Transport Bill

HL Deb 16 October 1985 vol 467 cc671-96

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.

Clause 65 [Schemes for transfer of individual council bus undertakings to companies formed under section 64]:

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 155: Page 67, line 23, at end insert ("and any such scheme shall include provision to secure the payment of benefits and pensions payable in respect of persons employed or formerly employed, at the date on which the scheme comes into force, by the council or councils concerned in accordance with rights accrued under the Local Government Superannuation Act 1972 or in accordance with any customary practice in respect of the grant of gratuities, such provision to be on the basis that service prior to the date at which the scheme comes into force shall be the financial responsibility of the council or councils who were the employer up to the time the scheme comes into force.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 160 and 203. Amendment No. 160: Clause 66, page 68, line 40, at end insert ("and any such proposals shall include provision to secure the payment of benefits and pensions payable in respect of persons employed or formerly employed, at the date on which the proposals come into force, by the council or councils concerned in accordance with rights accrued under the Local Government Superannuation Act 1972 or in accordance with any customary practice in respect of the grant of gratuities, such provision to be on the basis that service prior to the date at which the proposals come into force shall be the financial responsibility of the council or councils who were the employer up to the time the proposals come into force."). Amendment No. 203: after Clause 77, insert the following new clause: Benefits and pensions of employees of transferred undertakings. (". Provision shall be made in any scheme for the transfer of property, rights or liabilities under sections 64 and 65 of this Act to secure the payment of benefits and pensions payable in respect of persons employed, or formerly employed, in any undertaking or part of an undertaking which is the subject of such a transfer in respect of their employment in the undertaking or part thereof, both before and after the transfer has effect, such provision to be on the basis that service prior to the date at which the scheme comes into force shall be the financial responsibility of the council or councils who were the employer up to the time the scheme comes into force.").

I am moving these amendments to elicit some replies from the Government. A great deal has already been said on this subject but there is real concern and anxiety in the industry in many parts of the country over the question of pensions. Most noble Lords will be aware of the importance of the question, particularly when one reaches a certain age.

Clause 62 of the Bill removes a long-held power of non-metropolitan councils in England and Wales and regional councils in Scotland to provide services for the carriage of passengers by road. Many bodies have been carrying out this service for almost a century, and certainly throughout the whole of this century. Clause 63 requires that they form a company to run council bus undertakings. Clause 64 governs the schemes for the transfer of the council bus undertakings to companies formed under Section 63.

Despite all the representations that were made to the Government by noble Lords, by representative bodies outside and by local authorities themselves, nowhere is reference made to superannuation. From previous statements made both on the Floor of the House and in Committee there seems to be little or no appreciation by the Government of the significance of the pensions issue. It has caused great anxiety and is an issue on which I have had far more correspondence than I have had on all others combined.

The problem arises principally from the refusal to follow previous precedent where the Government, by an Act of Parliament, have privatised or changed the control of any public body where statutory provision has been made to safeguard pensions and pensionable entitlement. This is not a subject on which I am knowledgeable, but among the many examples of bodies that have been privatised are Sealink, British Telecom and the National Freight Corporation. Even now the Government are funding actuarial valuations made in respect of former employees of road construction units in respect of service prior to the privatisation of those units.

The draft regulations in Section 43 make provision for authorities, following consultation with the proposed directors of the company, to decide to pay pension increase costs for the service employees with transport undertakings before the establishment of the PTC. The required consultation with directors of the company cannot be regarded as effective consultation for the authority will control the companies, so one is really asking the same people for their opinion of what they are likely to do themselves.

The subject of the consultation—pension increase costs—is ill-defined for the employer-funded benefit portion of the pension, which comprises not one but four elements. These elements are the pension increase costs; the cost of added years in accord with the local government compensation for premature retirement regulations of 1982; the cost of added years for early retirement on medical grounds under Schedule 9; and charges levied by the administering authority arising from the quinquennial review of the fund.

Current indications are that the national bus pension will be topped up from the proceeds of privatisation. The passenger transport executives or the passenger transport executive controlled companies, whichever bear the brunt of the pension costs, will have the power to precept via the joint operating committee; that is, the district ratepayer. This leaves the municipally controlled passenger transport company in a very vulnerable position where it may have to finance directly from the fare box not only the pension costs of its current employees but the costs of those who have been previously employed by the authority, which means again that it starts out with a great handicap.

If the Government are not prepared to guarantee a pensions payment—this in itself is quite a departure, as I have tried to show from the examples that have been given to me—they must at least determine a consistent basis for the treatment of the costs that will accrue to the new companies. This would avoid the position where public transport companies have to meet varied financial commitments. The ones which are taking on the previous employees and those which are starting from scratch would have quite different bases from which to start. This would surely be contrary to the whole philosophy of the Bill because the degree of effective competition, the service provision and the fare scales that were going to be charged would be very variable if these initial costs had to be met by some and not by others.

I know that this is an extremely complex question. We have debated it several times and it has already been raised tonight in slightly different forms. I stress the fact that there are a large number of people who took a job in good faith many years ago. They thought they were getting certain conditions and were paying happily into a fund to establish those conditions. Because of an Act of Parliament, which is almost incidental to what they thought were their provisions, they suddenly discover that they are in a quite different position. I therefore hope that the Government will be able to give a little more comfort in this case than they were able to give in other cases. I beg to move.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, it is of course right that we should be debating pensions, because they are undoubtedly a matter of the greatest importance and of concern to employees of district councils. However, I hope that what I have to say will give reassurance and show that the Government have sought to be helpful on this issue.

First, perhaps I may deal with the question of benefits accrued in the local government superannuation scheme. I should make it clear that, whatever pension arrangements are made for the future with the public transport company, the accrued pension rights of staff who transfer will be safeguarded. Preserved pensions will have all the security of the local government scheme quite irrespective of what may happen to the public transport company. They will attract pensions increase in accordance with the Pensions Increase Act 1971. No special provision for this is needed in the Bill or the transfer scheme. Staff who have already retired will of course receive their pensions from the scheme without any change at all in the existing arrangements.

Turning to the future, the Government have sought to respond constructively to requests that continued membership of the local government scheme should be made possible where staff transfer to work for the public transport company. It would be open to the company to negotiate what is called an admission agreement to the local government scheme with the relevant county council.

However, such agreements may prove difficult and the Government have therefore agreed to make available what is called the deeming option. This will allow district councils, after consultation with the company, to deem that transferred staff remain employees of the council and thus remain members of the local government scheme. Again, no special provision in the Bill or in the transfer scheme is necessary as the required arrangements can be made through regulations under powers in other legislation—the Superannuation Act 1972 and the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971.

