HL Deb 17 October 1985 vol 467 cc791-803


Administration, etc. 1. The Secretary of State shall make arrangements for the Committee to be provided with such administrative support and office accommodation as he considers appropriate. 2. The Secretary of State shall provide the Committee with funds with which to pay to their members such travelling and other allowances, and to defray such other expenses in connection with their functions, as he may determine.

Constitution and procedure 3.—(1) Any person appointed to be a member of the Committee shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of his appointment and shall, on ceasing to be a member of the Committee, be eligible for re-appointment. (2) Any person so appointed may at any time resign his office by written notice given to the Secretary of State. 4.—(1) The Committee shall meet whenever convened by the chairman and at least four times a year. (2) Without prejudice to the discretion of the chairman to call a meeting whenever he thinks fit, he shall call one when required to do so by any five members of the Committee. (3) Minutes shall be kept of the proceedings of every meeting of the Committee. (4) Subject to the preceding provisions of this paragraph, the Committee shall determine their own procedure (including the quorum at their meetings). 5. The Committee may delegate the exercise and performance of any of their functions to such of their sub-committees as they think fit. 6. The validity of any proceedings of the Committee shall not be affected by any vacancy amongst the members, by any defect in the appointment of a member or by any failure to comply with the requirement imposed by section (the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (3) of this Act."). Amendment No. 388: In the Title, line 11, after ("1965") insert ("to establish a Disabled Person's Transport Advisory Committee").

At Committee stage my noble friend the Minister approved the gist of my amendment which asked for the setting up of an advisory committee on the transport needs of disabled people in regard to the buses. I mentioned then that such a committee should be closely related to the committee regarding transport and disabled people now working on an informal basis under Mrs. Chalker. After discussion my noble friend gave the undertaking to accept a new clause and accompanying schedule to cover the whole point.

They provide for a committee consisting of a chairman and not more than 20 or fewer than 10 other members to be appointed by the Secretary of State. The chairman would have the duty to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable that at least half the membership consists at all times of people who are themselves disabled. That is something I regard as very important. Equally essential is the requirement that the committee produces an annual report which the Secretary of State would be under a duty to lay before Parliament. Thus we have our request for a statutory advisory committee on our bus travel bringing forth the much wider and more important issue of a statutory advisory committee, with the remit to consider any matters relating to the needs of disabled people in connection with public passenger transport either referred to them by the Secretary of State or which they themselves thought it appropriate to raise; advice as appropriate to be then given to the Secretary of State.

9.30 p.m.

This amendment is of great consequence to disabled people. As I see it, it will be the clearing house for ideas, complaints and innovations—perhaps the kind of innovations mentioned by the noble Viscount this evening—and in regard to actual administration of services in respect of disabled travellers on buses and rail, and possibly sea and air. We are concerned today with the buses and to see that the local authorities and the operators are kept fully aware of the travelling requirements of disabled people. In respect of this Bill, I know that bodies such as RADAR and JCMD are concerned that a code of practice be drawn up, and I understand this view. However, as this committee is to be formed, it would seem constructive and fair that they should have a very big part in the drawing up of such a code of practice.

I am hopeful that this amendment will be acceptable to my noble friend, in which case this Bill has planted the acorn from which the oak tree of a statutory committee will eventually grow. A statutory disabled persons transport advisory committee marks real progress for disabled people. I beg to move the amendment.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

My Lords, before the Minister replies, I should like to express a word of support to the noble Baroness, congratulate her on her initiative and also, of course, congratulate the Minister and thank him for encouraging the noble Baroness to persist with this. It is a remarkable event, honestly, not merely because it is to look after all road passenger transport for disabled people—this Bill is about road passenger transport—but also because it is about public passenger transport in general. That is what is so remarkable about it. I should like to emphasise that this may be only possible, in parliamentary terms, to be done in the House of Lords. More restrictive rules as to the scope of the Bill, which is related to the long title, in the House of Commons, would have made this impossible to introduce in that House. So the noble Baroness is to be congratulated for having made full use of the facilities of this House to propose this wide amendment.

On an earlier occasion this afternoon, or it may have been yesterday—I cannot remember—I mentioned the code of practice that I wish to be statutory but not to be mandatory. It would, of course, be mandatory for the Secretary of State to introduce it, but not mandatory on the operators. This is just one of those matters connected with public passenger transport that the Secretary of State would think it appropriate for this committee to consider, and so this committee would be bound to play an important part in the formulation of the code. It seems only right that a statutory committee's consideration should result in a statutory code when the Secretary of State deems fit to promulgate it. I should like to link my welcome for this amendment of the noble Baroness with my proposal which I know that the Minister will consider: that the code that must come before this committee should also itself be statutory.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I also very much welcome these amendments which have been tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, after consultation which was promised with the Government. I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness on bringing forward these amendments.

