on these matters my noble friend Lord Trefgarne gave an undertaking to reconsider the clause, or at any rate that the Government would reconsider the clause, and he offered to discuss it with me. I am glad to say that during the Recess the Government have gracefully accepted the criticisms both of form and of substance. We shall of course deal later with the form and drafting on other amendments; but Amendment No. 33, and the others that I suggest should be taken with it, are concerned with the substance or policy of the matter.

It is an attempt to overcome the practical problems which were mentioned in Committee, especially the problem of so many licences being granted by one district council. There would be chaos and it would not be feasible to enforce the law relating to standards. Existing taxi operators—and, indeed, those coming in—would find a chaotic situation which amounted to unfair competition.

I should mention that in August the representatives of the National Taxicab Association saw me. and I should also disclose that Amendment No. 33 expresses their view and mine as to how the law could be, and we thought should be, amended. However, after discussion of that amendment and of Clause 16 generally last Wednesday week with my honourable friend Mr. David Mitchell, MP, Under-Secretary of State for Transport, and with my noble friend Lord Caithness—whom I should like to congratulate on his appointment as Under-Secretary of State for Transport, jointly—the day after the Government tabled Amendments Nos. 33A and 34A which together have nearly the same effect as Amendment No. 33. I also mention, because I think it is worth mentioning, that both my amendment and those of the Government avoid the unsatisfactory formula based upon the Scottish law relating to the licensing of taxi cabs, as well as dealing with the practical problems which I have already mentioned.

I am grateful to my honourable friend Mr. Mitchell and to my noble friend Lord Caithness for their open-minded approach, and in due course I shall seek leave to withdraw the amendment and shall gladly support the two Government amendments. As to Amendment No. 35, the amendment of the noble Earl. Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham, of course it will be for him to decide what to do with it when the time comes. Meanwhile, I beg formally to move the amendment.

9 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, I think the noble Lord wishes to move Amendment No. 33. The noble Lord has said that he would not wish to move Amendment No. 32.

Lord Renton

My Lords, I did not move Amendment No. 32. I have just moved Amendment No. 33 as a convenient peg on which to hang a discussion of the other amendments to which I referred.

The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham

My Lords, I think it may be appropriate at this stage to announce my intention not to press my own amendment in view of what has already taken place. I should also like to mention one or two matters which I feel ought to have an airing, the most important of which is the current situation in Liverpool, where deregulation has in fact already taken place in all but name and where the number of licensed taxis has risen from just over 400 to now just over 1,400. This has caused the Chief Constable of Merseyside a great deal of unhappiness and in his annual report he confirms the situation but is not really able to do anything about it. The situation in Liverpool is really quite dire—not just because of the taxis, as we all know, but taxis constitute some part of the total situation—and the public are at great risk.

I spent two days in Liverpool and was driven around by the Liverpool Taxi Owners Association. I observed taxis in the most deplorable state of maintenance that I have seen anywhere in this country, which is simply because the great increase in taxis has meant that nobody there can make a decent living, and the last thing they have is money to spare for maintenance of their vehicles. I saw the most incredible things happening. There were taxis stopping right across street intersections to pick up fares and stopping right on pedestrain crossings because they knew that if they obeyed the law and moved on a few yards someone else with an empty cab would nip in behind and collect the fare. Just a little while ago I heard someone—I am afraid I cannot remember who it was—raising the question of inspection of taxicabs for adequate safety standards. I know that in Liverpool the City maintains three inspection vans and they are supposed to inspect all 1,400 cabs. This is simply impossible for them to do, so hardly anything is done, which is one of the reasons why they are in such an appalling state.

However, I should very much like to thank the Government for their reconsideration and in particular for their very helpful Amendments Nos. 33A and 34A. I think that these will go a very great way toward easing the problems which the taxi industry foresaw were looming. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for all his co-operation and his valued and influential support and also to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning.

There is one other question that I should like to raise, which arises from the fact that I have heard—and perhaps the Government can confirm it—that they intend to introduce entirely separate legislation governing the taxi and hire car industry. If that is so, does the House have any idea when we can expect this? Moreover, if it is so, will it mean in fact that everything relating to taxis in the present Transport Bill will be declared null and void when the new legislation is introduced? If the answer to any of these questions is "yes", then may I humbly suggest that we have all been wasting our time on the taxi issue, because it seems sensible to me to keep the present status quo and turn our attention to the industry as a whole in separate legislation, if indeed this is to be forthcoming?

Lord Denning

My Lords, may I speak to this group of amendments as to the substance of them? The form comes later. They are deplorable in their drafting, but that comes in the next stage. On this substance of the matter, we had that case from Liverpool in my court in 1972 and it is the only case there is on this Section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act of 1847. That Act of 1847 stated that the commissioners shall licence such number of hackney carriages—that is taxicabs—as they think fit. So all the corporation or the commissioners could do was to fix the number. In 1971 the Liverpool Corporation had fixed 300 as the number of taxis of Liverpool and then, if you please, they proposed to increase that number to 350 the next year and 400 the next. But the corporation had promised the Liverpool taxi operators that they would be consulted before there was an increase. It did not consult them, and in the Court of Appeal we held that its increase was bad because it had not consulted the taxi operators first.

The taxi operators won that stage, but the corporation got round that. It went through all the necessary procedures and increased the number of cabs; instead of 300 there were 1,400 or 1,500. The whole market was swamped. There were far too many taxis. The drivers could not earn a living, and they were falling over one another and congesting the streets. That case and that operation level showed that the law was all wrong. The corporation should not be left to decide the numbers: either it will have too few taxis and the public will lose out (they will not get a taxi when they want one) or the numbers will be set too high, the market will be swamped and the taxi drivers will not earn a living. It is imperative that the law should be amended.

I agree with the substance of the amendments. Let a properly qualified driver, with a proper cab, be entitled to his licence, but do not let the market be swamped. If I may say so, I prefer the amendment of my noble friend Lord Renton, Amendment No. 33: The grant of a licence shall be refused by a district council if they are satisfied that the needs of the district as a whole are already being adequately met by those who already hold licences". That is very good. I should like to see that provision in the Bill; but the Government have amended that and we have another amendment, Amendment No. 34A, which I do not like a bit. A licence may be refused: if, but only if, they are satisfied that there is no significant demand for the services of hackney carriages within the prescribed distance which is unmet". The words "prescribed distance" will give rise to awful trouble.

There is this very good advice given by the draftsman, of which we have copies. What does the phrase "within the prescribed distance" mean? The definition in Section 128 of the Act says that it is within the distance prescribed by regulation, but the draftsman does not think that. Does it or does it not mean within the prescribed distance under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, which is incorporated? He says that Lord Renton is wrong in saying one should go to the definition clause, and states: In fact, 'prescribed' in the context of the new section derives its meaning from the definitions"— this is awfully technical— applying to terms used in the Act into which it is being inserted. The expression 'within the prescribed distance' in the 1847 Act is defined in section 171 of the Public Health Act 1875". That means within the urban district.

If these words, "within the prescribed distance", are not cleared up, we shall have an awful lot of trouble. There is no clear meaning. That is one reason—and it is just on interpretation—why I do not like the Government amendment. I much prefer the amendment of my noble friend, Amendment No. 33. I think that the words "within the prescribed distance" will give an awful lot of trouble. The Government ought to take back Amendment No. 34A to revise it; otherwise, just keep Amendment No. 33.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, is "unmet" a proper English word? Would not better wording be "which is not met"?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, we have had a useful discussion on taxis, as I knew we should. If I may briefly deal with the amendment before us, Amendment No. 33, in the name of my noble friend Lord Renton, it would restrict a council's discretion to grant licences rather than limiting its power to refuse to grant them. It would be more restricting than the present position, giving the established taxi trade the right of appeal against the granting of licences even in those areas where the district council does not at present exercise strict limitation. The effect of the amendment would be to establish more firmly the right of a district council to limit taxi numbers by fettering its discretion to do otherwise. I cannot believe that that really is the will of the House.