We are not proposing to require PTCs to keep transferred staff within a local government superannuation scheme since it is an important part of our policy that public transport companies should be commercially independent. Future pension arrangements must be for local decision, but if a company decides that such staff should belong to a new pension scheme then doubtless it will have its own separate and independent funds, with just the same security for its members as millions of other people in occupational pension schemes up and down the country. Again, no special provision in the Bill or in the transfer scheme is necessary as the companies will have all the necessary powers to set up their own pension schemes.

As to financial arrangements, all three amendments require that service before the transfer scheme comes into force shall be the financial responsibility of the relevant district council. In one sense that will happen anyway. Contributions by the employers and employees towards basic benefits in respect of service before transfer will already have been made to the final administering authority.

As regards the liability for pensions increase payments, it will be open to the district council to arrange to be reimbursed by the company in respect of service before transfer, but we do not insist upon that. Some district councils will prefer not to require their company to make such payments. Others may consider that the undertaking has been financing the payments hitherto and thus could continue to do so. I am sure it is right to leave this aspect to local decision in the light of local circumstances.

The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, asked me in particular about precedents. I have to say that the example of the National Freight Corporation is not exactly relevant. The question related to security for past accrued pensions. In this case, past pension entitlements can be left in a local government scheme if employees so wish, which is broadly what has happened in the case of other privatisations. I have endeavoured to cover all the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and I hope that he will be reassured.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, before the noble Lord the Minister sits down, he stated that the example of the National Freight Corporation was not applicable. I have been speaking merely on the basis of information I have been given, and I only want to reassure various people who have approached me about this matter as to whether there is a difference between how Sealink, British Telecom and the road construction units are being treated as against those employed in the area of passenger transport.

As someone said earlier, if one freezes a pension, in a few years' time that pension melts. That has been happening over the past few years, and it is very uncomfortable for people when it does. I realise there are some difficulties because of the procedure of this House, but perhaps the Minister will be willing to consider what I have said and will drop me a note, in order that I may reassure some of the people who have approached me on this matter. However, on the basis of the points the Minister has made, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 156 not moved.]

Clause 66 [Orders for transfer of joint undertakings to companies formed under section 64]:

8.15 p.m.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 157: Page 68, line 7, after ("undertaking") insert (" (whether or not then vested in that council) ").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 158: Amendment No. 158: Page 68, line 15, after ("undertaking") insert ("and (without prejudice to that) to all property, rights and liabilities of the body carrying on that undertaking")

These are both technical amendments which are designed to make it clear that proposals for the transfer of property rights or liabilities put forward if a council participates in a joint undertaking, such as Burnley and Pendle, may relate to property rights or liabilities which, at the time when the proposal is put forward, are vested in the joint undertaking rather than in an individual authority. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 158:

[Printed above.]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 159 to 161 not moved.]

Clause 69 [The public transport companies and their controlling authorities]:

[Amendments Nos. 162 to 167 not moved.]

Clause 70 [Control over constitution and activities of public transport companies]:

[Amendments Nos. 168 to 170 not moved.]

Lord Grimond moved Amendment No. 171: After Clause 70, insert the following new clause: Provisions supplementary to section 70 ("Where it is proposed in connection with the disposal of shares in or other securities of an associate company to introduce an employees' share scheme and where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the intention of introducing the employees' share scheme is to enable the associated company to become an employee controlled company as defined for the purposes of paragraph 10c of Schedule 1 of the Finance Act 1974, then the Secretary of State may at the request of the qualified company order upon such conditions as he shall think fit that the associated company be exempted from the provisions of subsections (3)(b) and (3)(c) of section 70 above.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment for the purpose of finding out exactly what the Government's view is of Clauses 70 and 72. I am anxious that when the buses are privatised every opportunity should be given to the workers in the industry to acquire them, either by way of worker buy-outs or through co-operatives, or through some similar method. I am also anxious to see that there are no impediments in the Bill to that process.

We are talking about a situation in which there is a controlling authority which owns the shares in a public transport company. If your Lordships will refer to Clause 70 of the Bill, it will be seen that there are certain restrictions upon what the public transport company may do. For instance, under Clause 70(3)(b) it cannot borrow money from any person other than the controlling authority. It has proved useful in other successful worker buy-outs that a certain amount of money should be borrowed. Under subsection (3)(c), the company cannot raise money by the issue of shares or stock to any person other than the controlling authority. On the face of it, that would prevent the company from disposing of shares to its workers. That, therefore, if it was a loan, would frustrate the whole operation of a worker buy-out or the forming of a co-operative.

However, and as the Government would no doubt point out, under Clause 72(2) the authority itself will have the power to provide for the disposal of shares. So whereas the company could not dispose of the shares, as I understand it, the authority could. I just want to be quite clear on that point.

Furthermore, under Clause 72(4) there is specific mention of an employees' share scheme. I should say at this point that I am interested not merely in some sweetener, such as that which has sometimes been arranged in privatisation measures, by which employees are offered a rather small package of shares on favourable terms. What interests me is the employees buying out control of the company. They may do that conveniently over a number of years. They probably will not be in a position to do so all at once, but over a period of years it might be highly desirable, if the employees wanted it, that the controlling authority should dispose of its shares to the workers and thereby pass over the control and running of the buses to a co-operative.

My first question to the Government is: why is it necessary to prevent this being done by the company? I cannot see that any harm would be done to the principle of the Bill if the company itself were allowed, first, to borrow money other than from its controlling authority and, secondly, to dispose of its shares to its workers. I draw the attention of the Government to the fact that my amendment is limited to the situation that they are embarked upon a worker share scheme, and it leaves decision about that to the Secretary of State.

My second question is this. Although it is preferable that a controlling authority can, as I understand it, both make over shares and borrow money, can the Government assure me that they envisage the controlling authority doing that on such a scale that control of the company would actually pass to the employees —as I say, not merely a certain number of shares given as a kind of sweetener to the employees, but over the years a gradual passing of control from the controlling authority to a co-operative or some other form of worker management owned and controlled by the workers?

I should be most grateful to have answers to those two questions and a general reassurance that the Government do not intend by the operation of Clause 70 to put impediments in the way of power and ownership passing to the workers. I beg to move.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. I hope I can make it clear both that the Government are quite convinced of the advantages of share ownership by employees and that this Bill makes proper provision for it in the case of public transport companies. In order to do so, I should like to ask the noble Lord to look at Clause 72(4), which provides that an authority may, in exercising their power under subsection (2) above in relation to the disposal of any shares in or other securities of that company, provide for an employees' share scheme to be established in respect of that company; and any such scheme may provide for the transfer of shares without consideration". That is a clear provision which reflects the views of the Government on this matter. I certainly do not believe there is any need for the new clause we now have before us, and I shall try to explain briefly why I think that is so.