At the Committee stage of the Bill the Government entirely accepted the principle of the statutory committee to provide advice on the transport needs of disabled people. We believe that it is a committee which will have a vital role to play in providing advice and guidance both for operators and for local authorities who will, of course, acquire a new and important responsibility: to have regard to the needs of disabled people when carrying out their functions under the Bill.

I was very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, mentioned the role of the new committee, as indeed did the noble Baroness; namely, being very much involved in the development of the code of practice on the needs of elderly and disabled people travelling by bus. The noble Lord took advantage of the opportunity to remind me that I am due to meet him to discuss the outstanding matter about the code of practice. I assure the noble Lord that I shall remain true to my word about that, although I think that it will have to be at the beginning of next week. However, that will be by agreement between us. Meanwhile, many congratulations to the noble Baroness. I hope that she feels—as I believe she did from her words—that this is a happy ending but also a new beginning.

Baroness Lane-Fox

My Lords, may I add my thanks to my noble friend the Minister. We have good reason to be more than grateful for this measure. I need say no more.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 292A: Insert the following new clause:

.( ) After section 56 of the 1962 Act (The Transport Consultative Committees) there shall be inserted the following section— 56A.—(1) The Secretary of State shall in addition to consulting the appropriate Transport Consultative Committee convene at the request of any local authority in whose area a station or any line affected by the proposed closure is situated a public inquiry. (2) The inquiry shall take account of—
  1. (a) the role of the railway in the local community and economy;
  2. (b) the national and local Government policies for transport;
  3. (c) the inter-dependence of lines within networks, both regional and national;
  4. (d) the recent financial performance of the station or line, or any part of the line including the revenue the line may generate in other parts of the rail system;
  5. (e) freight and passenger traffic; and
  6. (f) the general economic, social and environmental consequences which would result from closure.
(3) Any inquiry held under subsection (1) of this section shall be held in accordance with section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972." ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very important amendment and one which raises a great deal of public interest and anxiety. I had a very long speech prepared for this amendment but I am sure that the House will be glad to know that I have been informed that events this afternoon have perhaps overtaken some of the points that I was going to make. I believe this afternoon that the Minister responsible for the railway side of the Department of Transport, Mr. David Mitchell, had a meeting with a joint delegation from the Association of County Councils and the metropolitan authorities. I now understand that the outcome of that meeting was that it was agreed by all parties that there was need for considerable change in the procedure of public inquiries into railway closures. And as a first step the TUCCs, local authorities, and the British Railways Board should be reminded of the things that can already be taken into account by Ministers and how these should be dealt with in an inquiry.

The suggested amendments probably go a great deal further than the Minister at present would accept. I think that the Minister spoke about a spring clean of the amendments whereas we think it should be rather more radical than that. The public procedure inquiry that we have suggested is perhaps a little too cumbersome. I understand that that was certainly the view of Mr. Mitchell. On the other hand, it provides a framework which could be used to devise new rules and methods of organising a public inquiry. Some of these points in the amendments are the kind of procedures we should be aiming for.

The amendment speaks for itself. It identifies a very vital and important check list; the kind of list that when there is going to be a possible rail closure one finds that the public are concerned about. Whether or not British Railways or the public transport bodies are concerned about these, certainly it is the wider issues as outlined in Amendment No. 292 which concern the public. I hope that the Government will take these into account, give them further consideration, and will look at them in the light of the discussion that was held today. In order to give the Minister a chance to make a comment and reply, I would beg to move Amendment No. 292A.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, put up an amendment and then shot it down himself, and in doing so the noble Lord took a great deal of my speech. I point out to the noble Lord that we must wait for the full minutes of the meeting. With due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, I hope that noble Lords will not take what he said as an absolute definitive result of the meeting. I have heard some reports of the meeting, which I knew was taking place this afternoon; but in fairness to those involved, I believe that we ought to wait for the full minutes to be circulated. Since the Committee stage it has now become more than apparent that the Government have not been sitting idly by and that consultations are continuing. In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has said, I do not think that there is any need for me to say anything further.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. It is slightly unfair to suggest that I put up an amendment and then shot it down. The amendment was not put on the Marshalled List today; it was tabled some time ago and I did not know then that the meeting was going to take place. Obviously I agree with the Minister that we cannot take one impression of the meeting. Minutes are always taken of such meetings and then they are agreed. However, I have no reason to believe that Mr. Mitchell is not dissatisfied—as are most people—with the present method of procedure at these inquiries. Indeed, the very fact—and I think that it must be taken as a fact—that he suggested that the local authorities, the TUCCs and the British Railways Board should be reminded of what can be done at a public inquiry at least shows that, although the present procedure may be appropriate, nevertheless, it may have either fallen into disuse over the years or it may in some ways be faulted.