Let me give the example of a taxi driver I know who has been waiting for eight years to get his licence. He drives for somebody else who controls a lot of licences in the area. When I spoke to him he said, "I cannot wait for your Bill to come in because I shall be able to have my own cab and that is what I want. I want to get away from having to hire a cab from somebody who controls it". There is the monopoly. This is no small business that will be taken apart. We are concentrating on a few power barons in the taxi trade who are a very good lobby. Indeed they are: they have been a lobby since the 17th century, and a very effective one. But let us now think of the people who would like to own a cab and be respectable taxi drivers. I think that my noble friend's amendment is too restrictive.

I should like to turn now to the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham, which is the same as that we discussed in Committee. The difficulty with this amendment is that it refers to the needs of an area. Although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, chided the Government about their wording, I believe that this wording is even more difficult for the courts to understand. On that basis, the Government, I consider, have come forward with the right proposition.

Before going on to that, I should like to take a little time to explain the Liverpool situation. Much has been said about Liverpool. It is correct that since 1982 the number of taxis has increased by 541. Let us not forget that in the same period—I am sorry; I mean since 1980 to the present day—there has been a reduction in hire cars of 662. This confirms what we have said all along. Where there is strict taxi control one has a lot of hire cars. When you liberalise the taxis the number of hire cars reduces. Everyone notices a "Taxi" sign on top of a car or on the front or back of it. They do not notice hire cars. It is fair to say that the congestion in Liverpool has not become worse. The number of cars doing this trade is about the same. The fact is that there are more vehicles displaying "Taxi" signs and fewer hire cars.

9.15 p.m.

Where a problem does exist in Liverpool is in the fact that there are only 314 rank spaces. The number has not been increased. But the authorities have the power to increase the number of spaces. This can be done at no extra cost because the cost can be charged to the licences. It is for the authority to put its house in order. On the quality side, I can say that there are seven enforcement officers in Liverpool with one enforcement officer for every 200 cabs. That is a higher number than in London. Liverpool must get its act together. It has the powers under existing legislation. The number of cars on the street has not increased. It is time that Liverpool implemented the powers that it has. We shall be reminding Liverpool of these powers in a circular when the Bill is passed.

Let me turn briefly now to the Government amendments. The Government accept that the criteria in the Bill are not as clear as they should be. In the light of the very helpful discussions with my noble friend Lord Renton, we have come forward with Amendments Nos. 33A and 34A. I should like to thank my noble friend very much for coming to see my honourable friend David Mitchell and myself. This has proved very useful. I should also like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham, for accepting that what we have tried to do is meet the principle behind the present criteria: that, given that district councils are responsible for controlling the number of taxis, this should be done in such a way as to match supply with demand. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that by addressing this matter directly we have produced clear provision that will be readily comprehensible to the district councils and to the courts.

Despite what the noble and learned Lord. Lord Denning, has said, I should like to examine the point he has made. As he knows, I am not a lawyer or a judge and would not remotely pretend that I am. I should like to examine the points he has made in some detail. If there is any quiet period tomorrow, I should like to do it then. We shall be issuing a circular to local authorities on the implementation of this provision. I assure noble Lords that we shall set out in the circular the policy underlying this clause. I shall deal with that policy on the next amendment of my noble friend Lord Renton, which is to leave out Clause 16.

One matter slightly perturbs me. It should not do so because we are quite accustomed to the vagaries of the Liberal Party. However, on the one hand we have the noble Earl saying "Restrict taxis. Keep it all tight." Yet I recall some remarks made a mere three years ago by his noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie. I hope that the whole House agrees with me that we send our deepest sympathy to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie. It is very sad that he is not here. We wish him well. We are terribly sorry to hear the tragic news. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, is a different Liberal to the noble Earl. He is a Liberal in the true sense of the word. When we were dealing with the Civic Government (Scotland) Bill—we considered Commons amendments on 19th October 1982—it was in the Commons that we put on the restriction when we really wanted a more competitive situation among taxis. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said at col. 22: My Lords, I regret Amendment No. 30 because the matter could have been left to competition". My Lords, we have to accept that everybody changes their mind, and here is the Liberal Party with the heavy hand of the SDP around their necks. But, seriously, I think we have made a sensible attempt to get it right this time, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for saying that he will withdraw this amendment. I look forward to moving the Government amendments.

Lord Renton

My Lords, before I withdraw my amendment I understand that it would be in order for me to make one or two brief comments. The first is to explain to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, why I agreed to support the Government amendments and not to press my own. One reason is that I am a fairly realistic parliamentarian, and I felt that although I had a very good chance of winning a Division if there had been just my amendment on the Marshalled List opposed by the Government, if I may put it very bluntly I did not have a cat in hell's chance of doing so once the Government amendments had been tabled. Having said that, I agree with the noble and learned Lord that my amendment is, for various technical reasons, to be preferred, and I am sorry to find myself in this position, though at the same time grateful to the Government. It is a paradox which I accept. I should like to acknowledge the kindness of the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea.

I must make one correction, and I hope that those who are concerned will forgive me. I did not give the correct description to the representatives of this important association who came to see me. They are the National Federation of Taxicab Associations, and for the sake of the record I should like to put that right. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 33.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 33A:

[Printed earlier: col. 429.]

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 33A): Page 17, line 42, leave out ("shall not") and insert ("may").

9.24 p.m.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 34: Page 17, line 42, leave out ("a district council") and insert ("the commissioners")

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment but may be an important one. It turns on the rule that one only changes terminology in a section, or two linked sections, or even in a whole statute, if one intends to indicate, and particularly to signal to the court, that something different is intended to be referred to. It may be that something different is intended and, if so, the noble Earl will explain that. But it is a matter that requires explanation.

My noble and learned friend Lord Denning has already referred to Section 37 of the 1847 Act, which is amended in subsection (1) of Clause 16. As he indicated, Section 37 gives commissioners—and I emphasise that word—power to licence such number of hackney carriages or hackney coaches (I am speaking from memory) as they think fit. All sub-section (1) does is to remove the words "such number of" and "as they think fit". But it is still commissioners who do the licensing. However, when we come to the linked Section 37A inserted by subsection (2) we no longer have the word "commissioners": we have the words "a district council".

My noble and learned friend Lord Denning referred to the inaccessibility of the 1847 Act when your Lordships were discussing this matter in Committee. I have only been able to find it in two places. One is in the loose-leaf Statutes in Force, which we discussed earlier and which has no commentary, and the other is in Halsbury's Statutes of England, which has a commentary. In Halsbury the note is that commissioners extend beyond district councils to a number of other local authorities, though not as widely as they did when they were first defined in 1847.

Unfortunately that volume of Halsbury is dated 1971, and of course there has been considerable and controversial change in local government since then. Therefore, it may be that the district council is now the only licensing commissioner. However, even if that were so, there would be no reason to change the terminology, because they might not always be. In any case, there is no advantage in changing the terminology and every disadvantage, as I have indicated, because it suggests that something different is meant, and, in the case that I have postulated, the same thing is meant.

If, however, there are other licensing commissioners besides district councils, what this change of terminology would indicate is that, of all those commissioners who license, only district councils are referred to in the new Section 37A. Therefore, one way or another, it looks as though an inconvenient drafting course has been taken, and I accordingly beg to move.

Lord Denning

My Lords, may I say a word on this drafting? This Town Police Clauses Act 1847 is not an ordinary statute as we know it. It is simply a series of model clauses to be incorporated in a later Act. That 1847 Act did not apply to anything as it stood. It simply said, "These are model clauses which can be incorporated in later Acts", and they were not incorporated until 1875. Those Town Police Clauses Act sections were incorporated in the Public Health Act 1875 at Section 171. That is the first time they became law.

They became law in the sense that you wrote in that the commissioners "shall do this and that". There you are, you have that written into the 1875 Act, and going on through whenever the provision was incorporated. If you incorporate it here, or bring it in, you have simply got the words "the commissioners". Well you must have something to explain to the people who are going to read that who the commissioners are. Perhaps you can trace it through all the statutes. I cannot and I have tried. After the local government reorganisation in 1971–72, we had the new district councils which took over from the rural districts and the urban districts and all that, but they are the new district councils. You have to find something in this train of statutes to show how the commissioners, as they were in 1847 and as they were afterwards, changed into a different set of people, the district councils. Therefore something ought to be done about it. This incorporation is a matter of drafting.