The proposed clause would allow the Secretary of State to exempt local authorities and PTEs from their duties to exercise control over their PTCs to ensure they did not raise money by borrowing from any other source or by the issue of new stocks and shares. It would provide for such an exemption to be given where the company was in the process of becoming an employee-controlled company as defined in the Finance Act 1974. But together with the power to dispose of shares in Clause 72(2), Clause 72(4) would be quite enough to allow the council either to give shares to an employee trust or transfer them for a consideration subject only to the consent of the Secretary of State.

I can also assure the noble Lord that Clause 70(3)(c) would certainly allow the company to issue new shares to its employees if that was the way in which it wanted to proceed with its scheme. That paragraph requires the local authority to ensure that the compary does not do so in order to raise money, but it would not prevent an issue of shares specifically for the purpose of an employee share scheme rather than for the raising of capital. Therefore I think there is a full range of options open to the authority and its company if it wants to transfer ownership to employees of the PTC.

I should like also to reassure the noble Lord that the provisions of Clause 70(3) would of course not apply once an employee-controlled company as defined in the manner proposed by the noble Lord had been established. If control had passed to the employees, the local authority would no longer be a controlling authority within the meaning given to that term in Clause 69(3) and none of the provisions of Clause 70 would apply to the company. I think it will be clear, therefore, that the controls in Clause 70 would apply only in the transitional period while the employee share scheme was being established. In that period, however, I would say it was quite appropriate for the controls to continue. The company would be in the public sector and it would be appropriate for its borrowing to be undertaken as part of the public sector through its parent authority. The same would apply to any other public body, and we see no reason why it should place these companies at any disadvantage.

I hope I have explained why the Government see no need for further provision for employee holdings in the Bill, and why we could not accept the effect the new clause would have on the control over the companies in the period before employee control was reached while they remain in the public sector. I hope the noble Lord will feel that what I have said is helpful and a useful clarification of the position of the Government.

Lord Teviot

My Lords, perhaps I may proffer one short word. When any competition comes in one is very pleased if there is an operator who has been an employee, provided he has an operator's licence and everyone is satisfied that he can make a success of the whole thing. I do not think it is quite the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, but it has to do with employees as shareholders. They seem satisfactory people who in certain situations can come in because they have experience of industry, and that would be a new area which one has not seen in the trial areas. I do not think that in this matter there is very much variance between my noble friend and the noble Lord. The noble Lord is most interesting to listen to.

Lord Grimond

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for his helpful reply. As I said, I put this down as a probing amendment. I realise that the mystery which may be created by Clause 70 is put right by Clause 72. In view of what the noble Lord the Minister has said, I am very happy to withdraw my new clause. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for his brief intervention in this debate.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 172 not moved.]

Clause 71 [Disabilities of directors of public transport companies]:

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 173 to 185 inclusive, en bloc: Page 74, line 45, leave out ("the") and insert ("any"). Page 75, line 2, at end insert— (" (1A) Where a public transport company's controlling authority are a Passenger Transport Authority for a passenger transport area in England and Wales, a director of that company who is paid for acting as such or is an employee of that company or a subsidiary of that company shall be disqualified for being appointed or being a member of that Passenger Transport Authority."). Page 75, line 5, after ("above") insert ("or of any such Passenger Transport Authority as is mentioned in subsection (1A) above"). Page 75, line 6, leave out ("the council") and insert ("that council or Authority"). Page 76, line 3, after ("authority") insert (", and any Passenger Transport Authority for a passenger transport area in England and Wales who are a public transport company's controlling authority,"). Page 76, line 4, leave out ("the council") and insert ("that council or Authority"). Page 76, line 5, leave out ("the council") and insert ("that council or Authority"). Page 76, line 11, leave out from ("any") to ("or") in line 13 and insert ("such council or Passenger Transport Authority as is mentioned in subsection (8) above"). Page 76, line 15, at end insert ("or Passenger Transport Authority"). Page 76, line 17, leave out ("such councils") and insert ("that council or Authority"). Page 76, line 19, leave out ("the council") and insert ("that council or Authority"). Page 76, line 22, after ("Act") insert (", except that it includes also a metropolitan county passenger transport authority"). Page 76, line 28, after ("council") insert ("or Passenger Transport Authority as is mentioned in subsection (8) above").

These amendments are designed to take account of the creation of the new metropolitan county passenger transport authorities under the Local Government Act 1985, and modify Clause 71 accordingly. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 72 [Powers of investment and disposal in relation to public transport companies]:

[Amendment No. 186 not moved.]

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 187: Page 76, line 43, leave out ("person") and insert ("council").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I hope the House will agree to this small improvement in drafting. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 188, 189 and 190 not moved.]

Clause 73 [Application of local authority financial controls to public transport companies]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 190A: Page 77, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 24 on page 78.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment, and wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 190B and 191A.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, is the noble Earl speaking to Amendment No. 191 as well as Amendment No. 191A?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, to clarify the situation, I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 190A, 190Band 191A.

Amendment No. 190B: Page 78, line 25, leave out ("Subject to the following provisions of this section").

Amendment No. 191A: Page 78, leave out lines 33 to 48 and insert— ("(5) Where a public transport company's controlling authority are a composite authority, the duty imposed by subsection (4) above is a joint duty of both or all of the component councils of that authority.").

During earlier debates on Clause 73 (and at Committee stage this was Clause 72) in this House and in another place, there was criticism of the clause because it treated capital expenditure incurred by the new public transport companies as though it were expenditure incurred by their controlling authorities. The provision was drafted on those lines because, as for as long as the companies remained in the public sector their capital spending would count as public expenditure and, as such, should be subject to the normal controls. It has been pointed out, however, that this approach was in some respects less than just, as part of the expenditure—that financed from the companies' own resources—does not in fact constitute a charge on the public sector borrowing requirement. We were asked to think again and we have decided, therefore, that given other safeguards in the Bill, there is no reason why expenditure financed from the company's internal resources should be subject to control.

I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Sandford for raising this subject at an earlier stage. I hope that he will agree that the amendment goes some way—in fact, quite a long way—towards meeting his concern.

The proposed amendment will have the effect of achieving this objective by removing the companies from the capital control system. Other provisions in the Bill and in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, which set up the capital control system, will, however, ensure that capital spending financed from external sources remains subject to control. Clause 70 of the Bill provides that companies can only borrow from the controlling authority except for temporary loans and overdrafts; and the effect of Schedule 12 to the 1980 Act is that grants and advances of a capital nature by the controlling authority count as expenditure scoring against the authorities' capital allocation. In combination, their powers provide the means of controlling externally financed capital expenditure by the new companies.