However, I am glad that the Minister has at least said that he has an open mind and that the Government have done a great deal in this respect. We shall await the outcome of the points which he has raised, and I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 119 [Application of sections 52 and 56 of the 1981 Act]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 293:

[Printed 14/10/85; col. 411.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment a long time ago with Amendment No. 13. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 293): Clause 119, page 124, line 16, after ("Act") insert— (" (b) traffic regulation conditions determined under section 7 of this Act;").

Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 293A: After Clause 119, insert the following new clause; (1) In this section—

(2) The Secretary of State may on application by the relevant local authority designate a special coach area if he is satisfied that the number of bus services in that area contributes substantially to or is likely to contribute substantially to traffic congestion or be detrimental to the amenity of the area by reason of noise vibration or atmospheric pollution unless restrictions are imposed regarding the roads which may be used for such services. (3) It shall be a condition of a London local Service Licence that no bus operated under the Licence shall in special coach areas be used on a prohibited road. (4) If within a special coach area a bus is used on a prohibited road the operator and the driver of the vehicle shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. (5) Regulations may make provision for
  1. (a) the form of application for the designation of special coach areas.
  2. (b) the procedures for applications for an designation of special coach areas.
  3. (c) objections to the inclusion or omission of a road as a prescribed road for bus services and for dealing with such objections.
  4. (d) the circumstances in which a bus may in a special coach area be used on a prohibited road.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have absolutely no qualifications to speak to this amendment because I do not live in Ebury Street. Nevertheless, I have been asked by my noble friend Lord Ezra and by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, to move the amendment; and I am happy to do so because it touches on an important matter for those people living in the area around the Victoria Coach Station. My noble friend raised this matter in Committee by means of a rather more comprehensive and general amendment which was resisted by the Government. However, I remind noble Lords of the dimensions of the problem.

People in this area are faced in the summer with something like 2,000 coaches a day going into the area of Victoria Coach Station, and something like 1,000 coaches a day during the rest of the year. That clearly is not only unpleasant, but quite unsuitable for the road structure in that area. As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, pointed out, she lives near to Westminster Hospital and she has the problem of pollution arising from the large number of coaches.

The new amendment seeks to set up what have been designated as "special coach areas" in those areas which are particularly adversely affected by heavy coach traffic. In such areas buses and coaches will be required to keep to a special network of prescribed routes.

9.45 p.m.

I know that meetings have taken place with Mr. Mitchell, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, at the Department of Transport, and indeed a note of this meeting has been sent to the two noble Lords whose names also appear on this amendment. They understand the hesitations that the Government have on this problem and the fact that the Government perhaps regard it as a road traffic matter, but for the benefit of the people who live in that area one has to press it on this occasion because they cannot wait for a road traffic Act to come and put the matter right for them.

It seems to me to be a reasonable compromise between the general powers that were being sought before and letting things stay as they are. Under these terms the Secretary of State would have the power to designate both routes and stopping places in areas such as the Victoria area.

It may be argued that the Westminster council already have powers to deal with this problem, and indeed they have some powers. In a letter which my noble friend Lord Ezra wrote to Mr. Mitchell on 16th October he pointed out: It is the view of the Westminster Council that while they can go some way to relieving the problem with their existing powers the most sensible approach would be for them to be able to draw up special routing and stopping places within the Victoria area. The alternative is for them to restrict the use of certain routes which would only lead to greater congestion elsewhere and this process could well be self-defeating.".

The case is made out for something to happen in this direction, and I hope that the Government can give some reassurance to the people who live in these heavily congested areas. I beg to move.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, may I begin by reassuring your Lordships that the Government are by no means in any way complacent about these problems. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff put it very well when he said that there was public concern about the problems. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that there are three problems which need a solution; it is not one single problem. They are the tourist coaches, the sightseeing coaches and the commuter coaches, which all have to have slightly different solutions in order to try to tackle what on the surface looks essentially like just one problem.

We accept that these problems exist. The question we must consider today is whether this amendment is the right way to deal with them at the present time. In July the Government published their report, Pleasure, Leisure and Jobs. This report referred to the growth in the number of tourist coaches arriving in London and announced that the Government would be urgently reviewing the scope for making use of publicly-owned land outside local authority control to provide further off-street parking facilities for coaches.