I agree with my noble and learned friend. Let us keep to the wording of the 1847 Act which we are using and say that it shall be applied, subject to modification. It will give a lot of trouble but that is the logical way of doing it, if one is to incorporate the i 847 Act.

9.30 p.m.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has raised a detailed question of legal drafting. As I understand him, he is questioning whether a textual amendment to an Act should be couched in the terms of the Act being amended—even if, as in this case, they are archiac—or whether the modern interpretations should be used. I think there can be little doubt that the modern interpretation of "the commissioners" is "a district council". The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 modifies the way in which the 1847 Act is applied and is framed throughout in terms of "district councils". That Act would simply not work if the council were not "the commissioners" for the purpose of the 1847 Act. To refer now to the commissioners in an amendment made in 1985 would, I am advised, cause doubt as to whether we really did wish to refer to district councils—if we had meant that why did we not say so—and send them round the tortuous route of the Public Health Act 1875 and the Local Government Act 1972 to establish that that was in fact what we meant.

As to a precedent for using modern terminology when textually amending an old Act, I am directed to the Nursing Homes Registrations (Scotland) Act 1938 which conferred functions on "the department" which now means "the Secretary of State". This Act, as noble Lords will know, was amended in the Health Services Act 1980, to introduce a new section 3A, in an amendment which referred directly to "the Secretary of State" rather than repeating the archiac reference to "the department". I would put it to noble Lords that that really is quite a good direct parallel.

The more we discuss this the more I am convinced that a full review of the taxi and car hire legislation is desirable and, hopefully, that we should get this Bill quickly on the statute book without further delay so that we can get on with that next bite of the cherry. I hope that with that explanation the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

My Lords, I do not think there will be any difference of opinion among your Lordships that we need a new code, but that has absolutely nothing to do with this amendment. The noble Earl justifies a most misleading change of terminology by saying that what he is doing is substituting modern terminology for antique terminology. But that disregards entirely that he has, in effect, adopted the antique terminology of "commissioners" in subsection (1) which is left intact except for the removal of "such number of and "as they shall think fit". Subsection (1) adopts Section 37 of the 1847 Act which uses the word "commissioners". The noble Earl must be consistent about this. If he is to be modern he must also amend Section 37 of the 1847 Act. As it is, he leaves your Lordships with the worst of both worlds, antique terminology, as he puts it, invoked in subsection (1) and a misleading change to different terminology in the new Clause 37A in subsection (2). However, as the noble Earl has apparently convinced himself that that is right, I see no point at this hour in pressing the amendment and I beg to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 34A:

[Printed earlier: col. 429.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 34A): Page 18, line 1, leave out from ("them") to end of line and insert ("if, but only if, they are satisfied that there is no significant demand for the services of hackney carriages within the prescribed distance which is unmet.").

[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aberdare)

My Lords, Amendment No. 36. If this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 37.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 36: Page 18, line 8, leave out subsection (3).

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment proposes to leave out a section which was the subject of universal execration when your Lordships discussed it in Committee. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, made a most entertaining speech about it, holding it up justifiably to ridicule, and today my noble and learned friend Lord Denning has referred to it in trenchant terms. This Bill runs to over 170 pages and your Lordships at this stage are asked to add considerably to it. It includes in that subsection (3) a provision which everybody has found quite baffling. If your Lordships can remove it as unnecessary, as in my respectful submission you can, that is obviously a course that we should adopt.

I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and to the noble Earl for having corresponded with me about this, and in particular for sending me an extract from the draftsman's letter about it.

The draftsman's problem was this: that, as my noble and learned friend said a moment ago, the 1847 Act is really only a set of standard clauses to be incorporated in or adopted by some later statute. That style of legislation was very popular at the beginning of the last century: there was a Railways Clauses Act, a Land Clauses Act, a Companies Clauses Act, and the Town Police Clauses Act. As my noble and learned friend said, that was adopted in 1875 in the Public Health Act, which has been extended by other statutes.

However, what worried the draftsman obviously and explicitly was this. He has amended the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 in subsection (1) and subsection (2) and he is anxious that those amendments shall apply not only to references to the 1847 Act in statutes that are passed in the future but also in statutes that have already been passed. That was the problem as he saw it; although it does not really exist at all because the matter is taken care of entirely by the section in the Interpretation Act which he refers to at the outset of this subsection. I will read to your Lordships that subsection of Section 20: Where an Act refers to an enactment, the reference, unless the contrary intention appears, is a reference to that enactment as amended, and includes a reference thereto as extended or applied, by or under any other enactment, including any other provision of that Act".

We can jettison most of that because no contrary indication appears at all, so that saving proviso can go. And the words "and includes" are not words of restriction; they are words of extension. So the only question is: was there a reference? It is perhaps significant that in summarising, at the beginning of subsection (3) on page 18, the draftsman has failed to include the word "reference". What he has been preoccupied with is "extended or applied". If "reference" is the key word—and I venture to suggest that it is—the only question is: did the 1875 Act make reference to the 1847 Act? The answer, of course, is "Yes, it did", and that concludes the matter.

Now, may I read the beginning of that subsection again? It says that where an Act (1875) refers to an enactment (1847), the reference is a reference to that enactment (1847) as amended, as amended in 1985. That is the beginning and the end of the matter. The words are perfectly plain, and there is absolutely no reason to indulge in the convolutions of subsection (3) and every reason to leave the matter to the plain meaning of the Interpretation Act. I beg to move.

Lord Denning

My Lords, may I remind your Lordships that at the Committee stage it was the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, I think, who said that this was all gobbledegook. It certainly is so to any layman or to any Member of your Lordships' House reading it in the ordinary way—and, I would also add, to the lawyers, even to the Law Lords. In order to understand this clause I have read the report and the reasoning of the legal draftsman, and I find myself in complete agreement with my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale.

Really, it is absolutely unnecessary to have all this clause in at all. It is perfectly plain that the 1847 Act, as extended or applied, will continue to apply here; and all that they have done in this subsection (3) is to insert the word "incorporated". "Incorporated" is already included in "applied". I will not trouble your Lordships with all this legal argument about words; the legal draftsman has gone into it all. It appals me. It ought not to remain on the statute book. It is quite unnecessary; and, being unnecessary, do not give anybody else the trouble of trying to agree to it. I have had enough trouble with it. Do not let anyone else, lawyers or others, be put to the trouble of reading it again. I hope it will be omitted because it is no good: it is quite unnecessary.

9.45 p.m.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

My Lords, even at this hour I cannot disguise my eagerness to support the amendment so cogently moved by my noble and learned friend, if I may so term him, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I have long believed that intelligence, sensitivity, wisdom and all kinds of other virtues reside on the Government Front Bench. I had hoped that some sense of shyness or shame, some doubt, might have been sown in those regions by what was said about this subsection during the Committee stage. But this horrible creature is still on the pages of the Bill and there is no amendment down in the names of Ministers to erase the nasty little thing.

During the Committee stage I thought it only kindness to read out loud the words that your Lordships are asked to allow to remain in the Bill. I would venture to do so again, merely for the convenience of those of your Lordships who do not have a copy of the Bill immediately in front of them. These are the words of this subsection that your Lordships are asked to perpetuate: (3) Without prejudice to section 20(2) of the Interpretation Act 1978 (references to an enactment to include references to that enactment as extended or applied by or under any other enactment), the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 is amended by subsection (1) above for all purposes for which it applies (and accordingly, as it has effect as incorporated, extended or applied by or under any other enactment). Mercifully, that is the end of that horrible little subsection. I very much hope that even at this hour perhaps we might just awaken in my noble friends some distaste. My noble friends have very great difficulty in piloting Bills of this kind through your Lordships' House and they may be weary, but I do not despair of awakening in their minds such elements of distaste as might cause them to disgorge this horror and to regard it as unnecessary, ugly and wholly to be condemned. I really just wait in silence for some reaction from the Government Front Bench, because I am loath to be driven to the conclusion that they have become so insensitive to bad taste and to horrible language.

I do not wish to detain your Lordships longer. I merely pause to speculate whether the word "hogwash" might be used. I think I did say at Committee stage that it was "legislative gobbledegook", but I really wonder whether "hogwash" is a parliamentary term. If it is, perhaps I could use it, albeit with the sense that one is bestowing a compliment on a ghastly piece of so-called English that in no way deserves to be described as "legislative hogwash".