The solution that we have adopted should commend itself to all sides of the House as it is based on the approach which the last Labour Government followed in the case of the nationalised industries, which they introduced—

8.30 p.m.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, it does not necessarily commend itself to all parts of the House because it was proposed by a Labour Government.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, the noble Lord will recall, of course, that I drew back from that and from continuing with the rest of the sentence.

A noble Lord

The Lib-Lab pact!

A noble Lord

A jolly good thing!

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, does that mean the Lib-Lab pact?

The last Labour Government introduced the system of external financing limits. The result will be to place controls over the amounts that the companies can raise by way of external grants or borrowing, while allowing them freedom in respect of the deployment of their own resources. This is fully in line with the principle adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd—who I am disappointed not to see in his place at the moment—in the debate in Committee on 24th July, when he emphasised that capital expenditure should so far as possible come from internal resources and that the companies should aim to replace their assets by the amounts that they can generate.

We believe that this is the best way of encouraging the new companies to make business-like pricing and investment decisions. It follows, of course, that if results fall short of expectations, they will have to cut back on investment just like their competitors in the private sector. That is the discipline of the market. It also means that the new companies will face exactly the same choice as any other company in having to decide whether to distribute profits to the shareholders or plough them back into the business. We shall be consulting the associations and the PTEs on the working of the new system as soon as possible, but in the meantime I commend the amendments to your Lordships. I beg to move.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alport)

My Lords, Amendment No. 190A is proposed. With your Lordships' permission I put Amendment No. 190B at the same time. The Question is that these amendments be agreed to.

Lord Sandford

My Lords, I should have thought that almost everyone present would agree with me that the controls exercised by central Government over local authority capital expenditure are all outrageous. We cannot wait to see some sort of reform of the whole of local government finance in order that they should be removed.

It would have been even more outrageous if these ridiculous controls had been extended to the capital generated and being spent in private companies especially designed to operate as though they were in the private sector. That the Government have now recognised this is to be welcomed, but I do not think one can extend the welcome very much beyond that. I am most grateful to my noble friend.

On Question, Amendments Nos. 190A and 190B agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 191.

[Printed earlier: col. 611.]

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 117. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 191): Page 78, line 30, leave out ("161 of the Companies Aet 1948") and insert ("389 of the Companies Act 1985").

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 191A.

[Printed above.]

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

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, referring to what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, just said, all I can say is that with friends like that why does the Minister need an Opposition?

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 192 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Clause 74 [Local authority financial controls in Scotland]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 193.

[Printed earlier: col. 611.]

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 117.I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 193): Page 79, line 13, leave out ("161 of the Companies Act 1948") and insert ("389 of the Companies Act 1985").

Clause 76 [Financial backing for establishment and operations of public transport companies]:

[Amendments Nos. 194 to 200 not moved.]

Clause 77 [Duty of Passenger Transport Authority not to inhibit competition]:

[Amendment No. 201 not moved.]

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 202: Page 81, line 20, leave out from ("section") to end of line 21.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a small drafting amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 203 not moved.]

Clause 78 [Provision, maintenance and operation of bus stations]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 204:

[Printed earlier: col. 631.]

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 150. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 204): Page 81, line 43, leave out subsection (2) and insert— ("(2) Where a council who, at the time when section 63 of this Act comes into force, are providing a service for the carriage of passengers by road which requires a PSV operator's licence, have ceased by virtue of subsection (1) of that section to have power to provide such a service, that council shall have power to maintain, repair and operate bus stations and associated facilities provided by them under their former powers.")

Clause 79 [Bus stations: restrictions on discriminatory practices, etc.]:

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 205: Page 83, line 25, at end insert— ("(3A) Where a person provides or operates a bus station or any associated facilities in circumstances in which neither subsection (1) or (2) above are applicable, that person shall not—

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

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

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a small but rather important amendment which I hope the House and the Government will accept. Clause 79 as drafted applies only in respect of bus stations provided or operated by passenger transport executives or local authorities. There is no similar provision in respect of bus stations provided by others.

There are many bus stations currently owned by National Bus Company subsidiaries and some by companies or persons who are not bus operators but in many cases public funds have been contributed in the provision or improvement of these bus stations; or they have been incorporated in a civic centre or some sort of development for which public funds were provided.

If legislation is to provide that passenger transport executives and local authorities should not discriminate between operators with the right to use and the charges for using a bus station, then surely the same principles should apply in respect of private owners. As always there is still the element of competition in that the charges and the rules are the same and it would appear to me that it would balance matters properly. Amendment No. 205 seeks to do that. I beg to move.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has rightly pointed out, Clause 79 presently applies only to bus stations provided by local authorities and PTEs. Among other things the clause prohibits these local authorities and PTEs from operating their bus stations in such a way as to discriminate between operators. We felt it right to impose such a requirement in respect of local authority and PTE bus stations because they are not just ordinary commercial assets. They are publicly owned and provided and they ought to be quite clearly available, we felt, for all operators providing a public bus service. I make clear at this point that the provision does not cover facilities belonging to the new public transport companies. In this context they are private operators.

I put it to the noble Lord that non-local authority or PTE bus stations raise different considerations. They are commercial assets probably provided by the bus operator, and I would suggest that the special requirements imposed by Clause 79 are not appropriate in such cases. But, having listened to the noble Lord, perhaps I may quickly say that this is not to say that their owners should be able to use their bus stations to eliminate or inhibit competition. They should be subject to the existing laws on fair competition just like any other part of a commercial undertaking. That will in fact be the case.

As there was some doubt about whether the provisions of the Fair Trading, Restrictive Trade Practices and Competition Acts would apply in all circumstances, we have tabled a new clause to follow Clause 110, which I hope we shall come on to tomorrow, to make it quite sure that bus stations will indeed be subject to competition law in the ordinary way. I hope that the noble Lord may feel that that substantially meets the point that he is making in this particular amendment. On behalf of the Government I feel that that is the right way to go about this matter rather than by the route which the noble Lord has chosen in his amendment.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for the help which he has given. There is just one point which continually worries me about this. When you think of the bus stations of the National Bus Company, these have all been paid for ultimately by the fare-paying passenger, no matter how circuitous the route was—and we have two in Glasgow and one at Victoria. It is the fare-paying passenger who has ultimately supplied them and I do think that your Lordships will need to look very carefully at the new clause that the Government have tabled to see if it really does open up the bus stations or makes it possible for them to be opened up under competition law. However, on the assurance that the noble Lord the Minister has given me, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 206 not moved.]