The report also announced that the Department of Transport had asked London Regional Transport to carry out a study of the need for additional terminal facilities for long-distance coaches such as those using Victoria. I can tell your Lordships that we expect to have the results of both these studies by the end of the year.

As for the more local problems, like those around Victoria, there are the traffic management powers available to local authorities which give them considerable powers to control the movement of coaches. Once the GLC has been abolished next April the responsibility for exercising the powers in the Victoria area will fall to the Westminster City Council. I understand that the noble lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Strabolgi, are already aware of the measures which Westminster are planning to control the movement of coaches in the area, about which they are especially concerned. The Department of Transport has helped in this by agreeing in principle to a special road sign which can be used to ban all coaches from a given street.

I hope that what I have said demonstrates that the Government have not been idle in taking the steps which lie within their powers to deal with the problem to which the noble Lord has alluded. I am afraid, however, that we do not consider the amendment which has now been put forward by the noble lord to be an appropriate one at the present time.

There are a number of reasons for this. I shall try to be concise. First, it proposes to give local authorities such as Westminster an additional power before we have had any evidence that what it is proposing to do under its existing power is inadequate to deal with the problems. Secondly, we are expecting by the end of the year the outcome of the two studies to which I referred earlier. I believe it would be premature to legislate further before we have had a chance to consider the results of those studies.

The new clause gives new powers and duties to local authorities. No doubt Westminster is content with this, but the effect of the clause is not confined to its area, or even to London. The new provisions could be applied to a local authority anywhere in the country. I do not think it would be right to introduce such a wide-ranging provision at this late stage in the passage of the Bill without prior discussion and without having had the opportunity to consult local authority associations whose members would be primarily affected.

This is a not inconsiderable new provision. I do not think we should rush it through without having had an opportunity to consider its full implications in more depth. I should also point out technical deficiencies in the new clause, such as the failure to define what is meant by a bus service. I am not sure that this would permit local authorities to control all the coaches that they might want to control, but I should not like to give your Lordships the impression that the Government would find the amendment any more acceptable if the technical deficiencies were corrected.

The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred to meetings that have taken place between my honourable friend Mr. David Mitchell and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. There have also been meetings between the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and officials of the department. I assure the House that there are more meetings to come.

To sum up, the Government take seriously the question of coaches in London and a number of measures are being taken to deal with the problems they cause. However, I am afraid that I cannot agree to accept this amendment at present. I hope that in the light of what I have said the noble Lord will be able to withdraw it.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, I think I should say to the Minister that he has two ex-chairmen of the central area board of the GLC on the Bench facing him. I do not think either of us could suppress wry smiles about his undertakings. If he thinks that more meetings and more surveys will solve the problem, he has another think coming. These problems have been with us for many years. Admittedly they have become worse with the liberalisation of long-distance coaches, but the powers available at present to local authorities, either the GLC or the Westminster City Council, are not adequate to the purpose. I do not feel that his response to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, will take us much closer to a solution.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, I am grateful for that contribution from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I am sure that it does not take us any nearer a solution. It certainly will not satisfy the people around the Victoria area. It is true that there are powers that can be used by the Westminster City Council, and I have said that already. But that is just a question of shuffling the problem on to somebody else. We need a fundamental solution to this and we seem to get no nearer.

I understand that the Government want to wait until the various surveys and investigations have been done, but these people need an assurance that come next summer some action will have been taken. The long-term problem will not be solved until the question of long-term parking for coaches in the London area is solved. I accept that that is a problem which cannot be solved in a matter of minutes. But here is a method in the short term of alleviating a serious problem. I accept that there may be technical deficiencies in the amendment but I am sure the Government could correct those if they had the will to do so.

It is disappointing that the Government are not prepared to put forward their own amendment as a vehicle (if I dare use that word) for doing something about this problem in the short term. Clearly they are not prepared to do so and I am sure people in that area will be very disappointed, but there is nothing more I can do tonight except to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 123 [Corporation tax, capital gains and development land tax]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 294: Page 126, line 42, leave out ("neither—(a)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall speak also to Amendment No. 295. Amendment No. 295: Page 126, line 45, leave out from ("group)") to ("have") in line 4 on page 127 and insert ("shall not").

Both these amendments remove from the Bill references to development land tax. That tax was abolished by the Finance Act 1985, as I am sure will be appreciated by your Lordships.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 295:

[Printed above.]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 295A:

[Printed earlier: col. 784.]