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, who has given us the benefit of this most excellent exposition not only of this clause but of the Bill as a whole, does not regard this as a wrecking amendment.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is an expert in wrecking amendments and I do not wish to compete with him in that. I am merely trying to delete from an otherwise useful measure a really horrible sore thumb, which I rely upon my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale to say is not only ugly but unnecessary.

Lord Renton

My Lords, I suggest that the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is a serious amendment designed to improve the Bill. There is no question of this being a wrecking amendment. Both noble and learned Lords and I, and perhaps—I am not sure—my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil, were sent by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne in August a most interesting and helpful letter, to which he attached a very long memorandum by parliamentary counsel of a kind which it is very unusual for us to receive. Therefore, I do not wish to be churlish about it. But just over three pages of that memorandum attempted to justify the inclusion of this subsection (3) in the clause.

I must say that I was very surprised at the reasons given, because one of them was that the report of the committee of which I had the honour to be chairman having recommended textual amendment, textual amendment having been used in the previous two subsections, subsection (3) was a natural result of having used textual amendment. I pondered over this and I read the memorandum three times, but I really could not follow that reasoning.

Indeed, I think much more potent, if he were to quote the advice of that report, would be for him to remember—I am afraid that I do not have it with me—that recommendation which stated that a Bill presented to Parliament should be regarded primarily as something which convey the law to the users of the Bill, to the citizens, rather than being for the benefit of the legislators. I have to say that this subsection is certainly of no value to the users of the Bill. We have heard what some legislators have had to say about it and I must say that, when we find that a subsection is of no value either to the legislators or to the users, it would seem that we should try to do without it.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, before coming on to Amendment No. 36, may I just revert to a point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, raised earlier in the proceedings. He raised a technical point of drafting in connection with Amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 31 to Clause 15.I have been advised to direct the attention of the noble and learned Lord to subsection (2) of Section 2 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1889. This states in terms that the Act of 1889 shall be deemed to be incorporated with the Public Health Act 1885. I hope that this meets the point of the noble and learned Lord, but if not I shall be happy to discuss it further with him.

May I now turn to this fascinating subsection (3) which has caused a very interesting debate? During the Committee stage debate, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, expressed doubts about the need for this subsection and he was supported by other noble and learned Lords and noble Lords. We put all the concerns to the draftsman and, as the noble and learned Lord has said, we have corresponded with him, but we have perhaps failed to explain clearly enough the reasons for the inclusion of this provision.

This is a formidable provision which we ourselves would have omitted had that been possible. Your Lordships might find it helpful therefore if I explain what it does and why it is necessary. Its purpose is to ensure that the amendments made by the two preceding subsections of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 have effect wherever that Act is in force. This would normally have been achieved automatically by the action of the Interpretation Act 1978 but that Act cannot be relied upon in this case.

The reason for this is that the Town Police Clauses Act never has had direct application. As has been pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, it consists of a collection of standard clauses which have effect only when incorporated in another Act. In this case the principal incorporation has been into the Public Health Act 1875 but it may also be incorporated into local Acts. This was a legislative technique popular in the 19th century designed, I believe, to introduce some uniformity into local Acts.

When an Act is amended Section 20 (2) of the Interpretation Act has the effect of carrying the amendment through into any other enactment which extends or applies the first Act. Unfortunately, it does not deal with incorporation so we are left with the choice of either amending the Interpretation Act—which I am sure the whole House would agree would be the wrong approach—or making provision in this Bill. If we were to do neither subsections (1) and (2) would apply only to new incorporations—as from now that is—of the 1847 Act and so would be almost totally ineffective.

I find myself in a difficult position. Perhaps I may put it into layman's language as I understand it. The Government have been categorically advised that this subsection is necessary while the noble and learned Lord with his wide experience in these matters is strongly of the view that it is not. I cannot pretend to be a judge in such matters but I feel that it would be irresponsible of me to ignore the advice that has been proffered to the Government. If the draftsman's advice was wrong little harm would result from following that advice—merely these seven lines in 170 pages would be redundant. If, however, the draftsman was right and we ignored his advice this entire clause, Clause 16, about which we have agonised so long, would be without effect.

My noble friend Lord Peyton says that it is all hogwash and gobbledygook. I know it is difficult, but my noble friend supports, I believe, the principles of Clause 16 as does my noble friend Lord Renton. If we ignore the draftsman's advice and this clause becomes without effect, then the principles which we support on this side of the House, and which noble Lords elsewhere in the Chamber support too, will be without effect. That is a very serious undermining of the Bill.

Given that balance of consequences, I hope your Lordships will agree with me that we must guard against complete failure by retaining this provision. However, I have one ray of sunshine and that was that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said that he was appalled by the legal difficulties. If the noble and learned Lord is appalled I can only be glad to hide in his shadow and say that I am equally appalled. What I can do is, without any commitment to the future, take it back to our draftsman because I know the feeling in this House. I know that noble and learned Lords and my noble friends are concerned. I can take it back and see what can be done, if anything, but I must reiterate that our firm advice is that the subsection is necessary as drafted.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. Against the immense judicial authority of my noble and learned friend Lord Denning and the great parliamentary and ministerial authority of the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Peyton, the noble Earl showed a staunch front.

However, the noble Earl said that he would reconsider this matter. When I wrote to him, I only outlined the argument and undertook not to press this amendment to a Division so that he would have an opportunity of considering the full argument. I can only say—and I am reinforced in this by the views that have been expressed—that in my respectful submission this subsection is entirely unnecessary. The situation is entirely governed by the Interpretation Act and I trust that the second thoughts of the noble Earl will be better than his first. In the meantime, I beg to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 37: Page 18, line 11, leave out ("subsection (1)") and insert ("subsections (1) and (2)").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment arises from our investigation of questions raised at the Committee stage by a number of noble Lords. We realise that those questions threw up a minor error in subsection (3). It has effect only to subsection (1) and not to both subsections (1) and (2), as it must.

Amendment No. 37 corrects that error and I am grateful to all noble Lords for the part they played at Committee stage. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 38: Leave out Clause 16.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hasten to assure your Lordships that I do not intend to invite the House to divide on this amendment, but I shall use it as a last opportunity—for that is what it is—to press the Government as to their intentions for improving the form and drafting of Clause 16.

On 22nd August, my noble friend Lord Trefgarne wrote to me with a quotation from parliamentary counsel, and a very tangible one. We should be grateful for it: No one who has tangled with the taxi code would dissent from the proposition that a complete overhaul of this branch of the law is not merely desirable but essential. It is disgraceful that this part of the statute book has been allowed to fall into such disrepair but there can be no half measures but a reworking"—

I believe he meant rewording— of the 1847 Act. It is not feasible to re-write the odd section. What is required is a clean sweep".

Of course we wholeheartedly agree—and so do the Government. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Trefgarne went on to state: We have given a firm undertaking to review all taxi and hire car legislation".

He added that he hoped this would result in a compact taxi code based on an objective view of the role of these vehicles in the provision of public transport.

I wish to ask my noble friend three questions. The first is: when will this work be done? The second is: how soon will it start? Thirdly: when shall we have a Bill? I think we are entitled to be given some idea of the answers to those three questions.

That is my main purpose in moving this amendment, but I have a subsidiary purpose, and it is this. If your Lordships would be so good as to look at subsection (4), to which no reference has so far been made today, we find it goes beyond the headnote to Clause 16 at the foot of page 17, which reads: Taxis in England and Wales: control of numbers and application of taxi code to eight-seaters".

We can see that the first two subsections (and, if we have to put up with it, the third subsection as well) do refer to taxis. But subsection (4) darts off in another direction. It says: In England and Wales, the provisions made by or under any enactments which apply to motor vehicles used … to carry passengers under a contract expressed or implied for the use of the vehicle"—

that is not merely taxis— … and… to ply for hire for such use; shall apply to motor vehicles adapted to carry less than nine passengers as they apply to motor vehicles adapted to carry less than eight passengers".

Therefore, it seems to me that subsection (4) should be in a separate clause. No amendment would be necessary to achieve this. It can be done administratively when the Bill is reprinted for our consideration on Third Reading. So may I leave that thought with my noble friend? Perhaps he may not be able to give an answer definitely on that point now, but I do suggest it would be worth doing. It might save some of the confusion which arises on this clause as a whole. I beg to move.