Clause 80 [Supplementary provisions.]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 207:

[Printed earlier: col. 631.]

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment, to which I spoke with Amendment No. 150

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 208:

[Printed earlier: col. 459.]

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

On Question, amendment agreed to.

8.45 p.m.

Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 209: After Clause 80, insert the following new Clause— Publication and promotion of Code of Practice on services for elderly and disabled persons. (".—(1) The Secretary of State shall issue a Code of Practice setting out such measures and facilities as may be determined which may be adopted by public passenger transport operators to ensure that any services provided are accessible to and convenient for members of the public who are elderly or disabled. (2) The Secretary of State shall take such measures as he thinks fit to advise public passenger transport operators of the Code of Practice issued under subsection (1) above. (3) Each authority responsible for expenditure on public passenger transport shall promote the adoption of the Code of Practice issued under subsection (1) above. (4) The Secretary of State in fulfilling the provisions above shall issue a Code of Practice by no later than the end of the transition period as determined in Schedule 5 to this Act and shall subsequently from time to time review or modify the Code.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment, which is designed to see that there is both publication and promotion of a code of practice for services provided for elderly and disabled persons under the Act. The history behind this amendment is that the Minister has expounded to us the various devices which the Government have very kindly agreed to bring forward to ensure that the new services under the Act will have regard to the needs of the elderly and the disabled.

One of the things which he announced and which is very welcome is that the present advisory committee should now become a statutory advisory committee which would—I think I am quoting his words—"take the lead in developing the code of practice". That leads one to the other initiative which he promised, which was the introduction of a code of practice, again a very welcome support for the operation of this Act in regard to the elderly and the disabled. As I understand it, the code of practice is designed—I do not say this in any disparaging way—to be a kind of interim measure before the construction and use regulations for new vehicles bite. So this is a very important package which has been vouchsafed to us by the Minister—the statutory advisory committee and the code of practice.

At one stage in Committee—I cannot remember quite when—I asked the Minister if he would kindly consider making statutory not merely the advisory committee but also the code of practice, and he kindly promised to consider this. When I raised this matter I mentioned the fact that this House had only recently agreed to a Commons amendment to the Environment Protection Bill—which is now an Act, having been enacted on 16th July—which is now Section 17 of that Act. In Section 17 there is elaborate provision for codes of practice including provision for the codes to be laid before Parliament and be subject to negative resolution, and it includes a paragraph about whether such codes shall be admissible in criminal proceedings.

I am the first to recognise that codes of practice vary tremendously from statute to statute, and indeed there are some non-statutory codes of practice. A very recent example was the non-statutory code of good practice for the employment of disabled people. Where there is no statute of course the code cannot be put into the statute, but I would submit that as a general rule it would be prudent and wise for the practice of Parliament to be that where a code of practice has been promised in conjunction with a Bill before Parliament, the provision for it should be put in the Bill whether or not the code of practice is to be purely exhortatory or whether it is to have some kind of binding force.

I shall admit straight away that the example which I gave in Committee, which is now Section 17 of the Food and Environment Protection Act, is a different code from the one proposed for the Transport Bill. In the first place, of course, the one for the Transport Bill is purely exhortatory. So far as I can see, there is absolutely no binding force, except that the Secretary of State has been morally bound to issue it by having made a statement in Parliament to that effect—or someone on his behalf has made such a statement. I suppose also that he has already said that he will make it widely available. But I would repeat that where these statements have been made during the passage of the Bill, it seems to me that a code of practice is something much more important than a circular.

We are all accustomed to circulars being announced—and very welcome they are too—so that certain parts of a difficult Act, shall we say, may be expounded to those who will have to operate or use it. I think that this is rather different because this is, so to speak, not a statement of principles of law. Codes of practice define standards of behaviour. I think standards of behaviour embodied in codes are of a different order from circulars, which are essentially expository of how a difficult Act will work in practice.

Having made those general remarks about codes of practice—and I must say that they have been very largely inspired by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who I am very happy to see is in his place and who gave a very remarkable address to the Statute Law Society last Saturday on the subject of codes of practice, though I am not in any way implicating Lord Campbell in this particular amendment that is before the House—this amendment is clearly of more interest than in just this particular application.

I should now like to come to the amendment which I have put before the House. It is really quite simple. I wish to dispel any impression which the Minister may have that it is intended to be mandatory. After the Committee stage the Minister very kindly met a certain number of us and we discussed, among other things, codes of practice. In a letter after that meeting he wrote: We have considered carefully whether such guidance could be given statutory force, as was suggested at our meeting, but we have I am afraid come to the conclusion that this would be a mistake. It would in fact only serve to diminish the usefulness and generality of the kind of guidance that could be provided by imposing a requirement to frame it, in a way that would be enforceable to operators".

Here I pause to emphasise that the amendment before the House is in no way enforceable on operators. It is very carefully devised not to be, because we know that that would go against the philosophy of the Bill.

The Minister's letter went on to say: We believe that such a requirement would run directly contrary to the spirit of the kind of general advisory and promotional work that is needed in this area".

I believe that the amendment that is before the House is within the spirit of the Bill, and I have taken note of what the Minister said in his letter.

I hope that as we have taken note of the Minister's objection—it seems to be the only objection that he raises in his letter—he will therefore look upon this amendment, as drafted, sympathetically, or, if he finds that it is in any way defective, that he will perhaps agree to something on these lines in principle and produce a more workmanlike version at Third Reading.

I think I have covered most of the points that I wish to raise. It is not an academic exercise. I have said that it is a matter of general significance that we should somehow get codes of practice properly catered for in the Acts of Parliament to which they relate, and not merely in this case. But in this case I should like to say that it is of particular importance for those concerned with the elderly and disabled.

It will be in the recollection of a great many Members of this House that during the closing stages of the London Regional Transport Bill, after a good deal of debate, there was inserted a duty on the authority to have regard to the transport needs of the elderly. The mere statement of that duty in the Act has been immensely valuable. I do not think that one can put an equivalent statement—perhaps the Minister will correct me—in this Transport Bill. I think that the best way to do it is by means of statutory insertion of the provision for a code of practice, and that the code of practice shall be drawn to the attention of the operators via the local authorities. If we are to follow the excellent example of the London Regional Transport Act, I very much hope that something on these lines will be approved. I beg to move.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, the Bill drafted as it stands evinces the proper and humane concern of Her Majesty's Government that the convenience of the elderly and the disabled should receive attention. The tailpiece of Clause 38(2), with the sanction of suspension and revocation of the licence for breach of condition under Clause 40, manifests such concern as regards London. In other areas a duty is cast on the county councils under Clause 61(6). So the question is not whether this is a matter of concern but whether there is any effective means of enforcement of minimum standards of measures and facilities for these people.