The noble Earl said: I beg to move this amendment. I spoke to it with Amendment No. 282A.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 295A): After Clause 125, insert the following new clause: ("Functions of Passenger Transport Authorities and Executives: supplementary .—(1) In Part II of the 1968 Act, the references to that Part of that Act or (as the case may be) to that Act mentioned in subsection (2) below shall include references to this Act. (2) Those references are—

  1. (a) the references to that Part of that Act in section 12(2), (3)(d) and (g) (borrowing powers of Executive) and in section 15(5) (expenditure by Authority in performing their functions to be defrayed by Executive); and
  2. (b) the reference to that Act in section 12(5)(b) (which refers to rights of priority in respect of any liability assumed by or transferred to an Executive in pursuance of that Act).").

Clause 126 [Regulations, rules and orders]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 296: Page 128, line 35, leave out from beginning to ("in") in line 38.

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

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 127 [Procedure for making regulations, rules and orders]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 297:

[Printed 14/10/85, col. 454.]

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 297, which I spoke to with Amendment No. 48.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 297): 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").

Clause 129 [General interpretation]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 298:

[Printed 14/10/85; col. 454.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 64.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 298): Page 130, leave out lines 31 and 32.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 299:

[Printed 16/10/85; col. 611.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would also move Amendments Nos. 300 to 302, all of which are consequential upon amendments which have been spoken to by myself or by my noble friends beforehand.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendments (Nos. 299 to 302): Page 131, line 6, leave out from ("in") to the end of line 8 and insert ("the Companies Act 1985"). Page 131, line 34, at end insert—

Page 132, line 2, at end insert— Page 132, line 12, leave out ("154 of the Companies Act 1948") and insert ("736 of the Companies Act 1985").

[Amendment No. 303 not moved.]

Clause 131 [Transitional provisions, savings, amendments, repeals and revocations]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 304:

[Printed 14/10/85; col. 360.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke in part to this amendment on Monday, but the resulting answer that I got from the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was so dismissive that I think it is necesary to return very briefly to this matter again. The intention of this amendment was to give the Secretary of State a safety net, a phrase which has been used on a number of occasions in the passage of this Bill, to give him the possibility of altering the dates specified in the transitional period in order to be sure that the steps which had to be reached at each stage had, in fact, been reached and that it was safe to proceed to the next stage.

The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, made one concession. He allowed the final date to be postponed by a period of approximately one month, but I do not think that that relieves the difficulty of the various intermediate dates. It is only the final period which is extended. The rest of the dates are spelled out very precisely in the Bill; and the risks that we have pointed out—at some length I am afraid, but I believe that that was necessary—still exist. I would invite the noble Lord for a final time at the Report stage to indicate that he would wish the Secretary of State to have this further safety net and to protect himself. It need not be used unless necessary, but it could be of advantage to the Government and certainly would bring a feeling of relief to those in the local authorities and those in the operating companies who are very oppressed by the tight timescale which is proposed in the Bill.

10 p.m.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, the noble Lord talks about extending the steps during the transitional period and I had hoped that we had gone some way—I think my noble friend Lord Sandford recognised that we had—to give a little more elbow room to local authorities and those authorities who are setting up the new transport companies, by adding one month at the end. Indeed, in the reply given to the noble Lord. Lord Sandford, by, I think, my noble friend Lord Caithness, about the setting up of the passenger transport companies within the transitional period, it was said that there would be more elbow room there. We would be talking about 1st April instead of an earlier date.

I really do not think we can go very much further than that. When I was replying to the noble Lord's Amendment No. 1 with which this amendment formed part of a group—we divided of course on Amendment No. 1 but the noble Lord spoke to this amendment as well—I made the point that the Government recognised that this will not be an easy period for authorities. It was because of that that we hoped that we had made some reasonable movement by slightly extending the transitional period.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, as I said before, we accept there has been some movement but we are far from satisfied that it is enough; and on the basis that we may feel it necessary to come back to this matter on Third Reading, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 305: Page 134, line 10, at end insert— ("(3A) Without prejudice to section 13 of this Act, the Secretary of State may, for the purpose of taking account of any of the provisions of Part I of this Act, by order modify or repeal any provision made by any local Act passed before the commencement of this subsection.").

The noble Lord said: My Lord, this is a technical amendment and I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 306:

[Printed earlier: col. 784.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment. I spoke to it with Amendment No 285.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the amendment (No. 306): Page 134, line 11, leave out ("4") and insert ("4(2)").

Baroness Lane-Fox moved Amendment No. 307:

[Printed earlier: col. 791.]

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment, to which I have already spoken with Amendment No. 292.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Following is the text of the Amendment (No. 307): Before Schedule 5, insert the following new Schedule—

Forward to