Lord Denning

My Lords, may I say a word about this? In framing this clause the draftsman has used the technique of going back to the 1847 Act, which does not apply to any modern clauses. You have to look at that Act first and amend it. You have to look at the 1875 Act, which is again incorporated, to see what extent it is amended. You have to look at several other Acts before you can get down to this at all. The noble Lord says it ought all to be combined in one big code because it is not feasible to rewrite the odd section; what is required is a clean sweep.

It is perfectly feasible and simple to deal with this one point in one sentence. I am taking it from what is already there. It can be that the licensing authority, if you like, may refuse a licence—and I go into the words of the amendment— if, but only if, they are satisfied there is no significant demand for the services of hackney carriages within the prescribed distance which is unmet". That is a simple clause and just says that the licensing authority may refuse it if there is no demand which is not already met.

A short sentence like that would have solved all this trouble, instead of which we have to go through the tremendous complication of the 1847 Act. In other words, a simple sentence could have achieved the whole thing. In a way I should like to leave out the clause, but, on the other hand, as my noble friend Lord Renton has said, he does not want to press it. But it is a thoroughly bad clause.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for raising this particular point about the future. Before dealing with that, perhaps I may first deal with Clause 16(4). The purpose is to cure a technical fault in the legislation relating to eight-seater passenger vehicles. At present passenger vehicles with eight passenger seats hired as a whole with the services of a driver and which ply for hire are neither public service vehicles nor taxis. This subsection brings them within the scope of the taxi code. This is a technical but necessary amendment to existing legislation that should stand part of the Bill. However, I take on board what my noble friend said and I shall raise it with the draftsmen as soon as possible.

With regard to the three questions which my noble friend raised earlier relating to future legislation, I am very happy to repeat the undertakings given in Committee by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. Once the provisions of this Bill have been implemented, we shall be carrying out a major review of hire car and taxi legislation. How long that will take, I do not know. Obviously one wants to do a thorough review in the shortest possible time. We shall need to consult and as soon as consultations have ended the Government will have to come to a decision. However, on the date on which legislation will come forward, naturally I am not in a position to answer my noble friend at this stage. It is our intention to review the code with the aim of bringing in legislation at an early date. I know that that is not a very satisfactory answer but I cannot make any further commitment at this stage.

Lord Renton

My Lords, my noble friend said that the review will start as soon as the Bill has been passed and implemented. "Implemented" is the operative word. To find out when it will be implemented we have to turn to the last clause of the Bill, Clause 132, and we find that the Bill, apart from certain specified sections, shall come into force on such day or days as the Secretary of State may by order appoint". So there is no certainty as to when the Bill will be implemented after it has been passed. Moreover of course the word "implemented" perhaps extends to a later stage than the mere bringing into operation. It could be said that the Bill will not have been implemented until all the district councils have made their decisions so far as concerns the application of the taxi code. Therefore, we have an undertaking which is—and I hesitate to say so because one must be grateful for small mercies—somewhat nebulous.

My noble friend did not mention consultation although he has been kind enough to show me a copy of the intended consultation paper. I assume there will be consultation, and that is one of the matters which will of course take a little time. Are we to understand therefore that it will be not merely consolidation of the existing law and a re-writing of it as it is, but that changes may even be made in it as a result of the consultation; or is the consultation merely to be referred to the drafting? I should not have thought that was the position having seen the consultation paper.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say that I think that I mentioned consultations. If I did not, I apologise as I meant to mention the fact that there would be consultation because, as my noble friend rightly points out, we have discussed this aspect. If from the consultations and investigation into the whole of the taxi and hire car legislation it becomes evident that further legislation is required, and amendments to the current legislation are also required, that will be undertaken at a suitable time which, as my noble friend knows better than I, depends on various other factors.

Lord Renton

My Lords, I am much obliged.

10.15 p.m.

The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham

My Lords, it might be appropriate at this time to remind the House of something that I said at the Committee stage of this Bill, which is that every Government since the late 1930s has promised separate reviews and legislation concerning the taxi and hire car industry, and it would be very nice to know that this Government actually mean what they say and will honour that promise. The other comment I should like to make is to remind the noble Earl that the Liberal Party is a very broad church indeed; with our SDP allies, it is becoming even broader, and there are many shades of opinion which flourish and are housed under its roof.

Lord Renton

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 38.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17 [London taxi and taxi driver licensing: appeals]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 39 to 42: Page 18, line 35, leave out from ("to") to end of line 36 and insert ("the appropriate court") Page 19, line 1, leave out from ("to") to end of line 2 and insert ("the appropriate court") Page 19, line 3, leave out ("a magistrates") and insert ("the") Page 19, line 26, at end inser— ("(10) In this section "the appropriate court" means the magistrates' court for the petty session area in which the licensing authority has his office or, if he has more than one office, his principal office.")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 39 and at the same time I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 42. Therefore, with the leave of the House, I shall move all four en bloc.

This is a group of technical amendments which have the effect of changing the magistrates' court to which these appeals are to be made from that for the area in which the appellant resides to the court for the area in which the licensing authority has its office. During the Committee debate the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, pointed out that the previous arrangement might prove inconvenient, in that many taxi drivers live well outside London. He had a valid point and I think my noble friend Lord Trefgarne undertook to bring forward this amendment. It is an improvement to a provision which has been generally welcomed and I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for bringing it to our attention. I beg to move.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl. I think it is true to say that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, undertook to take this matter away and to think about it; I do not think he actually undertook to bring back legislation, but I am very glad that the Government have done so. This will be a considerable relief to people, and save them trekking to courts in obscure parts of the Great Wen. I am glad that the Government at least do not believe that I am always moving wrecking amendments and that I can in fact have some purpose in your Lordships' House.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 19 [Permits in relation to use of buses by educational and other bodies]:

Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 43: Page 20, line 11, at end insert— ("() is being driven by a person who either holds a public service vehicle driver's licence or in the case of a small bus has passed a test of competence to drive such a vehicle;").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am afraid that your Lordships will find that what I have to say is really rather dull compared with what has been said before. I shall not indulge in historical rhetoric—if I did, it would not be in the least amusing—but I beg to move Amendment No. 43, and with it I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 44 to 47 and Amendment No. 49. Amendment No. 44: Page 20, line 34, leave out ("large"). Amendment No. 45: Page 20, line 36, at end insert ("and shall suspend or revoke a permit, by whomsoever granted, if he has evidence that any bus used under the permit in the traffic area for which he is commissioner is not adequately maintained.").

Amendment No. 46: Page 20, line 36, at end insert—

("() Where a traffic commissioner has suspended or revoked a permit under subsection (6) above the suspension shall only be lifted or a new permit granted to the body whose permit was revoked when that commissioner is satisfied that adequate facilities have been provided or arrangements made for maintaining any bus used under the permit in a fit and serviceable condition.").

Amendment No. 47: Clause 21, page 22, line 6, at end insert—

("including the nature of the test of competence to drive a small bus, the qualifications, selection and appointment of persons by whom tests may be conducted and requirements that specified bodies or classes of bodies shall organise the conducting of such tests;").

Amendment No. 49: Page 22, line 21, at end insert—

("(5) In subsection (1)(a) above "specified bodies or classes of bodies" shall include—

1. (a) the Traffic Commissioners for a Traffic Area;
2. (b) in England and Wales, the council of any non-metropolitan county, any district or London borough, or the Common Council of the City of London;
3. (c) in Scotland, a regional or islands council;
4. (d) the Inner London Education Authority.").

In Committee I very reluctantly withdrew my amendments to introduce new categories of licences for small passenger vehicles and their drivers. I have now considered all that was said in debate at that stage, and while I remain deeply convinced that my amendment provided the best solution from the overall point of view, I bow to the concern of some noble Lords that voluntary organisations might have difficulties with the system. Beyond that I was accused of seeking to clip the wings of the minibus. In truth I only wish that the string by which those wings are secured could be replaced by a few nuts and bolts. But I cannot let this matter go altogether by default. To my knowledge there have been, in the few weeks of the Recess, four accidents involving minibuses. I shall speak about only one of them, because it so clearly demonstrates the reason for my concern. This accident occurred on 21st August last and involved four minibuses taking schoolchildren from a summer camp near York on an outing to Scarborough. There were 60 children driven by volunteer drivers who were socially conscious young men from the university. When one minibus was in collision with a lorry, the remaining vehicles were concertinaed into it. Children were thrown out of the rear door of the minibuses and no fewer than 40 of them had to be taken to hospital for treatment.