The Bill as it stands provides no effective minimum standards, and it provides no sanction for enforcement in the event of a breach. Part II of the Bill, which affects London, is subject to repeal under Clause 46, and there is no justification for disparity of treatment in this context between London and any other area. But the permissive mould in which subsections (1) and (2) of the new clause proposed by this amendment are cast also provides for no enforcement of minimum standards in the event of breach. The code of practice proposed by this amendment lacks legal efficacy. It is in effect a code of exhortation, and no more. It has no teeth.

I would most respectfully ask my noble friend the Minister whether he can possibly take this one back on board, without any form of commitment but merely for consideration of the following five questions. First, is the concern of Government truly reflected in the Bill as it stands? Secondly, ought there to be general standards of convenience—minimum standards of general application? Thirdly, ought those minimum standards to be enforceable by sanction of substantial penalty imposed by the courts on the operator in the event of breach on the complaint of any aggrieved person? Fourthly, ought those minimum standards to be embodied in the form of a statutory instrument? Fifthly, is there any justification in that context for disparity of treatment between London and other areas?

Those suggestions, which are only my own and are probably therefore wholly worthless, relate to minimum and higher standards that under the structure of the Bill as it is (which could well remain as it stands) could be imposed not only in London but in other areas. As a matter of machinery, a short new clause could be inserted in lieu of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, which quite simply required the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice in the form of a statutory instrument before the end of the transitional period.

I ask only that my noble friend the Minister, without commitment, should consider these matters, perhaps seeking advice of the draftsman and perhaps seeing what can be done if, on taking advice, he finds that there is any substance in any of the points that I have made. Something could perhaps be done to make the concern of Government effective by the provision of some sanction. In that regard, I ask the Government with considerable respect to attend to the suggestions as to the development of parliamentary practice which far transcends this Bill, emanating from the authoritative source of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson.

I cannot support the amendment for the reasons I have given, and I do not like the Bill as it stands.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, I think we have a problem. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has been speaking about London, to which in that respect the Bill does not apply. The discussion in Committee was all about how far this requirement on operators should be pushed to make sure that there were any buses at all. As I understood what he said, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, has taken that very much on board. He said that his request for a statutory code was for a code saying only that it was important to pay attention to these matters, but not laying down statutory requirements, as I understood it. That is quite different from what my noble friend said. If the noble Lord said that, I wonder whether, when he speaks again, he will clarify why he says in his amendment that the purpose is: to ensure that any services provided are accessible to and convenient for members of the public who are elderly or disabled". I was trying

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, will my noble friend give way?

9 p.m.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, may I just finish what I was saying, otherwise I shall lose the thread. I was chided by the noble Lord for continuing to dish up an argument—I think that was the expression he used—about this. I shall certainly not repeat it. But it seems to me that the amendment as worded does, in fact, suggest that every operator will have to ensure that any services provided are accessible to, and convenient for, members of the public who are elderly or disabled. That wording means any member of the public who is elderly or disabled in any way. I wonder whether the wording reflects what the noble Lord was suggesting.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. My noble friend takes me to task, saying that this does not apply to London. If she looks at the tailpiece to Clause 38(2) and the preceding clauses she will see that it does, and I say so with the utmost respect. I make the point only because she took me up on it. She is wrong.

Lord Swinfen

My Lords, I should like to support the principles behind the amendment. It is worth bearing in mind that with a population that is getting increasingly elderly we shall have more and more disabled people around. Disability increases per thousand of the population with the increase in average age. A code of practice is, I believe, an extremely useful way of dealing with the matter. I do not like the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway of a minimum standard purely because minimum standards have a habit of becoming maximum standards. With a code of practice, different operators will gradually improve and the treatment of disabled people will get better.

I wonder whether my noble friend on the Front Bench might like to consider one aspect of this. Elderly people, that is, pensioners, receive a state pension. Disabled people receive allowances of one form or another out of Government funds. When working out the pensions and the allowances, the necessary costs of those individuals must be taken into account. Normally the cheapest form of transport is public transport. If the elderly and the disabled are forced to take some form of private transport and therefore more expensive transport, surely they will need increased pensions and allowances. Therefore, to adopt this measure and to include it in the Bill might not help just this Government's finances but also those of any government who follow in the future.

Baroness Fisher of Rednal

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stallard, whose name is attached to this amendment, offers his apologies to the House. He has a long-standing commitment. I offered to put in a few words on his behalf. However, they are my words and not those of my noble friend Lord Stallard. I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. All of us, I believe, agree that bus services are essential for many groups in society, particularly the elderly and the disabled. When we talk of "the disabled", we have to consider services that are vital for the blind. A continuity of service for the blind is absolutely imperative. Their reliance on familiarity is crucial to their independent mobility. When routes are changed or times are varied this has a very direct effect on their ability to lead an independent life.

We have to recognise that serving the interests of the elderly and the disabled helps other groups in the community. I am speaking particularly about women with small children. If you help the disabled, you help the woman with her baby, her buggy and her shopping basket. By enabling the disabled to get on forms of transport, this obviously makes the job much easier for the woman with a small child. It is important for us to recognise—this was, I believe, one of the obeservations of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway—that by helping the handicapped, you are helping all bus users. If it is easier for the handicapped to get on a bus, it is clearly easier for the general public. The bus service can therefore operate more speedily and is more cost effective.

It is important to recognise the need for continuing policies that have led to help for the handicapped through facilities such as steps, adequate hand grips and clear information. Most PTEs and local authorities running buses train their staff to recognise the handicapped and the disabled. One would like to feel that the code of conduct takes this into consideration. It is important not only that facilities are provided on vehicles but also that the staff recognise that there is a need to be sympathetic to those who have handicaps whether through old age or any form of disablement.

In supporting the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, I would argue that a code of practice established in statute as set out in the new clause would obviously strengthen the influence of the advisory committee. It would be a plank on which the advisory committee could formulate its policies. It gives me great pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord Henderson.

Baroness Stedman

My Lords, I, too, would like to support the amendment. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for the time, the thought and the consideration that he has given to the many problems that we have raised on this and associated issues during the passage of the Bill. But we are still concerned about the set up of the new statutory advisory committee to take the lead in developing the code. If, as I understand it, that committee is to be based on the present rather informal arrangements for an advisory committee, certainly those people are extremely knowledgeable on the mobility aspects and issues and the needs, but they do not necessarily have the professional expertise of the transport operators and those kind of experts cannot be brought in and made to work overnight.

We therefore see the code of practice as an interim measure before the construction and use regulations are beginning to bite. But that is likely to be some five years or more hence. What we need is to have something at the start of deregulation. Only less than an hour ago I was handed a note drawing my attention to the fact, for example, that the National Bus Company subsidiaries have, at this point in time, already placed orders for some 1,300 minibuses. That is fine for those people who take minibuses, and fine for those people who can use them. But as they are made at the moment, minibuses present tremendous difficulties for handicapped and disabled people. There is a lack of handrails; poor seat spacing; and, above all, the step heights are usually much higher than those people can manage.

Therefore, while many people see minibuses in operation in the future for some of the smaller areas, we need to have some control and guidance on the specifications of at least a proportion of the minibuses that are used to ensure that they are satisfactory for carrying the elderly and the handicapped. I would support the amendment and I would ask the Minister—if he cannot accept it tonight—whether in the light of what has been said in this debate he would have one more look at it before we finally finish with this Bill.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in moving the amendment, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, in speaking just now, were both good enough to refer to undertakings given and measures written into this Bill on the subject of transport needs of those members of the public who are elderly and disabled. Perhaps I might reply to this amendment by first of all saying a few words about some of the steps we have now agreed to take in the Bill and elsewhere to ensure that proper attention is paid to these problems.

In the first place, your Lordships will recall that we have amended Clauses 57 and 61 to provide that all authorities with responsibilities for public transport will be required, when exercising their powers, to have regard to the transport needs of elderly or disabled people. We believe that these amendments open the way for very real advances in the encouragement of proper facilities for disabled travellers. We have no doubt that authorities will take their new responsibilities seriously.

The draft guidance on tendering which we circulated for comments earlier this month draws particular attention to the kind of steps which authorities may be able to take in this particular area. It reminds authorities, for example, that in going out to tender for services they may in some cases wish to include particular specifications—such as accessibility for wheelchairs—or they may wish to indicate relatively minor modifications which can be made to existing vehicles. This would cover facilities such as handrails, colour coding, or seating positions. We are also reminding authorities that features designed for the convenience of elderly or disabled people are also likely to be of assistance to others such as mothers with young children or passengers with heavy luggage or shopping.

My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said that there were no means of enforcing minimum standards in the Bill. With respect to my noble friend, I think that his remark needs to be put in the context of what I have just said about local authorities being able to stipulate the kind of facilities that they will be looking for when they are subsidising services provided that this is done with the arrangements for tendering in the Bill.

It is also our intention to provide in a new clause—which we shall be discussing I hope tomorrow—new powers for authorities to back up their consideration of these maters by making grants available in connection with vehicles intended mainly for disabled people, or modifications in other vehicles for the same purpose.

All those things which I have mentioned relate, I realise, to local initiative. I fully accept that there is most certainly a role for central government here. That is why we have agreed that the existing informal committee advising Ministers on the transport needs of disabled people should be established on a statutory basis. The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, will be moving Amendment No. 292 on this matter tomorrow.

We have also referred in earlier debates to our intention of issuing a code of practice dealing with the kind of steps that operators can take to ensure that their services are readily accessible to elderly and disabled people. That is the kind of guidance which the present amendment seeks to make the subject of a statutory requirement. The code will deal with the type of modifications which can be made to existing vehicles. We have already made it clear that we intend to supplement it by additions to the construction and use regulations which will deal with new vehicles.

Perhaps I may in passing pick up a point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. The code of practice is not an interim for the construction and use regulations; the code of practice deals with existing vehicles, whereas the construction and use regulations, when they come in, will, as I am sure the noble Lord will remember, deal with new vehicles. Therefore, those two documents—one statutory and the other at the moment non-statutory—will run in the future side by side. The code of practice, whether the noble Lord gets his way in the end and it is statutory or whether it does not remain statutory, deals with existing vehicles and the construction and use regulations, when they have been overhauled and brought in in their new form, will deal with new vehicles.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

My Lords, perhaps I may make the position clear. The noble Lord is very kind to allow me to interrupt. The code is only interim until the construction and use regulations for new vehicles come into effect. Thereafter, the two will run side by side. That is my understanding and I hope that it is the noble Lord's understanding too. However, it might involve a period of five years or more. I am told that the lead time from regulations to a new bus in service may be several years. To that extent, the code of practice would perform a valuable interim service.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, the code of practice is interim in the sense that I trust it will be in existence before the construction and use regulations come into effect. However, it is not interim in the sense that the code of practice will be in effect and, when the construction and use regulations are brought in, the code of practice will be withdrawn. As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has said, the two will then run side by side—the code of practice dealing inter alia with existing vehicles, and the construction and use regulations dealing with new ones.

Therefore, that is the context in which the present amendment has to be considered and that is the context—if I may say so without directly answering my noble friend—in which I would look at the first two questions which my noble friend Lord Campbell put to me. First, he asked: is the concern of Government truly reflected in the Bill? I like to think that it is. Secondly he asked: ought there to be general standards? We shall certainly be setting out—I have no doubt about it—a generality of what is desirable in the code of practice, but through encouragement the new vehicles will be dealt with by the construction and use regulations.

That leads me to question whether a statutory requirement for a specific code as here proposed is appropriate. I know that all your Lordships who have spoken have supported the concept. However, I suggest that the danger lies in the implication that all the activities of guidance and promotion which will be needed to encourage the development of facilities for disabled people can be subsumed in a single document. There are, on the contrary, many kinds of different approach that can be taken to stimulate better provision in this area. It is, indeed, for that reason that we are now establishing the new statutory advisory committee about which the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, spoke.

With respect to the noble Lord, one major disadvantage of the present amendment is that it does not mention the role of that committee in advising my right honourable friend in this area. Yet the role of the advisory committee will be a major one—as I think the noble Lord, in moving the amendment, recognised—and it would be wrong for the Secretary of State to have a power, as proposed in the amendment, to issue a code of practice without consulting the new committee. The omission is the more serious when we consider that the final subsection of the amendment refers not only to the initial publication of the code, but to updating in future years.