This Bill is not mere pieces of paper and when we come on to safety this is an area which affects people's lives. Rather than trying to go too far too quickly I have decided to look at the very minimum that is necessary to provide a reasonable safeguard. On that point, I conclude that driving ability and maintenance are the fundamentals. Many people think that there is no problem for an expert car driver to take on a minibus. That is simply not true. I believe that several interested bodies have published advice for minibus drivers but in particular I should like to refer to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. There is no doubt about the standing of that august society in matters such as this, and it is significant that it thinks it necessary to produce a special book or booklet as an introduction to even basic minibus driving. That book or booklet has yet to be published but I have had an opportunity of seeing the draft. I shall quote just one paragraph which is relevant: It may be felt by drivers who have accumulated a number of incident-free miles in saloon cars that little extra training is called for. However, the differences mentioned above are quite pronounced, and are not only the obvious ones of size and weight. The mere fact of carrying a number of passengers, in some cases perhaps children or handicapped people, adds considerably to the driver's workload. It is therefore tremendously important both for the sake of the passengers and other road users that he or she makes adequate preparation for this new task".

Amendments Nos. 43,47 and 49 are the ones which deal with the driver. They require that the driver shall have passed a test of competence and provide the means by which the Secretary of State can determine the nature of the test and other necessary administrative matters—regarding examiners and the establishment of testing schemes. Because many people may be involved it is necessary to make the widest possible provision of those competent to conduct the tests.

I have dealt with the driver; I go on to the safety of the vehicles. Under the Bill the issue of minibus permits for the operation of buses with more than 16 seats—like community buses with eight to 16 seats—is subject to prior consideration of the facilities or arrangements for the maintenance of the vehicle, yet there is no such consideration of maintenance before the issue of permits for the use of buses with eight to 16 seats under a minibus permit. That is illogical because it means that a most important aspect of passenger safety is left unchecked for the vast majority of minibuses being operated under permits. 1 have reason to believe that a lot of minibuses which should be under permits are not.

However, I have been compelled to recognise that many bodies designated to issue minibus permits would be quite incapable of checking the maintenance facilities or arrangements of the applicant. Therefore, although reluctantly, I have concluded that every dog must be allowed one bite—but only one. If it becomes apparent that the permit holder is failing in practice to maintain the vehicle, the traffic commissioner should undoubtedly take action against the permit. It must remain of no validity until he is satisfied that the necessary steps have been taken to protect the safety of those travelling in the minibus and of all other road users. One recognises of course that in Clause 20(5) there is provision for the commissioner to consult with the body issuing the permit, if he did not issue it, but that subsection in itself is not enough to meet the situation.

I wish that it was not necessary to move these amendments but the facts rather speak for themselves. There are too many accidents involving minibuses driven by those not sufficiently prepared for the job and due to laxity over maintenance. These minibuses often serve the disabled and under-privileged. It is important that we give them proper protection. We do not want bureaucracy but we must have realism in dealing with the matter. I believe that I am offering the minimum possible. I recommend these amendments for your Lordships to consider. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I must confess that when the noble Lord moved amendments on this subject in Committee I had grave reservations about them. He was proposing at that time that there should be a special licence for small public service vehicles. I felt, as I believe did a number of my noble friends, that this could bear very hardly on community transport, transport run by educational bodies, the social services and so on. I do not think that anyone knows how many people would have had to take such a small public service vehicle test. One can hazard a guess that it would be many times the number of those who take a test for PSV licences. It could be five or 10 times that number. And the amount of bureaucracy and delay involved would have been horrific.

One can imagine the typical school that has a minibus partly used for taking pupils to sports events and partly used for longer holidays and even visits abroad. The prospect of 20 or 25 teachers in a school with 50 teachers having to take a special test of the sort that was originally proposed is intolerable.

My other reservation relates to the role of local authorities. After all, local authorities are themselves the largest single operators of small vehicles of this kind—minibuses. Outside the metropolitan areas, education authorites and social services authorities are different tiers of government. Nevertheless, they have the experience and they are able to make more readily available than through a more formal structure the kind of testing which the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, now intends, I believe, in his amendments, which I welcome.

I am conscious that there is available in Derbyshire, through the county council, a testing procedure for drivers of minibuses that does not appear to cause any enormous delays in qualifications. Tests are carried out by people who have PSV licences themselves rather than by professional driver testers. There are not the kind of delays that exist with either PSV licences or ordinary driving licences.

I believe, and I hope, that the intention behind this set of amendments is to bring other councils up to the standard of Derbyshire which, it has been shown, can be achieved without undue bureaucracy by councils. A sensible compromise is being proposed here between the more extreme amendments proposed last time and the rather extreme laissez-faire, which I suggest is the position of the Bill before your Lordships at the moment. I commend the amendments to the House.

10.30 p.m.

Lord Monk Bretton

My Lords, I was not here, I am afraid, when this began, and I must apologise to my noble friend Lord Teviot; I may have missed some of it. Before we go any further I should like to say that I am most concerned about the subject of community buses. The record of community buses is, I understand, a good one. I can understand the feeling of people who operate and drive them, that they should at least be allowed to do what everybody else among the general public is allowed to do with a minibus. I suspect that the record of community buses by way of driving safety on the roads is far better than that of the general public in minibuses. These services are the last ditch for the village when there is great difficulty over transport; and it is also a very difficult job to get such services started. They are voluntary organisations. The organiser is the most important person in the whole set-up; and so are the drivers important. Usually the vehicle is under the supervision of the local education authority or a bus company. Their reputation for safety, as I understand it, is an excellent one.

I do not want to see costs rising for the community buses. Of course, if they have to go in for the full PSV licence treatment, I believe that it costs £100 for every community bus. I should just like to make those points.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Teviot for moving his six amendments en bloc. This enables us to have a more comprehensive and constructive discussion on these matters. If I can divide his six amendments into two, I deal firstly with Amendments Nos. 43, 47 and 49—what I call the drivers' test and control amendments. The Government accept that the existing provisions on the licensing of bus drivers have developed in a haphazard way and are in need of revision. In particular, as my honourable friend Mr. David Mitchell conceded in another place during Committee stage, there is a strong case for ensuring that drivers of all large buses—not just the relatively small number covered by permits—are adequately qualified or can initially show relevant experience. The case for testing minibus drivers is, I believe, more questionable. While their drivers need to be familiar with the needs of passenger-carrying on a larger scale than a private car, these vehicles are far less demanding than the general run of large buses and it is debatable whether any specific skills are involved.

I would remind the House that this Amendment, No. 43, relates only to vehicles driven under permits; that is, those run by voluntary organisations where some payment is made. It would leave untouched the much larger number of minibuses, private or commercial, or where the passengers do not pay. Surely that is illogical. Why is my noble friend attacking this one small section of minibuses and leaving the rest on the side? It is, I believe, an entirely illogical approach in tackling this problem, as he sees it. If we decided that a special test should be required for driving minibuses other than public service vehicles, I feel sure that it should be required for all and not just permit vehicles.

That is just one of many points and questions which need to be comprehensively reviewed and debated. However, I can assure the House that it remains the Government's intention to introduce new legislation to modernise the provisions on the driving of buses in a way which will give opportunities for full consultation and debate. These amendments Nos. 43, 47 and 49 tackle the issue in a piecemeal, haphazard and, I believe, totally unsatisfactory way. With the assurance I have just given, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw these amendments and come back to this matter when we deal with it in more detail.

Let me turn now, if I may, to the remaining three amendments, Nos. 44,45 and 46. When I looked back at the amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Teviot at Committee stage in relation to small passenger vehicle licensing I felt that I should commend him for the concise way in which he has drafted his new amendments. But, very regrettably, they are not very much different from his old proposals. They seek to make these permits more like a form of operator's licence issued by the traffic commissioners.