There is another possible danger arising from the wording of the amendment to which I must draw attention. Subsection (1) refers to measures and facilities which may be adopted by public passenger transport operators to ensure that services are readily accessible to elderly and disabled people. I think that what the noble Lord has in mind is a voluntary code—indeed, the noble Lord made that crystal clear—and that this would provide guidance to operators without being binding. However, with respect, the wording seems somewhat ambiguous at this point and open to varying interpretations. It could be read as implying an obligation on operators to follow what was included in the code. After all, as my noble friend Lady Carnegy pointed out, the text says: says: The Secretary of State shall issue a Code of Practice…to ensure that any services provided are accessible to and convenient for…the elderly or disabled". 9.15 p.m.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me and I am sorry for interrupting him, but it is essential to follow the train of the argument. The noble Lord has left out one stage. The first subsection says: The Secretary of State shall issue a Code of Practice". It then says; "which may be adopted". Therefore, it is permissive and not mandatory. Before it goes on to refer to the public passenger transport operators, it says "may be adopted". That comes before, "to ensure". If I may say so, it ensures that it is not mandatory. That is the answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and the answer to the Minister. Certainly that was the intention. Whether I have got it right or not is another matter.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, that is the point. I know the noble Lord has made it clear on the Floor of the House that that is the intention, and I do not doubt that at all. I am saying that this is a difficult point for the Government and I do not think that the wording is as clear on this point as it might be, although I accept the intentions of the noble Lord.

The amendment would require the code to be published in its original form before the end of the transitional period, which was the point about which the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, spoke. May I say a word about timing. We hope that it will be possible for the code to be issued before the date of deregulation: in other words, just over a year from now if Parliament approves the Bill; but here again it is necessary to take account of the need for full consultation with the new advisory committee. I have no doubt that they would wish to deal as expeditiously as possible with a matter of such importance to the development of services for disabled people, but it might be a little discourteous to the members to impose this absolute deadline on them in the Bill before they have even been appointed.

Perhaps I may reply to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway without answering each of his questions, though I have referred to the first two. Of course I am prepared to take away what my noble friend Lord Campbell has said and have a serious look at it, though I was interested in the intervention of my noble friend Lord Swinfen that he was always suspicious of minimum standards for the reason that he gave. In saying what I have said to my noble friend Lord Campbell I must not mislead the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, with whom I have had brief discussions and with whom I have had correspondence.

I realise I am not being very forthcoming. I understand the importance that the noble Lord and other noble Lords attach to this matter, but I believe that the statutory powers of the new advisory committee, together with the code of practice, however it is brought in, together with the construction and use regulations will go a long way to seeing that no stone is left unturned to encourage improvements in facilities for elderly and disabled people.

In cases where local authorities are actually subsidising services there will be the right, to which I have already referred, for them to stipulate facilities in the way that I have described. But to go further than that, if this amendment does go further, would be a step which would lessen the number of services for people and not increase them; and if this amendment does not go further then I am not sure whether it is right to write it into the Bill.

I am sorry, but I am resisting the amendment. At Report stage it again gives me the worry I have raised. I have at least been consistent in this with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. It again raises in my mind the worry as to whether it could be interpreted as being mandatory. If that is the case, then that is something which the Government would be exceedingly worried about.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

My Lords, I shall not press this amendment if only because of the doubt which has been cast upon it by the noble Lord the Minister, following the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, as to whether or not the first subsection imposes a mandatory requirement. I have made it plain that that was not the intention. This is one of perhaps three drafting points which the Minister raised. There was the ambiguity in that subsection, and then the lack of any reference to consultation with the advisory committee. I would gladly adopt the implied criticism of this draft by putting that in.

Part of my case is that I cannot understand why it is that the Government have so rightly taken the initiative in making the present advisory committee statutory, and they have not then completed the logical sequence by making the code which is to have the benefit of the advice of the advisory committee also statutory once the Secretary of State has promulgated it.

The Minister kindly ran through the provisions which have been inserted in the Bill. I am grateful for them (and have said so in the past) especially Clauses 57 and 61, for the consultation document about tendering procedure and for many other things.

However, all those matters, as he himself said, are really local safeguards. He also recognised the need to have some kind of central direction. There never would have been any proposition that there should be a code if it had not been that there was a need for the Secretary of State to issue this guidance. Therefore, if one has come that far, why not hoist it into the statute in the same way as the advisory committee has been hoisted into the statute? Nothing that the Minister has said has shaken me on this score.

I must say that the amendment which was made at a late stage to the London Regional Transport Bill, I think possibly at Report stage but it may possibly have been on Third Reading, has made a very great deal of difference to the operation of London transport since that Act came into effect. What I am seeking is an equivalent safeguard in this Bill: something to which those who have to seek the safeguarding of the provision of the elderly and disabled can point in the Act and say, "You will find it in the code and it is a statutory duty according to clause so-and-so of the Act". That is the main reason for wishing to make this statutory.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has raised much wider points, and I am very grateful to him for having done so. I have deliberately excluded the more rigorous provisions, such as enforceability by sanctions and the incorporation of the code in a statutory instrument. I think that is for other codes and not for this. I very much respect the Government's philosophy behind the Bill. That is why I have not intentionally (though I may have done by inadvertence) implied some kind of compulsion upon the operators.

Therefore, as I have received support from all round the House, from two noble Lords sitting behind the Minister and two in front, and myself from the Cross-Benches, I wonder whether the Minister would be good enough to take this matter back and consider it. I feel that it would reflect a very great deal of credit on him and on the Government if they were to do so and if they made this Bill, in this respect, equal to the London Regional Transport Bill. I think that would give great reassurance to those who have to make sure that the elderly and the disabled are provided for in the new bus services. I wonder whether the noble Lord can give some indication of that.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, any credit for what has been written into the Bill so far as members of the public who are elderly and disabled are concerned is due to Members of both Houses and also to my right honourable friend, who I think has lent an attentive ear to what has been said, not only in another place but also in your Lordships' House.

Having said that, of course, because I am responsible for the Bill here, I should be very ready to meet the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I think the right way for the noble Lord and myself to go about the matter would be to have a word about this. I shall undertake to do that.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

My Lords, that is very kind indeed of the noble Lord. I express my deep gratitude. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 81 [Compensation for loss of employment, etc.]

Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 210: Page 85, line 17, at end insert ("or pension rights")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 210 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 212 and 300. Amendment No. 212: Page 86, line 22, after ("emoluments") insert ("or pension rights") Amendment No. 300: Gause 129, page 131, line 34, at end insert— (" "pension rights" includes, in relation to any person, all forms of right to or eligibility for the present or future payment of a pension, and any expectation of the accruer of a pension under any customary practice, and includes a right of allocation in respect of the present or future payment of a pension;")

These are amendments to ensure that the power to make compensation regulations in Clause 81 is properly comprehensive. We had originally thought that the clause would cover pension rights by virtue of the word, "emoluments", but subsequent legal advice is that this is not so. These amendments will put that matter right. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 211 not moved.]

Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 212.

[Printed above.]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Denham

My Lords, I think that this is the agreed point to adjourn the proceedings for tonight.

I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.

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

House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before ten o'clock.