In fact, permits are a sensible means for voluntary bodies who charge their passengers to avoid the unfortunate consequences of straying into the realms of hire or reward operations. They do not do so for profit, nor are they in any sense in competition with commercial PSV operators. In reality they are often not much different from any of the social and community groups or public-spirited individuals who own and run minibuses for their organisations without any form of charging. Indeed my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton, to whom I am grateful for joining in this short debate, stressed the importance of this sector.

I fail to see why they must be subject to the traffic commissioners' scrutiny. After all we do not require private individuals who own and run minibuses to submit details of their maintenance arrangements to the traffic commissioners. Do we really want to do so in this case? My noble friend is being grossly unfair. Is it really appropriate to create all this extra bureaucracy with the effect that it will have on community transport, on the disabled, on the local scoutmaster, on the local churchwarden doing his bit? My noble friend has picked on these people in an unnecessary way. I hope that he will see fit to withdraw all these amendments. If he looks back at what happened when the recent minibus legislation came through the House he will see that it was warmly welcomed on all sides, and I have seen no evidence to show that it is not working satisfactorily.

Lord Teviot

My Lords, I am afraid that my noble friend is going to be slightly disappointed as I am not going to withdraw these amendments. I must deal with this point by point. I am grateful that we have not had a purely political answer from the Front Bench, talking about the main thrust of this Bill. At least the Front Bench has produced arguments to this amendment, although I do not agree with them. I hope for the rest of the Bill they will keep on those lines.

The first noble Lord to speak was the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. He thought that my "extreme" amendments at Committee stage were not acceptable, and, now that he realises they are less extreme, I am glad to have his support. My noble friend Lord Monk Bretton spoke about community buses in the villages and that sort of area. Villages are delighted to see any form of vehicle. I happen to know that the county in which I once lived and from which I now live a stone's throw away has introduced some rather interesting schemes. They have provided buses down lanes 6 1/2 feet wide, and will provide—and I hope the public are going to support them—a service. I am not arguing against that at all.

At the Committee stage I spoke for some 20 minutes, for which I apologised profusely, and I have had my nose rubbed in it not once but about 20 times to the effect that I am trying to disturb the Bill yet again, but I am not. I am delighted to see that my noble friend Lord Caithness has had a well deserved promotion. I thought it was slightly unfair when he spoke about the archaic term "stage carriage" and two minutes later the answer was "local bus service". I still prefer "stage carriage". It means rather more than "local bus service", which can be misconstrued.

I come back to the amendment and the section of it dealing with the driver. I am pleased that the Government accept that the licensing of drivers is haphazard and that the Government are going to look into that. My noble friend brought up the point about those who are paid and those not paid. For those not paid it would be patently unfortunate if somebody who buys a minibus and takes his family and has a holiday either at home or on the Continent had. as an individual, to come under some form of regulation. Surely there must be a division between the chap driving his family and one taking schoolchildren somewhere. There is a difference.

The Earl of Caithness

Why?

Lord Teviot

My Lords, I shall tell my noble friend why. After all, we might come into a very different state from the one we are living in. An individual buying for himself and his immediate family is rather different from someone carrying others. I could go on with this for a long time, and indeed I shall. If my noble friend wishes to intervene and says that I am talking absolute nonsense, fair enough. I made a note about buses and minibuses, but I think I have dealt with that.

I now go on to vehicles and what is sensible and not sensible. I feel this is an area of safety where the Government have not taken notice. We are again in the realms of many minibus services, stage carriage or local bus services, where people will not be equipped to drive nor equipped to service the vehicles. The examples I have given have been proved, even in the Summer Recess, as unsatisfactory.

At Committee stage I quoted a personal experience when I had to get into a bus, not having been in a bus for some years. When I last drove a bus it had a large hand brake and also a gear. All sorts of little nonsenses have occurred. I feel the Government have not taken this matter responsibly and it is something about which even at this late hour I must ask your Lordships' indulgence and divide.

On Question, amendment negatived.

[Amendments Nos. 44 to 46 not moved.]

Clause 21 [Permits under section 19: regulations]: [Amendment No. 47 not moved.]

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 48: Page 22, line 17, leave out subsection (3).

The noble Earl said: My Lords, at the same time I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 297 and 377: Amendment No. 297: Clause 127, page 129, line 43, at end insert ("; and in subsection (2) of that section (duty to consult before making regulations under section 59 or 60 of that Act) the words "section 59 or 60 of shall be omitted"). Amendment No. 377: Schedule 7, page 172, line 31, column 3, at insert—

("In section 61(2) the words "section 59 or 60 of" ").

These are technical amendments to ensure that Section 61(2) of the 1981 Act, which requires consultation with representative bodies, will apply to any regulations made under the 1981 Act in Parts I and II of this Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]

Clause 25 [Objections to application for PSV operators' licences]:

Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 50: Page 25, line l, leave out ("Act of 1981") and insert ("1981 Act").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 51, 52, 53, 54 and 61: Amendment No. 51: Page 25, line 3, leave out from beginning to second ("the") in line 18 and insert—

("Objections to application for PSV operator's licence.

. [4A.—(1) Where an application is made for the grant of a PSV operator's licence under this Act any chief officer of police or local authority may object to the grant of the licence on the ground that one or more of the requirements mentioned in section 14(1) and (3) of this Act are not satisfied in relation to")

Amendment No. 52: Page 25, line 21, leave out from ("manner") to ("and"), in line 22.

Amendment No. 53: Page 25, line 27, at end insert—

("(4A) In this section "local authority" means—

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

Amendment No. 54: Page 25, line 28, leave out subsection (2).

Amendment No. 61: Clause 31, page 29, line 19, at end insert—

("(2A) Where an application for a PSV operator's licence is granted under this Act and a person who duly made an objection to the grant under section 14A of this Act is aggrieved by the grant of the licence he may appeal to the Transport Tribunal.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, you will remember that Clause 25 was moved into the Bill by my noble friend Lord De La Warr, who I regret is absent today, and was carried against the Government. I should like to explain briefly the amendments I am moving and speaking to now. Amendment No. 50 merely brings the reference to the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 into line with that used elsewhere in the Bill. Amendment No. 52 deletes the requirement for publication from this clause, but publication will be in Notices and Proceedings under Amendment No. 11, which was an amendment to Clause 3 which your Lordships will recall we dealt with earlier this afternoon.

Amendment No. 54 deletes the provision for appeals from this clause, but the amendment to Clause 31 puts it in that clause which we believe is a more appropriate place. Your Lordships will note that the appellate body is to be the Transport Tribunal, as with other operator licensing appeals, not my right honourable friend as in the amendment. I think that was an inadvertence on the part of the movers of the amendment at Committee stage.

10.45 p.m.

However, the most significant change which I am proposing to your Lordships is the question of appeal rights. We have thought carefully about this in the light of the lengthy discussions in Committee in another place, as well as those we had in the debate at the Committee stage on this amendment in your Lordships' House. The conclusion that we on this side of the House have reached is that a right of objection for local authorities and the police when someone is applying for an operator's licence is acceptable. It is true that it was not our proposal and we should have preferred it not to be there. But we can see the case for giving formal status of this kind to public authorities, which have rights and duties in many other fields that can be paralleled with this one. They will be expected to exercise this right on grounds of public policy. However, we are still convinced that it would be wrong to allow to existing operators a right of objection to new applicants who are their potential competitors. If I may be quite open about this, I believe that has just a little too much of the odour of quantity limitation about it.

I hope your Lordships will agree that the Government's position here is a reasonable one. I should like just to remind your Lordships that applications for operators' licences will be published in notices and proceedings. The traffic commissioner will have to be satisfied of good repute, financial standing and maintenance facilities. He will hold an inquiry if he sees doubts. He will be able to have the advice of a financial assessor. He will have to pay attention to any relevant representations or any information that is put before him by anyone, including other operators. That last point is worth considerable emphasis. Operators or anyone else who have good reason to think that an applicant ought not to have a licence can and should tell the commissioner and he will take account of what he is told. Other operators will not, however, have a right of appeal if your Lordships agree to these amendments. The traffic commissioner grants a licence and that is all.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 51:

[Printed above.]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Teviot had given notice of his intention to move manuscript Amendment No. 51 A: Page 25, line 18 at end insert— ("and any holder of a PSV operator's licence may make representations to the traffic commissioner concerning those requirements.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I regret that my noble friend Lord De La Warr is not in his seat at the moment and is away. I intended to move this amendment. However, if the House will bear with me, there is one particular point I should like to refer to at Third Reading when my noble friend is in his place. I think then would be the best time to move the amendment. Therefore I shall not move manuscript Amendment No. 51 A.

[Manuscript Amendment No. 51A not moved.]

Lord Belstead moved Amendments Nos. 52 to 54. [Printed above.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 52 to 54 en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 55: Page 26, line 18, leave out ("shall not") and insert ("may")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move. This concerns a subect that I mentioned in Committee and I believe the Government have news for me on that point.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Belstead, I say no more than that this amendment is entirely acceptable, and I thank my noble friend for tabling it.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 56: Page 26, line 20, leave out from ("subsection") to second ("or") in line 22 and insert ("if, but only if, it appears to him that the operator did not have a reasonable excuse for his conduct")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 26 [Conditions attached to PSV operator's licence]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 57:

[Printed earlier: col. 413.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 17.I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 57): Page 26, line 27, at end insert— ("2A) Where the effect of a condition attached to a PSV operator's licence under subsection (1) above is that the operator of a local service registered under section 6 of this Act is prohibited from using vehicles under the licence to provide that service, the traffic commissioner attaching the condition may—

1. (a) cancel the registration; or
2. (b) where the service is registered with another traffic commissioner, direct that it be cancelled.

(2B) Where a direction is given under subsection (2A)(b) above, it shall be the duty of the traffic commissioner with whom the service is registered to cancel the registration.")

Clause 27 [Supplementary provisions with respect to conditions attached to PSV operators' licences under section 26]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 58: Page 27, line 8, leave out from ("has") to end of line 9 and insert (", within the prescribed period, received a request for an inquiry from the holder of, or (as the case may be) applicant for, the licence.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is purely a drafting amendment to ensure that Clause 27(1) applies to applicants for licences as well as holders of licences. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 en bloc:

[Printed earlier: col. 398.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 together. I spoke to them with Amendment No. 6.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendments (Nos. 59 and 60): Page 27, line 23, leave out ("the 1981") and insert ("that") Page 27, line 26, leave out ("the 1981") and insert ("that")

Clause 31 [Appeals under the 1981 Act]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 61:

[Printed earlier: col. 455.]

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to by my noble friend Lord Belstead with Amendment No. 50. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 61): Page 29, line 19, at end insert— ("2A) Where an application for a PSV operator's licence is granted under this Act and a person who duly made an objection to the grant under section 14A of this Act is aggrieved by the grant of the licence he may appeal to the Transport Tribunal.")

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 62: Page 30, line 19, leave out ("Subsections (3) to (7) above do") and insert ("This section does")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, appeals relating to traffic regulation conditions are to go to the Secretary of State as provided by Clause 9, while other operator licensing appeals are to go to the transport tribunal. An overlap has been discovered in Clause 31 as drafted, affecting applicants for new or renewal licences. The amendment regularises this. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 33 [Extension of safety controls to certain passenger vehicles other than public service vehicles]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 63: Page 31, line 26, leave out from ("the") to end of line 31 and insert ("omission of subsection (4)")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, which makes the maximum penalty for contravening a prohibition the same—Level 5, which is currently £2,000—irrespective of whether the vehicle is a public service or not, may I thank my noble friend Lord Sandford for drawing the matter to our attention on behalf of my noble friend Lady Vickers at the Committee stage? We are persuaded that the maximum penalty should be the same for an offence that can be very serious in terms of road safety. It will be up to the courts to decide the actual penalty in the light of all the circumstances of an individual offence. I beg to move.

Baroness Vickers

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl the Minister for putting down this amendment. He was very kind at the Committee stage and gave every help to me. I am grateful to him for looking into it and succeeding in getting much better wording than mine. I should also like to thank Lord Sandford, who backed me in the other amendment. Between the two of us, we managed to get two amendments accepted.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Clause 34 [London local services]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 en bloc: Page 31, leave out lines 36 and 37. Page 32, line 1, after ("Act") insert— ("(a) "bus service" means a local service other than an excursion or tour; and (b)")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 72 and 298. Amendment No. 72: In Clause 45, page 41, line 39, leave out (" "London bus service" has the meaning") and insert (" "bus service" and "London bus service" have the meanings") Amendment No. 298: In Clause 129, page 130, leave out lines 31 and 32.

These are purely technical amendments. The definition of a bus service given in Clause 34 is relevant only for Part II of the Bill. These amendments ensure that the definition is confined to Part II. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 36 [London bus services under control of London Regional Transport]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 66: Page 34, line 11, leave out ("under section 23(3) of this Act to")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential on a change made to the Bill at Report stage in another place. The power to impose traffic regulation conditions under what is now Clause 8 is extended to community bus permits as well as to PSV operators' licences. The effect of this amendment is to remove the reference to Clause 23(3), which is no longer necessary, so that the reference to Clause 8 embraces both licences and permits. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 67: Page 34, line 15, leave out ("the Greater London Council and").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 70, 73, 74 and 208. Amendment No. 70: In Clause 37, page 35, line 16, leave out ("Greater London Council") and insert ("council of a London borough or by the Common Council;"). Amendment No. 73: In Clause 45, page 42, line 4, leave out ("the Greater London Council and"). Amendment No. 74: Page 42, line 13, leave out ("the Greater London Council and"). Amendment No. 208: In Clause 80, page 84, line 42, leave out ("the Greater London Council").

These amendments are consequential on the enactment of the Local Government Act 1985. They remove references to the Greater London Council which are not needed as Clauses 36, 37 and 45 will not be brought into force until after the GLC has been abolished on 1st April 1986. Clause 80 need not refer to the GLC as its controls on the operation of bus stations are to protect free competition on deregulation. The amendment to Clause 37 replaces the requirement for the traffic commissioner to have regard to transport policies and plans for the GLC with a requirement to have regard to such documents prepared by the boroughs and the City. In the other cases, the boroughs are already mentioned as well as the GLC, and no replacement is needed. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 68: Page 34, leave out lines 19 to 21 and insert— ("(a) in the case of a proposal to which subsection (2) above applies, any part of the route in question or (as the case may be) the point, place or street in question;").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment corrects a mistake in Clause 36. This clause is a reenactment of Section 43 of the London Regional Transport Act. It requires LRT to consult local authorities before changing their bus routes. As it is drafted at present, LRT would not be able to move a single bus stop without consulting every local authority in whose area the service operates. The amendment restores the existing position, which is that they need consult only the local authority in whose area the bus stop is situated.

I should emphasise that this applies only to bus stops and terminal workings. If LRT want to change the route of the service, they must still consult every local authority in whose area any part of the route in question is situated. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 69: Page 34, line 23, leave out ("an existing bus service") and insert ("a proposal to which subsection (4) above applies").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should have said in moving Amendment No. 68 that these two amendments go together. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 37 [Grant of licences]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 70:

[Printed earlier: col. 459.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 67. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 70): Page 35, line 16, leave out ("Greater London Council") and insert ("council of a London borough or by the Common Council;").

Clause 41 [Duration of licences]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 71: Page 38, line 26, leave out ("at the end of that period") and insert (", on the date on which a London local service licence is due to expire,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment removes an ambiguity from the present drafting of Clause 41, which governs the duration of London local service licences. The phrase "that period" at the beginning of subsection (2) is ambiguous because two different periods are referred to in subsection (1). I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 45 [Interpretation of Part II]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 72:

[Printed earlier: col. 459.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 64. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 72): Page 41, line 39, leave out (" "London bus service" has the meaning") and insert (" "bus service" and "London bus service" have the meanings")

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 73 and 74:

[Printed earlier: col. 459.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to both these amendments with Amendment No. 67. I beg to move the two en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendments (Nos. 73 and 74): Page 42, line 4, leave out ("Greater London Council and") Page 42, line 13, leave out ("Greater London Council and")

The Earl of Swinton

My Lords, I think your Lordships have done extremely well for the first day back at school. I think that perhaps you now deserve your "Beddy-byes". I therefore beg to move that this House do now adjourn.

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

House adjourned at two minutes before eleven o'clock.